The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 2:35 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 2:34 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:31 am There's another counter rumor that va and ph are the same person. I've never seen them in the same room at the same time before...

Me n VA?

Smore like a Vulcan mind-meld with a Cling-on.

That sounds suspiciously like something VA would say....

I detect a leitmotif. A developing conspiracy theory. But then, VA-PH would say that, wouldn't they/we/it?

He would... and he'd be self aware enough to note that he would... Hmmmm...

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 2:23 pm Check out the etymological fallacy.

Just saying.

' Sely (silly) used to mean 'innocent' - as in the silly sheep. So that's what silly really means.'

Face palm.

I thought about pointing out that illusory meant 'mocking' orginally. As in PH's fact is mocking (VA).

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 3:30 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 2:23 pm Check out the etymological fallacy.

Just saying.

' Sely (silly) used to mean 'innocent' - as in the silly sheep. So that's what silly really means.'

Face palm.

I thought about pointing out that illusory meant 'mocking' orginally. As in PH's fact is mocking (VA).

Blimey. Meaning is use. Use a sign differently, and it means something else. And what's to stop you?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 4:01 pm Blimey. Meaning is use.

No it's not.

You don't even understand the difference between intended meaning and perceived meaning.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 4:01 pm Use a sign differently, and it means something else. And what's to stop you?

Using the exact same sign in the exact same way could still mean two different things to two different people.

It could even mean two differentt things to the exact same person at two different times.

That's why we have the entire damn field of hermeneutics.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 4:01 pm Blimey. Meaning is use. Use a sign differently, and it means something else. And what's to stop you?

VA does make arguments. It happens.
But he also does a lot of appealing to authority: the authority of the original use of the word; and in the constructivism thread, the authority of constructivists. I noticed there that instead of using constructivist arguments, he posted constructivist assertions. A description of their beliefs and presents the assertions as support for his ideas. As if you couldn't copy and paste a list of the assertions of realist philosophers or entries on realism in general. And since Realism is the dominant position, it would be easier for you, whatever that would prove.

It would have been interesting if he actually integrated constructivst positions and let these inform his responses, but he didn't do that and I am not sure he quite understands, yet, the difference or the importance of the difference.

He leaves out the faulty step:
We should use the original meaning of a word.
If there are people who have a similar position to me, this is evidence I am correct. Look these guys have a similar position to mine.

If he was explicit with these missing steps he himself might even notice the problem.

I am sure that Skepdick will say that we are all guilty of the Logical Fallacy of Audiatur Et Altera Pars/Failure to State Assumptions, but I'm happy to find myself making intuitive judgments about the degree of cluelessness when different people do this in their idiosyncratic ways.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 4:22 pm I am sure that Skepdick will say that we are all guilty of the Logical Fallacy of Audiatur Et Altera Pars/Failure to State Assumptions, but I'm happy to find myself making intuitive judgments about the degree of cluelessness when different people do this in their idiosyncratic ways.

Since you refuse to produce a yardstick for measuring "degrees of cluelessness" (that we can all share and compare intuitions with) you are basically exempting yourself from committing that fallacy.

I don't know why we have to keep going in circles on this. Nobody knows what measurement IS (in the way that Philosophers ask "What is X?"). That's why we have the measurement problem in Science. But so what? I don't need to be able to define what measurement is to know that a measurement has taken place.

Any question with an answer can be trivially interpreted as a measurement problem. The answer to one yes/no question - the measurement of one Bit of information.

It's obvious THAT everybody measures cluelessness.
And it's also obvious THAT everybody measures wrongness.

Of course the question remains whether the measurement instruments are calibrated e.g whether they agree.
And if they disagree - then which instrument should they all be calibrated against.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 2:23 pm Check out the etymological fallacy.
Just saying.
' Sely (silly) used to mean 'innocent' - as in the silly sheep. So that's what silly really means.'

Face palm.

Strawman again!

Note my argument re etymology of 'fact' is that my 'what is fact' is close to the original intended meaning and I have provided solid justification for it.

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

What is fact?
all facts are conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.

What is a Framework and System of Knowledge -FSK?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

On the other hand,
your 'what is fact' is a bastardized, corrupted and hijacked from of the original etymology which is illusory.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 4:01 pm
Blimey. Meaning is use. Use a sign differently, and it means something else. And what's to stop you?

red lights and immovable objects...

-Imp

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 3:50 am Note my argument re etymology of 'fact' is that my 'what is fact' is close to the original intended meaning and I have provided solid justification for it.

Etymological fallacy is the faulty argument that the "true" or "proper" meaning of a word is its oldest or original meaning.

Hardly a strawman.

Unless VA simply meant to let us know his use of the word 'fact' was closer to the original meaning - like as a bit of trivia - he was obviously performing the etymological fallacy.

IOW it certainly seems obvious he is saying his definition is better because it is close to the orginal meaning of the word. That is the etymological fallacy.

If by some chance he was just thinking out loud and didn't mean it gave his position an advantage, well, ok.