Philosophy Now Forum

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:50 pm I don't know anyone who has jumped 30ft, nor anyone who can. If you think it follows that doing so is possible then your ignorance is factual.

It doesn't follow that it's possible.

It follows that it's probably impossible. Unless and until somebody actually does it.

So go ahead and do it. Bridge the is-ought gap.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:50 pm Same thing really. If you think that because I can't prove you wrong, you are therefore right, you are a blithering idiot.

Well, Mr Philosopher of Science. That's how induction works.

There is all the evidence that nobody can do it.
There is no evidence that anybody can do it.

So why do you believe it's possible if everybody has (so far) failed to do it?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:50 pm And how did you derive that?

From a non-natural source.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:41 pm
Sure. Murder is wrong.

What is murder wrong about?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:58 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:41 pm
Sure. Murder is wrong.

What is murder wrong about?

Its wrongness is wrong.

Like the redness of the color red is red.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:48 pm I notice your continued inability (or conscious refusal) to address the soundness; or the validity of the argument.

I can't use the argument you present to demonstrate any error by anybody, and it can't be used against me either. It's too spurious to to be valid, too empty to be sound.

It really only approximates to an argument at all by virtue of grammatical appearance.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:01 pm I can't use the argument you present to demonstrate any error by anybody, and it can't be used against me either. It's too spurious to to be valid, too empty to be sound.

It really only approximates to an argument at all by virtue of grammatical appearance.

Sorry. I don't understand what you mean by "error" or "spurious" ?

What is the "error" in the argument? Is the argument invalid; or unsound?

I thought those are the only two options. it sounds like you are inventing new ways to disagree with logic, because I am not aware of "spuriousness" being a logical quality.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:55 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:50 pm I don't know anyone who has jumped 30ft, nor anyone who can. If you think it follows that doing so is possible then your ignorance is factual.

It doesn't follow that it's possible.

It follows that it's probably impossible. Unless and until somebody actually does it.

Yeah, I corrected that typo.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:55 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:50 pm And how did you derive that?

From a non-natural source.

If that's your standard of evidence, presumably you believe anyone who says they have derived 'Murder is wrong' from a natural source.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:02 pm If that's your standard of evidence, presumably you believe anyone who says they have derived 'Murder is wrong' from a natural source.

Which part of my English is confusing you?

Nobody who has ever derrived any moral derrivation has ever done it from a natural source. They have only ever done it from a NON-natural source.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:04 pmNobody who has ever derrived any moral derrivation has ever done it from a natural source. They have only ever done it from a NON-natural source.

Prove it.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:06 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:04 pmNobody who has ever derrived any moral derrivation has ever done it from a natural source. They have only ever done it from a NON-natural source.

Prove it.

I did!

natural /ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

No moral conclusion exists which is deduced from a natural fact.

If you are going to be playing dumb burden-shifting games, all you have to do is present one. Just one example will cure our collective ignorance.

Why can't you?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:01 pm I can't use the argument you present to demonstrate any error by anybody.

This is demonstrably false, by the way. I am using this very argument to demonstrate the error of all naturalisms.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:09 pmIf you are going to be playing dumb burden-shifting games...

Your the one who wrote

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:55 amP1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.

The burden is on you to prove it. A definition of natural doesn't do it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:58 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:58 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 1:41 pm
Sure. Murder is wrong.

What is murder wrong about?

Its wrongness is wrong.

Like the redness of the color red is red.

So it's only wrong if you perceive it as being wrong?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:16 pm The burden is on you to prove it. A definition of natural doesn't do it.

And I shall take up any reasonable burden, but I won't take up your a priori rejection of the impossible. That's just dogma immovable by evidence.

What would you accept as proof of impossibility?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:17 pmAnd I shall take up any reasonable burden, but I won't take up your a priori rejection of the impossible.

If it's impossible, I am perfectly justified in rejecting it.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:23 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:17 pmAnd I shall take up any reasonable burden, but I won't take up your a priori rejection of the impossible.

If it's impossible, I am perfectly justified in rejecting it.

For a philosopher of science you are mighty dumb.

What justification justified the impossibility to you?

The absence of any evidence for the possibility swayed my belief in the direction of impossibility.