The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

[Skepdick]

If you think, by the way, that the goal in the sciences isn't to match objective stuff (in one's claims, etc.), then what do you think the goal is--to report one's imaginings?

To construct models which account for our experiences.
To develop useful abstractions which help us cope with the complexity of reality.
To give us control over nature.
To manufacture determinism from the non-determinism.
Economy of scales towards achieving our collective and individual goals.

Instrumentalism sprinkle pragmatism.

[Terrapin Station]

You are the one always stumping for arguing. Fallacies are fallacious.

Fallacies are about argumentative structure. Fallacies themselves aren't arguments.

The whole idea behind fallacies is to address whether validity is guaranteed in an argumentative structure or not (on the definition that validity obtains when it's impossible (in the logic at hand) that premises are true and a conclusion is false (traditionally "and" there is actually treated as the inclusive "or")). If validity isn't guaranteed by the argumentative structure, then a fallacy has occurred. The different fallacies analyze the different things that can go wrong in an argumentative structure to NOT guarantee validity. But the explication of the fallacy isn't itself an argument. It's simply an explication of what's going wrong to not guarantee validity. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether any conclusion is by itself true or false, aside from the fact that on traditional bivalent/non-relevance logics, any argument with a conclusion that's a tautology is valid, regardless of what the premises are. (And the fact that some people saw this as blinkered is what led to relevance logics in the first place.)

[Terrapin Station]

If you think, by the way, that the goal in the sciences isn't to match objective stuff (in one's claims, etc.), then what do you think the goal is--to report one's imaginings?

To construct models which account for our experiences.
To develop useful abstractions which help us cope with the complexity of reality.
To give us control over nature.
To manufacture determinism from the non-determinism.
Economy of scales towards achieving our collective and individual goals.

Instrumentalism.

How are you getting to "reality" or "nature" or anything like that where it's something other than what you're imagining?

(And how are you getting to other people for collectives where they're something other than what you're imagining?)

[Skepdick]

Fallacies are about argumentative structure. Fallacies themselves aren't arguments.

Argumentative structure only matters to people who care about arguments.

The whole idea behind fallacies is to address whether validity is guaranteed in an argumentative structure or not (on the definition that validity obtains when it's impossible (in the logic at hand) that premises are true and a conclusion is false). If validity isn't guaranteed by the argumentative structure, then a fallacy has occurred.

And the whole idea of the fallacy fallacy is that you can't dismiss the conclusion just because the argument is fallacious.

It's perfectly possible that the conclusion to be true and the premises, argument and justification to be false.

The different fallacies analyze the different things that can go wrong in an argumentative structure to NOT guarantee validity.
But the explication of the fallacy isn't itself an argument. It's simply an explication of what's going wrong to not guarantee validity.

OK, and why is validity so important to you?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether any conclusion is by itself true or false, aside from the fact that on traditional bivalent/non-relevance logics, any argument with a conclusion that's a tautology is valid. (And the fact that some people saw this as blinkered is what led to relevance logics in the first place.)

So how does that help with solving GIGO? Garbage in - garbage out. a.k.a soundness.

[Skepdick]

How are you getting to "reality" or "nature" or anything like that where it's something other than what you're imagining?

(And how are you getting to other people for collectives where they're something other than what you're imagining?)

I am not claiming that I am imagining anything. I am also not claiming that I am not imagining it.
I am not claiming that there is a reality. Nor am I claiming that there isn't one.
I am not making any claims. And I am not claiming that I am not making any claims.
I don't care if I am a solipsist; or a brain in a vat, or if we live in the matrix.

There's a truck coming. Even if it's not real, it's a good idea to step out of the way.

Your entire game, rules, social norms, traditions and rituals are bogus.

They produce interpretation frameworks. Philosophies. Models. A firmware/software for your skull so you can navigate life. Nobody ever gets to the "true nature of reality". Nobody ever is in touch with a power greater than themselves.

Saying anything about anything devoid of a WHY? context is a bogus game.

[Terrapin Station]

And the whole idea of the fallacy fallacy is that you can't dismiss the conclusion just because the argument is fallacious.

But fallacies have nothing whatsoever to do with dismissing a conclusion just because an argument is fallacious.

[Skepdick]

But fallacies have nothing whatsoever to do with dismissing a conclusion just because an argument is fallacious.

Great. So if the conclusion is true, then pointing out a fallacy is a waste of time?

[Terrapin Station]

I am not claiming that I am imagining anything.

Well, that certainly isn't a question, command, exclamation, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

But fallacies have nothing whatsoever to do with dismissing a conclusion just because an argument is fallacious.

Great. So if the conclusion is true, then pointing out a fallacy is a waste of time?

Depends on what one considers a waste of time versus otherwise.

[Terrapin Station]

Nobody ever gets to the "true nature of reality".

What could possibly lead to that conclusion, especially on your view?

[Skepdick]

I am not claiming that I am imagining anything.

Well, that certainly isn't a question, command, exclamation, etc.

Neither is the above. What were you claiming?

[Terrapin Station]

I am not claiming that I am imagining anything.

Well, that certainly isn't a question, command, exclamation, etc.

Neither is the above. What were you claiming?

I was claiming just what I wrote:

"That certainly isn't a question, command, exclamation, etc."

Usually claims claim what they say.

[Skepdick]

I was claiming just what I wrote:

"That certainly isn't a question, command, exclamation, etc."

Usually claims claim what they say.

Why did you claim it?

[Terrapin Station]

I was claiming just what I wrote:

"That certainly isn't a question, command, exclamation, etc."

Usually claims claim what they say.

Why did you claim it?

Because I was thinking it. I like to report what I'm thinking.

[bahman]

I stated the fundamental of well-being is to survive well - note 3 below,



All human beings are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality.

Those who are prone to suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

How about those who fight for the land and kill each other. The fight is for survival. Are they sick too?

You are a bit lost here.
What is considered 'sick' is within the medical and psychiatric guidelines, e.g. DSM-V.

• The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) is the product of more than 10 years of effort by hundreds of international experts in all aspects of mental health. Their dedication and hard work have yielded an authoritative volume that defines and classifies mental disorders in order to improve diagnoses, treatment, and research.

Those who fight for survival are not 'sick' as defined above.

However,
All human beings are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality.
When the above is inputed into the Moral FSK,
we have the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' as a moral standard and guide.

Thus when any human is killed by whatever means, that is against the moral standard.
To meet this moral standard, the solution is then to research into the root causes to prevent humans from killing humans, e.g. in self-defense, fights, wars, legal executions, etc. IN THE FUTURE.
The 'how to prevent' is not an impossibility in the future.

Yes, and all humans are programmed to think of their property, their family, their country, their interests, etc. and that is why war is inevitable. So it is one program against another program.