Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

OK. Thanks for the stimulating conversation. I yield to your classical logic.

Oh no! Don't yield. Just make a choice.

Choose another logic and see the world differently

If you want a logic in which you reject choice/excluded middle - there's plenty of those.

I’m not very familiar with logic. Would you please name one of the logics that reject LEM so that I can research it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

[commonsense]

Oh no! Don't yield. Just make a choice.

Choose another logic and see the world differently

If you want a logic in which you reject choice/excluded middle - there's plenty of those.

I’m not very familiar with logic. Would you please name one of the logics that reject LEM so that I can research it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Thanks. A lot to study for this amateur.

[Skepdick]

I’m not very familiar with logic. Would you please name one of the logics that reject LEM so that I can research it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Thanks. A lot to study for this amateur.

All you got is time, right?

[commonsense]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

Thanks. A lot to study for this amateur.

All you got is time, right?

But it isn’t infinite.

[Iwannaplato]

But it isn’t infinite.

One has to pick one's spots and prioritize, if only intuitively some of the time.

[Will Bouwman]

OK, here's the new and improved argument.

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

It may look like exactly the same argument, but rest assured it's now using the Oxford definition of "impossible", instead of my own.

Here's how you do it:
P1. It's impossible to derive morals from nature.
P2. Morals are derived.
C. A source of morality exists that is NOT natural.

That at least is valid. I happen to believe it is sound, but unless you have never met another human, you will know the connection between logic and belief is tenuous.

[Skepdick]

OK, here's the new and improved argument.

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

It may look like exactly the same argument, but rest assured it's now using the Oxford definition of "impossible", instead of my own.

Here's how you do it:
P1. It's impossible to derive morals from nature.
P2. Morals are derived.
C. A source of morality exists that is NOT natural.

That at least is valid. I happen to believe it is sound, but unless you have never met another human, you will know the connection between logic and belief is tenuous.

My dearest, so-called "philosopher" of science. If you don't know anyhthing about scientific theorizing (and the fact that it pre-supposes the soundness of logic), best you shut up.

"Morals are derrived" it's a positive claim - which puts the burden of positive evidence on me, which obviously I can't meet and so you pat yourself on the back for "unsoundness".
"It's not impossible to derrive morals" is a negation of an impossibility claim - it makes it testable (and I have tested it) + falsifiable which puts the burden of falsification on you.

In Classical logic double negation elimination is a valid inference principle and so both forms are seen as semantically equivalent to Classical logicians. P(ossible) means the same thing as NOT-NOT-P(ossible) which is precisely wording I chose: NOT impossible.

It’s the negation which turns the mere rhetoric into a science.

The meaning is unchanged, but the burden is shifted onto YOU.

Proof of work. You don't get it. Skepticism/negation ain't free. Pay the piper (in the currency of counter-evidence)- or fuck off.

[Will Bouwman]

My dearest, so-called "philosopher" of science. If you don't know anyhthing about scientific theorizing (and the fact that it pre-supposes the soundness of logic), best you shut up.

What science and which logic? Haven't you heard? The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to make sense. Computer science, your niche (Ha!) might assume the 'soundness' of some shade of logic, and yup, you could put on your semantic fascist hat and insist "scientific theoriszng" is logical reasoning, but outside your mum's basement, that isn't how the world actually works.
If you can pay attention for the first 10 seconds, you might learn something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

[Skepdick]

My dearest, so-called "philosopher" of science. If you don't know anyhthing about scientific theorizing (and the fact that it pre-supposes the soundness of logic), best you shut up.

What science and which logic? Haven't you heard? The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to make sense. Computer science, your niche (Ha!) might assume the 'soundness' of some shade of logic, and yup, you could put on your semantic fascist hat and insist "scientific theoriszng" is logical reasoning, but outside your mum's basement, that isn't how the world actually works.
If you can pay attention for the first 10 seconds, you might learn something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

You are adding nothin of substance to the dialogue with your skepticism.

I have produced a new law.
A law of thought.
A law about an epistemic impossibility.

Test it against your own mind, and if you find any counter examples please report back.

[Skepdick]

My dearest, so-called "philosopher" of science. If you don't know anyhthing about scientific theorizing (and the fact that it pre-supposes the soundness of logic), best you shut up.

What science and which logic? Haven't you heard? The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to make sense. Computer science, your niche (Ha!) might assume the 'soundness' of some shade of logic, and yup, you could put on your semantic fascist hat and insist "scientific theoriszng" is logical reasoning, but outside your mum's basement, that isn't how the world actually works.
If you can pay attention for the first 10 seconds, you might learn something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

You are adding nothing of scientific value to the dialogue with your faux-skepticism. The argument is valid in every logic free from empirical counter-examples. What about an impossibility claim doesn't make sense to you? You can't do it! If the claim is wrong, then provide the counter-example and do it.

If you actually understood the videos you are cargo-culting you would understand that I have, in fact found a new law by following exactly the process Feynman describes in the video.

What I have found is a law of thought. A law about a methodological impossibility. A law ABOUT the method itself. And it agrees with experiment.

Test it against your cognitive aparatus - the one you do science with, and if you find any counter examples please report back.

If the experiment works agaisnt your own scientific instrument please inform us why you reject this law.

[attofishpi]

OK, here's the new and improved argument.

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

It may look like exactly the same argument, but rest assured it's now using the Oxford definition of "impossible", instead of my own.

Here's how you do it:
P1. It's impossible to derive morals from nature.
P2. Morals are derived.
C. A source of morality exists that is NOT natural.

That at least is valid. I happen to believe it is sound, but unless you have never met another human, you will know the connection between logic and belief is tenuous.

Devils advocate aside...

P1. Species within nature flourish with morals.
P2. Morals are derived.
C. A source of morality is natural.

[Skepdick]

OK, here's the new and improved argument.

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

It may look like exactly the same argument, but rest assured it's now using the Oxford definition of "impossible", instead of my own.

Here's how you do it:
P1. It's impossible to derive morals from nature.
P2. Morals are derived.
C. A source of morality exists that is NOT natural.

That at least is valid. I happen to believe it is sound, but unless you have never met another human, you will know the connection between logic and belief is tenuous.

Devils advocate aside...

P1. Species within nature flourish with morals.
P2. Morals are derived.
C. A source of morality is natural.

Please provide scientific method for distinguishing species with nature from species without one.

[attofishpi]

Here's how you do it:
P1. It's impossible to derive morals from nature.
P2. Morals are derived.
C. A source of morality exists that is NOT natural.

That at least is valid. I happen to believe it is sound, but unless you have never met another human, you will know the connection between logic and belief is tenuous.

Devils advocate aside...

P1. Species within nature flourish with morals.
P2. Morals are derived.
C. A source of morality is natural.

Please provide scientific method for distinguishing species with nature from species without one.

Y?

[Skepdick]

Devils advocate aside...

P1. Species within nature flourish with morals.
P2. Morals are derived.
C. A source of morality is natural.

Please provide scientific method for distinguishing species with nature from species without one.

Y?

Because I don’t know how to decide which category I must place myself in.

This makes your argument modal.

Applies to me if I have nature.
Doesn’t apply to me if I don’t have nature.

[attofishpi]

Please provide scientific method for distinguishing species with nature from species without one.

Y?

Because I don’t know how to decide which category I must place myself in.

This makes your argument modal.

Applies to me if I have nature.
Doesn’t apply to me if I don’t have nature.

For sake of argument consider yourself in the realm of intelligent sentient part of nature.

Try again.