For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So sum this up then, anything that is not correct is incorrect therefore the following descriptions of Earth are absolutely wrong and therefore false?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 3:47 pm It may not be an absolutely perfect oblate spheroid but that is the most accurate term that there is
That is due to a deficiency in the language of geometry rather than the precision of measurements
Marshmallow-flavoured spongy inside?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 4:33 pm So its a rocky planet and in its solar sytstem is the third one from the star it orbits
So if I understand you correctly, the Earth used to be flat but now it is round?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 2:13 pmIt is not a rational conclusion from the evidence, it is a mistaken conclusion based on incomplete evidence. The ability to know does not require omniscience.A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 9:44 pmYou mean like the Earth is flat? It is a rational conclusion from the evidence. And therefore 'true'?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 6:27 pm Nevertheless, it is always possible to know if what one believes is based on reason from the evidence reality presents and therefore true.
So how can you be 100% sure that the Earth isn't actually cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 2:44 am Only that knowledge which correctly describes aspects of reality is truth. Everything else is superstition, credulity, or simply ignorance. No choices based on what is not true, that is, based on what incorrectly describes reality, can possibly succeed.
Relative to what? Knowledge is only about what one does know. It is not necessary to know everything, to know anything. Do you not know the language you use? Do you not know if you do not have oxygen you will die? Do you not know where you live, what you do for a living and how to do it. Do you really know nothing at all?Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 3:03 pm If you reject omniscience as knowledge-criterion, then you are necessarily talking about relativistic knowledge.
I only know what shape the earth is in the dimensions of which I am conscious. As for so-called other dimension, until you have demonstrated there are such things, (and how it would make any difference if there were), its not something to be known. I certainly won't be making any choices based on some presumed other shape of the earth, and either will all the scientists involved in the development of geo-stationary and other satellites.
I am amazed that people are still influenced by this kind of sophistry. I first ran across this kind of question in the form of, "how do you know you are not a butterfly dreaming you are a human being?" It was a so-called professor of philosophy who asked the question, and he was serious. I could not believe anyone with such a defective mind could be taken seriously by anyone.
Not really sophistry. There is no sign at all that the planet is for example cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions or a simulation, so yes, we can just go on assuming that it isn't (or even if it is, that doesn't affect us at all).RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 5:00 pmI only know what shape the earth is in the dimensions of which I am conscious. As for so-called other dimension, until you have demonstrated there are such things, (and how it would make any difference if there were), its not something to be known. I certainly won't be making any choices based on some presumed other shape of the earth, and either will all the scientists involved in the development of geo-stationary and other satellites.I am amazed that people are still influenced by this kind of sophistry. I first ran across this kind of question in the form of, "how do you know you are not a butterfly dreaming you are a human being?" It was a so-called professor of philosophy who asked the question, and he was serious. I could not believe anyone with such a defective mind could be taken seriously by anyone.
Your question is wrong for the same reason his was. Your question presumes the answer to the questions: 'what is a simulation?' and what does it mean to be, 'living in one?' Before something can be defined as a simulation, the reality it simulates must be identified. Since simulations are fake, nothing lives in them. I have no interest in convincing you what is wrong with your question. I'm only explaining how I know it is meaningless.
I notice you have switched tact. From talking about the shape of the Earth to knowing details about myselfRCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 4:42 pmRelative to what? Knowledge is only about what one does know. It is not necessary to know everything, to know anything. Do you not know the language you use? Do you not know if you do not have oxygen you will die? Do you not know where you live, what you do for a living and how to do it. Do you really know nothing at all?Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 3:03 pm If you reject omniscience as knowledge-criterion, then you are necessarily talking about relativistic knowledge.
And all those things work. Until they don't.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 4:42 pm Much of our knowledge is about the relationships between things such as the relationships between the chemical elements in chemical compounds, the physical relationships that make modern machinery possible, and the relationships in electronic components in all electronic devices; but the knowledge is not "relativistic."
If it is defective to refuse to fill one's mind with ideas for which there is neither evidence or reason, than I prefer a defective mind. I refuse to accept as a possibility every crackpot idea invented by every neurotic on the planet for the sole reason that I cannot prove it is not true (although most cannot be true without contradicting what is known to be true). I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence of some kind, but it has to be evidence that can be either directly perceived, or based on the fact of perception, or deduced by non-contradictory reason from one of these.Atla wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 5:36 pm Not really sophistry. There is no sign at all that the planet is for example cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions or a simulation, so yes, we can just go on assuming that it isn't (or even if it is, that doesn't affect us at all).
But we can never exclude the possibility of such things. Being 100% certain of truths and excluding such possibilities is actually the sign of a defective mind.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 6:41 pm I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence of some kind.
No need to be hysterical. Filling one's mind with every crackpot idea isn't quite the same as simply accepting the fact that what we consider to be true could turn out to be false, thanks to some new evidence.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 6:41 pmIf it is defective to refuse to fill one's mind with ideas for which there is neither evidence or reason, than I prefer a defective mind. I refuse to accept as a possibility every crackpot idea invented by every neurotic on the planet for the sole reason that I cannot prove it is not true (although most cannot be true without contradicting what is known to be true). I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence of some kind, but it has to be evidence that can be either directly perceived, or based on the fact of perception, or deduced by non-contradictory reason from one of these.Atla wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 5:36 pm Not really sophistry. There is no sign at all that the planet is for example cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions or a simulation, so yes, we can just go on assuming that it isn't (or even if it is, that doesn't affect us at all).
But we can never exclude the possibility of such things. Being 100% certain of truths and excluding such possibilities is actually the sign of a defective mind.