The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.

[Logik]

So "life" is the foundation?

No, not "life" the word. Being alive.

For if you were dead - you wouldn't care about logic, philosophy, science or "truth".

[Eodnhoj7]

So "life" is the foundation?

No, not "life" the word. Being alive.

For if you were dead - you wouldn't care about logic, philosophy, science or "truth".

All founationalism is grounded in unquestion axioms and as such have a symbolic nature within the consciousness which effectively directs it, language and consciousness are inseperable.

[Logik]

All founationalism is grounded in unquestion axioms and as such have a symbolic nature within the consciousness which effectively directs it, language and consciousness are inseperable.

So you will forgive me for putting you on the spot again. Is this a true or false statement?

I know that murder is wrong!

[Eodnhoj7]

All founationalism is grounded in unquestion axioms and as such have a symbolic nature within the consciousness which effectively directs it, language and consciousness are inseperable.

So you will forgive me for putting you on the spot again. Is this a true or false statement?

I know that murder is wrong!

False dichotomy, as usual.

Okay you "know" murder is wrong. Explain why.

[Logik]

False dichotomy, as usual.

Bullshit!

Okay you "know" murder is wrong. Explain why.

Why do I have to explain it? I know that murder is wrong!

If you agree with my claim then there is nothing to explain!

If you disagree - say it! Then I will explain.

[Eodnhoj7]

False dichotomy, as usual.

Bullshit!

Okay you "know" murder is wrong. Explain why.

Why do I have to explain it? I know that murder is wrong!

If you agree with my claim then there is nothing to explain!

If you disagree - say it! Then I will explain.

You know it is wrong because it is axiomatic, but you claim you did not derive it from any axioms...that is why:

ROFL!!!!!!!!

[Logik]

You know it is wrong because it is axiomatic, but you claim you did not derive it from any axioms...that is why:

That's why you are a sophist.

You know what the correct answer is, but because you can't derive it axiomatically - you reject it.

[Eodnhoj7]

You know it is wrong because it is axiomatic, but you claim you did not derive it from any axioms...that is why:

That's why you are a sophist.

You know what the correct answer is, but because you can't derive it axiomatically - you reject it.

Uhh...that is why you are an idiot. You claimed "I derived it without any axioms"...but "murder is wrong" is an axiom.


ROFL!!!!

And you are the one "saving us" from chaos...

ROFL!!!!

I changed my mind...please stay, the laughs are appreciated. Tell us more about "precision".

[uwot]

Science does not study science as science, in the modern sense of the term, is grounded in empiricism.

Well, you might not consider them 'proper' scientists, but sociologists of science explicitly study science as science. Apart from that, the fact that scientific claims and discoveries are so rigorously scrutinised tells you just how introspective scientists actually are. A great deal of their effort is spent on testing whether what they are doing really is 'science'.

"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.

Hang on a mo. What exactly do you think I am denying?

The question is; "What is a fact?"

Any (preferably repeatable) empirical data point.

In trying to "fit in" with the public materialistic mindset philosophy mimiced the nature of the "wheel of science" which continually dissolves facts into further "facts" with any prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones. Hence most scientific facts are strictly just spontaneously localization of certain relations we use to guide how we percieve the world; hence ourselves.

No. They're just facts.

And what is a fact?

As above. Are you sure you don't mean 'hypotheses' when you talk about "prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones"?

[Eodnhoj7]

Science does not study science as science, in the modern sense of the term, is grounded in empiricism.

Well, you might not consider them 'proper' scientists, but sociologists of science explicitly study science as science. Apart from that, the fact that scientific claims and discoveries are so rigorously scrutinised tells you just how introspective scientists actually are. A great deal of their effort is spent on testing whether what they are doing really is 'science'.

That is what is scary...all that work for some fact to replace it years later.

"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.

Hang on a mo. What exactly do you think I am denying?

A=A or in this case "Fact=Fact"

The question is; "What is a fact?"

Any (preferably repeatable) empirical data point.

Empirical data, because it is finite and probabalistic, eventually does not repeat itself given a change in frameworks.

In trying to "fit in" with the public materialistic mindset philosophy mimiced the nature of the "wheel of science" which continually dissolves facts into further "facts" with any prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones. Hence most scientific facts are strictly just spontaneously localization of certain relations we use to guide how we percieve the world; hence ourselves.

No. They're just facts.

And what is a fact?

As above. Are you sure you don't mean 'hypotheses' when you talk about "prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones"?

So facts are P=P?

[uwot]

That is what is scary...all that work for some fact to replace it years later.

That's science for you.

"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.

Hang on a mo. What exactly do you think I am denying?

A=A or in this case "Fact=Fact"

Can you show me where you think I said that?

Empirical data, because it is finite and probabalistic, eventually does not repeat itself given a change in frameworks.

Well, each instance is unique, but if you drop something heavy, it will fall to the ground. Pick it up. Drop it again and the same thing will happen. Two separate facts. You can then start to hypothesise that heavy things always fall when you drop them, but it's not a fact until you have established it by dropping everything, forever.

So facts are P=P?

No. As I said:

Any (preferably repeatable) empirical data point.

But again:

Are you sure you don't mean 'hypotheses' when you talk about "prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones"?

[Eodnhoj7]

That is what is scary...all that work for some fact to replace it years later.

That's science for you.

That is also entropy.

"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.

Hang on a mo. What exactly do you think I am denying?

A=A or in this case "Fact=Fact"

Can you show me where you think I said that?

So "The facts are the facts" is not "P is P" or "P=P"...etc.?

Empirical data, because it is finite and probabalistic, eventually does not repeat itself given a change in frameworks.

Well, each instance is unique, but if you drop something heavy, it will fall to the ground. Pick it up. Drop it again and the same thing will happen. Two separate facts. You can then start to hypothesise that heavy things always fall when you drop them, but it's not a fact until you have established it by dropping everything, forever.

Ehhh..."forever" is not an axiom you accept....neither is it one in empiricism.

So facts are P=P?

No. As I said:

Any (preferably repeatable) empirical data point.

But again:

Are you sure you don't mean 'hypotheses' when you talk about "prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones"?

Facts are interpretations.

[uwot]

That is also entropy.

Clearly you and I have different understandings of 'entropy'.

"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.
A=A or in this case "Fact=Fact"

Can you show me where you think I said that?

So "The facts are the facts" is not "P is P" or "P=P"...etc.?

"The facts are the facts" is not an Aristotelian identity, but I was hoping you would show me where you thought I denied it.

Empirical data, because it is finite and probabalistic, eventually does not repeat itself given a change in frameworks.

Well, each instance is unique, but if you drop something heavy, it will fall to the ground. Pick it up. Drop it again and the same thing will happen. Two separate facts. You can then start to hypothesise that heavy things always fall when you drop them, but it's not a fact until you have established it by dropping everything, forever.

Ehhh..."forever" is not an axiom you accept....neither is it one in empiricism.

It's the problem of induction.

Are you sure you don't mean 'hypotheses' when you talk about "prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones"?

Facts are interpretations.

That's another point on which we differ. In my book, hypotheses are interpretations of facts.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is also entropy.

Clearly you and I have different understandings of 'entropy'.

That is entropy right there...divergence, with the words "divergence" and "entropy" being subject to the same phenomenon they observe.

"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.
A=A or in this case "Fact=Fact"

Can you show me where you think I said that?

So "The facts are the facts" is not "P is P" or "P=P"...etc.?

"The facts are the facts" is not an Aristotelian identity, but I was hoping you would show me where you thought I denied it.

Empirical data, because it is finite and probabalistic, eventually does not repeat itself given a change in frameworks.

Well, each instance is unique, but if you drop something heavy, it will fall to the ground. Pick it up. Drop it again and the same thing will happen. Two separate facts. You can then start to hypothesise that heavy things always fall when you drop them, but it's not a fact until you have established it by dropping everything, forever.

Ehhh..."forever" is not an axiom you accept....neither is it one in empiricism.

It's the problem of induction.

Not really, it is a problem of axioms.

Are you sure you don't mean 'hypotheses' when you talk about "prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones"?

Facts are interpretations.

That's another point on which we differ. In my book, hypotheses are interpretations of facts.

Yes, and all facts exist through hyptothesis. Both the hypothesis and the fact are strictly frameworks of interpretations. A= B connected to C. Period.

[surreptitious57]

In my book hypotheses are interpretations of facts

A hypothesis is a method for obtaining new knowledge from pre existing knowledge
A valid one has to be testable and repeatable and capable of potential falsification
Hypotheses that fail to satisfy these criteria are non scientific and therefore invalid

A falsified hypothesis is not a failure because falsification is the most reliable means for obtaining knowledge
Falsification overcomes the problem of induction because it deals in absolute truth rather than probable truth
A black swan is proof for example that not all swans are white and such a hypothesis never has to be re tested