Page 4 of 7
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:19 pm
by Logik
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:16 pm
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".
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:31 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:16 pm
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.
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:44 pm
by Logik
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:31 pm
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!
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:53 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:31 pm
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.
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:58 pm
by Logik
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:10 pm
by Eodnhoj7
You know it is wrong because it is axiomatic, but you claim you did not derive it from any axioms...that is why:
ROFL!!!!!!!!
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:12 pm
by Logik
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:10 pm
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.
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:15 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:10 pm
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".
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pm
by uwot
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:15 pmScience 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'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pm"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?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pmThe question is; "What is a fact?"
Any (preferably repeatable) empirical data point.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pmIn 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.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:56 pmNo. 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"?
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:45 pm
by Eodnhoj7
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:15 pmScience 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pm"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"
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pmThe 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pmIn 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.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:56 pmNo. 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?
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:08 pm
by uwot
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:45 pmThat is what is scary...all that work for some fact to replace it years later.
That's science for you.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pm"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.uwot wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:56 pmHang 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?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pmEmpirical 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:45 pmSo facts are P=P?
No. As I said:
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pmAny (preferably repeatable) empirical data point.
But again:
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pm Are you sure you don't mean 'hypotheses' when you talk about "prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones"?
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:14 pm
by Eodnhoj7
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:08 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:45 pmThat is what is scary...all that work for some fact to replace it years later.
That's science for you.
That is also entropy.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pm"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.uwot wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:56 pmHang 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.?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pmEmpirical 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:45 pmSo facts are P=P?
No. As I said:
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pmAny (preferably repeatable) empirical data point.
But again:
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pm Are you sure you don't mean 'hypotheses' when you talk about "prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones"?
Facts are interpretations.
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:48 pm
by uwot
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:14 pmThat is also entropy.
Clearly you and I have different understandings of 'entropy'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pm"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.
A=A or in this case "Fact=Fact"
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pm 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pmEmpirical data, because it is finite and probabalistic, eventually does not repeat itself given a change in frameworks.
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pmWell, 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:45 pm
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pm 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.
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:58 pm
by Eodnhoj7
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:14 pmThat 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pm"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.
A=A or in this case "Fact=Fact"
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pm 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:01 pmEmpirical data, because it is finite and probabalistic, eventually does not repeat itself given a change in frameworks.
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pmWell, 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:45 pm
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pm 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.
Re: The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:21 pm
by surreptitious57
uwot wrote:
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
