Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:14 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:53 pm
So your position is unfalsifiable?

Actually, it could be falsified. All it would take is to show that we could move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which you have tried to do, without success.

Logik wrote:Like - there is absolutely NO example of a choice that would convince is a choice made against one's greater satisfaction?

There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?

You are contradicting yourself.

It is falsifiable or is it a law? It can’t be both.

If it is falsifiable - give us a hypothetical example of an exception.

What is your black swan?

Give us an example of a choice that would meet your own criteria for being a choice that moves in the direction of dissatisfaction.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:14 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:53 pm
So your position is unfalsifiable?

Actually, it could be falsified. All it would take is to show that we could move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which you have tried to do, without success.

Logik wrote:Like - there is absolutely NO example of a choice that would convince is a choice made against one's greater satisfaction?

There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?

You are contradicting yourself.

It is falsifiable or is it a law? It can’t be both.

If it is falsifiable - give us a hypothetical example of an exception.

What is your black swan?

Give us an example of a choice that would meet your own criteria for being a choice that moves in the direction of dissatisfaction.

There is none because any choice made is either the lesser of two or more evils, the greater of two or more goods, or a good over an evil; all in the direction of greater satisfaction. Does this make it wrong because there's no counter example where it could be falsified?

Wyman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:20 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:53 pm
So your position is unfalsifiable?

Actually, it could be falsified. All it would take is to show that we could move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which you have tried to do, without success.

Logik wrote:Like - there is absolutely NO example of a choice that would convince is a choice made against one's greater satisfaction?

There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?

The counter example would be the person who deliberately chooses to act against his own desire or good simply to prove that he is free. This is a central theme of much of Dostoevky's work and is stated explicitly in Notes From Underground. Your father's position sounds little like Plato's (or Socrates') theory that no one knowingly acts against his or her interests; but people are often mistaken as to what is good for them; therefore, bad acts are based upon ignorance as to what is good.

People may be mistaken as to what is good for them because they don't have all the facts at their fingertips, but that only means their choice at that moment was based on a lack of information that may have influenced their choice in a different direction. People choose all kinds of things that may appear to be against their own good due to ignorance or self-sacrifice, or for some other reason that pushes them to choose what we would not. Whatever the case may be this law cannot be defiled.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:21 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:14 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm

Actually, it could be falsified. All it would take is to show that we could move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which you have tried to do, without success.



There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?

You are contradicting yourself.

It is falsifiable or is it a law? It can’t be both.

If it is falsifiable - give us a hypothetical example of an exception.

What is your black swan?

Give us an example of a choice that would meet your own criteria for being a choice that moves in the direction of dissatisfaction.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:14 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm

Actually, it could be falsified. All it would take is to show that we could move in the direction of dissatisfaction, which you have tried to do, without success.



There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?

You are contradicting yourself.

It is falsifiable or is it a law? It can’t be both.

If it is falsifiable - give us a hypothetical example of an exception.

What is your black swan?

Give us an example of a choice that would meet your own criteria for being a choice that moves in the direction of dissatisfaction.

There is none because any choice made is either the lesser of two or more evils, the greater of two or more goods, or a good over an evil; all in the direction of greater satisfaction. Does this make it wrong because there's no counter example where it could be falsified?

Scientifically? Yes.

You have fallen for confirmation bias.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?

All it takes is one acceptable exception.

1 x 1 = 2 when the product is twins.

It’s not addition, but it’s an exceptional start.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:32 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:21 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:14 pm

You are contradicting yourself.

It is falsifiable or is it a law? It can’t be both.

If it is falsifiable - give us a hypothetical example of an exception.

What is your black swan?

Give us an example of a choice that would meet your own criteria for being a choice that moves in the direction of dissatisfaction.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:14 pm

You are contradicting yourself.

It is falsifiable or is it a law? It can’t be both.

If it is falsifiable - give us a hypothetical example of an exception.

What is your black swan?

Give us an example of a choice that would meet your own criteria for being a choice that moves in the direction of dissatisfaction.

There is none because any choice made is either the lesser of two or more evils, the greater of two or more goods, or a good over an evil; all in the direction of greater satisfaction. Does this make it wrong because there's no counter example where it could be falsified?

Scientifically? Yes.

You have fallen for confirmation bias.

Logik, you're trying very hard to find something wrong with this knowledge, but there is nothing wrong. This law will be proven (without it being falsifiable) when no one could desire to hurt another with a first blow, UNDER THE CHANGED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. If will was free, we would be able to choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is offered as an alternative (i.e., hurting someone without the necessary justification), but this would be impossible.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:38 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:09 pm There are no counter examples or it wouldn't be a law, would it? All it takes is one exception to be disproved. Can one plus one equals two be falsified?

All it takes is one acceptable exception.

1 x 1 = 2 when the product is twins.

It’s not addition, but it’s an exceptional start.

I can't think of any exceptions that would make this law falsifiable. That's what makes it a law.

Suppose you believe in God and believe that all His commands serve a greater purpose that is good and right. Suppose that He puts you in Abraham's position and commands you to kill your child. You believe unequivocally that His command is righteous. Isn't it possible, despite these beliefs, that a person in that position could rebel against God and say, basically, take your Kingdom of Heaven and shove it, I won't obey?

When speaking of reality not limited to a particular language such as mathematics:

an entity of one + an entity of one only equals an entity of 2 in certain legal situations, and even then only partially.

Just sayin.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:50 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:32 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:21 pm

There is none because any choice made is either the lesser of two or more evils, the greater of two or more goods, or a good over an evil; all in the direction of greater satisfaction. Does this make it wrong because there's no counter example where it could be falsified?

Scientifically? Yes.

You have fallen for confirmation bias.

Logik, you're trying very hard to find something wrong with this knowledge, but there is nothing wrong. This law will be proven (without it being falsifiable) when no one could desire to hurt another with a first blow, UNDER THE CHANGED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. If will was free, we would be able to choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is offered as an alternative (i.e., hurting someone without the necessary justification), but this would be impossible.

What is wrong IS that there is “nothing wrong”.

All human knowledge is fallible and incomplete.

Your “knowledge” isn’t. That is why it is unscientific.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:59 pm When speaking of reality not limited to a particular language such as mathematics:

an entity of one + an entity of one only equals an entity of 2 in certain legal situations, and even then only partially.

Just sayin.

If I give an apple to one child and an apple to another child, that makes two apples. You can't build a bridge on partial mathematics. I guess you could, but I wouldn't cross that bridge. lol Language, as a communication vehicle, can be problematic but that doesn't change reality.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:06 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:50 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:32 pm
Scientifically? Yes.

You have fallen for confirmation bias.

Logik, you're trying very hard to find something wrong with this knowledge, but there is nothing wrong. This law will be proven (without it being falsifiable) when no one could desire to hurt another with a first blow, UNDER THE CHANGED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. If will was free, we would be able to choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is offered as an alternative (i.e., hurting someone without the necessary justification), but this would be impossible.

What is wrong IS that there is “nothing wrong”.

All human knowledge is fallible and incomplete.

Your “knowledge” isn’t. That is why it is unscientific.

I never said that human knowledge is infallible and complete, but our universe does contain laws that do not change. Man's will is not free is one of them.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:06 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:50 pm

Logik, you're trying very hard to find something wrong with this knowledge, but there is nothing wrong. This law will be proven (without it being falsifiable) when no one could desire to hurt another with a first blow, UNDER THE CHANGED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. If will was free, we would be able to choose what is worse for ourselves when something better is offered as an alternative (i.e., hurting someone without the necessary justification), but this would be impossible.

What is wrong IS that there is “nothing wrong”.

All human knowledge is fallible and incomplete.

Your “knowledge” isn’t. That is why it is unscientific.

I never said that human knowledge is infallible and complete, but our universe does contain laws that do not change. Man's will is not free is one of them.

All the laws of the universe (scientific theories) are falsifiable.

Your “law” is the only one that isn’t.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:21 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:06 pm
What is wrong IS that there is “nothing wrong”.

All human knowledge is fallible and incomplete.

Your “knowledge” isn’t. That is why it is unscientific.

I never said that human knowledge is infallible and complete, but our universe does contain laws that do not change. Man's will is not free is one of them.

All the laws of the universe (scientific theories) are falsifiable.

Yes, until there is an anomaly in the theory.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:10 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:59 pm When speaking of reality not limited to a particular language such as mathematics:

an entity of one + an entity of one only equals an entity of 2 in certain legal situations, and even then only partially.

Just sayin.

If I give an apple to one child and an apple to another child, that makes two apples. You can't build a bridge on partial mathematics. I guess you could, but I wouldn't cross that bridge. lol Language, as a communication vehicle, can be problematic but that doesn't change reality.

I'd also imagine that for most it's not an acceptable falsification.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:24 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:10 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:59 pm When speaking of reality not limited to a particular language such as mathematics:

an entity of one + an entity of one only equals an entity of 2 in certain legal situations, and even then only partially.

Just sayin.

If I give an apple to one child and an apple to another child, that makes two apples. You can't build a bridge on partial mathematics. I guess you could, but I wouldn't cross that bridge. lol Language, as a communication vehicle, can be problematic but that doesn't change reality.

I'd also imagine that for most it's not an acceptable falsification.

Either this kind of falsification is necessary for proof, or the proof through falsification is unnecessary. I believe it's the latter when it comes to immutable laws. How can an immutable law be falsified if in doing so, it's not a law?