Primal

LOL. John then what is it? You are verifying claims with claims not yet verified, and verifying those with the claim first verfied(fox in hen house type verification), what else do you call that?

Axioms verified by coherence, which is established by such axioms.

Primal

Continental philosophers and their ilk are well known for being anti-science buffs.


No but it says a lot about their methods and integrity.


Yeah and you know this on what basis? Again leaping to conclusions. Also, you know as well as I do that the vast majority of philosophers of science tend to reject the presumptions of Continetal philosophers, especially those of Derrida.

Thanks for the peddy mongering O'Rielly. But far be it from Hugo to concentrate on the main points instead of trivial details.


Non sequitur? Is the postmodernist sympathizer now invoking the logic that they see as mere prejudice?


Actually I have Hugo, and it proved very easily that the postmodernists, who adhere to Derrida and his ilk, don't know basics in science though they are more then willing to speak on the subject. (I've also read another Continetal philosopher as of late that said the law of identity was "A or not-A", which is really the Law of the Excluded Middle.)



The sort of pronouncements backed by Sokal himself: http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~bworth/...franca_v4.html


In it he states very clearly that the postmodernism idology and movement are the bath water.

In essence Sokal showed leading postmodernists to be scientifically illiterate.


Actually you and Kantian have yet to provide one compelling argument or piece of evidence: All I ever see from you two are proof surrogates and dubious assumptions concerning linguistic relativism.


According to you at least. BTW you showed no such thing here, please quite reffering to said proof in other threads and present actual arguments. Again you dodge the issue Hugo, hiding behind the writings of other authors which may or may not prove your viewpoint as if they were the final word on the matter. Why don't you instead actually present the arguments they have yourself on this thread?


Again your proof lies "somewhere else."

Again Hugo hiding behind said authorities instead of putting his proof forward i.e. I can't argue with you till you do X. But why not Hugo? Are you physically incapable of putting forth the evidence yourself? All talk Hugo with nothing to show for it.

Much of the entire postmodernist movement as well as continental philosophy is based on either dead theories or arbitrary assumptions. Outdated theories like Marxism, Freudianism and extreme LRH. Tell me Hugo, do you play with Freudianism?

Primal

So anyone that's not a full on relativist is an extreme absolutist that thinks heretics deserve hell-fire? Again this sort of dillema you present is simplistic and misleading John. There is more to philosophy then mere relativism or absolutist christianity.

Also he did make arguments by showing relativist assertions to be useless, contradictory and invalid.

Primal

Ah so now we abandon logic John. Basically their defense of their theory amounts to the "liars paradox" which can be merely seen as symbolic nonsense, which is to be expected. I see no reason why a person cannot manipulate a symbol so as to make a meaningless statement devoid of all logic. That is hardly ground for abandoning the most fundamental axioms of logical thought. Seriously, the "logic of contradiction" makes about as much sense as the idea of "creation science": which is a contradiction in terms but from the viewpoint of "dialetheism" seems to "work."

Also the article itself states that there is a recognized difference between aknowledging that a person may hold to contradictions as opposed to seeing it as logical or rational to do so. Also where is dialetheism called a new system of logic?


And the arguments presented for dialetheism are very easy to refute:

1) Liar paradox. Basically says the statement "This sentence is untrue" is true or false.


However it can merely be meaningless and treated like a nonstatement. Kind of like the statement "lijphopo".


No you are in it and out of it.


Obvious contradiction, amounts to circular reasoning. Simply reject the idea that an arrow is where it is not.


Shows a problem with law, i.e. that the law is incomplete or allows for exceptions. Not proof of anything.

For example the law says "A person may not enter a burning building." then "A fireman must do so." Appears to be a contradiction until it is revised to something like: "A person may not enter a burning building unless he or she is a fireman."

I'd say this was more a problem with language instead of logic again. A better description would be the adolescent is partly an adult and partly not. The statement works only if you treat the case of adulthood as "all or nothing."

Total abuse of QM. Is that even a contradiction at this point?

This only shows a problem with the terms again easily resolved by changing the definitions of the terms and a recognition of their empirical basis.

The key point made at the end of all these "arguments" is:

I think a lot of the troible has to do with presenting definitions in a precise manner instead of a more "fuzzy" manner, also in treating a partial lack of a given trait as not possesing that trait at all. I.e. being partly outside the room amounts to not being in the room(which is not necessarily one in the same.) In other words, (as stated by defaint heretic) saying something has the traits of both A and B is different then saying it is A and not-A.

BTW John do you think it possible for some pieces of knowledge or some axioms to be absolute?

Adrian Selby

Sorry to interject, but regarding the liar paradox, I do find the conclusion that its meaningless rewarding, yet I can't help but find some elucidations of it meaningful, to wit:

Plato and Socrates are sat together on a bench. You are watching them.

Plato says: "The next statement that Socrates makes is a lie."
Socrates says: "The last statement that Plato made is true."

Plato's statement, can, after all, before Socrates speaks, be said to be meaningful, because any statement that Socrates could make could be a lie, it is meaningful to assert that Socrates could lie. Thus, I don't see how Socrates' later statement can render meaningless Plato's former statement, because it would go from being meaningful to being meaningless, unless one asserts I suppose the qualifier that "..Socrates makes is a lie, unless it solely refers to this statement, in which case its meaningless".

However, Socrates agrees with Plato; the last statement, he says, is true, but how can it be meaningless for Socrates to agree with Plato when Socrates is in fact saying something meaningless.

Anyway, if that was a bit tortured, or even slightly incorrect in its exposition, I apologise, nevertheless, I do not see how the above example illustrates two entirely meaningless statements.

Primal

Well what is each reffering to? The statement the other refers to....It creats an incoherent circularity which is meaningless.

Kinda like Plato "Socrates is going to tell a lie."

Socrates: "What Plato says was gsdgdsfuhilhui."

Or this statement appears meanignful at first "The cat is on the rug" then turns meaningless if one states "The cat is on the rug nkhf;ahghafhg" Hence a once meaningful statement with some addition became meaningless. Symbols with a little addition thus can jump from meaningful to meaningless. In essence then any statement Socrates makes may not be a lie, or a truth but meaningless.

And to quickly describe what just happned, at the moment Socrates said "what plato had said is true" Socrate's statement became meaningless and Plato was proven wrong.

Devilnaut

I know I'm jumping in here reeally late, and this reply is to a couple of things on the first two pages so they may have already been addressed at some point in the thread, but I wanted to respond anyway:

Hugo:
We can use intersubjective agreement to priviledge reason or call it our standard of justification without becoming foundationalists or presupposing that reason is intrinsically more valid as a demarcation criterion than Bible quoting.

Keith:
Greetings:

Relativism, it seems, wants to claim that no viewpoint is priveledged--

--except relativism.


I think both of these comments are inaccurate and I feel that "relativism claims that no viewpoint is priveledged" is being misunderstood. Relativism is not itself a viewpoint. Viewpoints are not "positions" or "beliefs". When we talk about viewpoints we are talking about perspectives (individuals' perceptions), and we are assuming that whenever someone perceives something, it is a representation of something in reality (not really a wild assumption).

Relativism is in no way self refuting: it states that we cannot know anything with 100% certainty, but we can certainly arrive closer to true statements through the combination of several individuals' viewpoints (IE through inter-subjectivity), because these viewpoints reflect reality. In the same way that your mind accepts and rejects ideas based on their agreeance with prior perception, we can come to conclusions about objective reality (but never objective conclusions) based on the agreement of people's perceptions of it.

"presupposing that reason is intrinsically more valid as a demarcation criterion than Bible quoting."

Let us be clear that reason may be a much better tool for arriving at true statements about reality than bible quoting, and there is nothing philosophically challenging about a relativist stating so. He might see that it is because it provides a greater degree of parsimony to his perceptions than quotations from the bible.


devilnaut

Adrian Selby

How is Plato wrong to say "The next statement Socrates makes is a lie, or, if it refers to this statement, is meaningless."

That's a description of what you're saying Socrates' statement is.

Primal

Then what he is saying is true. And if Socrates is saying "what Plato says is true." The statement is simply meaningless.

Primal

So then relativism does not apply to philosophical beliefs and positions?

That know with 100 percent certainty?How about the fact that I am having perceptions?


How is this established? IF everyone's viewpoint is wrong or in no way correlates to reality, merely adding them together will not change this fact.


What reality is the difference then between coming to conclusions about an objective reality but not objective conclusions? Also how can perceptions agree? It seems to have such agreement we must start going into the abstract.....I cannot physically add another's perceptions to my own: I must merely add their testimony to my background knowledge and assume they had perceptions. Hence the very idea of something being "inter-subjective" meaning personal....yet not personal, is somewhat of a contradiction in itself.

In it you are saying we are limited to our own perceptions but then saying "we are not limited" to our own perceptions.

Also the value of "intersubjectivity" seems to presuppose an objective,outside world, i.e. a sort of objectivism: for if it didn't of what value is having 1 subjective viewpoint as opposed to a hundred(and who is to even say other subjective viewpoints exist at all?) Either we are seeking agreement for its own sake, a fruitless excercise or we are seeking agreement because it leads to an accurate represenation of an objective reality.