| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tornado_Creator
Royal Citizen
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 328
Local time: 6:35 PM
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| nidias91 wrote: | | Then don't listen you moron. If you don't like it then stay away from it. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT get away from philosophy in a religious (AKA philosophical) debate. So then just ignore it or leave. |
Any reason for the defensive stance? You could argue against my point rather than telling me to ignore or leave, assuming you can argue against my point. Anger is often a sign of defeat and I see you feel quite defeated. Your response if a complete fallacy as well. If atheists like myself cannot escape religion because it plays a big part in the way the world is run, and you can't escape philosophy in a religious debate, how the fuck am I supposed to avoid philosophy.
PS: Call me a moron again or needlessly insult me like so again and I will add you to my ignore list. I gave a reasonable thought out opinion and I don't expect to be insulted. I'm starting to get less patient with people and will ignore them if they insist on being unreasonable or outright insulting. If you can't bring anything worthwhile to the discussion, then don't join the discussion.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 12:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | Tornado_Creator wrote: |
Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. If someone disputes the meaning of a number the answer is "fuck off". Maths and science are not based in philosophy, maths is based in pure logic, we simply use a base-10 system in which we have assigned each unit names before attempting to calculate. There is no philosophy in this and saying so is a fucking insult to maths and science. |
Mathematicians, historians of mathematics, and philosophers who specialize in mathematical theory would be surprised to hear that, I would assume.
Logic itself is part of philosophy, after all - usually classified in the epistemological philosophical disciplines, where there is still much active controversy over different types of logic. |
Again, truth must be defined. This does NOT necessitate an entire field. If philosophizers had said "Truth is this this and this" and then been done with it, I would not be annoyed by them. However, they decided to make a giant mess out of simple concepts for some unknown reason. |
truth Audio Help /truθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–noun, plural truths Audio Help /truðz, truθs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
Truth is something that can be verified as being correct.
Okay, so how do we verify or prove something.
proof Audio Help /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
We prove something by establishing evidence.
What is evidence?
Okay, so I'll stop there, but I hope you get the point. This can keep going on. We must continually define terms and concepts in order to do anything in math\science.
I'll state once again, if you don't like it, GTFO.
EDIT: You stated before that the reason you have a dispute with modern philosophy is that they do not contribute. According to you? Who are you to judge what is and isn't a contribution. I feel that Scientologists don't contribute a lot, but I just IGNORE THEM. It's not hard.
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 794
Local time: 9:35 AM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | Tornado_Creator wrote: |
Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. If someone disputes the meaning of a number the answer is "fuck off". Maths and science are not based in philosophy, maths is based in pure logic, we simply use a base-10 system in which we have assigned each unit names before attempting to calculate. There is no philosophy in this and saying so is a fucking insult to maths and science. |
Mathematicians, historians of mathematics, and philosophers who specialize in mathematical theory would be surprised to hear that, I would assume.
Logic itself is part of philosophy, after all - usually classified in the epistemological philosophical disciplines, where there is still much active controversy over different types of logic. |
Again, truth must be defined. This does NOT necessitate an entire field. If philosophizers had said "Truth is this this and this" and then been done with it, I would not be annoyed by them. However, they decided to make a giant mess out of simple concepts for some unknown reason. |
Whoa, there. Let me get this straight:
If a bunch of people who spend time thinking got together and simply defined for you that Propositions X, Y, and Z were true, you'd be satisfied with that? You wouldn't want to know why they thought X, Y, and Z were true? You wouldn't try to argue against them if you thought that X, Y, and Z were false? And if you would try to argue against them, would your only recourse be to the "fuck off" variety of argument?
What if those philosophers got together and said, that one of these 'true' propositions was "God exists," or (depending on your belief or nonbelief) "God doesn't exist." You'd be just totally hunky-dory with that? What if one of their 'true' propositions was "GodWarrior should be ritualistically sacrificed."
I really can't see that simply defining certain propositions to be true a priori solves much. It only raises questions about why these propositions were chosen instead of those propositions, and the only way that we can decide why these instead of those is to talk about what 'truth' is, whether and how we know it, and then (and only then) can we apply those rules to the outside world to determine why we pick axiom list A instead of axiom list B to base our understandings of the world from. That's one part of epistemological philosophy.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Local time: 12:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | Tornado_Creator wrote: |
Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. If someone disputes the meaning of a number the answer is "fuck off". Maths and science are not based in philosophy, maths is based in pure logic, we simply use a base-10 system in which we have assigned each unit names before attempting to calculate. There is no philosophy in this and saying so is a fucking insult to maths and science. |
Mathematicians, historians of mathematics, and philosophers who specialize in mathematical theory would be surprised to hear that, I would assume.
Logic itself is part of philosophy, after all - usually classified in the epistemological philosophical disciplines, where there is still much active controversy over different types of logic. |
Again, truth must be defined. This does NOT necessitate an entire field. If philosophizers had said "Truth is this this and this" and then been done with it, I would not be annoyed by them. However, they decided to make a giant mess out of simple concepts for some unknown reason. |
truth Audio Help /truθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–noun, plural truths Audio Help /truðz, truθs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
Truth is something that can be verified as being correct.
Okay, so how do we verify or prove something.
proof Audio Help /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
We prove something by establishing evidence.
What is evidence?
Okay, so I'll stop there, but I hope you get the point. This can keep going on. We must continually define terms and concepts in order to do anything in math\science.
I'll state once again, if you don't like it, GTFO. |
Modern philosophy does not do this. The terms have been defined.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 12:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tell me, in your own words, what you feel modern philosophy is. I would prefer a general statement, not a specific example, as we can continue this whole example\counterexample for a century and not get anywhere.
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tornado_Creator
Royal Citizen
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 328
Local time: 6:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Tornado_Creator wrote: | | Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. |
It's certainly helpful, though. |
*picks up a pile of rocks*
Numbers
*puts a single rock on the floor*
ONE!
*puts another rock on the floor*
TWO!
*puts a single rock on the floor, elsewhere*
ONE!
*points at the pair of rocks first put on the floor*
TWO!
*pushes third rock with foot so all the rocks on the floor are now together*
THREE!
......
How does maths need to me any more complicated than that? If this is philosophy, it's pathetic. It's called counting and giving verbal sound cues for each number. We do this for most things, it's called language. What "intrinsic meaning" is there to "1" that needs further debate before you can use it in maths. Please explain, because quite frankly, 1 = 1, it's so fucking simple it doesn't need to be stated.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Local time: 12:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | | WashMDJD wrote: | | Tornado_Creator wrote: |
Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. If someone disputes the meaning of a number the answer is "fuck off". Maths and science are not based in philosophy, maths is based in pure logic, we simply use a base-10 system in which we have assigned each unit names before attempting to calculate. There is no philosophy in this and saying so is a fucking insult to maths and science. |
Mathematicians, historians of mathematics, and philosophers who specialize in mathematical theory would be surprised to hear that, I would assume.
Logic itself is part of philosophy, after all - usually classified in the epistemological philosophical disciplines, where there is still much active controversy over different types of logic. |
Again, truth must be defined. This does NOT necessitate an entire field. If philosophizers had said "Truth is this this and this" and then been done with it, I would not be annoyed by them. However, they decided to make a giant mess out of simple concepts for some unknown reason. |
Whoa, there. Let me get this straight:
If a bunch of people who spend time thinking got together and simply defined for you that Propositions X, Y, and Z were true, you'd be satisfied with that? You wouldn't want to know why they thought X, Y, and Z were true? You wouldn't try to argue against them if you thought that X, Y, and Z were false? And if you would try to argue against them, would your only recourse be to the "fuck off" variety of argument?
What if those philosophers got together and said, that one of these 'true' propositions was "God exists," or (depending on your belief or nonbelief) "God doesn't exist." You'd be just totally hunky-dory with that? What if one of their 'true' propositions was "GodWarrior should be ritualistically sacrificed."
I really can't see that simply defining certain propositions to be true a priori solves much. It only raises questions about why these propositions were chosen instead of those propositions, and the only way that we can decide why these instead of those is to talk about what 'truth' is, whether and how we know it, and then (and only then) can we apply those rules to the outside world to determine why we pick axiom list A instead of axiom list B to base our understandings of the world from. That's one part of epistemological philosophy. |
Their reasoning must be investigated enough to satisfy me, but yes. If they said God doesn't exist because _____ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me. If they said truth is ______ because ______ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me.
For mathematicians and scientists, truth is not a complex subject. Philosophy tries to make it one.
| Quote: |
Tell me, in your own words, what you feel modern philosophy is. I would prefer a general statement, not a specific example, as we can continue this whole example\counterexample for a century and not get anywhere. |
Modern philosophy is useless junk. People who label themselves philosophers try to take simple concepts and make them complex, and assume that any statement requires deep thinking to ensure its validity.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie.
Last edited by GodWarrior98 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 12:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If 1=1, why doesn't 1=2. Why can't it. Why can't 2=3 and 2+2=5. You can say that 2=2 and 1=1 and that's all there is to it, but you are trying to say that there are self-evident statements, which goes against the basis of science.
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 794
Local time: 9:35 AM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tornado_Creator wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Tornado_Creator wrote: | | Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. |
It's certainly helpful, though. |
*picks up a pile of rocks*
Numbers
*puts a single rock on the floor*
ONE!
*puts another rock on the floor*
TWO!
*puts a single rock on the floor, elsewhere*
ONE!
*points at the pair of rocks first put on the floor*
TWO!
*pushes third rock with foot so all the rocks on the floor are now together*
THREE!
......
How does maths need to me any more complicated than that? If this is philosophy, it's pathetic. It's called counting and giving verbal sound cues for each number. We do this for most things, it's called language. What "intrinsic meaning" is there to "1" that needs further debate before you can use it in maths. Please explain, because quite frankly, 1 = 1, it's so fucking simple it doesn't need to be stated. |
I'm not really sure that's where most of the vigorous debate takes place in mathematical philosophy, to be honest. There are quite a few books and essays on the topic (heck, I just pulled "Philosophy and Mathematics" off of my shelf right now), and even some still lively discussions about the nature of mathematics - is is analytic or synthetic? Is it part of the universe, or something we impose upon it in order to make sense of it? Is it something that is a priori and derivable via logic solely, or is it fundamentally an experiential discipline?
The answers to these questions radically change mathematics from something you might recognize to something you might not recognize, and it is only because we start with the assumed positions of certain axioms and not others that we reach conclusions that we currently reach.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidias91
Visitor
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Local time: 12:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a point to make that's not a defensive one.
What you're saying is that beyond a certain point, one that you define as being too arbitrary to matter (whatever the hell that means), there's no reason to ask the question 'Why?'
So if that can apply in philosophy, then why not in other things. Why do we continually ask why in other fields like chemistry or biology?
_________________
^^Irrefutable Logic^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Local time: 12:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | | If 1=1, why doesn't 1=2. Why can't it. Why can't 2=3 and 2+2=5. You can say that 2=2 and 1=1 and that's all there is to it, but you are trying to say that there are self-evident statements, which goes against the basis of science. |
Mathematics has self-evident statements. You are asking stupid questions. As Tornado Creator has said, the reply to junk like this will be "fuck off."
In science, "why" is not asked. "How" is asked, and that is a question philosophy does not touch.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie.
Last edited by GodWarrior98 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 11:35 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tornado_Creator wrote: | | Maths on the other hand does not require you to debate the intrinsic meaning of the number 1 before you start. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | It's certainly helpful, though. |
| Tornado_Creator wrote: | *picks up a pile of rocks*
Numbers
*puts a single rock on the floor*
ONE! |
Single.
Unit.
Helps to know this.
Now get lost with your anti-intellectualism.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WashMDJD
Forum Leader
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 794
Local time: 9:35 AM
Location: Everett/Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GodWarrior98 wrote: | Their reasoning must be investigated enough to satisfy me, but yes. If they said God doesn't exist because _____ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me. If they said truth is ______ because ______ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me.
For mathematicians and scientists, truth is not a complex subject. Philosophy tries to make it one.
|
Of course truth is complicated. I can even demonstrate that for you if you'd like.
_________________
"Ne mea dona tibi studio disposta fideli,
Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta reliquas."
-Lucretius, De rerum natura
("...that my gifts here set forth for you with faithful solicitude, may not by you be contempuously discarded before they have been understood.")
"Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" --Henri de la Rochejaquelein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodWarrior98
Royal Citizen
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 483
Local time: 12:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WashMDJD wrote: | | GodWarrior98 wrote: | Their reasoning must be investigated enough to satisfy me, but yes. If they said God doesn't exist because _____ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me. If they said truth is ______ because ______ and I agreed with it, that would satisfy me.
For mathematicians and scientists, truth is not a complex subject. Philosophy tries to make it one.
|
Of course truth is complicated. I can even demonstrate that for you if you'd like. |
Two parallel lines never touch. This is true.
Tell me how this is complicated.
_________________
In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. -Paul Dirac
I am not a theist. The name is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tornado_Creator
Royal Citizen
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 328
Local time: 6:35 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidias91 wrote: | | Tell me, in your own words, what you feel modern philosophy is. I would prefer a general statement, not a specific example, as we can continue this whole example\counterexample for a century and not get anywhere. |
Modern philosophy, from what I have seen, is an explosion in a library and an abstract art gallery. It's not so much a subject of discussion, study or thought but more a group of people sitting in a room attempting to debate but going on about how they can't understand each other, the world, the words they're using or the definition of anything they define including the word definition. It seems like they will argue against everything to the point where it no longer makes sense. Honestly I have argued with people, most notably, theists, who are philosophy students at the local university and their arguments don't make sense and hold no baring on reality.
I know what philosophy was meant to be, and classical philosophy once served a purpose. But now all I see in philosophy is the idle disputing of assumptions that are crucial for the way that we understand the universe. The most common argument is "Is the universe a subjective thing, a dream or hallucination in which I am the only thing that is real and all of existence is rooted through my own existence? Without my existence, there is no existence. I am existence. Everything is as I dream it. I think therefore I am but also I think therefore everything is." Sounds almost poetic, but honestly, what relevance does it have, at all, to every day life. Does it really make all the fuck of a difference either way? NO. This is why philosophy pisses me off. It's so abstract that it bares no relation to reality. It quite literally doesn't matter. When asked a lot of philosophies "Ultimate Questions" my answer is often "Who gives a shit? It doesn't make a difference in my life either way". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
