Archimedes: The Method

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-17 11:09pm

OH sure. In Epistomology, there is a slew of different methodologies for understanding knowledge and how it pertains to reality.

Rationalists, Constructavists, Empiricists

One of the best is SKepticism, especially by that of Hume or Descartes.

Skepticism can expertly destroy ALMOST any argument made. As well it conforms nearly perfectly to the definition of Knowledge.

The possitions i am stalking about are methodological skepticism and Humean. OF course, some Empiricist bogeys say certainty isnt necessary to have true knowledge of the fundemental elements of the universe. However, that is bs, because they cannot defend adequately agaisnt the claims.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-17 11:15pm

The only reason they work consistantly is because they think they conform to reality, but it really is unprovable. The members of the matrix, or the brain in teh Ludwig experiment believed they had reality too. They could sense, taste, smell and feel. I like skeptics beause everyone eles gets dogmatic and huffy because "they are right," or what they say is the best. Half the time, the evidence cannot justify their posstion beyond a doubt.

Rationality has to have somethign to stand on. IF the experiences are fooled as well as senses, then you might as well say that you can fly. YOu can in your dreams of course. But then again, how do you KNOW you arent dreaming. I don't. SOmetimes i "think" i wake up, only to not actually be awake. IT can be very disturbing. Insane people might think they are popeye or mickey mouse. SO what they think really is absurd.

Empiricsts in the yearly centuries agreed with Rationalists that the earth was flat and the universe revolved around the earth. THey thought evidence PROVED that. Everyone else such as Aristarchus of Samos were morons and degraded for that belief. Too bad their evidence was unjustified and a man suffered for it. Rationalists believed geocentrism was true too. REASON came down and said it was true, even though...

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-17 11:16pm

HELL, going by empiricsts, i can believe i am captain of a stardestroyer at the battle of ENdor. If i can feel it, taste the air, smell the air, and interact, it must be reality.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-17 11:26pm

Strate_Egg wrote:HELL, going by empiricsts, i can believe i am captain of a stardestroyer at the battle of ENdor. If i can feel it, taste the air, smell the air, and interact, it must be reality.

Wow, a complete line of bullshit against a strawman. Haven't seen that in.. Ten minutes.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-19 06:28pm

IT is just as true.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-19 06:29pm

AHh, bullshit to you, true to skeptics

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-10-19 09:47pm

Skepticism is flawed in that it can only destroy; no new ideas can be generated from it. Empiricism and skeptisism are a team, as I see it: empiricism takes observations and makes the best theory; skepticism attacks any weak points which are modified to become stronger, producing a beter theory. And so on forever in the neverending cycle.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 12:17am

Empiricism is good for learning, but not about reality. NOW, what i am only trying to say, is that if you had to choose between living and dying, Empiricism is good for surviving normal life because it seems to allow us to work correctly. This; however, does not change the fact that from a philosophical posstion Skepticism is strongest BECAUSE it can destroy all other claims. THAT is what i mean.

If you have to PROOVE, what argument is best, you cannot use any other argument/methodology except for Skepticism because the others have too many flaws from a persuasive angle. It has nothign to do with how reasonable, or how "probable" it is to be correct. Since Empiricists claim that through senses and experience they gain real knowledge and reality, they have to proof it. T hey say everyone else is wrong yet they cannot substantiate their own claim!

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 12:20am

So Skepticism can destroy even that which is real, and can create nothing. What a pointless philosophy; it makes nihilism seem happy-go-lucky.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 12:21am

Strate_Egg wrote:Empiricism is good for learning, but not about reality. NOW, what i am only trying to say, is that if you had to choose between living and dying, Empiricism is good for surviving normal life because it seems to allow us to work correctly. This; however, does not change the fact that from a philosophical posstion Skepticism is strongest BECAUSE it can destroy all other claims. THAT is what i mean.

To use a mathematical analogy, this is like arguing that 0=0 is the ultimate mathematical equation because it cannot be disproven even if you dispute the laws of math. The fact that it is totally trivial and useless obviously escapes you.

Solypsism appeals to those who wish to pretend they're intellectuals without doing the necessary work. Its sole bragging right is that it disputes everything by dismissing all of the available evidence, hence cutting out the basis for all claims. It does not give knowledge; it denies knowledge. Name one thing humanity has learned because of solypsism.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 12:25am

Strate_Egg wrote:Empiricism is good for learning, but not about reality.

Also note that this statement presumes that reality is something OTHER than the observable universe, yet no evidence for this higher state of reality has been proposed, and no conditions for falsification of this argument have been proposed. Two words: unfalsifiable tautology. Favoured tactic of pretentious intellectual wannabes everywhere.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 12:52am

Name one thing humanity has learned because of solypsism.
_________________ Easy my good chap....we learn to examine our believes FAR more than we do to prevent dogmatic demigods from taking over spewing bullshit reality claims and not even providing any PROOF that it is real.

OH and you say Skepticism is for non-intellectuals?? OK, another follower of the wongism (hume and methodological descarte were idiots ) Parade. Thanks but no thanks. You defintion is as good as lollipops.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 12:55am

sol·ip·sism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

You people really need to brush up on language. You cannot even get the definition of solipsism right. It doesnt deny all evidence. IT SAYS that the only thing that can be known is the self. THAT is not a skeptic as WONGISM 101 explains.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:03am

Strate_Egg wrote:sol·ip·sism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

You people really need to brush up on language. You cannot even get the definition of solipsism right. It doesnt deny all evidence. IT SAYS that the only thing that can be known is the self. THAT is not a skeptic as WONGISM 101 explains.

Of course it's not a skeptic, dumb-ass. A skeptic demands evidence. You, on the other hand, deny the validity of any and all forms of evidence available to us. Thanks for inadvertently agreeing with me, fucktard.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-20 01:12am

Andrew J. wrote:Skepticism is flawed in that it can only destroy; no new ideas can be generated from it.

I guess you don't think enough to consider that when one idea is proven wrong, other, new ideas will be created to try and fill the void.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:13am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Andrew J. wrote:Skepticism is flawed in that it can only destroy; no new ideas can be generated from it.
I guess you don't think enough to consider that when one idea is proven wrong, other, new ideas will be created to try and fill the void.

Empiricism can do the same. Skepticism alone, which is what this dickfor espouses, cannot fill that void. It just says 'no no no' with it's fingers in it's ears.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:13am

NO, fucktard you are incorrect.

Thanks for inadvertently agreeing with me, fucktard.
_________________

a SOLIPSIST SAYS THAT THERE IS KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY OF THE MIND ONLY.

A skeptic says that you CANNOT have knowledge (TRUE KNOWNLEDGE) of the fundamental units of the universe. (beauty, justice, god,)

PS these truths are what are recognized and debated by people. If you want an example, look at the debate between Socrates and the sophists. I believe it is in the Republic. Damn i forget the antagonists name.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:14am

Strate_Egg wrote:PS these truths are what are recognized and debated by people. If you want an example, look at the debate between Socrates and the sophists. I believe it is in the Republic. Damn i forget the antagonists name.

Someone's actually taking the Sophists side in Socrates vs. the Sophists....

I just fell out of my chair laughing so hard...

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:15am

Empiricism can do the same. actually empiricism CANNOT do the same, because its method are unrealiable, not truthful, and dont prove that they represent any reality, internal or external. Its been that way for many many years since the Academy.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:15am

Strate_Egg wrote:NO, fucktard you are incorrect.

Thanks for inadvertently agreeing with me, fucktard.
_________________

a SOLIPSIST SAYS THAT THERE IS KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY OF THE MIND ONLY.

A skeptic says that you CANNOT have knowledge (TRUE KNOWNLEDGE) of the fundamental units of the universe. (beauty, justice, god,)

Which is the same argument repackaged, fucktard. If you cannot know anything about the universe outside your own mind, then there is only knowledge of the reality of the mind.

PS these truths are what are recognized and debated by people. If you want an example, look at the debate between Socrates and the sophists. I believe it is in the Republic. Damn i forget the antagonists name.

"Appeal to authority" fallacy. You seem quite fond of this one.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:16am

I am not taking their side. They believed that any opinion was a good opinion. I am just saying that you can see THE debate for fundamental knowledge in that dispute. i said nothing that the sophists were right.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:16am

Strate_Egg wrote:Empiricism can do the same. actually empiricism CANNOT do the same, because its method are unrealiable, not truthful, and dont prove that they represent any reality, internal or external. Its been that way for many many years since the Academy.

Show how the methods of empiricism are unreliable. They measure facts about the observed universe. It is possible to determine whether one of these facts is true or false without having to resolve the unresolvable question of whether the observable universe = reality. I have made this point repeatedly, and you have completely ignored it.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:17am

"Appeal to authority" fallacy. You seem quite fond of this one.
ad hominem, yall seem familiar with that one too i guess.

TOo bad appleal to authority works with Philosophy because A THey devised it
B. THey got the quotes, ideas, and the reasoning. I didnt make it up, so i have to go to them for remarks.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:17am

Strate_Egg wrote:I am not taking their side. They believed that any opinion was a good opinion. I am just saying that you can see THE debate for fundamental knowledge in that dispute. i said nothing that the sophists were right.

Your argument betrays you, little boy. I know the debate well enough, as well as Socrates. I apparently know his theories better than you, since I know he used the same WYSIWYG attitude towards our reality as an empiricist, he merely postulated another, psudeo-reality, of perfection and fundamental truths, of which this realm is but a shadow.

Of course, that contained big words, so you'll get angry and start typing in ALLCAPS again.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:18am

Strate_Egg wrote:I am not taking their side. They believed that any opinion was a good opinion. I am just saying that you can see THE debate for fundamental knowledge in that dispute. i said nothing that the sophists were right.

Yes you did, you lying little shit. You claimed that empiricism cannot produce knowledge; this is manifestly false. You also claimed that mathematics can produce truths while empiricism cannot, apparently without realizing that this is a self-contradictory position (do you need me to explain why again?)