Archimedes: The Method

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:49am

Strate_Egg wrote:"THE ONLY SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE (Genuine) IS THROUGH SENSE EXPERIENCE" lawhead.

Lock refered to maths as "complex ideas" They were universaly discovered by light of experience and learned. These ideas seem to hold true. {essay concerning human understanding}

Very good. That's why Lock used mathematics to rebuild reality from Cogito Ergo Sum. You may pass that community college class after all.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:50am

When you grow up and learn about logic, you'll realize there isn't. Run along now, you have school in the morning.
_________________ SIr nitrim is not worth the waste of writing. You cant prove me wrong, i prove Empiricsts are unrealiable and Rationalists are stupid "assumers." YOUR posstion does not hold up to the defintion of KNowledge, Period. SKepticism PROVES that.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:50am

Strate_Egg wrote:"THE ONLY SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE (Genuine) IS THROUGH SENSE EXPERIENCE" lawhead.

Lock refered to maths as "complex ideas" They were universaly discovered by light of experience and learned. These ideas seem to hold true. {essay concerning human understanding}

And how does this change the fact that a mathematical proof does not rely on sensory input? How does that change the fact that you can conceptualize it entirely in your head? Oh wait, I forgot that you figure simply quoting somebody out of context is a "proof".

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:51am

Strate_Egg wrote:SIr nitrim is not worth the waste of writing. You cant prove me wrong, i prove Empiricsts are unrealiable and Rationalists are stupid "assumers." YOUR posstion does not hold up to the defintion of KNowledge, Period. SKepticism PROVES that.

In other words:

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:51am

Very good. That's why Lock used mathematics to rebuild reality from Cogito Ergo Sum. You may pass that community college class after all.

lock also made mistakes. Big ones. He assumed causality in his explanation of the realtionship between complext ideas and the secondary/primary qualities. that was also addressed by Hume, who many of you think is an idiot.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:52am

Strate_Egg wrote:Very good. That's why Lock used mathematics to rebuild reality from Cogito Ergo Sum. You may pass that community college class after all.

I like the way you admit you were completely wrong while still trying to act superior. Very amusing.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:52am

And how does this change the fact that a mathematical proof does not rely on sensory input

WEl, that must mean the Empiricists are wrong, they say it IS learned, internalized and discoverec BY the senses. THAT is the only way we know of them, and those "senses" relay information about reality.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:53am

I like the way you admit you were completely wrong while still trying to act superior. Very amusing.
_________________ never said i was wrong, you make shit up and lable it with a cute button.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:54am

Strate_Egg wrote:When you grow up and learn about logic, you'll realize there isn't. Run along now, you have school in the morning.
_________________ SIr nitrim is not worth the waste of writing. You cant prove me wrong, i prove Empiricsts are unrealiable and Rationalists are stupid "assumers." YOUR posstion does not hold up to the defintion of KNowledge, Period. SKepticism PROVES that.

Skepticism puts it's fingers in it's ears and yells 'I'M RIGHT YOUR WRONG'. As for Lock's mistakes, very good, you're learning. Lock isn't the end of the cycle, and just because Hume found some of them in his denial of everything doesn't vindicate his stupidity. A broken watch is right two times a day, and all that.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:54am

Strate_Egg wrote:And how does this change the fact that a mathematical proof does not rely on sensory input

WEl, that must mean the Empiricists are wrong, they say it IS learned, internalized and discoverec BY the senses. THAT is the only way we know of them, and those "senses" relay information about reality.

Empirical methods are observational measurements, dumb-ass. Mathematics is an abstract system of thought.

First you say that I'm an empiricist, then you try to say that my claims are completely opposite to the claims of empiricism. Good show

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:55am

W/E, as a skeptic i dont need to prove i am right, i just need to give reasons why YOU aren't. If you dont like it, then file a complaint with those that teach, , translate, and distribute philosophical material. This is the traditional view of Universal/limited skeptics, like it or not, it rips holes in nearly all other philosophies.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:56am

Empirical methods are observational measurements, dumb-ass. Mathematics is an abstract system of thought.

AHhhh ok dont make me repeat the same quote. THey are learned, and discovered by senses. If you believe that they are always existant representations of reality and that you have the ability to recognize and knwo them always, you are a Rationalist.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:56am

Strate_Egg wrote:W/E, as a skeptic i dont need to prove i am right, i just need to give reasons why YOU aren't. If you dont like it, then file a complaint with those that teach, , translate, and distribute philosophical material. This is the traditional view of Universal/limited skeptics, like it or not, it rips holes in nearly all other philosophies.

No, it sticks it's fingers in it's ears and yells it's right. This attitude was discredited in it's first incarnation, the Sophists, and just because they give themselves a new name and tell each other they're valid doesn't change this fact.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:57am

First you say that I'm an empiricist, then you try to say that my claims are completely opposite to the claims of empiricism. Good show

WEll, it seems to me you support a dual methodology. Sometimes y ou are Rationalist, sometimes you are Empiricist. The mix is usually constructivist, a combinatin of both strengths yet not the weaknesses.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:59am

Strate_Egg wrote:AHhhh ok dont make me repeat the same quote.

For the umpteenth time, you can't prove anything by appealing to authority, fucktard. Why do you think everyone assumes you're a youngster? Only kiddies in grade-school think they can prove stuff by simply quoting famous people.

THey are learned, and discovered by senses. If you believe that they are always existant representations of reality and that you have the ability to recognize and knwo them always, you are a Rationalist.

Math is not a representation of reality; it is an abstract concept which we may occasionally find useful for other purposes. Holy fuck, are you really this dumb?

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:59am

ohhhh now we are just fumbling up the whole Epistomological methodology of Skepticism now. We are proven wrong, now we have to attack sophists, a groupe that arent even liked by a myriad of other skeptics. They just ran around and said one opinion is as good as the next. They would one day support Justice, and then knock it down. That was stupid. A skeptic wouldnt do that.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:01am

Strate_Egg wrote:ohhhh now we are just fumbling up the whole Epistomological methodology of Skepticism now. We are proven wrong, now we have to attack sophists, a groupe that arent even liked by a myriad of other skeptics. They just ran around and said one opinion is as good as the next. They would one day support Justice, and then knock it down. That was stupid. A skeptic wouldnt do that.

It's what you're doing, when you support Lock one minute and delcare him a retard the next.

You can cry and complain, of course, but this isn't changing the fact that the fundamental nature of both is identical. Skepticism is merely the angry, angsty teenager version of Sophism.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 02:01am

Strate_Egg wrote:WEll, it seems to me you support a dual methodology. Sometimes y ou are Rationalist, sometimes you are Empiricist. The mix is usually constructivist, a combinatin of both strengths yet not the weaknesses.

It seems to me that beyond labeling, you've got nothing in the tank.

I've already pointed out that your own definition of knowledge disproves your own claim that knowledge cannot possibly be gained from empiricism, and you have ignored this point. I have pointed out that appeals to authority are not proofs, and you ignore that too. I have already explained that empirical methods simply involve measurable observations, and you ignore that as well, in favour of more quotes. And you seriously wonder why we figure you're probably an ignorant boy?

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:01am

For the umpteenth time, you can't prove anything by appealing to authority, fucktard. Why do you think everyone assumes you're a youngster? Only kiddies in grade-school think they can prove stuff by simply quoting famous people.

Actually, in a persuasive essay (non-science course) you back up your claim with quotes, information from primary and secondary sources. YOu can call it whatever you want. There is no lab or field study for this, unless i interview, but then again, THAT will also be appeal to authority..

WHen i do theses on the Amarna Period, i have to use resources, quotes, citations. Is that also appeal to authority> yes dumbass, that is research.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:02am

Strate_Egg wrote: WHen i do theses on the Amarna Period, i have to use resources, quotes, citations. Is that also appeal to authority> yes dumbass, that is research.

But in philosophy, you must use logic. Too bad, so sad.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:03am

I've already pointed out that your own definition of knowledge disproves your own claim that knowledge cannot possibly be gained from empiricism

NOpe, you have not. YOu THINK you did, because you are in a bubble where Empiricism always represents reality no matter what the experts say. You, are not an expert. They are. THey are studied, YOU arent. They have good reasons, YOU dont. Your logic is ( well, i say it does give knowledge of reality)

EVEN THOUGH knowledge is a true, justifed believe, and TRUE means certain, believablle and consistant.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:04am

That is everything an Empiricist alone cannot do

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:06am

But in philosophy, you must use logic. Too bad, so sad.

Skeptics do use logic

Here it is.

Senses are faulty in 4 major ways (already stated these), senses can deceive

YOu cannot trust what deceives you (Descartes)

Cannot trust senses. Therefore, Empiricism which RESTS on sensory experience cannot be certain. Certainty= truth, truth = justfication, THAT =knowlecge. That is very logical.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:06am

WEll, it seems to me you support a dual methodology. Sometimes y ou are Rationalist, sometimes you are Empiricist. The mix is usually constructivist, a combinatin of both strengths yet not the weaknesses.

More sane people would realize this makes the position of Constructivist more or less correct, if it incorporates the strengths, yet not the weaknesses, of philosophical positions. Of course, Strate's proven he's not sane, so he doesn't realize he's declared that Mike's right.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:06am

SOOOOOOOO if BOb lies to jim, Jim will turn around and trust bob on critical issues. Yea, that is pretty much what Empiricists do with senses