Archimedes: The Method

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:07am

Strate_Egg wrote: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.

Logical if you were lying through your teeth and if logic were illogic. This was refuted on Mike's Creationism page; but not that it bothers you.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:08am

Strate_Egg wrote: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

Lying in a debate is generally stupid, especially when your lies prove you know nothing of the opponent's true nature.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:08am

a combinatin of both strengths yet not the weaknesses. oh yea, he picks and choses. Too bad contructivism has its own weaknesses

AND, i am comparing pure empiricism and pure Rationalism. Not constructivism (not like it matters)

Although, constructivism i like too, it is a lot better than pure E, or R

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:09am

Strate_Egg wrote:a combinatin of both strengths yet not the weaknesses. oh yea, he picks and choses. Too bad contructivism has its own weaknesses AND, i am comparing pure empiricism and pure Rationalism. Not constructivism (not like it matters)

Although, constructivism i like too, it is a lot better than pure E, or R

So you're making a strawman and attacking it, not Mike's true position. My my, your use of fallacies has no end.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 02:09am

Strate_Egg wrote: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.

I am saying that higher "reality" is not defined in a satisfactory way. Its existence is mere conjecture. The only "reality" we can access is the one found in the observable universe. If you think it's a mere "virtual reality", that's your problem but it doesn't change the fact that we're living in it and can employ empirical methods to study it, ie- gain knowledge of it.

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)

Self-declared expertise doesn't mean shit, particularly not for proving things. For the umpteenth time, you can't prove stuff by simply quoting famous people.

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

I say it is true that the character of Gandalf in Lord of the Rings is a wizard. Does this mean that we think Lord of the Rings is reality? You're a fucking moron.

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

Lying in a debate is generally stupid, especially when your lies prove you know nothing of the opponent's true nature.
_________________ if senses can lie, why would u trust them with anything other than hum-drum activities. Reality is important to trust to things that can be false.

That is MY POINT of skepticism. To point out weaknesses. How do you think Constructivism came to pass? Skepticism.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:11am

You're a fucking moron. That was in no way related

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 02:11am

Strate_Egg wrote: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

Good thing we have instruments and empirical verification, then. Human frailties do not allow for precision in shared delusional states.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:12am

Strate_Egg wrote:Lying in a debate is generally stupid, especially when your lies prove you know nothing of the opponent's true nature.
_________________ if senses can lie, why would u trust them with anything other than hum-drum activities. Reality is important to trust to things that can be false.

That is MY POINT of skepticism. To point out weaknesses. How do you think Constructivism came to pass? Skepticism.

No, it came into existance because people realized that both Rationalizism and Empiricism were accurate within their bounds, and would be best united. Or, more usually, people without philosophical knowledge but with knowledge of logic decided the best way to view the universe.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-20 02:12am

Strate_Egg wrote:I'm a fucking moron.

I fixed that typo for ya.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 02:13am

Strate_Egg wrote:
You're a fucking moron.
That was in no way related

Too bad you chose to snip out the previous sentence in your increasingly desperate attempts to evade the point.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:15am

Senses lie (hypothetical case-scenarios prove it)

Empiricsts and Rationalists make unfounded assumptions (found in both Lock AND socrates and Plato)

One famous problem with Empiricism is Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Hume clarifies that point. OH NO, but we aren tallowed to use EVIDENCE. Just empiricst logic

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:16am

I fixed that typo for ya.

Thanks. What did i do anyway?

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:18am

Oh yea, nice

too bad you cant prove your claims that Empiricism represents reality as it pertaints to the definition of Knowledge. I can place a lot of uncertainty in it though.

This isnt cut and dry. The point of Skepticism is established, Cant deal with it, so what, tough luck.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:18am

brb cat

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:19am

Strate_Egg wrote: The point of Skepticism is established, Cant deal with it, so what, tough luck.

Well, if your aspirations reach no higher than being an angsty teenager saying 'NO, YOU'RE WRONG' constantly, I suppose that's fine. The rest of us will be over here, discerning the nature of reality.

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

Too bad you chose to snip out the previous sentence in your increasingly desperate attempts to evade the point.

Too bad im not desperate because i already proved my point 400 times, you just dont accept it. I believe you call it "wall of ignorance." You cannot make somene believe something. If you dont support skepticism, fine. You still arent right. I dont even care if you say im not right. I proved my case, i demonstrated WHY EMpiricism isnt assured of reality representation. I use backup evidence. I used primary and secondary sources. You use bs. wongisms.

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

Strate_Egg wrote:Senses lie (hypothetical case-scenarios prove it)

Senses can lie. For scientific empiricism to fail, senses must always lie, and in a manner which is consistent and precise. Obviously, you don't understand this.

Empiricsts and Rationalists make unfounded assumptions (found in both Lock AND socrates and Plato)

Strawman fallacy, already explained.

One famous problem with Empiricism is Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Hume clarifies that point. OH NO, but we aren tallowed to use EVIDENCE. Just empiricst logic

Hume's opinions are not evidence. Observations, on the other hand, are clear evidence of the nature of the only form of reality we are aware of; please continue to make an ass of yourself by trying to refute that statement.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:21am

Obviously, you don't understand this.

NO, obviously, you cannot always tell when they lie.

psssssssst, that is why many Empiricists believed the world was flat.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:22am

Strate_Egg wrote: I dont even care if you say im not right. .

Good: You aren't right. Now fuck off.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 02:23am

Strate_Egg wrote:
Too bad you chose to snip out the previous sentence in your increasingly desperate attempts to evade the point.
Too bad im not desperate because i already proved my point 400 times, you just dont accept it. I believe you call it "wall of ignorance." You cannot make somene believe something. If you dont support skepticism, fine. You still arent right. I dont even care if you say im not right. I proved my case, i demonstrated WHY EMpiricism isnt assured of reality representation. I use backup evidence. I used primary and secondary sources. You use bs. wongisms.

In other words "you're wrong, I'm right, I don't have to explain why, yadda yadda yadda".

To which I will respond "where did you explain why?"

To which you will respond once more "I already did. I'm right, you're wrong, I don't have to explain why, yadda yadda yadda".

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 02:24am

Strate_Egg wrote:NO, obviously, you cannot always tell when they lie.

Don't need to, dumb-ass. Go back and read the post again.

psssssssst, that is why many Empiricists believed the world was flat.

Hasty generalization fallacy: acting as though the mistakes of anyone subscribing to empiricism must reflect on empiricism itself and all of its practitioners.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:26am

ANd the "evidence" of Empiricists is refuted by countless reasons why it might nt work. THere is more doubt than certainty. lol that you cannot grasp.

IF EMPIRICISTS ClAIM THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE comes through the senses, and that knowledge represents true reality,they have to prove it. That is something they cannot do because of universal belief falsifiers as well as principle of induction. THat is the fucking point. ALl they can make are "reasonable" assumptions. Induction can only give probable information. TOO BAD that probably information comes from bad sources. Like i said before. You never really know when you are dreaming. Somtimes you can actually "taste" in dreams. The problem is you cannot know the differnce between awake and dream.

Also, causality is never seen, just sequence. That is a major point of skepticism. people make the fallacious assumption that sequence = causality.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 02:28am

Whatever, YOU are wrong, and I am right. Rinse and repeat. THE DAY you PROVE, that senses provide infallible, concrete, reliable evidence and adhere to reality, then i will believe you
NOT before.

SInce you cant do that, your concession is accepted. You have not provided ONE schred of proof.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 02:28am

As amusing as your syphyliptic rantings are, I believe it's fairly clear to all those with a logical mindset that your entire position has been obliterated. Do enjoy patting yourself on the back and masturbating to Sophists Weekly.