Does anyone know the truth?

I'll make you a deal. I'll "battle" you the day you learn basic informal logic.

But note he considers it flawed, therefore not worth learning.
But then how would he know?

Come now, it's very simple. Use your reason and logic.

Use the very thing that you declare as flawed? ..in order to see YOUR point?
..and he still can't see his error. haha

HH, I don't really think that you are "all THAT bad", but I do have to agree that you often make logic presumptions that are not really "logic", but rather what you seem to think is "logic".

I'll make you a deal. I'll "battle" you the day you learn basic informal logic.

But note he considers it flawed, therefore not worth learning.
But then how would he know?

Come now, it's very simple. Use your reason and logic.

Use the very thing that you declare as flawed? ..in order to see YOUR point?
..and he still can't see his error. haha

HH, I don't really think that you are "all THAT bad", but I do have to agree that you often make logic presumptions that are not really "logic", but rather what you seem to think is "logic".

Quite the contrary. What I say may be counterintuitive for likes of you. I'v worked as a problem solver at a big newspaper, without any education I've surpassed highly educated and expensive people, yes I pissed them all off because I didn't mind stepping on their toes to get my point through, but when you turn jobs taking from 8-22h down to 2-3h, changes his software for all sales staff, makes him buy new terminals instead of having ancient terminals, and replace PC's with terminals then the big boss doesn't bother with all the complaints about me.

I think logically and extremely rationally, that's something you "philosophers" can never get to test, if all your assumptions, speculation (babble and raving) ever gets to work outside in the real world, because you only care for beautiful rethorics, not for logic and reason, but you do think that you talk in logical and rational ways.

I think logically and extremely rationally, that's something you "philosophers" can never get to test, if all your assumptions, speculation (babble and raving) ever gets to work outside in the real world, because you only care for beautiful rethorics, not for logic and reason, but you do think that you talk in logical and rational ways.

What's logic, Hexhammer?

I think logically and extremely rationally, that's something you "philosophers" can never get to test, if all your assumptions, speculation (babble and raving) ever gets to work outside in the real world, because you only care for beautiful rethorics, not for logic and reason, but you do think that you talk in logical and rational ways.

What's logic, Hexhammer?

If your case the right answer would be another answer. What's stupidity?

I think logically and extremely rationally, that's something you "philosophers" can never get to test, if all your assumptions, speculation (babble and raving) ever gets to work outside in the real world, because you only care for beautiful rethorics, not for logic and reason, but you do think that you talk in logical and rational ways.

What's logic, Hexhammer?

If your case the right answer would be another answer. What's stupidity?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. You say philosophers never use logic (which I find amusing since philosophers invented logic), but I'm wondering what you even think it is. I mean, you don't even know what induction and deduction is, so you must be using the term in a very sense.

I think logically and extremely rationally, that's something you "philosophers" can never get to test, if all your assumptions, speculation (babble and raving) ever gets to work outside in the real world, because you only care for beautiful rethorics, not for logic and reason, but you do think that you talk in logical and rational ways.

What's logic, Hexhammer?

If your case the right answer would be another answer. What's stupidity?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. You say philosophers never use logic (which I find amusing since philosophers invented logic), but I'm wondering what you even think it is. I mean, you don't even know what induction and deduction is, so you must be using the term in a very sense.

With all you allerged knowledge about logic, then tell me the phallacies about logic.

With all you allerged knowledge about logic, then tell me the phallacies about logic.

Haha.. you might want to begin by explaining to him how to spell it.

Reason; To Rationalize


1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are
unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.
2. to remove unreasonable elements from.
3. to make rational or conformable to reason.
4. to treat or explain in a rational or rationalistic manner.
5. Math. to eliminate radicals from (an equation or expression): to rationalize the denominator of a fraction.
6. Chiefly Brit. to reorganize and integrate (an industry).
7. to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes: He tried to prove
that he was not at fault, but he was obviously rationalizing.
8. to employ reason; think in a rational or rationalistic manner.
—Usage. Although RATIONALIZE retains its principal 19th-century senses “to make conformable to reason” and “to
treat in a rational manner,” 20th-century psychology has given it the now more common meaning “to ascribe
(one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that seem reasonable but actually are unrelated to the true, possibly
unconscious causes.” Although the possibility of ambiguity exists, the context will usually make clear which sense is
intended.


Reason is Mankind's Salvation, the Source of Wisdom; However Reason as the Single Source of Knowledge, Rationalization without the aid of Common Sense is the cause Mankind’s Guilefulness; Duplicity being the Greatest Cause of all Suffering.

Wisdom; the ability to acquire Knowledge of Realities that can not be experienced, that are not readily apparent, that are not measurable as to location and or momentum in Time and Space, Space-Time; The Truth of the Knowledge of a Reality acquired through Reason alone, without any assistance from our senses is an Uncertain Truth, Knowledge of Reality.

A Lie being a Half Truth, Truth being the Absolute Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth; Truth being our Knowledge of a Reality that exists independent of the Mind, our Ideas, our thoughts, Conjecture, Speculation, our Theory, our Beliefs, Truth being Universal.

The Truth, the Knowledge of a Reality, as it exists independent of the Mind, will set you Free from Rationalization, from the World of Illusion; the use of Reason alone in your determination as to what is or is not the Truth,

One needs.

i offer this, because those in the usa, might not be able to see the bbc iplayer

[url][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=LM_iiPFkNas[/url][/url]
it ventures the conscious and subconscious.. and therefore the perception of truth..

HexHammer

Maybe you think your ability to figure out if you sound like a fool is not effected by your act of observation, but I say Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle proves you wrong.

Anyone who thinks they have an absolute bead on the truth, who fails to recognize that there is more going on out there in the world than they know, and what they think they know, is deluding themselves, which means their ability to recognize the truth is seriously flawed.

-- Updated March 18th, 2012, 3:06 pm to add the following --

Wayne92587

In short

Reason - Basis for a belief.

To me, the ability to recognize the important factors that need to be included in the calculation for a logical deduction.

An important tool for gaining a true sight on reality.

-- Updated March 18th, 2012, 3:07 pm to add the following --

I really dislike the way the forums smashes my posts together. These are two different replies, and I would prefer that they are not included in one post.

HexHammer

Maybe you think your ability to figure out if you sound like a fool is not effected by your act of observation, but I say Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle proves you wrong.

Anyone who thinks they have an absolute bead on the truth, who fails to recognize that there is more going on out there in the world than they know, and what they think they know, is deluding themselves, which means their ability to recognize the truth is seriously flawed.

Then give me an example, that would be a reasonable demand. All you have presented is excatly nothing, you babble and rave!

Is it necessary to know everything? The question here is too broad as is the provocative Q asked : Does anyone know the (whole) truth." I think the answer to such questions is no to both Q's. It seems to me that it is not necessay to know everything and that no person knows the whole truth. A person knows only partial truths and can't ever know all partial truths from all possible pov's. That said the "how" truths are easier to know than the "why" truths! Often the whys go on on indefinitely w/o a final answer.

-- Updated Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:27 pm to add the following --

I was thinking about this topic. ie Truths of Reality the other day when I penned this position :Thomas Hazard via Marcelo Gleiser
What is reality? I think we know only partial realities through our senses , our senses extended by technologies and through or by the use of reason. There are realities yet to be uncovered,Human reality is part of the total reality bec we are embedded in this universe and are subject to our limitations. TWH stardate 03122012
Is The World An Idea? : NPR article
Is reality invented by our minds or are there truths "out there" for us to grasp? These are age-old questions that we have yet to fully answer. Still, we keep trying..."


I see perceptions and reflections on our memories of our perceptions and reflections are two kinds of complemantary knowledge The reflections on perception are about more than the facts and is imbued with additions from our subjective pov and our accumulated schemes and rules.

Given the definition of truth as a set of propositions that have a repeatable coorespondance to reality...

1) Our knowledge is initiated with our own perceptions. What we percieved is real to us.

2) It is extended by induction. This allows us to make propositions that are true within a subjective context.

3) It is further condensed to a more objective context with communication and group inference, thus making propositions that are the "best theory" within that frame of context (location and time).

Hence, we can at best, know "the best theory" for the moment.

Given the definition of truth as a set of propositions that have a repeatable coorespondance to reality...

1) Our knowledge is initiated with our own perceptions. What we percieved is real to us.

2) It is extended by induction. This allows us to make propositions that are true within a subjective context.

3) It is further condensed to a more objective context with communication and group inference, thus making propositions that are the "best theory" within that frame of context (location and time).

Hence, we can at best, know "the best theory" for the moment.

You don't study any major science branch, but study fairy tales?

Picasso knew the truth, because he made it for himself.
Van Gogh knew his truth too.
-Amakatura Murou