Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 8:43 amNickGaspar wrote:Well it is an irrational statement because it goes against (violates) what we objectively know through the long established patterns of our empirical observations.
An irrational claim is that which ignores our established knowledge. Since I can never be sure (100%) about our knowledge (since knowledge evolves along with our technical advances). Our current accepted knowledge is what renders a claim/belief irrational.-Human languages are a mesh...this is why Science prefers mathematics.OK, fair enough. I guess this highlights, again, the fact that simple linguistic ambiguities are at the heart of quite a lot of disagreements.
-Yes. I think that my aspect of Irrationality has to do with the act of accepting an unverified claims as true. Self contradiction arises through the different standards one uses in his effort to accommodate an unfounded claim.If I look up a definition of irrational I see definitions like "not logical or reasonable". If we choose "not logical" then we could see irrational as meaning self-contradictory. In which case "something coming from nothing" would not be irrational because there is no self-contradiction in it.
But if we choose "not reasonable", that's more vague and open to interpretation, so then we're probably going to be choosing a wider definition of irrational, including, as you've said, claims that ignore established knowledge but which don't actually contain a self-contradiction. e.g. claims that a long established inductively derived law (such as conversation of matter) can be violated.
i.e A theist Demands Absolute Proof for Biological Evolution while he demands zero Objective Evidence for ID(intelligent design).
Looking up a definition of the term "Self contradiction" I found these two common usages.
1 : contradiction of oneself
2 : a self-contradictory statement or proposition
So someone contradicts himself when for every different claim he argues about different standards of evidence.
I believe that a claim/argument can be Valid but without objectively verified premises it qualifies as an irrational belief...not an irrational statement.
Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
(I'm just dropping in on the convo here, so apologies if I'm going over covered ground...)Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 11:02 amWe are talking about ontological language here, which is simply used to describe the natural world. A contradiction within this language refers to a contradiction within the natural world.Gertie wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 9:45 amThis is something which has bugged me.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 5th, 2021, 4:50 pmlol, I "know" because that "contradiction" is only possible if someone (like you in this case) looks at a shape with 4edges and keeps calling it a triangle.
If you observe a shape with 4 edges...then you should call it a rectangle...no matter which universe you are in. WHy is this so difficult for you mate?
It seems to me when we talk about reason or logic, we're talking about the ways the world seems to work. When we look at that, we come up with the basic rules of logic for example. (And it requires new discoveries about the way the world works to question them - like the way QM raises questions about whether logic holds)
But when someone says the concept of a married bachelor or a 4 sided triangle is illogical, they are talking about using our own created definitions in incorrect ways. That's a language error, rather than a logic error surely. You can say language has it's own logic, to do with grammar, definitions, semiotics or whatever, which has a relationship to how we see the world. But it's still a system we created, rather than a characteristic of how the world must be if the rules of logic hold.
I think the statement ''A 4 sided triangle exists'' could only be coherent within the context of a different model/understanding of the world, which would make the old definitions of sides and triangles flawed or incomplete in some way. A model which says our understanding of geometry is incomplete, or edges and boundaries flash in and out of existence according to probability, or somesuch.
We'd have a new understanding of how the world works then, which might require a different set of rules of logic, and so we'd adjust our language to better describe that new understanding, yes?
But without some new ontological framework, to talk about 4 sided triangles is simply playing with definitions in ways which don't reflect reality appropriately. It's manipulating symbols we use to make sense of the world within the context of a specific model/framework, in ways which don't fit that purpose. I think...
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
-Let me help you. It doesn't matter any more. This is Philosophy of Absurdism.I didn't mention a 'fluctuating' number of sides, looks like you made that up too.
Why should I have used shape by the way?
The world is the way it is and you need to improve your critical skills if your goal is to understanding it....Not to suggest absurdities.
-I am familiar with this non sequitur deepity.Not my fault that you aren't familiar with a common expression like a four-sided triangle.
-Strawman. IF you used the word shape then you would have a correct description of a shape with a fluctuating number sides.And if I write shape, you probably would go crazy about the issue that maybe a three-sided four-sided something can't be called a shape at all.
If you reject the fluctuating number of sides then you will need to describe the method you used to count the 3-4 sides of your "triangle".
Counting one by one side..... you will end up at number 3-4?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
You know the funny thing is that now you are arguing for the idea that the world can only be absolutely logical.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:24 pm-Let me help you. It doesn't matter any more. This is Philosophy of Absurdism.I didn't mention a 'fluctuating' number of sides, looks like you made that up too.
Why should I have used shape by the way?
The world is the way it is and you need to improve your critical skills if your goal is to understanding it....Not to suggest absurdities.
-I am familiar with this non sequitur deepity.Not my fault that you aren't familiar with a common expression like a four-sided triangle.
-Strawman. IF you used the word shape then you would have a correct description of a shape with a fluctuating number sides.And if I write shape, you probably would go crazy about the issue that maybe a three-sided four-sided something can't be called a shape at all.
If you reject the fluctuating number of sides then you will need to describe the method you used to count the 3-4 sides of your "triangle".
Counting one by one side..... you will end up at number 3-4?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
That has nothing to do with what I said. Four-sided triangle was simply an expression that refers to something inherently illogical, self-contradictory, something that no human understanding can account for because it defies understanding.Gertie wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:15 pm(I'm just dropping in on the convo here, so apologies if I'm going over covered ground...)Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 11:02 amWe are talking about ontological language here, which is simply used to describe the natural world. A contradiction within this language refers to a contradiction within the natural world.Gertie wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 9:45 amThis is something which has bugged me.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 5th, 2021, 4:50 pm
lol, I "know" because that "contradiction" is only possible if someone (like you in this case) looks at a shape with 4edges and keeps calling it a triangle.
If you observe a shape with 4 edges...then you should call it a rectangle...no matter which universe you are in. WHy is this so difficult for you mate?
It seems to me when we talk about reason or logic, we're talking about the ways the world seems to work. When we look at that, we come up with the basic rules of logic for example. (And it requires new discoveries about the way the world works to question them - like the way QM raises questions about whether logic holds)
But when someone says the concept of a married bachelor or a 4 sided triangle is illogical, they are talking about using our own created definitions in incorrect ways. That's a language error, rather than a logic error surely. You can say language has it's own logic, to do with grammar, definitions, semiotics or whatever, which has a relationship to how we see the world. But it's still a system we created, rather than a characteristic of how the world must be if the rules of logic hold.
I think the statement ''A 4 sided triangle exists'' could only be coherent within the context of a different model/understanding of the world, which would make the old definitions of sides and triangles flawed or incomplete in some way. A model which says our understanding of geometry is incomplete, or edges and boundaries flash in and out of existence according to probability, or somesuch.
We'd have a new understanding of how the world works then, which might require a different set of rules of logic, and so we'd adjust our language to better describe that new understanding, yes?
But without some new ontological framework, to talk about 4 sided triangles is simply playing with definitions in ways which don't reflect reality appropriately. It's manipulating symbols we use to make sense of the world within the context of a specific model/framework, in ways which don't fit that purpose. I think...
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
(I'm just dropping in on the convo here, so apologies if I'm going over covered ground...)
I think the statement ''A 4 sided triangle exists'' could only be coherent within the context of a different model/understanding of the world, which would make the old definitions of sides and triangles flawed or incomplete in some way.
-Correct. The use of the word affects our current definition in a patch of the Universe where specific laws and observations have shaped those definitions.
-Well I did the mistake to entertain Atla's ideas about an irrational patch of Universe "existing"in our regular Universe. My goal was to help him understand that our definitions shaped by our "rational" Universe can not be applied on irrational "pockets" of it.A model which says our understanding of geometry is incomplete, or edges and boundaries flash in and out of existence according to probability, or somesuch.
-Correct. New concepts and language would be necessary.We'd have a new understanding of how the world works then, which might require a different set of rules of logic, and so we'd adjust our language to better describe that new understanding, yes?
But without some new ontological framework, to talk about 4 sided triangles is simply playing with definitions in ways which don't reflect reality appropriately.
-Philosophy of Absurdism.
.It's manipulating symbols we use to make sense of the world within the context of a specific model/framework, in ways which don't fit that purpose. I think..
-We agree
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:34 pmYou know the funny thing is that now you are arguing for the idea that the world can only be absolutely logical.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:24 pm-Let me help you. It doesn't matter any more. This is Philosophy of Absurdism.I didn't mention a 'fluctuating' number of sides, looks like you made that up too.
Why should I have used shape by the way?
The world is the way it is and you need to improve your critical skills if your goal is to understanding it....Not to suggest absurdities.
-I am familiar with this non sequitur deepity.Not my fault that you aren't familiar with a common expression like a four-sided triangle.
-Strawman. IF you used the word shape then you would have a correct description of a shape with a fluctuating number sides.And if I write shape, you probably would go crazy about the issue that maybe a three-sided four-sided something can't be called a shape at all.
If you reject the fluctuating number of sides then you will need to describe the method you used to count the 3-4 sides of your "triangle".
Counting one by one side..... you will end up at number 3-4?
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
I didn't propose any theorethical experiment.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:59 pm NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
ok....pseudo philosophical hypothesis, are you satisfied?Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 1:29 pmI didn't propose any theorethical experiment.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:59 pm NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
I didn't propose any hypothesis. You are hallucinating.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pmok....pseudo philosophical hypothesis, are you satisfied?Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 1:29 pmI didn't propose any theorethical experiment.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:59 pm NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Yes.....sure...like you didn't write "4sided triangle" and I had to copy your statement. We know how honest you are mate.Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pmI didn't propose any hypothesis. You are hallucinating.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pmok....pseudo philosophical hypothesis, are you satisfied?Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 1:29 pmI didn't propose any theorethical experiment.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:59 pm NO. I accepted your theoretical experiment and pointed out the problems in your "version" of an irrational pocket of universe and why our current definitions are not useful.
You dived deeper in this 3-4 sided and that act of yours rendered our conversation useless.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
That was an expression for the inherently illogical, that may or may not exist (as I said 5-10 times). Where is the experiment? If you are honest, you will copy that part too I'm sure.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:16 pmYes.....sure...like you didn't write "4sided triangle" and I had to copy your statement. We know how honest you are mate.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
"Where is the experiment? ".....That was an expression for philosophical question about an irrational part of the universe........Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:28 pmThat was an expression for the inherently illogical, that may or may not exist (as I said 5-10 times). Where is the experiment? If you are honest, you will copy that part too I'm sure.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:16 pmYes.....sure...like you didn't write "4sided triangle" and I had to copy your statement. We know how honest you are mate.Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pmI didn't propose any hypothesis. You are hallucinating.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 1:35 pm
ok....pseudo philosophical hypothesis, are you satisfied?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
What philosophical question? Tell me.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:31 pm"Where is the experiment? ".....That was an expression for philosophical question about an irrational part of the universe........Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:28 pmThat was an expression for the inherently illogical, that may or may not exist (as I said 5-10 times). Where is the experiment? If you are honest, you will copy that part too I'm sure.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:16 pmYes.....sure...like you didn't write "4sided triangle" and I had to copy your statement. We know how honest you are mate.
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
If only. Philosophers love to live in la-la land.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 5th, 2021, 4:17 amAnother logical fallacy....baker wrote: ↑March 4th, 2021, 10:56 pmYou can argue that point successfully when your picture is printed on money.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2021, 5:02 pmAnd you are failing to acknowledge that claims made by all magisteria's are acceptable to critical evaluation of their logical foundations. IF you deny that you are guilty of committing a Special Pleading fallacy.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023