This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about and referencing.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pmI claim ALL human beings have and do philosophy without any of these steps.
Yes! I agree. And that is the reason why our philosophy is a mesh and why people accept pseudo philosophical ideologies as products of philosophy.
This is why the academia has almost nothing to show in our modern epistemology outside science or away from naturalistic principles.
If you say so. But you have absolutely no clue at all about what I am actually talking about.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm-That can be poetry, literature,comforting thinking, SciFI ,but not philosophy.IPhilosophy is just done without these steps naturally.
If this is what you do, then that is what you do.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm-And this is the reason why we are packed with pseudo philosophical ideas about the ontology of everything (religions,non secular spiritual categories, epistemic ally failed philosophies like idealism etc).So, there I just claimed that not just I do philosophy by skipping the first two steps in my inquiry but that ALL human beings do philosophy by skipping not just the first two steps but all of your steps in their inquiry, and they have done this from the beginning."
And believing that current knowledge is actually factually true, right, and correct speaks for itself.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pmAnd I just pointed out to you that the practice of your is what demarcates pseudo philosophy from philosophy!I just did what you said could not be done.
Ideas that ignore knowledge, are not wise claims about our world and we can not act or expand upon them.
Some of us can. But, if you cannot, then so be it.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pmTruth is irrelevant to knowledge or a wise claim. We can never say whether our current understanding will be the final one or if our current statements describe something absolutely true.So, best you say the truth of things instead of saying just what you believe is true, which is obviously not true at all.
The reason some of us can do this is because of the knowledge and understanding we use, compared to the so called "knowledge" that you use.
I have already evaluated and explained the irrational behavior of just having belief itself.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm Absolutes are red herrings. We can only evaluate how irrational a belief that ignores or not current facts is...that's all.
But you may have missed that also?
Do I?NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm-Again the whole problem is that you equate knowledge with truth.The whole problem with this claim is, is the so called "knowledge" true, right, and correct in the beginning. History should be enough evidence to prove that CURRENT "knowledge" is not always reliable enough to base anything off nor from.
When did I do that?
And you still do not have a clue what my "position" is.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm You are not in a position to ever know whether if your last statement is absolutely true , so you are limited to guide your claims and beliefs according to what facts and knowledge is available to you....NOW!
I can know whether my last statement is absolutely true, which by the way is absolutely true. This can be very easily proven with evidence.
I understand what you are trying to say "systematic knowledge" is.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pmIf you argue that, then it means that you don't understand what systematic knowledge is!It could be very easily argued that "systematic knowledge" is the very reason why human beings are still stuck where they are now, when this is written. That is; living with the completely out dated knowledge, and living in the most old fashioned, out of line, prehistoric, barbaric, incorrect, and abhorrent ways known.
NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm Systematic knowledge is how we advance our understanding and knowledge and keep questionable claims out from our body of knowledge.
This is what I understood you were trying to say "systemic knowledge" is.
LOL I never thought you would be so honest and actually admit why "systematic knowledge" is so obviously inherently wrong.
Keeping "questionable claims" out from their body of knowledge was exactly what the people who believed the sun revolves around the earth kept 'trying to' do.
So, you, and others, can keep 'trying' for as long as you like keeping so called "questionable claims" out from your current body of knowledge. But the truth always comes out.
See, what is plainly obvious is whatever questions and/or challenges any current body of knowledge would always be seen as a "questionable claim" by the ones who believe their body of knowledge is the most current and is therefore the most up-to-date, and to them must therefore be the best and thus only knowledge that what we should look at and use now.
One vicious cycle of deception and lies people tell themselves.
What ideas?NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm Systematic knowledge through its 9 main qualities, gave you the device and connection and the opportunity to share your outdated ideas about philosophy, science, knowledge and logic on the internet.
I have yet to have one person to discuss them with me. No one has even attempted to challenge me nor even question me about them. I have not even come close to expressing them fully yet.
You are still stuck on some idea that because science is the greatest thing in the Universe that computers and internet now exist, and therefore that means what have said is outdated.
Who cares. I have explained the flaws human beings make in science already.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm Your claims are bad reproductions of Normative Science, a philosophical model on the untrustworthy nature of science in relation to truth. The run away success of science didn't leave much room for those ideas...plus Absolute truth is only the idealistic goal of science...not something possible in real life.
There is a reason why science is called..... science (knowledge in Latin) not Truth.
Notice how just about everything you talk about is not in actual relation to my view on the word 'time', but is in relation to how great science is.
But I just do not know this, I can actually prove this True.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pmYou can not know that.Systematic knowledge is absolutely obsolete compared to what is actually the true, right, and correct knowledge.
Already done.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm You can never know what is absolutely true orcorrcet.
If you want to insist that I can not, then you are 'trying to' tell us that you know what is absolutely true or correct.
You are actually being self-contradictory by trying to insist on what you believe is true here, obviously.
But parts of the current systematic knowledge, to you, is NOT credible at all. But this is impossible for you to hear and understand, because, from your perspective, your current systematic knowledge is the VERIFIED body of knowledge available to you, as we speak today, when this is written.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm You can only say that Systematic knowledge is the only credible, verified body of knowledge available to us as we speak today and it is going to change in the future.
But see 'that' knowledge is will outdated to my current knowledge and understanding.
You are just not able to keep up and understand this knowledge and understanding because of your beliefs, which is a whole other body of knowledge and understanding that you have not kept up with.
You are doing another absolute flaw that human beings continually do. You are 'trying to' speak for 'we' or 'us'. But 'you' cannot do this successfully, even though you have kept 'trying to'. So, 'you' are best speaking for 'you' only, and leaving 'me' and 'others' out of this.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm What we observe is that our understanding works outside the theoretical realm, they provide us with accurate predictions and life saving technical applications.
Tell me how I can empirically verify any thing to any one if no one listens?NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm Sure they all could be wrong, but the moment to doubt them is ONLY after you have empirically verify this probability
Believing things are true and not listening to any thing contrary is a truly irrational thing to do.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm ....not without indications, that would be an irrational thing to do.
So its wise and humble to accept our limits of knowledge as human beings and act reasonably by accepting what is based on our current facts and their systematic evaluation. [/quote]
You can try absolutely anything to not look at things other than what you want to believe are true, but the actual truth comes out eventually.
Remember you keep using words very differently than I do, and I certainly do not have "my philosophy".NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm If you don't do that , then your behavior is irrational (not wrong!) and your philosophy is nothing more than a pseudo intellectual product.
What I can see is how obviously you made up some completely ridiculous claim and then tried to put it onto me as though it was something that I would say.NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm i.e You can ignore our knowledge on gravity, but if your claim is that you can exit the top floor window and walk towards the near tall building......that is not a wise claim . Can you see the now the connection between knowledge and wisdom?
Seriously, you do not have a clue at all in regards to what my view is here, do you?
What IS my statement about time dilation?NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm The same is true with your statement about time dilation.
Prove to us that you even know what it is
Do you even know what I have said in regards to this?NickGaspar wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm Time Dilation IS an observable fact.We produce electronics that take advantage of that knowledge and as a result, they produce more.
From what you have written here it appears you have absolutely no idea what I have said regarding this.
BEFORE you go on absolutely absurd claims like, "You can ignore our knowledge on gravity", and then associate that with what I have said in regards to "time dilation" and the electronics produced, how about you FIRST write down what my claims, ideas, and/or views are, then challenge and/or question them only.
Your imaginary perceptions of what I have actually written and said are only SHOWING that you still have absolutely no idea at all what my views actually are.