Does anything exist?

[The Man]

OK, well it does not sound as if we are disagreeing much.

No not really much disagreement at all. Apologies, that I tend to be long winded at times.

Though when you say that in science any contradictions, inconsistencies or similar issues are generally caught by the peer review process - that was of course exactly my point ... that's why I always say "properly published papers (in real science research journals)" ... I've emphasised that probably 20 times or more in this thread.

Sure, generally, however, papers get retracted. Published in even prestigious journals, then taken back. While I would have liked the 18,000 retracted paper database to have been more directly on point to direct contradictions, I didn't expect it. That's why I posted the other paper that said why papers generally get rejected (before publication) that was, at least, a bit more directly on point. People make mistakes, including contradicting themselves, even reviewers.

Outside of published research (which is itself immediately open to criticisms and corrections from other experts in the field all around the world ... and where they will certainly write to you or to the editors of the journal pointing out your errors ... and that's also something I've said several times before in this thread), just in ordinary conversation or posts written on the internet, or even in articles for magazines or even published books, any of us might make mistakes of contradiction or repetition or inconsistency etc. etc., ... but it does not matters too much because not a great deal depends on it (whereas in published research papers, such mistakes do matter ... or more accurately I should say they "can matter", because it depends greatly on whether the mistake is one of language or one of the actual science).

OK, guess you can be a bit long winded yourself. Do not contradictions in your own life and thinking matter to you? Sure they don't have broader more world reaching implications as such papers. Unless you're a scientist, those more personal contradictions and inconsistent information must matter more to you than inconsistent scientific papers

But as I say (and you may have already agreed to this above) - science does not need philosophy to check it's work and tell it what to do, what it should do, (and what it "cannot do"??) etc.

Well, "need" is a rather loaded word. It implies that you could not do it yourself. As I said before science is based on theories and scientists do tend to get bogged down in those theories. They drive what they do, experiments, observations even treatments or tests (for medical applications).

So what is philosophy and philosophers doing for other academic subjects such as science (or history, geography, art, music, economics ...almost anything) that the experts in those other subjects are not fully capable of doing for themselves (and probably doing it far better than any philosophers who are mostly not so expert in those other fields)? You may have told me the answer to that already, so I apologise for asking that question again for the 50th time here (if only rhetorically) ... but if you did already answer that then I expect that I did not find the answer very convincing.

I gave multiple examples of direct current contributions (to specific aspects of sub-fields of biology), not asserted by the philosophers themselves, but by the researches' themselves. If you want I will relink them in a subsequent post. Let's just say somebody comes along, to work with you, and improves things for you. Might you have been able to do that yourself, who can say, if, or when. So by working with them **** in your field gets better. It's not necessarily a "need", it's just what did happen.

Now, as asserted before it wasn't just researches coming across some more general philosophical works and applying it to their field. Nor was it philosophers coming across some problem in science and saying, 'hey I can do something with that'. Instead, it was very closely collaborative works done by both. An explicate point of one of the articles I linked, that more of such closely collaborative works (between scientists and philosophers, of those particular fields of science ) can get stuff moving in new directions.

 

[Belz...]

Do you know the meanings of contractions? "You'd" is a contraction of 'you would', just as your assertion of "I'd" is, or, well, was. Now you might pretend that it meant 'you had'. However, the tenses would be wrong. 'Had' is past tense, as is 'would', so the tenses of "charge" were misapplied in both our cases.

"Would" is often used for both the present and future. "Would have" would be clearly in the past. You simply don't know what you're talking about, on any topic in this thread. You should stop trying.

Sorry if your own usage of a contraction confused you.

Considering that you agreed that the contraction was of the exact same word I mentioned, you are lying. You are desperate to score points because you know, and have known since the outset, that you cannot meet my challenge about logic and philosophy.

Or are you playing games again?

Gosh, you really have a serious ego problem, don't you? I accuse you, you have to accuse me. Grow the hell up.

Ah, your deliberate ignorance of what was posted again. Your implication that I might be asserting 'Again you [should] make the demonstration yourself'. Is demonstrably false by what you did deliberately ignore.

What the **** are you talking about now? You have not been able to demonstrate your claim, and that's a fact. Anything else you post is just a distraction.

 

[Thermal]

I keep thinking this thread dies, but it keeps coming back to life. Proof of philosophical zombies.

 

[Belz...]

I keep thinking this thread dies, but it keeps coming back to life. Proof of philosophical zombies.

This thread sure exhibits some features of consciousness.

 

[Robin]

I keep thinking this thread dies, but it keeps coming back to life. Proof of philosophical zombies.

Maybe this thread never existed in the first place.

 

[Scorpion]

Maybe this thread never existed in the first place.

No ! it does exist, because I remember dreaming it.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I can't tell if that was meant as a joke Scorpion but I have to admit I laughed.

 

[LarryS]

Scorpion is at least partially serious as his opening salvo was based on a dream.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Even the NASE&M is able to 'admit' that knowledge and understanding exists outside of science;

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding.

 

[The Man]

"Would" is often used for both the present and future. "Would have" would be clearly in the past. You simply don't know what you're talking about, on any topic in this thread. You should stop trying.

Hence, both of our usages of it were the same. That somehow that same usage confused you, is not my problem.

Considering that you agreed that the contraction was of the exact same word I mentioned, you are lying. You are desperate to score points because you know, and have known since the outset, that you cannot meet my challenge about logic and philosophy.

Lying about what? That "would" is technically past tense, it is. Even though it sometimes gets used in the future tense , particularly for hypotheticals. Now, you were not asked, you would not be asked and by your own assertion of your inability to do the task, should not be asked, even just hypothetically. The only one, evidently, desperate to score points here is you and you do it just against yourself.

Your "challenge about logic and philosophy" ? Would that be that logic isn't really just an aspect of philosophy anymore? I've already asserted multiple times that it isn't and given reasons. So whomever you might think you are challenging with that, it ain't me.

Gosh, you really have a serious ego problem, don't you? I accuse you, you have to accuse me. Grow the hell up.

Well, either you were just playing games again or the exact same usage of a word, as you applied, somehow confused you. I doesn't matter to me which one you want to claim is the case.

What the **** are you talking about now? You have not been able to demonstrate your claim, and that's a fact. Anything else you post is just a distraction.

Given your inability to understand your own usage of a word above. As well as the fact that I agree logic isn't just part of philosophy anymore and you seem to just have ignored that. I do have to ask, for the sake of clarity, exactly what is it that you claim is my claim?

I was talking about your deliberate ignorance of what was posted. That you ignored it because you felt it was "just a distraction", only confirms your ignorance was deliberate and that, in at least that regard, you knew exactly what the **** I was talking about.

 

[Belz...]

Hence, both of our usages of it were the same.

If they were the same then why did it confuse you about the tense? If X then I would Y. It's really simple, and it was a joke! But you somehow decided it was one of those hills you just have to die on.

Lying about what?

About the very thing we were just talking about.

Your "challenge about logic and philosophy" ? Would that be that logic isn't really just an aspect of philosophy anymore? I've already asserted multiple times that it isn't and given reasons. So whomever you might think you are challenging with that, it ain't me.

You're not even making sense here. I made the challenge and no one has been able to properly address it. I didn't direct it at you, or anyone, originally. You tried to address it, but when pressed you A) called it moving the goalposts, which is ridiculouls, and B) stopped shy of actually making your case. None of that is my fault.

You seem very determined to avoid discussing the topic. You insist on discussing me.

Well, either you were just playing games again

There's no "again" here since I was never playing any games. I think you're projecting here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Even the NASE&M is able to 'admit' that knowledge and understanding exists outside of science;

Again scientists and scientific organizations can't just be evoked like oracles. This isn't philosophy you can't just go "So and so says this therefore it's right because so and so is a respected..."

Your inability to understand the difference between an expert and an authority is not our problem.

 

[theprestige]

reat, you want to claim you are accepting that as true for the sake of argument, then let's hear your best argument for why it must be true.

This is insane.

 

[theprestige]

Fundamentally because consistent logic , by axiom, can’t ask that question or explore such contradictions.

Of course it can. Applying consistent logic is how contradictions are discovered. Applying consistent logic is also a fundamental feature of the reductio ad absurdum, which is an argument by discovery of contradictions.

 

[The Man]

If they were the same then why did it confuse you about the tense? If X then I would Y. It's really simple, and it was a joke! But you somehow decided it was one of those hills you just have to die on.

I asserted that both our usages and tenses were the same. So, still, no confusion here. If X then I would Y is really simple then what was it about your own usage being returned to you (yes, even returned as a joke) that confused you? The only thing that died on that mole hill you keep trying to make into a mountain, was your joke.

About the very thing we were just talking about.

So, no actual assertion of anything I said that was untrue.

You're not even making sense here. I made the challenge and no one has been able to properly address it. I didn't direct it at you, or anyone, originally. You tried to address it, but when pressed you A) called it moving the goalposts, which is ridiculouls, and B) stopped shy of actually making your case. None of that is my fault.

Your challenge, your problem and not my claim. Simply addressing my own claims is not even 'trying' to address your challenge.

You seem very determined to avoid discussing the topic. You insist on discussing me.

I have been discussing the topic, part of that is discussing your assertions and claims. You, however, have been trying to discuss just me, personally, as well simply just your own challenges, follow up questions and demonstration demands. Any other discussion of the actual topic is asserted, by you, as a distraction and/or simply ignored. Any time you’re willing to actually discuss the topic, have at it.

There's no "again" here since I was never playing any games. I think you're projecting here.

Ah, so joking and not joking. You sure you’re not trying to do a Dialetheism bit here (or doing and not doing a Dialetheism bit, as the case may be).

 

[The Man]

This is insane.

Oh, exaggeratory and hyperbolic for online argumentation, to be sure, but not insane. The foundational aspect of ‘acceptance for the sake of augment’ is that you will be arguing from the perspective that the ‘accepted’ claim is true. It is just that foundational aspect taken to the extreme of its extent. At times, in more formal debates, you don’t get to choose your position and must effectively argue from a position you oppose just ‘for the sake of augment’. It’s a great way to see if you actually understand the position you oppose. However, to even imply (as I just did) that the lack of discussion of the actual topic here is in any way a debate, is insane, hyperbolic and exaggeratory.

 

[The Man]

Of course it can. Applying consistent logic is how contradictions are discovered. Applying consistent logic is also a fundamental feature of the reductio ad absurdum, which is an argument by discovery of contradictions.

Simple discovery isn’t questioning and exploring such contradictions nor is simply ascribing falsity to them by axiom. I have brought up proof by contradiction and reductio ad absurdum, before, myself. The latter being a form of the former. I even noted that, basically, having to give up reductio ad absurdum is what for me (personally) made a dialetheistic paraconsistent logic not worth the minor gains. However, my personal opinion doesn’t change the fact that the philosophical position of Dialetheism asserts that A and ~A need not be mutually exclusive.

 

[Belz...]

I asserted that both our usages and tenses were the same.

Marvelous. Then we were pointlessly and aggressively agreeing. Moving on.

So, no actual assertion of anything I said that was untrue.

Well you could always go back and read the conversation, if you tend to forget that easily. I think they sell supplements for that.

Your challenge, your problem and not my claim. Simply addressing my own claims is not even 'trying' to address your challenge.

You're not making any sense. You responded to that first question, and made a show of trying to answer the follow-up. Clearly you addressed it. Or are we going to quibble on the meaning of the word "to answer" now?

Ah, so joking and not joking.

What? Are you seriously suggesting that my blurb about asking for payment has anything to do with the discussion? It's as I said earlier, you are entirely focused on me rather than the discussion, because it's clear even to you have you have no idea what you're talking about, nor can you support your earlier claim.

 

[The Man]

OK, let’s see about tying these last two together. To make a decent reductio ad absurdum augment, by yourself, against a position you oppose you first have to make an argument for that position. You have to accept the position for the sake of argument. Not just any argument it has to be the best argument for that position you can come up with. Otherwise anyone can just make up an absurd argument about a position and claim ‘reductio ad absurdum’. So it takes some effort and knowledge about the position. Certainly if you are just addressing an argument made by someone else you can show just that argument to be absurd but not necessarily the position, it was made in regard to, itself. There could be a better argument out there and, heck, if you try you might be able to come up with a better one yourself. So in trying your best and still ending in absurdity, then you have a pretty good claim of a reductio ad absurdum augment against a position, least ways until a better argument comes to your attention.

As I noted before since the question here is if A and ~A are mutually exclusive. Thus questioning the very foundation of proof by contradiction and thus reductio ad absurdum. A position that A and ~A are not necessarily mutually exclusive can’t be countered by simply asserting they necessarily are mutually exclusive. That would be begging the question or in the case of the necessity of their mutual exclusivity being an axiom, circular reasoning.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sure that sounded great in front of the mirror but it has dick-all to do with my questions.