Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[steenkh]

The focus should always be on the content, not the messenger!

Of course, but what do you do when the content has already been addressed many times, nd the messenger just repeats it without addressing anything that has been said?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Of course, but what do you do when the content has already been addressed many times, nd the messenger just repeats it without addressing anything that has been said?

Start reporting the disruptive spamming?

 

[Thermal]

Start reporting the disruptive spamming?

[OPmode] I'm sorry, P.J., I'm afraid I can't let you do that.[/OPmode]

 

[JayUtah]

the mathematical truth that $2 + 2 = 4$ is intrinsic and independent of who uttered it.

Copy-pasted Google AI math again.

 

[theprestige]

In philosophy and logic, there is a fundamental principle called the separation between origin and validity (or the rejection of the genetic fallacy). It doesn't matter if a statement was uttered by Albert Einstein, a 5-year-old child, a parrot, or generated by an artificial intelligence: the mathematical truth that $2 + 2 = 4$ is intrinsic and independent of who uttered it.

The value of an argument lies in its internal coherence, its premises, and its logic, not in the badge of the person who wrote it. When people in forums ignore the mathematics or the logic of a statement just to attack its supposed "origin" (accusing it of being AI), they commit a basic error in reasoning. The focus should always be on the content, not the messenger!

You're not making an argument. You're asking a question that's already been asked and answered at length.

Why would I want to reconsider questions from a stupid machine that can't even remember that it already asked the question, and can't even remember that it's already been answered?

Why haven't you noticed that your AI keeps asking the same questions over and over?

Why haven't you noticed that your AI can't remember the answers, or advance the discussion based on on those answers?

Why haven't you noticed that your AI keeps getting stuck on the very first round of discussion, and keeps having to reset?

This is why I don't like to consider propositions from AI. It's clearly not fit to have a human conversation, with other humans, about human ideas.

And it seems you're not even interested in a human conversation. You've taken every attempt at human engagement and repaid it with brain dead clanker slop. Binary bull ◊◊◊◊. Robot refuse. Digital duck all. Nonhuman night soil.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Copy-pasted Google AI math again.

At least it didn't mistake pressure for impact force.

 

[Thermal]

At least it didn't mistake pressure for impact force.

[OPmode] Playing Under Pressure on Spotify[/OPmode]

 

[Gubiosak]

You're not making an argument. You're asking a question that's already been asked and answered at length.

Why would I want to reconsider questions from a stupid machine that can't even remember that it already asked the question, and can't even remember that it's already been answered?

Why haven't you noticed that your AI keeps asking the same questions over and over?

Why haven't you noticed that your AI can't remember the answers, or advance the discussion based on on those answers?

Why haven't you noticed that your AI keeps getting stuck on the very first round of discussion, and keeps having to reset?

This is why I don't like to consider propositions from AI. It's clearly not fit to have a human conversation, with other humans, about human ideas.

And it seems you're not even interested in a human conversation. You've taken every attempt at human engagement and repaid it with brain dead clanker slop. Binary bull ◊◊◊◊. Robot refuse. Digital duck all. Nonhuman night soil.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of rule 4 removed

 

[mumblethrax]

Why is using AI in a skepticism forum dishonest?

For the same reason plagiarism is.

 

[arthwollipot]

I, like others, would like to see one or more examples of "non-empirical truths".

 

[Thermal]

I, like others, would like to see one or more examples of "non-empirical truths".

"The Alliance Rocks!"

How's dat?

 

[mumblethrax]

Non-empirical truths would be a priori truths, things like "All bachelors are unmarried."

I'd tell Gubiosak this, but he doesn't take yes for an answer, and it honestly seems like a mistake to engage with him at all.

 

[arthwollipot]

Non-empirical truths would be a priori truths, things like "All bachelors are unmarried."

I'd tell Gubiosak this, but he doesn't take yes for an answer, and it honestly seems like a mistake to engage with him at all.

That's not a truth, that's a definition.

 

[mumblethrax]

No, it's a truth. "All bachelors are unmarried" is a true proposition.

It's true by definition (which makes it an analytic truth), but it's nevertheless true.

There are a few somewhat less trivial claims to a priori knowledge.

 

[arthwollipot]

Truths that you can look up in a dictionary aren't the kind of truth that @Gubiosak is talking about.

 

[mumblethrax]

Truths that you can look up in a dictionary aren't the kind of truth that @Gubiosak is talking about.

The analytic tradition is a bit more complicated than that, but I agree that the Goob's AI is trying to ask us whether synthetic a priori truths exist.

That's a controversial topic, but the best possible answer is that mathematics seems to sometimes be able to generate new synthetic a priori knowledge independent of actually observing it in the world.

 

[JayUtah]

Why is using AI in a skepticism forum dishonest?

Unbelievable. You're using AI to generate arguments relating to the ethics of using AI to generate arguments.

Can you not simply think for yourself?

 

[JayUtah]

Truths that you can look up in a dictionary aren't the kind of truth that @Gubiosak is talking about.

It's unclear to me what truths he's talking about. I don't think he knows either. I still get the feeling he's hiding a specific proposition he wants to make after laboriously establishing the foundation of the existence of non-empirical knowledge. That foundation is currently forty pages deep, so I'm hoping he'll get to the point soon.

The analytic tradition is a bit more complicated than that, but I agree that the Goob's AI is trying to ask us whether synthetic a priori truths exist.

That's a controversial topic, but the best possible answer is that mathematics seems to sometimes be able to generate new synthetic a priori knowledge independent of actually observing it in the world.

And with my epistemology hat on, I don't have a problem with that. If you can synthesize knowledge in mathematics irrespective of observing it, I say you still have a rational basis for that knowledge. The "what you know and how you know it" criteria are satisfied in my opinion.

In what capacity such knowledge can be said to exist is not a question that makes me want to don my metaphysics hat. It's an idea. It exists as an idea. If someone wants to come up with a mathematical proof for the existence of gods and ghosts, then I'll entertain it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Mathematical truths can be empirically observed. If I have one apple and I put down another apple next to it, I can observe that there are two apples. 1 + 1 = 2, empirically.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Mathematical truths can be empirically observed. If I have one apple and I put down another apple next to it, I can observe that there are two apples. 1 + 1 = 2, empirically.

Indeed, it's the way we first learn maths, I remember in infant school we had snap together blocks a bit like Lego but exactly 1cm cubes and able to attach horizontally and vertically that were used to learn addition and multiplication by assembling and then counting.