Since it is April Fools’ Day, I will celebrate by offering a revised challenge of “if” and load it into the Forum. This topic varies slightly from my first loaded debate after joining the site, and will, hopefully, deter argumentative definition of words as a feature of the Forum commentary, although, iunder this format as opposed to the debate, I suppose it’s open season. Never the less, I will address my own definitions for clarification.
The full language of the forum topic is: “’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
Definitions:
Utilitarian: Useful by intentional-purpose activity. Frequency of use is not a factor, even when used frequently. A thing may be used frequently, or not, without meeting the intentional-purpose qualification. For example, using a flathead screwdriver as a wedge to pry one object from another, such as a lid from a bottle, may be useful, but that is not the intended use of a flathead screwdriver. Therefore, in the context of the debate, “if” is a word that introduces a non-utilitarian value that cannot attain value until the condition of the “not true” changes to “true.” It is the conditional statement of an if/then proposal that must change; not the definition of ‘if’ and/or ‘utilitarian.’
Theory: A scientific concept proposed which has not yet earned “fact” status while still called a theory, regardless of its pervasive use in scientific protocol as a fact. Example: the Theory of Relativity.
Acknowledgement: Recognition of a condition that is currently either true or not true. The ‘if’ statement is the qualifier of a true/not-true condition, but is not the vehicle to change one condition to the other.
Argument:
In the debate I challenged on this subject, and lost, the loss was completely negotiated by my then opponent by obfuscation: to wit,challenging a word I did not define, “useless.” I thought it unnecessary, even though I subsequently advised my meaning of its use as being utilitarian in scope and not in frequency of use. However, since my opponent was first to apply a definition, that’s the definition that stuck, and I was unable to convince otherwise.
My opponent [Oromagi, my friend] further obfuscated the argument by multiple definitions of ‘if,’ which I had not seen necessary to define. I still don’t.
In the debate on this subject, Con argued eight separate definitions of ‘if;’ mostly in scientific use related to proposing a theory. In science, ‘theory’ holds a very respected position relative to fact v. fiction, or truth v. non-truth. The Theory of Relativity, for example, is still considered theoretical, and not a true fact, when compared to later theories, such as String Theory. The Theory of Relativity is a virtual fact by comparison.
Given this acceptable confusion in scientific circles, I submit that playing a shell game with ‘theory,’ essentially violates my proposed if/then statement regarding the use of ‘if’ since, in practical terms, ‘theory’ cannot logically reside on both sides of a true/false condition, even if science will bend the logic. I declare it out of bounds for definitional consideration, as I’ve proposed in definitions. bHowever, since this is not a debate frmate, and no pints are at risk, it's open season! Have at it.
Further, I argue that when something is currently not true [accepting that this condition could change, but is still bound by the current condition] there is no ‘if’ statement that can successfully alter the condition of ‘not true’ by itself; that is, without external manipulation.
I will offer an example; one that I mentioned in the debate on this subject: Star Trek’s Kobayashi Maru; the Star Fleet Academy’s no-win tactical challenge.[1] If you recall, cadet James T. Kirk successfully passed the challenge, but he changed the conditions of the challenge in order to pass a no-win scenario. Rewarded for his creativity, instead of being chastised for changing the rules, Kirk won the admiration of Star Fleet. Or, so goes the story.
The deal is, Kirk applied external manipulation to change the ‘not true’ condition of the challenge, which was designed to be an unchangeable ‘not true’ condition. The purpose of the challenge was to conceive the most original, creative response to a no-win scenario. Star Fleet Academy’s issue was that they did not conceive that a cadet would manipulate the test parameters to defeat a no-win scenario. To do so in a logical question is to violate the purpose of the question, thus the change to a matter of utility, as defined, and not mere use, which has unintended baggage.
Moreover, I contend that acknowledgement, by definition above, has no ability to change the conditional statement any more than the ‘if’ statement is able to accomplish it. For example, to say, “If I could fly, I would be in Paris tomorrow.” The ‘if’ statement automatically recognizes an incapacity; ‘I’ cannot fly; I am not equipped to do so due to the limitations my body possesses. I can resolve the problem with external manipulation of the ‘if’ statement, but that upsets the paradigm. And, as I am not currently in Paris, it does not matter that my conditional statement is one of a positive attitude; it is still not true. I can ‘if’ until cows return to the barn, but I cannot, of my own facility, change my ‘if’ current condition; I cannot fly. Who knows; with evolution and adaptation on my side, and my longevity increases exponentially, one day, I may have wings, but that is not the current condition. Therefore, the entire phrase is a logical falsehood. Currently.
I suggest a read of understanding philosopher Hans Vaihinger [1852 – 1933], whose philosophy of Die Philosophie des Als Ob, [The Philosophy of As-Ifs] supports my contention that 'if' acknowledges only that which is currently not true. Vaihinger argued , “…all knowledge [episteme] is empirical in the sense that our guiding cognitive aim is the prediction and control of empirical phenomena, not correspondence to objective reality.”[2] This is the reason for defining ‘theory’ as I have, and why, therefore, bending its application as science is wont to do to somehow include “fact” as one of its functions.
Finally, as Vaihinger expressed, our desire is to predict and control empiricism, and resulting episteme, but it can do so only within the bounds of what is epistemic; what is known as curently true.
So, the challenge is offered: “’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.” Or, one might say, using Vaihigner’s Philosophy of As-If, ‘If’ is not utilitarian because it acknowledges what is currently not true, and does not correspond to objective reality. April Fools!
The full language of the forum topic is: “’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
Definitions:
Utilitarian: Useful by intentional-purpose activity. Frequency of use is not a factor, even when used frequently. A thing may be used frequently, or not, without meeting the intentional-purpose qualification. For example, using a flathead screwdriver as a wedge to pry one object from another, such as a lid from a bottle, may be useful, but that is not the intended use of a flathead screwdriver. Therefore, in the context of the debate, “if” is a word that introduces a non-utilitarian value that cannot attain value until the condition of the “not true” changes to “true.” It is the conditional statement of an if/then proposal that must change; not the definition of ‘if’ and/or ‘utilitarian.’
Theory: A scientific concept proposed which has not yet earned “fact” status while still called a theory, regardless of its pervasive use in scientific protocol as a fact. Example: the Theory of Relativity.
Acknowledgement: Recognition of a condition that is currently either true or not true. The ‘if’ statement is the qualifier of a true/not-true condition, but is not the vehicle to change one condition to the other.
Argument:
In the debate I challenged on this subject, and lost, the loss was completely negotiated by my then opponent by obfuscation: to wit,challenging a word I did not define, “useless.” I thought it unnecessary, even though I subsequently advised my meaning of its use as being utilitarian in scope and not in frequency of use. However, since my opponent was first to apply a definition, that’s the definition that stuck, and I was unable to convince otherwise.
My opponent [Oromagi, my friend] further obfuscated the argument by multiple definitions of ‘if,’ which I had not seen necessary to define. I still don’t.
In the debate on this subject, Con argued eight separate definitions of ‘if;’ mostly in scientific use related to proposing a theory. In science, ‘theory’ holds a very respected position relative to fact v. fiction, or truth v. non-truth. The Theory of Relativity, for example, is still considered theoretical, and not a true fact, when compared to later theories, such as String Theory. The Theory of Relativity is a virtual fact by comparison.
Given this acceptable confusion in scientific circles, I submit that playing a shell game with ‘theory,’ essentially violates my proposed if/then statement regarding the use of ‘if’ since, in practical terms, ‘theory’ cannot logically reside on both sides of a true/false condition, even if science will bend the logic. I declare it out of bounds for definitional consideration, as I’ve proposed in definitions. bHowever, since this is not a debate frmate, and no pints are at risk, it's open season! Have at it.
Further, I argue that when something is currently not true [accepting that this condition could change, but is still bound by the current condition] there is no ‘if’ statement that can successfully alter the condition of ‘not true’ by itself; that is, without external manipulation.
I will offer an example; one that I mentioned in the debate on this subject: Star Trek’s Kobayashi Maru; the Star Fleet Academy’s no-win tactical challenge.[1] If you recall, cadet James T. Kirk successfully passed the challenge, but he changed the conditions of the challenge in order to pass a no-win scenario. Rewarded for his creativity, instead of being chastised for changing the rules, Kirk won the admiration of Star Fleet. Or, so goes the story.
The deal is, Kirk applied external manipulation to change the ‘not true’ condition of the challenge, which was designed to be an unchangeable ‘not true’ condition. The purpose of the challenge was to conceive the most original, creative response to a no-win scenario. Star Fleet Academy’s issue was that they did not conceive that a cadet would manipulate the test parameters to defeat a no-win scenario. To do so in a logical question is to violate the purpose of the question, thus the change to a matter of utility, as defined, and not mere use, which has unintended baggage.
Moreover, I contend that acknowledgement, by definition above, has no ability to change the conditional statement any more than the ‘if’ statement is able to accomplish it. For example, to say, “If I could fly, I would be in Paris tomorrow.” The ‘if’ statement automatically recognizes an incapacity; ‘I’ cannot fly; I am not equipped to do so due to the limitations my body possesses. I can resolve the problem with external manipulation of the ‘if’ statement, but that upsets the paradigm. And, as I am not currently in Paris, it does not matter that my conditional statement is one of a positive attitude; it is still not true. I can ‘if’ until cows return to the barn, but I cannot, of my own facility, change my ‘if’ current condition; I cannot fly. Who knows; with evolution and adaptation on my side, and my longevity increases exponentially, one day, I may have wings, but that is not the current condition. Therefore, the entire phrase is a logical falsehood. Currently.
I suggest a read of understanding philosopher Hans Vaihinger [1852 – 1933], whose philosophy of Die Philosophie des Als Ob, [The Philosophy of As-Ifs] supports my contention that 'if' acknowledges only that which is currently not true. Vaihinger argued , “…all knowledge [episteme] is empirical in the sense that our guiding cognitive aim is the prediction and control of empirical phenomena, not correspondence to objective reality.”[2] This is the reason for defining ‘theory’ as I have, and why, therefore, bending its application as science is wont to do to somehow include “fact” as one of its functions.
Finally, as Vaihinger expressed, our desire is to predict and control empiricism, and resulting episteme, but it can do so only within the bounds of what is epistemic; what is known as curently true.
So, the challenge is offered: “’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.” Or, one might say, using Vaihigner’s Philosophy of As-If, ‘If’ is not utilitarian because it acknowledges what is currently not true, and does not correspond to objective reality. April Fools!
