-->
@Double_R
an unknown and or unknowable "fact" cannot be verified
and therefore cannot be considered a "true fact"
Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory
Posts
Total:
1,052
-->
@Double_R
Can you point to one thing I’ve said that would lead you to believe you needed to explain this to me?
In post #834 when you said
Truth is an assessment
and you can’t assess without the operative word “cognizance”.
But if referencing other sources leads to our agreement then what do you have to say about this https://iep.utm.edu/cognitive-relativism-truth/#SH5a
Now I don’t expect you to read this whole article (although I think it may do you some good) just the paragraph where the link directly takes you.
Caring about well being is purely emotional
If that’s true then it’s also credence to my appeal of emotion fallacy argument, thank you very much.
-->
@Tarik
Can you point to one thing I’ve said that would lead you to believe you needed to explain this to me?In post #834 when you saidTruth is an assessmentand you can’t assess without the operative word “cognizance”.
My god dude, you really need to learn how to read and understand context.
“Truth is an assessment” refers to the mental process we undertake in order to determine what we believe to be true.
I have for multiple posts now been explaining to you that the concept of an objective fact and the assertion of X as an objective fact are two totally different conversations. You still can’t separate them. You still can’t tell the difference between one and the other and you still accuse me of saying one while I’m talking about the other.
“Truth is an assessment” falls into the conversation of: the assertion of X as an objective fact.
“A fact does not require you to be cognizant of it to be true” falls into the conversation of: the concept of an objective fact.
What’s even worse is that the entire first half of this thread was me repeating to you over and over again and you refusing to accept my definition of objectivity as being independent of the mind. Yet here you are quoting someone else to show me that an objective fact is independent of the mind. Well, I’m glad to see you finally agree with me. I guess next time I’ll just quote K_Michael from the start and you’ll listen.
Caring about well being is purely emotionalIf that’s true then it’s also credence to my appeal of emotion fallacy argument
No, it’s not.
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy, which means, it’s an error in logic. The statement above is simply stating a fact. Simply stating a fact does not involve logic, so it cannot be a logical fallacy.
This is really simple stuff. What is so difficult about this?
-->
@Double_R
You still can’t separate them.
I wouldn’t have to separate anything if you didn’t add the assessment variable into the equation to begin with.
The statement above is simply stating a fact.
True, but when you argue in favor of it then what is it?
-->
@Tarik
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
Could each of you state your position on whether objective facts exist, along with a one sentence definition of objective in that context? I'm having trouble keeping track of what you're arguing over.
-->
@K_Michael
Could each of you state your position on whether objective facts exist, along with a one sentence definition of objective in that context? I'm having trouble keeping track of what you're arguing over.
(IFF) "objective facts" are "independent of a mind" (THEN) "objective facts" cannot be known to a mind
-->
@K_Michael
(3) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
-->
@K_Michael
I'm having trouble keeping track of what you're arguing over.
We’re mainly arguing over morality and whether or not it’s objective or subjective.
-->
@Tarik
I wouldn’t have to separate anything if you didn’t add the assessment variable into the equation to begin with.
I didn’t add it, I started talking about it because you took the conversation there after misunderstanding the last thing I said.
True, but when you argue in favor of it then what is it?
I never argued in favor of it, I argued from it.
Again, well being in my morality is foundational, as in, it’s the starting point. If you don’t agree with the starting point then you have different values than I do. Logic has nothing to do with that. Logic begins from the point at which the premises are asserted. Once I invoke well being as my foundation, only then can we apply logic to any situation to determine if it falls in line.
So when you say I’m making some appeal to emotion that’s just wrong. You can’t error in logic where no logic is being invoked.
-->
@Double_R
you took the conversation there
You took it there first, not me.
Logic has nothing to do with that.
Exactly which is why it’s called appeal of emotion fallacy and not appeal of logic fallacy.
-->
@Tarik
The fallacy in “appeal to emotion facially” is logic.
“Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones(meaning the same in Latin) is an informal fallacycharacterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.”
-->
@K_Michael
Could each of you state your position on whether objective facts exist, along with a one sentence definition of objective in that context? I'm having trouble keeping track of what you're arguing over.
In a colloquial sense, of course objective facts exist.
Philosophically however, the word “exists” in your question is problematic. What exists is reality. An objective fact is merely a statement of reality that is accurate regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
What I have been trying to explain to Tarik is the difference between the concept I just described vs the problem that all minds are subject to; there is no way to be absolutely certain whether a statement regarding reality is accurate. So when one calls something an objective fact, they are merely stating their personal belief. That belief can be analyzed as nothing more than that, so in the course of having a rational dialog between two individuals who do not agree on reality we have to think in terms of how we got to our beliefs rather than just asserting them.
there is no way to be absolutely certain whether a statement regarding reality is accurate. So when one calls something an objective fact, they are merely stating their personal belief. That belief can be analyzed as nothing more than that, so in the course of having a rational dialog between two individuals who do not agree on reality we have to think in terms of how we got to our beliefs rather than just asserting them.
I agree.
Something I have been meaning to introduce to the site is the Double Crux method. Essentially, any time you disagree on a belief, you and the person you disagree with should find the crucial belief that informs your disagreement, one that would change your mind on the initial point of contention.
Perhaps we disagree on whether swimming in a lake is safe. A crux for each of us is the presence of crocodiles in water: I believe there aren't, you believe there are. Either of us would change our mind about the safety if we were persuaded about this crux.
-->
@Double_R
The fallacy in “appeal to emotion facially” is logic.
So where’s the “logic” in your free will example?
-->
@Tarik
What free will example?
-->
@Double_R
What free will example?
"if we don't have free will then we're just a collection of atoms doing what they're programmed". The idea that we're just following our programming is grim, so this argument seeks to convince someone as to what the truth of our nature is (an objective truth) based on what they would like it to be ("I don't want to be pre programmed, so I'll believe our nature is whatever means we're not programmed").
-->
@Tarik
Take note of the “if” and “then”.
If we’re just a collection of atoms then we’re just doing what we’re programmed.
The conclusion “we’re just doing what we’re programmed” is a grim thought, so the point of this argument is to get people to reject the conclusion not because there is any error in logic within it, but because of the emotional impact on one’s psyche to accept that reality.
Thus the fallacy here is “I don’t want the conclusion to be true, therefore it isn’t”.
-->
@Double_R
not because there is any error in logic within it
Error meaning no logic, no error meaning logic, so again I ask you where is the logic?
-->
@Tarik
I just told you.
The error in logic is “I don’t want the conclusion to be true, therefore it isn’t”.
It’s basically an argumentum ad absurdum, except instead of reducing to absurdity, it reduces to undesirability, which is not a rational basis to reject it, hence why it’s a fallacy.
-->
@Double_R
"if we don't have free will then we're just a collection of atoms doing what they're programmed".
If nihilism is true then life is meaningless and morality as you see it is an illusion, why is the opposing response for the former fallacious but not the latter?
The Litany of Gendlin:
What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.
And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it.
-->
@Tarik
If nihilism is true then life is meaningless and morality as you see it is an illusion
Nihilism isn’t a truth claim so this makes absolutely no sense.
why is the opposing response for the former fallacious but not the latter?
The former and latter of what?
-->
@Double_R
Nihilism isn’t a truth claim so this makes absolutely no sense.
And you’re saying this based off what? Your emotional appeal of life and other people?
-->
@Double_R
@Tarik
All responses are electro chemical assessments and output of data.
As was rightly stated, just a function of the human mass.
A remarkable organic data processing system for sure, but that's just what it is.
As far as we know.
As far as we know, morality and nihilism etc are just electro chemically derived concepts.
As is a concept.
Such systems and their machinations might or might not ultimately be purposeful.
But there's no way of knowing, as the relative data is currently unavailable.
Though every mass that functions has its own functioning purpose, so absolute nihilism is therefore impossible even if that purpose is self-destruction.
-->
@Tarik
Nihilism isn’t a truth claim so this makes absolutely no sense.And you’re saying this based off what?
The definition of nihilism genius.
-->
@Double_R
The definition of nihilism genius.
Which says exactly what I said, that life is meaningless and morality as you see it is an illusion.
-->
@Tarik
That’s not an assertion of fact, it’s an assertion of one’s values (or lack thereof).
Why is this so complicated for you?
-->
@Double_R
That’s not an assertion of fact, it’s an assertion of one’s values (or lack thereof).
The two aren’t mutually exclusive, you can assert that life having no meaning and morality being an illusion is a fact.
Why is this so complicated for you?
-->
@Tarik
And I can claim “ice cream is delicious” is a fact. That doesn’t make it so.
I’m getting pretty tired of trying to teach you third grade concepts. I suggest you spend some time reading to try and figure this stuff out.
-->
@Double_R
And I can claim “ice cream is delicious” is a fact. That doesn’t make it so.
Okay? But nihilism isn’t an emotional appeal fallacy (like your ice cream comparison) it’s the complete opposite of emotional, making your comparison a false equivalence fallacy, nice try though.
I suggest you spend some time reading to try and figure this stuff out.
Perhaps you should do some reading on fallacies, because you’re spewing them out left and right 😛