The Science Delusion, a talk banned by TED

[Mr.Samsa]

Because your whole point is that it could be describing reality, which is why you disagreed with my claim that it is shit at describing reality.

That doesn't explain why you keep asking how "we" can say it's doing a good job of describing reality. As I've said at least three times now, NO ONE is saying that it does a good job of describing reality. So why the fuck are you saying that "we" are saying that??

As I quoted from your own posts, you were arguing that it could be describing reality, that's what I was responding to.

Let's just recap for a second:

1) I offhandedly mention that science is shit at describing reality (as part of a comparison)

And I've pointed out to you that is a baseless assumption. It is as idiotic as saying that science is good at describing reality. You have absolutely no evidence to suggest whether science is good, bad, or average at describing reality. That's because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALITY IS.

It's not baseless for all the reasons I've described in detail that you've failed to address.

2) you disagree and say that it could be good at describing reality, we just don't know

I.e. I'm agnostic on it. Which is the correct position to take until something changes.

Not quite, you claimed that it "could" be good at describing reality, that's the claim I'm responding to.

3) I reply by saying that even if it does accidentally describe reality in some accurate way we have no reason to believe that it does, in the same way that Harry Potter could be describing reality. As such, it does a shit job of describing reality.

That's a non-sequitur and yet another logic fail. Just because we don't know whether it does or doesn't describe reality, it doesn't follow that it must be shit at describing reality. That's a serious logic fail there, Samsa. It may in truth describe reality perfectly. In which case your logical assessment is clearly broken. You can only know it does a shit (or otherwise) job of describing reality when you know what reality is. Are you ready for it?? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALITY IS!

Except I've provided very good reasons as to why we should think it's a bad method, to which you haven't responded.

4) You ask me why I believe that science describes reality.

5) I bang my face into the desk again.

Because you didn't quote what I allegedly asked, I don't know at this instant exactly what I asked. And I'm sick of trawling around the thread trying to find what was said where. Remember, this isn't like ratskep where you can click on "wrote" and it will take you to the quote. I have to fucking trawl through the thread to find the exact point and quote. Quote the full quote stream, ffs.

All the relevant information is contained with the quoted posts.

...I've answered you multiple times now and you haven't come up with a response. If you disagree with what I've explained then ask for a clarification or raise some concerns, don't just pretend it doesn't exist.

Don't lie, i've come up with plenty of responses.

Bullfuckingshit.

The problem isn't a lack of response, it's that you aren't following what I am saying. No need to lie.

No, I follow you perfectly and I've explained why your baseless assertions are wrong - or at least that they need supporting in some way.

The point is, as I've made clear a number of times now, your claim is that the logical coherence of semantic investigations into reality tells us about reality, but i've repeatedly explained that I don't accept that they are telling us about reality.

You haven't "made clear" or "explained" that at all, you asserted it. I asked you to support it or explain it in some way and you said that you aren't making a positive claim so you don't need to.

They are telling us about the logic of arguments.

And the logic of arguments when applied to metaphysics tells us what? Things about reality. I've explained why, if you disagree it's up to you to present your own arguments.

I've also explained that this is fallacious reasoning anyway, as logic is only as good as it's premises. I've said they are assumptions (which I argue that they must be, given WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT REALITY), and you have asserted in reply (without any explanation at all) that they are based on truths.

Again you're using "fallacious" incorrectly and you did not "argue" that, you asserted it. I've asked for an explanation as to why you believe that. I can't do anything until you explain why you have this belief.

Fine, if they are, then explain what those truths are and show me how they aren't assumptions about underlying reality.

Take some of the logical challenges to substance dualism as an example. They can demonstrate an inconsistency in a claim, and possible impossibility, using only true premises, like the challenge of how the material can interact with the immaterial.

Please don't keep lying by saying that things haven't been addressed.

Just a quick note: you've so far failed to find one instance of me lying or misrepresenting you. I wanted to make that clear to you.

And please stop suggesting that you don't answer quite frequently with bare assertions when you do. This case I've just highlighted of "true premises" is yet another one. You haven't explained at all why they are true or even what they are. You have merely asserted with a single sentence that they are.

If you are going to make bare assertions, fail to present anything resembling substance in this thread, ignore what I write and misrepresent me to hell, then why would I bother replying to all of your bare assertions with something substantial?

You claimed that the arguments in metaphysics aren't based on truths. You didn't support it in any way. So I responded in kind. If you're not happy about it then take the first step, provide some substance to your claims and I'll do the same for every claim. Currently I'm writing a novel for you trying to meet all of the demands you're making of me, explaining things in extreme detail over and over again, etc, so I think I deserve some leeway in choosing where I attribute my time.

The example I gave was that we can come up with solid reasons why we could never access reality.

Yeah, but that doesn't tell us about reality. That only tells us about investigation of reality (i.e that it will be impossible, in that case). As I've repeatedly explained to you, I'm interested in these claims about metaphysics telling us something about reality. I'm not interested in the slightest with the fact that any claim about reality is a metaphysical claim. As explained multiple times now to you, I don't dispute this. Yet you keep bringing it up like I do. Another reason why your argument in these two threads has been like a dog's breakfast.

As I've explained to you and to which you've failed to respond, knowing what reality cannot be IS something about reality.

YOU DID!

I said that science does a shit job of explaining reality because it doesn't attempt to do that. You replied saying that we don't know if it does a shit job or not and it might actually accidentally describe reality very well.

Ok, sorry, I fired that reply off too quick. What I meant is that no one would think that metaphysics or science suck for the reasons you stated. No one here (other than FBM) thinks that science describes reality. And no one thinks that metaphysics should explain the observable world.

Except that's exactly what Jim did and it's what I was responding to. He said: "If we had a clear alternative strategy; perhaps it could be called the "metaphysical intuition method", and we put it up in contrast to the predictive abilities that the current array of scientific models possess, how would it go?" - in other words, we could only question the assumptions of science if we had an alternative method to explain the observable world. For example, he says, if metaphysics could be shown to have the same predictive ability then that could allow us to question assumptions of science.

I explained that this makes no sense because they are radically different fields asking different questions about different things.

I of course disagree with your final segment - that being that science is shit at describing reality. As explained, you can't know this, so this is an illogical position to hold. You have to be agnostic on this point (because we simply can't know at this time).

As I demonstrated with the clock example, we don't need to know anything about reality to know it's a shit method for discovering it. You so far have failed to respond to this and have kept repeating "BUT WE CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT REALITY" as if it has any relevance.

The refutation is a reductio ad absurdum demonstration, followed by my explanation that if something gives us no reason to accept an explanation then it's by definition a bad explanation.

Another logic fail. You are assuming your conclusion. How do you know that Harry Potter doesn't describe reality? Of course, you can't know this. You only assume it based on your preconceived notions of what reality is. This is why your silly proclamation that science is shit as describing reality is silly. You have absolutely no way of knowing one way or the other.

I'm not assuming my conclusion, I'm demonstrating it. Again, go back to the posts written and read the argument I've laid out. If you think there is a problem with it then point it out, stop making bare assertions that have nothing to do with what I've said.

Because you disagreed with me when I claimed that science does a shit job of describing reality because that's not what it is supposed to do! I've then spent the last couple of pages explaining why it does a shit job based on the fact that that's not what it's supposed to do, and now you're telling me you never even disagreed and all of your posts in this thread have magically disappeared.

No, as I explained in the other thread, you are operating under the condition of a false dichotomy. You can reply to it there. Don't reply here, it's getting too confusing with the two threads sharing concurrent themes.

There is no false dichotomy. You said that empiricism could be a valid method and I responded to that. I've commented on this in the other thread but I wanted to comment here to make it clear that no misrepresentation has occurred in the form of "false dichotomies" and that you have no basis for that claim.

You think when I talk about metaphysics building logical frameworks that I'm only referring to valid arguments? You don't think any of the incredibly smart people in the field would have stopped to point that out?

I don't really know what you are saying there. It seems that you are relying on a fallacy of claiming that it's right because the experts claim it is right. (can't remember the fallacy name).

What you're trying to say is that you think it's an appeal to authority but it's not. Firstly, for something to be fallacious it needs to be an actual argument and there was no argument there. Secondly, an appeal to authority isn't always fallacious anyway, if you think it is a fallacious example of one then you need to demonstrate it and not just name it. Thirdly, if we were to interpret my comment as an "argument", the argument would be: "How likely is it that a group of very smart people who have made a topic their life's work have somehow failed to recognise that a simple fact of logic that any first year philosophy student learns could overthrow their entire discipline?". Sure, it's possible that their wrong and their field is bullshit - but it's probably not very likely, that's the point.

As I said, I accept that this is a serious field with many many years of serious research and time devoted. I just want you to explain it. When I rebut something, I'm not claiming that expert A or B or C is wrong. I'm implying that your explanation isn't convincing me of what you are trying to convince me of.

And I want you to explain yourself when you make claims. You've asserted, without reason or support, that the entire field of metaphysics functions with logical validity as its only tool (paraphrased from the discussion the quoted section above). That's an incredible claim to make. You put that to me, without explanation, and then demand that I take the time to prove you wrong?

No, I'm not your bitch here, it's a discussion. There has to be some give and take where you support your claims and I support mine. So far it's been all me and you denying that you need to support your claims.

More importantly, the point I'm going to keep banging on about because you keep dodging it, is that if you're saying that logical arguments can't tell us anything about reality then you are making a metaphysical claim.

You disingenuous twat. I've answered this multiple times. I am absolutely not "dodging" it. You might not agree with my reply, but that's not the same thing. No wonder you've got the rep you've got. Take a look at yourself, ffs.

So again!: I 100% agree with that. But it's got nothing to do with my enquiries of you to explain your claim that metaphysics tells us something about underlying reality. Please don't bring this point up again and claim I haven't addressed it.

You only agreed with it after that post. No wonder people view you as nothing more than a troll!

Which is a comment about reality. Are you telling me that demonstrating a claim about reality to logically impossible doesn't tell us anything about whether reality would look like that logically impossible claim?

Yeah, I am. As I've answered this in another post, lets deal with it there.

Just to be clear, you haven't answered it at all. You simply assert something about "BUT WE CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT REALITY!", without rhyme or reason.

And again, because it's rolled back around from frustrating to hilarious, I'll point out that you're making a metaphysical argument here.

Yeah, and again, I've never denied that. Twat. How about you stick to arguing contentious points, instead of constantly strawmanning?

No strawman. You can't accept a point after I've made it and then accuse me of strawmanning you for comments I made before you accepted it.

Jesus christ.

I've responded to every single post of yours. You link me and if I've somehow missed it then I'll reply.

You have now. But you hadn't then, when you made your claim that you had. Just fucking accept that sometimes you can be wrong. There's no shame in it, particularly in a case like this one where it's probably just a mix up due to there being two concurrent threads on the same topic.

What? Why would I accept that I'm "wrong" when you have presented no reason to think that I am? I always accept I'm wrong when I'm shown to be, that's why my posts on RatSkep are littered with comments of "my bad", "you're right", "I was wrong there", etc.

If you think I've skipped one of your posts, then fucking link it and I'll reply (and apologise for being wrong). If not, take your own advice and accept that you can be wrong sometimes.

I'm not doing a woeful job, the problem is that you have an idea in mind and you're using that to colour everything that's being said. You somehow interpreted what I said to mean that metaphysics is coming up with arguments that are only logically valid!

I don't know that I interpreted that. The main problem I see is as I described in post a little while ago in this thread. You think that the logical validity of investigations into reality tell us something about reality. I say that they only tell us something about the investigations themselves, not reality. Put it this way, if there was a branch of philosophy that assessed the logical validity of investigations into tax fraud, would that tell us anything about tax itself? I think absolutely not. It would only tell us about the logical failings of said investigations.

If those investigations said things like "Tax fraud can't be understood using mathematics" then yes, it absolutely would - it'd tell us that tax fraud was unrelated to mathematics.

Not just "said", remember, but demonstrated.

Well I beg to differ. Your examples of parsimony and pragmatism tell us nothing about reality. They are assumptions to help us focus our efforts. You have merely asserted that they tell us something about reality. But your logic has been decidedly lacking in that department.

...THOSE ARE EXAMPLES OF METAPHYSICAL EVIDENCE, NOT CLAIMS ABOUT REALITY!

Seriously, I feel like I'm losing my mind here - how many times have I told you that and you've repeated the same nonsense? At least 3 right? Are you ignoring it every time I correct you?

And no they are not assumptions, they are conclusions and evidence.

Are you serious?... You're whole problem is that an area of specialised inquiry has been given a name?

No, you disingenuous twat. As i've repeatedly stated, in BOTH that bit you quoted and the paragraph that followed, I have no problem with metaphysics when it is providing a logical framework on which to frame assessments about reality/observation/etc. The problem I have (as explained a bazillion times) is that you claim it has some access to reality. That's the alleged part of metaphysics that I have a problem with. So could you stop being a disingenuous twat now? Thanks.

No, your argument there was that it was "just logical reasoning applied to claims of reality" and compared it to logical claims about picnic tables, concluding with "we just use standard logic".

So you're being the disingenuous twat now.

It tells us what science can do in regards to reality, which is knowledge about reality (i.e. that it isn't accessible by science).

I must have missed that bit. Can you explain how it is that science definitively can't tell us about reality (other than the obvious fact that we have no idea what reality is, therefore we have nothing to compare science to)?

Nobody has claimed anything "definitive" but the point is that it tells us what kinds of conclusions we can draw from empirical evidence alone (i.e. not much if anything), it tells us that making certain assumptions in science (e.g. ignoring the supernatural) means that its ability to describe reality is limited, it tells us that the scientific practice of simultaneously accepting contradicting theories makes it difficult to treat science as a description of reality, etc etc.

I've explained in detail how they do it, in the very post that you are replying to. That's just dishonesty at it's most ridiculous...

If only you'd bother quoting the post I am replying to, then I could make an assessment of this claim...

If only you could read a few inches up the screen, oh god.

Of course it fucking does. It's a claim about reality that is being supported. That's something about reality.

Yeah, it's a claim about the word "reality". But it tells me nothing about the real "thing" of reality.

Holy shit. Okay, if I say reality cannot be accessed by X, are you telling me that that does not tell us that reality cannot be accessed by X? What, how do you even keep such nonsense straight in your head?

You either need to figure out what the fuck you're trying to say and word it properly, or stop this ridiculous word game where justified claims about reality suddenly don't have anything to say about reality. By definition it must be true that justified claims about reality tell us something about reality.

I'm losing track of where I've explained this to you and how many times I've done it, so I'm going to assume that when you wrote this post you hadn't seen it.

You haven't explained anything. Seriously, every reply of yours has been bare assertion. You even championed your right to not explain anything by claiming you weren't making positive claims. So no need to worry about losing track of something that doesn't exist.

I don't give a fuck about the circular logic that metaphysics deals with reality just because 'reality' the word forms part of it's definition. That's idiotic. I can define something anyway I like. Doesn't mean it is logically coherent. I am interested in what metaphysics can allegedly tell us about reality the "thing", not the word.

Nothing circular there, as I demonstrated and you didn't respond to. You can define anything in whatever way you like but that's meaningless unless a significant portion of the population agree with you. Fortunately for me, I'm using official definitions so I'm good.

And nobody is talking about the "word", the point is the concept behind the word. You can call it flamboozles if that makes you feel better.

Why do you think it provides no probability assessments? You judge the positions on the weight of the evidence. Not all positions are shown to be logically incoherent, they can simply be problematic or fail to fully account for the same kinds of data that other theories explain better, and so they are weighted accordingly.

WHOAH, you are going to have to flesh this one out. To determine probability you need to know the full set of what the probability is being applied to. Since we KNOW NOTHING ABOUT REALITY, how on earth can we assign probabilities to statements about it?? One reasoned argument being more logical than another tells us absolutely nothing about he probabilities of whether it reflects reality or not. And even if it could under whatever bizarre mathematics you studied to learn probability, you'd still face the problem that the premises of that logic are assumptions. Yes, I know you claim they are truths, so there's no need to reply to that particular aspect here. We can deal with it where ever it was we were discussing that point.

Luckily for us we have the field of metaphysics which tells us stuff about reality, so if you're going to keep claiming that we know nothing about reality, you're gonna have to support that. From now, to save space, I'm just going to ignore and delete any paragraph where you main assertion is that we know nothing about reality.

As for fleshing out my position, I did in the post you just replied to. You haven't responded to what I've written so I don't know what you're problem with it is or if there is a problem at all. Until you point out a problem I can't respond. To tide you over though, keep in mind that we don't need to make absolute judgements of probability and instead we can make relative judgements. Remember the logical impossibility vs logical possibility example? One is more probable than the other, don't need to know anything about reality to say that (and of course, make that judging in fact tells us something about reality, so it's a win-win!).

Of course it does! I've just demonstrated how. Come on now, don't just use this meaningless throwaway line over and over. If you disagree, then argue it properly.

I have. That's an assumption that is used for pragmatic reasons. There is absolutely no reason why multiplying unknowns is necessarily and universally a false description of reality. It is simply used to make investigation into things more ordered and simple. I.e. it's a system tool, not an explanation of anything in reality (necessarily).

Parsimony isn't only used for pragmatic reasons there are also arguments that it's more likely to be true.

Yes, yes, I get it. It still doesn't change the fact that they are philosophical tools, not methods for investigating reality (as explained above and about a thousand times before).

Yes, you've made that bare assertion multiple times and every time I explained that when applied to claims about reality then they are, by definition, methods for investigating reality. You have not responded to that yet.

I have. If you disagree, it's now your turn to argue your point. No more throwaway lines, come up with a coherent rebuttal.

I've written paragraphs on this in multiple posts. That's not "throwaway lines". Stop debating like a juvenile.

Fuck off, you have not. You just kept repeating over and over again "They are tools used by science and science tells us nothing about reality, therefore they can't", which has now morphed into "They are tools used by philosophy but they aren't methods for investigating reality".

No reasoning, no support, no argument. Bare assertion.

The time stamps say that you replied 3 minutes after you claimed here that you had replied.

Spooky, must be ghosts fucking up timestamps on the internet.

Because you refuse to use the quote system in a helpful way, I'm not going to go fishing around over an inconsequential point. However, I do remember enough to know that when I wrote that reply preceding the quote here, I found it in the other thread as I was writing it. That is, I WROTE IT BEFORE your reply here. But I'm not going to go hunting to confirm any of this, because I'm sick of doing that as a substitute for you quoting properly.

That's awfully convenient but there's no need to "go fishing", I did that for you. I linked you to the relevant comments. 3 minute difference, in the direction opposite to what you claimed.

But hey, who am I to tell anyone that they should just accept being wrong?

You're missing the point and there is no "gotcha" crap. You claimed that "without empiricism no way of forming an opinion of which is more likely than the other". Presenting two concepts, one that is a logical impossibility and the other a logical possibility, with no empirical content, you are forced to say that each are equally likely based on your commitment to empiricism.

However, of course it's fucking ridiculous to think that they are both equally likely - one is impossible! And that's why your claim is wrong.

I've answered this in a number of posts already. We can deal with it there. Without going into specifics (because i've done it elsewhere twice at least), you are making an assumption there, and it is making an ass out of you (but not me. ).

You haven't answered it at all and I've made no assumption. What assumption is there in: "Imagine two possibilities, one is logically possible and the other is logically impossible". Tell me. You point out an assumption there and I will carve "I was wrong" into my dick with a compass and post a picture online.

What you are trying to say is that you thought I was arguing that substance dualism was logically impossible and you refused to answer the question until I demonstrated that it was logically impossible, despite me never claiming that. There's no assumption because I haven't assumed what you assumed.

I know what thread I'm responding in, I've replied to all of your comments that I know of. Link to one I've missed.

Fuck it. Why not. I'm doing this just to show you that you are wrong, and you have a serious problem with admitting you are wrong. You've since responded to it, so it's not important any more that you didn't originally respond to it, but I'm going to do this just to show you how belligerent you are.

I've given up flicking through 4000 word posts to try and find it. If you'd just simply included the full quote stream I could instantly find it and show you how you fucked up. But instead I've got to spend all fucking night wading through your crap to try and find it. Jesus Christ, INCLUDE THE FULL QUOTE STREAM IN YOUR REPLIES. You're as bad as Seth in being intransigent.

...In other words, you made shit up and when the evidence didn't support you, you accuse me of having a problem admitting I'm wrong and being belligerent?

Wow. Seriously, work on that self-awareness thing.

It does more than that, as I've demonstrated and hopefully you'll reply in depth to some of them at some point, but even if the only thing it did was to discard illogical claims about reality - that's telling us something about reality! How the fuck can it not?

I've addressed this somewhere else. We can deal with it there.

You didn't address it at all, you made the bare assertion that logic can't tell us anything about reality. Awaiting an explanation for that.

Fuck off - you ask how metaphysics can help us decide between positions and I raise the question of how you weight the possibility of substance dualism. You ignore it over and over again until you realise that you've claimed that you answered it and then you scrambled to respond so it looked like you had.

Huh? I've addressed your point about substance dualism at least three times now, probably four.

Are you serious? You did once after I badgered you multiple times and you dodged it multiple times.

There's nothing dishonest about it, it was multiple posts. The discussion would still be going on (as it was about whether mathematics was a metaphysical field) but the only reason it ended was because you said you were tired of it!

Physician, heal thyself. One post my fucking ass.

You really are a twat. This is totally inconsequential to the debate. I was mistaken about something and you corrected me on it. I accept that correction. What the fuck does this have to do with anything? So what if it took one or two or three posts?? Are we still talking about it, other than your trolling by bringing it up??

What?! You made a snarky comment about me being unable to explain things clearly and I replied that it's probably more likely that you were failing to understand them and evidenced the fact that you were confused over what metaphysics even was for a long time in this discussion. I had to evidence it with something because I tend to avoid making bare assertions where possible.

You then claim that I'm lying and misrepresenting you and that it only happened in one post, and when I present the evidence to show that you're wrong you start telling me that I'm trolling you?! I'm glad that you accept the fact of that matter now but I wasn't giving you shit for not understanding, I only brought it up to highlight the fact that you have consistently demonstrating misunderstandings of basic and fundamental concepts in this discussion. Whether you accept it now or not is besides the point as it serves only to highlight the fact that it doesn't seem to be a one-off.

You can keep ignoring refutations of your position but I seriously urge you to actually read what's written and consider that you might be wrong. Sticking your head in the sand and blaming others for not being able to understand it for you is not helping anybody.

No one can understand what you are saying, Samsa. That's why no one is agreeing with you on the contentious points in the thread. Sure, we could all be dummies, but it's clear that we aren't. You simply aren't explaining things properly, because 1, you jump at anti-philosophy shadows, and 2. because your logic in this discussion has been woeful (as I've shown many times now).

What are you talking about? There's only you and me in this discussion. Jim jumps in occasionally to say that single sentences should contain all the possible context necessary, and Hermit asks for clarifications on specific issues.

I haven't attacked you or anyone for supposed "anti-philosophy shadows", you only brought up that claim when I was challenging the idea that empiricism could be a valid method of investigating reality and you claimed that nobody had said that. So I quoted you saying exactly that.

And the idea that you've shown my logic to be woeful is hilarious. To do that you'd have to actually provide an argument in this thread!

The probability comes from the strength of the evidence, its explanatory power, its coherence, and a whole host of other things.

Word salad. As I've asked you to explain this earlier in this post, we can leave it there.

Sure, you can ignore facts that contradict your position but it seems unhelpful.

Logical evidence, as we've discussed in great detail already (probably in those posts of mine that you thought were irrelevant and ignored).

Logical evidence isn't lying around waiting to be stumbled across. You have to create it. And it is all created on premises based on assumptions (or possibly alternatively on empirical observations). Hence it can't tell us anything about reality outside the conditions imposed by the premised assumptions.

Okay, you explain why you think they are assumptions. Don't give me assertions, explain and support your claim.

Logic of claims about reality tell us about reality. If substance dualism is logically impossible then we know that reality cannot look like that. How is this not getting through to you?

Because you haven't explained why substance dualism is illogical. You are assuming that I know this (or additionally you are assuming it is illogical). Until you explain it to me, I have no way of assessing whether it is illogical or not. How is this not getting through to you?

Are you fucking serious? I don't think that substance dualism is illogical, I'm not assuming it is or that you should know this. I am saying IF it is, as in for the sake of the argument let's say that it is, THEN this conclusion will follow.

Look, since this is all so very complicated for you, I'll make it easier: "If X [where X is a claim about reality] is logically impossible then we know that reality cannot look like X" - does that make it easier? Are you going to criticise me for "assuming" that X is impossible and assuming that you should know it's impossible despite me stating quite clearly that for the sake of argument it is?

Unfuckingreal.

It's not an empty assertion, it's something which is true by definition. There is no working needed to be done there, it is necessarily true.

Do you see how worthless your responses are now?

No I don't, because you haven't shown why it is necessarily true. THAT'S why it is an empty assertion (at present). And that's why my response isn't worthless.

Rereading it again, it seems you are playing semantic games again. As I've said repeatedly, I don't care about a self-referential proof of definition. I care about how it is metaphysics supposedly tells us something about underlying reality (i.e the "thing"). As far as I can tell you haven't addressed my point about it being limited by it's premises and assumptions (which you've stated elsewhere you claim are truths).

It's only "semantic" in that by definition it has to be true. You haven't shown how or why this is wrong.

You are arguing against things that are simply true by definition. Your only response is to say that you don't like the label that has been chosen to describe those terms.

No, I've been clear. I'm not impressed by semantic games. I want to know how metaphysics tells us something about reality. Not that it does that because that is the way it is defined. That would be an idiotic thing to be hung up on.

That's awesome, nobody is playing semantic games. Respond to the points made or concede the position, don't make shit up when it gets too hard for you.

Assumptions and axioms absolutely do need to be justified and they need to be interpreted carefully in order to be aware of the limitations they bring. And I'd never rubbish anyone who says that the scientific method needs to be justified, it absolutely does need to be and that's my entire position in this thread as I've defended the part of Sheldrake's position which says that the scientific method needs to be justified.

In my view they don't need to be justified at all. If you think they do, why is that? Assumptions can be anything at all, and can be totally fantastical. There's no need to justify the truth or consistency of them, unless you are focussed on proving some truth. But since science doesn't do that, there is no need to justify the assumptions and axioms. Science, in a sense, is self-justifying. It justifies it's worth by working.

They need to be justified otherwise we would have no reason to think we're getting accurate results. If I create a mathematical system where a fundamental axiom is the idea that numbers correspond to the genetic structure of Japanese salmon then I need to justify this in some way - why am I making that claim? What purpose does it serve? etc etc.

And on your statement that the scientific method needs justifying... explain that. Why does it need justifying and how is it justified?

They need to be justified otherwise we would have no reason to accept the validity or reliability of scientific results. There are multiple arguments over how they are justified and it depends on which ones you are talking about. One example is methodological naturalism which is justified in purely pragmatic terms, in that ignoring the supernatural and focusing only on the observable and measurable means that we have a functional method for gathering knowledge which produces useful results and doesn't get bogged down with questions regarding things which may or may not even be real.

But he would be, he would be controlling those laws. XC's position would be absurd if that were the case.

I disagree. And XC confirmed that this (my description of his position) is what he was talking about.

You can't "disagree", its my hypothetical where I dictate what happens...

So you think logical impossibilities could be real?

Yep. I've explained this elsewhere.

Holy fuck, okay you haven't explained that before but I think all rational discussion becomes impossible now. You'd really entertain the idea of logical impossibilities just to avoid admitting you are wrong?

What, where? Pragmatism is a logical point, not an empirical one. As I stated back at the beginning of this or the other thread, empirical evidence needs to be accounted for by metaphysical positions. It can even become relevant when the metaphysical work has already been done (i.e. it can inform our positions).

Talk about fucking dishonesty.

There's no dishonesty (well, none from me). You based your justification of pragmatism (and probably parsimony too) on empirical observation. When you were talking about "the bus", was that not an empirically observed bus?

It's not based on empiricism at all, they are logical constructs. The empirical information only becomes relevant after all the work has already been done. Seriously, we've covered this topic in great detail when I explained to you why it was wrong to think that metaphysics meant "non-empirical".

The only reason I haven't been able to fill out huge details is because in this thread I've been bogged down trying to get very simple issues across. Like the fact that a logical impossibility must have an impact on what reality looks like.

Well you need to spend time on the rebuttals to this. I've done it a number of times.

You've presented no rebuttals though so how does that make sense?

[pErvinalia]

Hello! You claimed:

As I asked you before and I don't think you answered, do you really think that the idea of a disembodied soul controlling our bodies is just as likely as the processes of our brain controlling our behavior? Remember that you can't answer that either way without doing metaphysics, so you either have to conclude that you can't decide between the two or conclude that metaphysics tells us something.

I've already answered this. I couldn't be bothered re-writing my reply. I'll go and find it and edit in a link here.

Fuck, I can't find it. It must be in the other thread. You'll probably have replied to it there.

You couldn't find it because you didn't reply, you've only just replied in the other thread.

Time stamp (using my local time) - 1/7 11.43am

Here - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1568980 - I answered it, about 12 hours before at 30/6 11.46pm

What's that about you not lying/misrepresenting??

[pErvinalia]

Do you want me to keep going? I've actually forgotten what the other misrepresentations were. If you'd like to remind me of them, I'll gladly go and find them. I'm in the groove now.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Fuck! There are a lot of words in this thread!

Mr Samsa, your hypothesis (if you can remember 5 or so pages back) is frankly bollocks. You claim that a god has had a "massive effect" on the world, yet that its effects are indistinguishable from how the world would be otherwise.

You are simply trying to have your cake and eat it! I call SHENANIGANS!!!!!1!!11!

[Mr.Samsa]

The point is that noumena and phenomena can be the same thing - when you look at a tree it can actually be a tree. You can't use empirical evidence to reach that conclusion (i.e. the gap), but the conclusion can be that what you observe is real (i.e. the conclusions can be empirical)

What gives you the idea that without a noumenon of a tree we cannot come up with the concept of "tree"?

I haven't said or implied that.

Why can we not form abstractions from real life - from empirical evidence? Do you think it is impossible to conceptualise something after repeatedly experiencing similar things? I think we learn these things by sheer, brute repeated experience. We learn from it, and we generalise because we notice the repetition and give the repeated experience a name. How many times would a caveman venture out for food, and return wet without inventing the name "rain" for what had happened. It's a convenient and useful abbreviation for communication when, upon his return, he is asked why he is shivering and glistening. Good thing, the other members of his tribe have the same ability to conceptualise too.

Of course we can come up with abstractions and concepts without discussing noumena. Why would you think otherwise?

Without this ability none of us would be discussing metaphysics right now. I venture to say that none of us would have been born. We need no fucking noumena. Metaphysics is an unfortunate cul-de-sac.

We don't need any art history, or literary analysis, or television entertainment either. Not really good arguments against it.

I see why we don't understand each other now. You're a Platonist of sorts.

I'm not a Platonist.

I don't see how there is a contradiction there, unless you're saying that the gap between noumena and phenomena means that what we observe can never be real

I'm definitely not saying that. On the contrary. I regard the ontological existence of a noumenon we might call tree nothing but a confabulation by people with too much time on their hands. As for the "realness" of things, it's completely irrelevant to me. For all I know, I'm just a brain in a vat. Or not. I just don't care. What I do care about, what does make a difference to me is what I perceive.

Well, many things are a result of people having too much time on their hands. It's not all "relevant" or have a greater significance, but still cool to know.

Of course it's up for debate. I've explained in detail why you're wrong. Either you explain why I'm wrong, or you present an argument as to why you're right. It's useless to just keep blindly asserting that you don't agree.

There's fundamentally a difference between an investigation of something and the thing itself. I thought this was self-evident. That's why I don't think it is a contentious statement.

Because I've explained exactly how it's wrong, that makes it contentious. You can't claim something is self-evident after it's been refuted, that makes no sense.

As I've explained (well, I've explained the corollary), it would if the premises that that logic was based on were truths.

And they are.

Yes, yes, I know you can make bare assertions. Do you think you might expand on your three words there?

Notice how I left the extra quote in here? It's to show that my comment was a direct response to yours. You get what you give.

That would be because we're not talking about assumptions, as I've corrected you on multiple times to which you haven't responded.

Stop lying. Of course I've responded. I've asked you a number of times now to explain why they aren't assumptions and why they are truths.

And I explained. Stop lying. Either respond to them or stop making shit up.

We're talking about the same thing.

We're clearly not, because when you tell me that metaphysics can tell us something about underlying reality, I only get semantics as explanations.

I've never presented semantics as an explanation. You confused a reference to concept as semantics.

Where are the details of how it functions, what it is composed of, and/or how we interact with it? The fact that you keep referring to the self-referential definition of metaphysics (i.e. it is defined as investigating reality, therefore it is investigating reality), would indicate that you don't know what it is that I am asking. As I've said many times, I don't care about the dictionary definition of metaphysics. I want to know how it works, and specifically how it does what you claim it does when you say it tells us something about reality (i.e. underlying reality, not semantic investigations into reality).

I've explained this in detail, I even explained it from the perspective of a realist position after giving up trying to get you to understand the problem with logical impossibilities.

To be fair, I wouldn't have to keep "banging on about it" if you had just responded to it the first couple of times I raised it...

'
Stop lying, naughty boy. I've responded to it multiple times now, including the first time you raised it.

As demonstrated, you replied once after multiple requests for you to respond. You definitely didn't respond the first time I asked, it was the third time of asking.

Huh? Where have I said that reality can't be modelled in terms of substance dualism or that it is incoherent? The closest is when I've said "if substance dualism is impossible", which is an entirely different thing.

You've repeatedly said that substance dualism is illogical, and in the same context (usually in the same paragraph) that we can know what reality isn't by rejecting illogical claims about reality. Please don't make me quote them as I'd have to troll through these interminable threads again. Surely you don't debate you've said this?

Of course I debate it because I haven't. I've explained your confusion above, as for some reason you've taken my comments about logical impossibilities vs logical possibilities as referring to substance dualism as being the logical impossibility. That whole lying and misrepresentation thing? Yeah, you're currently leading the scoreboard on that by a fucking mile.

I'm interested in hearing your support for the claim that logical statements must involve an assumption though

Well, given these are statements about the nature of underlying reality, then they must involve at least one premise concerning the underlying nature of reality. And since we know absolutely nothing about the underlying nature of reality, then they by necessity must be assumptions. Unless these logical statements don't have premises concerned with underlying reality, which I can't envisage at the moment. Hopefully you've explained it somewhere where I've questioned you on this already.

I think this will be a point that will have to be dropped now that you've said that you think logical impossibilities can exist. I'm not sure it's possible to convince someone of something when they admittedly base their position on what is by definition an illogical foundation.

(and the use of "fallacious" doesn't really work there).

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean. Just substitute in the correct term. I'm not one to be shut out of a conversation because I'm not up with the vernacular. I'm happy to be corrected or to explain what I mean.

I only brought it up because you queried your use earlier.

I'm not being disingenuous, you are literally criticising me for contradicting things - posts being too long and not long enough.

Where did I criticise you for making posts too long?? You're logic is shithouse, Samsa. I was lamenting that the posts are so long. That isn't criticism of you or anyone. Even if it was, half the text in every post is mine (probably more, since I'm responding in greater depth than you).

"Lamenting"/complaining is criticising. Wah wah, they're too long, wah wah I have to scroll up an inch to read stuff, wah wah, etc etc.

And no, I'm not going to shove in irrelevant comments because you're too lazy you read back. If a comment is relevant, I include it.

Don't be Seth, it's unbecoming. If you can easily make the process easier for those involved then you should do it. Everyone else tries their best. If you are going to be a belligerent cunt, then you'll get treated like one.

Fuck off. Why am I expected to conform to what YOU find easier? It's fucking impossible dealing with a mammoth post and trying to get all the quote tags right. If I'm going to take the time to explain topics like this to you in as much detail as I have and as patiently as I have, then I'm sure as fuck not going to make it harder on myself by including every single irrelevant bit of information.

You're so concerned about making the process easier for those involved? Excellent, the process is easier for me the way I do it. Problem solved, unless you want to be a belligerent cunt about it.

Also, note that so far you've failed to demonstrated a single case of misrepresentation. However, in your attempt to show how I've misrepresented you, you've misrepresented me multiple times..

bullshit! I'm not getting into this. We've all seen the script a thousand times before (well some here wouldn't have; but those who frequent or frequented ratskep would have).

This is the typical evasion you've done every single time I've asked you for an example of misrepresentation. Isn't that strange? The same thing happens on RatSkep. I ask for an example and suddenly everything goes quiet.

He is saying that underlying reality can't be modelled in the way of substance dualism, because some logical statement regarding it is found to be incoherent. If that logical statement involves an assumption, which it must (as we don't have access to underlying reality), then that is a fallacious conclusion.

Huh? Where have I said that reality can't be modelled in terms of substance dualism or that it is incoherent? The closest is when I've said "if substance dualism is impossible", which is an entirely different thing.

You've repeatedly said that substance dualism is illogical, and in the same context (usually in the same paragraph) that we can know what reality isn't by rejecting illogical claims about reality. Please don't make me quote them as I'd have to troll through these interminable threads again. Surely you don't debate you've said this?

Hello:

I'm not sure where to start if you don't accept that metaphysical investigations have told us anything. Do you believe that substance dualism is just as likely as physicalism (i.e. that it's just as likely that we're controlled by a disembodied mind as it is that we're controlled by natural physical processes of the brain)? If not, the reasons you give will be based on evidence gathered and generated by metaphysicians.

Why would I say that they aren't as equally likely (from a metaphysical point of view)?? If we exclude empirical observations, which we must if we are trying to make claims about reality, then there is simply nothing to go by to accept one position over the other. I have absolutely no way of telling which one is more likely than the other.

I've responded to this in the other thread but I find it weird that you think a logically impossible concept is just as likely as a logically possible one. That is just baffling to me.

I didn't copy the link to what post this was from, but to throw your own belligerence back at you - go find it yourself you lazy cunt!

I present two options, one is logically impossible and the other is logically possible.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1569161

Are you serious? Read what's written. You are misrepresenting me and my own words are contradicting you!

Here's what has happened, and I'll run it through slowly for you:

1) I'm discussing the probability of substance dualism being true compared to other metaphysical positions (not sure why you think I'd refer to it as a probability if I was supposedly arguing it as a logical impossibility but whatever)

2) you claim that without empirical evidence there is no reason to decide one way or the other

3) based on point number 2, I raise the new example of logical impossibility vs logical possibility. I even explain it multiple times following that that I'm not referring to substance dualism.

I can understand your confusion there because it's flicking between two threads but my comment that you've highlighted clearly references the fact that it follows on from an argument I've made in the other thread, not from the substance dualism comment.

Jesus, this is the second time you've misrepresented me whilst trying to show that I've misrepresented something!

Time stamp (using my local time) - 1/7 11.43am

Here - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1568980 - I answered it, about 12 hours before at 30/6 11.46pm

What's that about you not lying/misrepresenting??

Okay fair call, that was my fuckup - you replied overnight and I responded whilst I was at work and hadn't seen your comment in the other thread. When I checked the timestamps they seemed to match up but the am and pm were off.

Do you want me to keep going? I've actually forgotten what the other misrepresentations were. If you'd like to remind me of them, I'll gladly go and find them. I'm in the groove now.

Given that most of your attempts to find misrepresentations from me have resulted in you demonstrating your misrepresentation of me, I wouldn't be so eager. But by all means, go ahead!

Fuck! There are a lot of words in this thread!

Mr Samsa, your hypothesis (if you can remember 5 or so pages back) is frankly bollocks. You claim that a god has had a "massive effect" on the world, yet that its effects are indistinguishable from how the world would be otherwise.

You are simply trying to have your cake and eat it! I call SHENANIGANS!!!!!1!!11!

What does it being distinguishable or not have to do with anything? If you're saying that something needs to be observable in order to have a massive effect then you're just engaging in circular reasoning, as your initial claim was that something needs to be observable to have a massive effect.

Look, I've presented an example that involves the creation of the entire human race. Is that a massive effect or not? If yes, then I'm right. If no, then that's just wrong.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Fuck! There are a lot of words in this thread!

Mr Samsa, your hypothesis (if you can remember 5 or so pages back) is frankly bollocks. You claim that a god has had a "massive effect" on the world, yet that its effects are indistinguishable from how the world would be otherwise.

You are simply trying to have your cake and eat it! I call SHENANIGANS!!!!!1!!11!

What does it being distinguishable or not have to do with anything? If you're saying that something needs to be observable in order to have a massive effect then you're just engaging in circular reasoning, as your initial claim was that something needs to be observable to have a massive effect.

NO! I am saying that it has to have an effect! What would have happened in any case IS NOT AN EFFECT!

Look, I've presented an example that involves the creation of the entire human race. Is that a massive effect or not? If yes, then I'm right. If no, then that's just wrong.

The human race is the massive effect of evolution, not god. There is no need for your hypothetical god to explain the human race. Your god ADDS NOTHING to the argument except an unnecessary, additional level of complication. It is pure mindwank.

You might as well hypothesise that photons get tired and slow down and only fairies' wishes keep them moving at c. It's just bullshit speculation.

Provide a better hypothetical or admit that I am right.

[pErvinalia]

Samsa has become Seth!! What a fall from grace.

I'll get to his post in a minute. Just wanted to sum the whole thing up with his incredible similarity to Seth trolling us. Your doing yourself proud, Samsa.

edit: actually, just reading some more of his replies, he's Strontium Dog combined with Seth! What a fucking spectacular combination!

[pErvinalia]

Of course it's up for debate. I've explained in detail why you're wrong. Either you explain why I'm wrong, or you present an argument as to why you're right. It's useless to just keep blindly asserting that you don't agree.

There's fundamentally a difference between an investigation of something and the thing itself. I thought this was self-evident. That's why I don't think it is a contentious statement.

Because I've explained exactly how it's wrong, that makes it contentious. You can't claim something is self-evident after it's been refuted, that makes no sense.

You're arrogance know no bounds, does it? You are a habitual dismiss-er of arguments by outright claiming you are right and others are wrong. You make sense, and others don't make sense. It's self-evident because the thing being investigated and the thing thing itself aren't the same thing. Critiquing the investigation isn't critiquing the thing. I've twice now given you the analogy of investigating tax fraud. I wonder if you'll address it.

As I've explained (well, I've explained the corollary), it would if the premises that that logic was based on were truths.

And they are.

Yes, yes, I know you can make bare assertions. Do you think you might expand on your three words there?

Notice how I left the extra quote in here? It's to show that my comment was a direct response to yours. You get what you give.

Well done, Seth. But I actually did explain the corollary. You didn't rebut that to the best of my memory (go and find the quotes yourself you lazy cunt to see if I'm telling the truth or not! ). Either way, you are still to explain why the metaphysical claims are based on truths. I wonder if you will ever do this..

That would be because we're not talking about assumptions, as I've corrected you on multiple times to which you haven't responded.

Stop lying. Of course I've responded. I've asked you a number of times now to explain why they aren't assumptions and why they are truths.

And I explained. Stop lying. Either respond to them or stop making shit up.

You might have to link to them then, because I haven't seen them. And to the best of my knowledge I replied to all your posts. Can you link them?

And you do realise your Sethism there, right? You've shifted the goalposts from you claiming that I didn't respond, to you claiming I am lying. I'm not lying, but I could have missed your explanations of why they are truths (I honestly doubt it, but it could be possible). But that doesn't address your lie that I haven't responded to your original claim. In fact you've fallen for a great Sethism in by shifting the goalposts and thinking you were going to deflect from your lie, you actually proved that you were lying. After all, how you could have "explained" my questions in response if I never responded to your original claim? Well done, Seth!

Where are the details of how it functions, what it is composed of, and/or how we interact with it? The fact that you keep referring to the self-referential definition of metaphysics (i.e. it is defined as investigating reality, therefore it is investigating reality), would indicate that you don't know what it is that I am asking. As I've said many times, I don't care about the dictionary definition of metaphysics. I want to know how it works, and specifically how it does what you claim it does when you say it tells us something about reality (i.e. underlying reality, not semantic investigations into reality).

I've explained this in detail, I even explained it from the perspective of a realist position after giving up trying to get you to understand the problem with logical impossibilities.

You didn't give up, you never started! I rebutted your claim about logical impossibilities by saying that they can't say anything about reality as they are based on assumed premises. You then made a bare assertion multiple times that they are based on truths, but requests for you to explain what those truths are and how we know they are truths have been ignored (unless I missed it; in which case link them and I will respond to them. I have nothing to hide from you Samsa. I'm just trying to learn what metaphysics is. I have no fear of responding or asking questions).

To be fair, I wouldn't have to keep "banging on about it" if you had just responded to it the first couple of times I raised it...

'
Stop lying, naughty boy. I've responded to it multiple times now, including the first time you raised it.

As demonstrated, you replied once after multiple requests for you to respond. You definitely didn't respond the first time I asked, it was the third time of asking.

I must have missed that demonstration. Can you show it again or link to it?

Huh? Where have I said that reality can't be modelled in terms of substance dualism or that it is incoherent? The closest is when I've said "if substance dualism is impossible", which is an entirely different thing.

You've repeatedly said that substance dualism is illogical, and in the same context (usually in the same paragraph) that we can know what reality isn't by rejecting illogical claims about reality. Please don't make me quote them as I'd have to troll through these interminable threads again. Surely you don't debate you've said this?

Of course I debate it because I haven't. I've explained your confusion above, as for some reason you've taken my comments about logical impossibilities vs logical possibilities as referring to substance dualism as being the logical impossibility.

What. In. The. Fuck!?! What the fuck then were you talking about substance dualism vs materialism (or whatever the other option was) in the conversation that lead to this point? And what were the logic and illogical options that you "present[ed]" to me? What were they if not the ONLY options you presented to me - that is, substance dualism and materialism.

That whole lying and misrepresentation thing? Yeah, you're currently leading the scoreboard on that by a fucking mile.

You really are an arseclown. You need to understand that it's highly unlikely that everyone who debates you comes to the wrong conclusion about your honesty. You talked about parsimony, well apply a bit of it to your own reality. God knows you need a fucking wake up call.

I'm interested in hearing your support for the claim that logical statements must involve an assumption though

Well, given these are statements about the nature of underlying reality, then they must involve at least one premise concerning the underlying nature of reality. And since we know absolutely nothing about the underlying nature of reality, then they by necessity must be assumptions. Unless these logical statements don't have premises concerned with underlying reality, which I can't envisage at the moment. Hopefully you've explained it somewhere where I've questioned you on this already.

I think this will be a point that will have to be dropped now that you've said that you think logical impossibilities can exist. I'm not sure it's possible to convince someone of something when they admittedly base their position on what is by definition an illogical foundation.

Nice squirming. Stop running away from this point. Explain why you think metaphysical logic isn't premised on assumptions but is premised by truths. If you've already explained it, then link to it, as I haven't seen you explain it. As I said somewhere, you appear to not understand basic logic. If the premises of logic are based on assumptions, then the conclusions from a logical statement can only apply to the conditions as premised by the assumptions. This is basic logic. This is why I can most certainly claim that an illogical statement doesn't necessarily say anything about reality. This is simple stuff. Pull your head out of your arse.

I'm not being disingenuous, you are literally criticising me for contradicting things - posts being too long and not long enough.

Where did I criticise you for making posts too long?? You're logic is shithouse, Samsa. I was lamenting that the posts are so long. That isn't criticism of you or anyone. Even if it was, half the text in every post is mine (probably more, since I'm responding in greater depth than you).

"Lamenting"/complaining is criticising. Wah wah, they're too long, wah wah I have to scroll up an inch to read stuff, wah wah, etc etc.

Oh hello Seth. Lamenting is not criticising. Get a fucking dictionary, man. STAT! As I said, I am more to blame for the length of the posts as I have contributed the most text. But you ignored this point. Seth. The reason why it's most annoying is as I stated and a point you specifically ignored to make it look like I was criticising you for the length of the posts. That point was that I have spend an interminable amount of time going back and cross referencing things you say against the bits you didn't bother to quote. Stop being a disingenuous twat. As I said, you aren't dealing with the usual crowd at ratskep. You can't get away with this idiocy against me. I will call it out and I will post about it until the heat death of the universe.

And no, I'm not going to shove in irrelevant comments because you're too lazy you read back. If a comment is relevant, I include it.

Don't be Seth, it's unbecoming. If you can easily make the process easier for those involved then you should do it. Everyone else tries their best. If you are going to be a belligerent cunt, then you'll get treated like one.

Fuck off. Why am I expected to conform to what YOU find easier?

You're not expected to do anything. You were requested and you refused because you are a belligerent cunt. You'll be treated as such, if you act like one.

It's fucking impossible dealing with a mammoth post and trying to get all the quote tags right.

in other words:

If I'm going to take the time to explain topics like this to you in as much detail as I have and as patiently as I have, then I'm sure as fuck not going to make it harder on myself by including every single irrelevant bit of information.

In other words:

You're so concerned about making the process easier for those involved? Excellent, the process is easier for me the way I do it.

in other words:

Problem solved, unless you want to be a belligerent cunt about it.

I'm not doing anything to make the debate harder. You are. And you are refusing to take a simple step to make it easier for participants. You might need to assess properly who is being the belligerent one.

Also, note that so far you've failed to demonstrated a single case of misrepresentation. However, in your attempt to show how I've misrepresented you, you've misrepresented me multiple times..

bullshit! I'm not getting into this. We've all seen the script a thousand times before (well some here wouldn't have; but those who frequent or frequented ratskep would have).

This is the typical evasion you've done every single time I've asked you for an example of misrepresentation. Isn't that strange? The same thing happens on RatSkep. I ask for an example and suddenly everything goes quiet.

No, what happens is what happened here. I show you your fuck up and you then perform mental gymnastics and rape the whole discipline of logic to get out of what you said. I.e. Strontium Dog. Well done.

He is saying that underlying reality can't be modelled in the way of substance dualism, because some logical statement regarding it is found to be incoherent. If that logical statement involves an assumption, which it must (as we don't have access to underlying reality), then that is a fallacious conclusion.

Huh? Where have I said that reality can't be modelled in terms of substance dualism or that it is incoherent? The closest is when I've said "if substance dualism is impossible", which is an entirely different thing.

You've repeatedly said that substance dualism is illogical, and in the same context (usually in the same paragraph) that we can know what reality isn't by rejecting illogical claims about reality. Please don't make me quote them as I'd have to troll through these interminable threads again. Surely you don't debate you've said this?

Hello:

I'm not sure where to start if you don't accept that metaphysical investigations have told us anything. Do you believe that substance dualism is just as likely as physicalism (i.e. that it's just as likely that we're controlled by a disembodied mind as it is that we're controlled by natural physical processes of the brain)? If not, the reasons you give will be based on evidence gathered and generated by metaphysicians.

Why would I say that they aren't as equally likely (from a metaphysical point of view)?? If we exclude empirical observations, which we must if we are trying to make claims about reality, then there is simply nothing to go by to accept one position over the other. I have absolutely no way of telling which one is more likely than the other.

I've responded to this in the other thread but I find it weird that you think a logically impossible concept is just as likely as a logically possible one. That is just baffling to me.

I didn't copy the link to what post this was from, but to throw your own belligerence back at you - go find it yourself you lazy cunt!

I present two options, one is logically impossible and the other is logically possible.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1569161

Are you serious? Read what's written. You are misrepresenting me and my own words are contradicting you!

Um, no they're not. You specifically stated in recap that you presented me with one logically possible assessment and an illogical assessment. Where are those two?? Come on, link them. I want to see them. The ONLY example you gave was of the two involving substance dualism vs materialism (or whatever the other one was). And your statement followed on directly from the example of those two.

AND you said "{I} think a logically impossible concept is just as likely as a logically possible one". Oh really? Then you'll have no trouble linking to where i said that. Go on. This ought to be good.

The only thing I was commenting on was the single example you gave, substance dualism vs materialism(?).

Here's what has happened, and I'll run it through slowly for you:

And I'll call you a disingenuous wankstain?

1) I'm discussing the probability of substance dualism being true compared to other metaphysical positions (not sure why you think I'd refer to it as a probability if I was supposedly arguing it as a logical impossibility but whatever)

2) you claim that without empirical evidence there is no reason to decide one way or the other

3) based on point number 2, I raise the new example of logical impossibility vs logical possibility.

Bullshit you did! Link this imaginary new example!

I can understand your confusion there because it's flicking between two threads but my comment that you've highlighted clearly references the fact that it follows on from an argument I've made in the other thread, not from the substance dualism comment.

It's in the same fucking thread. It's in the same fucking quote stream. It would even appear in your retarded quoting regime, that is, it is encompassed in three iterations of quotes. Well, actually your quoting regime is so fucking sparse it only encompasses two. My bad.

Jesus, this is the second time you've misrepresented me whilst trying to show that I've misrepresented something!

Um no. You need remedial English, Samsa. Seriously.

Time stamp (using my local time) - 1/7 11.43am

Here - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1568980 - I answered it, about 12 hours before at 30/6 11.46pm

What's that about you not lying/misrepresenting??

Okay fair call, that was my fuckup - you replied overnight and I responded whilst I was at work and hadn't seen your comment in the other thread. When I checked the timestamps they seemed to match up but the am and pm were off.

Holy shit! :O You admitted you were wrong!! I've seen it all. I'm going out to buy a lotto ticket!!

So in this case, when I presume you thought I was lying/misrepresenting/raping-the-universe, I wasn't in fact lying/mmisrepresenting/ldkjdlkdkjl, right? Amazing that sometimes your ridiculous hyperbolic accusations are based on nothing other than a fuckup by yourself. A lesson well learned, i'd say. I hope you can keep this in mind in future.

Do you want me to keep going? I've actually forgotten what the other misrepresentations were. If you'd like to remind me of them, I'll gladly go and find them. I'm in the groove now.

Given that most of your attempts to find misrepresentations from me have resulted in you demonstrating your misrepresentation of me, I wouldn't be so eager. But by all means, go ahead!

As I said, apply some parsimony to your reality. By christ it needs it!

[pErvinalia]

Ok, lets have some more fun now. I've found some of the relevant quotes where you claimed I was lying or telling an untruth or misrepresenting or mistaken or whatever you want to call it.

You made an assertion and when asked to explain your working you ignore it. THAT's what I want to know about? Why won't you guys answer this question?? What does parsimony or pragmatism or any other metaphysical principle tell us about reality?

You've only asked the question once and I responded (as linked above), I've ignored nothing. The problem here is that you don't seem to understand the topic well enough to ask the question you want to know the answer to.

Unfortunately for you, that's bollocks.

The post I was referring to (which wasn't the one you 'linked to above'), was written 12 hours before (http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1568980). 9 hours after that you ignored my post and responded (http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1569072) to one from piscator which was written after my post. Note, this post of yours was BEFORE my post above where you claimed you hadn't ignored any of my requests for more information.

So it's not actually a case of "The problem here is that you don't seem to understand the topic well enough to ask the question you want to know the answer to." It's a case of you lying or being mistaken about the conversation flow across the two threads. I'm perfectly happy to accept that it was the latter, but in the spirit of hyperbolic accusations of the type you continuously make, I choose to exclaim that you are a foul liar sir! Of the most fulminating order!!

[pErvinalia]

More fun:

4) You ask me why I believe that science describes reality.

5) I bang my face into the desk again.

I hope you'll appreciate why it's us who should be banging our face into the desk. This is what you said that led to this point:

So my point still stands. And you know this - science doesn't attempt to explain reality.

I'm not sure how your point still stands, as my refutation still stands.

You specifically stated that you don't understand how my point (that "science doesn't attempt to explain reality") could still stand after your refutation (which refuted nothing, and certainly not that science doesn't attempt to explain reality). You can see this, right? This isn't me twisting your words. You specifically stated that my point shouldn't be standing. Hello.

Eta: Fuck, there's even more clangers in there! You state in 4) that i asked you why you believe that science describes reality. I asked no such thing! This is what I asked:

What refutation? Are you claiming that science attempts to explain reality?? If so, that's bonkers.

THIS is why you get such a bad rep for misrepresentation. You do this shit constantly. And by not quoting the full quote stream you make it harder for people to root out these misrepresentations.

[JimC]

Fuck! There are a lot of words in this thread!

Mr Samsa, your hypothesis (if you can remember 5 or so pages back) is frankly bollocks. You claim that a god has had a "massive effect" on the world, yet that its effects are indistinguishable from how the world would be otherwise.

You are simply trying to have your cake and eat it! I call SHENANIGANS!!!!!1!!11!

I don't think he said that god necessarily has had a "massive effect" on the world, but that, in principle, it could have done, and we would not be able to tell the difference.

At least that's what I think he said...

Bollocks either way, but the second is philosophical wibble rather than a theistic claim...

[Mr.Samsa]

What does it being distinguishable or not have to do with anything? If you're saying that something needs to be observable in order to have a massive effect then you're just engaging in circular reasoning, as your initial claim was that something needs to be observable to have a massive effect.

NO! I am saying that it has to have an effect! What would have happened in any case IS NOT AN EFFECT!

Causing the creation of the entire human race isn't an effect?

Look, I've presented an example that involves the creation of the entire human race. Is that a massive effect or not? If yes, then I'm right. If no, then that's just wrong.

The human race is the massive effect of evolution, not god. There is no need for your hypothetical god to explain the human race. Your god ADDS NOTHING to the argument except an unnecessary, additional level of complication. It is pure mindwank.

You might as well hypothesise that photons get tired and slow down and only fairies' wishes keep them moving at c. It's just bullshit speculation.

Provide a better hypothetical or admit that I am right.

What? I'm not talking about what is reasonable to believe, I'm talking about a world where it actually happens. You know the saying "reality is what happens whether you believe in it or not", that's what we're discussing here.

The situation: god causes X to happen. You're saying that it doesn't matter that he caused it to happen because science provides a simpler explanation. Who gives a shit what science does? If science provides an alternative explanation then, in this hypothetical, it would be objectively wrong.

Deal with the hypothetical or admit your fuckup.

Fuck! There are a lot of words in this thread!

Mr Samsa, your hypothesis (if you can remember 5 or so pages back) is frankly bollocks. You claim that a god has had a "massive effect" on the world, yet that its effects are indistinguishable from how the world would be otherwise.

You are simply trying to have your cake and eat it! I call SHENANIGANS!!!!!1!!11!

I don't think he said that god necessarily has had a "massive effect" on the world, but that, in principle, it could have done, and we would not be able to tell the difference.

At least that's what I think he said...

Bollocks either way, but the second is philosophical wibble rather than a theistic claim...

No, in the hypothetical I am saying that this god does definitely have an effect. He causes it. XC is saying that even if god caused the creation of the entire human race it wouldn't have an observable effect on the world because science can explain the effect without god. Which makes no sense.

@Rev: I didn't bother reading your posts, I don't have the time or energy to try to teach you something that you are refusing to deal with honestly. If you decide to stop being a prissy little bitch and drop the flaming, I'm happy to try again.

As a show of good faith, I'll start it off: your main problem with claims about reality is that you don't think we can "access" reality so we can't say anything about it. Perhaps the bit you're getting stuck on is that we're only developing coherent and plausible views of what reality could be, and we weigh the evidence for and against various views. If it helps, think of it more as attempting to rationally justify claims about reality rather than some kind of deep deep space mission where we explore the depths of noumena in crazy space suits.

[JimC]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

No, in the hypothetical I am saying that this god does definitely have an effect.

What the fuck does this mean?

Taken on face value, you are simply one more confused and totally fucked-up theist, who I should ignore from now on...

[Mr.Samsa]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

No, in the hypothetical I am saying that this god does definitely have an effect.

What the fuck does this mean?

Taken on face value, you are simply one more confused and totally fucked-up theist, who I should ignore from now on...

No I'm not a theist, I'm talking about a hypothetical. If the word "god" is a problem, then replace it with "invisible powerful gremlins", it makes no difference.

I'll recap the discussion and you point out what bit you find problematic:

1) XC says that if something is untestable and unprovable then it can't have an effect on the world

2) I claim that if there was a god-like entity, or invisible powerful gremlins, who altered the world by operating through natural processes (so that it looked identical to only natural processes occurring) then this would be untestable and unprovable, and yet it would have a massive effect on the world (e.g. the creation of the human race).

3) XC claims that this doesn't work because science can give an explanation that doesn't require god or invisible gremlins.

4) I point out (like in the quoted bit there) that in the hypothetical situation god definitely does have an effect. It's not that he could have, or might, but I'm literally stating that the conditions of the thought experiment explicitly specify god causing the effect.

Which part is wrong or confusing? The basic point is that supernatural entities are claimed to have an effect on the world and since they are supernatural then they are, by definition, untestable and unprovable by science (due to the whole assumption of methodological naturalism). The only way to challenge my position would be to either explain how a god/gremlin that is indistinguishable from natural processes is testable or provable, or how the creation of the human race isn't an observable effect.

Let's just drop the whole "you're a secret theist!" bullshit because conspiracy theories are a little silly. I'm not a theist or a gremlinist, or whatever other label you want to apply to me in order to avoid addressing my points.

[pErvinalia]

Baah, I'm bored of this. I'm also sick of being a shouty pants. Spent 6 hard hours in the car today moving shit. I'm not finding Samsa's explanations good enough to convince me of anything. And I'm certainly sick of the hyperbolic accusations of lying and misrepresenting. I see Samsa has mercifully only made a small post above, so maybe there something worth reading there.