{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by cxkxr:
3/22/2015 12:11:46 AM
58
What scientific, material or physical proof do you have that the laws of logic are reliable & objective?
English
-
Edited by Hoggs Bison: 3/22/2015 1:25:59 AMThis is the best subthread ever. I want to thank you both for making this possible. Edit: holy shit, it's the perfect storm of bad science and bad philosophy. pls argue forever pls
-
Edited by Britton: 3/22/2015 12:28:39 AMScientific method.[spoiler]rekt[/spoiler]
-
What da fuq is even being discussed
-
I think he's trying to discredit my OP somehow. Not really sure how yet.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 3/22/2015 12:30:08 AMThe scientific method is derived from the metaphysical laws of logic. So again, I would like to see physical proof that the laws of logic are objective. If you can't, it's mere faith.
-
No, you said scientific, material, [b][u][i]OR[/i][/u][/b] physical. I gave a scientific example. Don't start changing your requirements.
-
Science requires physical proof. You've provided none. If you want to evade the question with semantic gymnastics, that's fine.
-
Edited by Britton: 3/22/2015 12:36:59 AMNo you're evading. Good day. I've had enough discussions with you to know that all you do is deflect, or change what you said. Come back when you have an actual argument that doesn't require you to use idiotic thinking.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 3/22/2015 12:38:31 AMNice cop-out. Come back when you have physical proof for your faith in the immaterial laws of logic.
-
Edited by Britton: 3/22/2015 12:40:31 AMLet's see, if I can come to a logical conclusion, and test it, there's no faith involved. Faith is belief without evidence. Go read a dictionary.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 3/22/2015 12:42:39 AMStill no physical proof for the objective existence of the metaphysical laws of logic? I said come back when you do, not before. Faith is belief in something that is not physically or materially proven.
-
Edited by Britton: 3/22/2015 12:46:40 AMFirst of all what's your point here, other playing the usual mental gymnastics you do. And 2nd [b]faith[/b]: belief that is not based on proof [b]logic[/b]: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. They are 2 different things.
-
Logic is an immaterial concept. It doesn't actually exist in the physical Universe. So you're telling me it's actually "reasonable" to believe in something that is not materially proven?
-
You don't believe in logic. You use logic. Logic is a description of a way of thinking.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 3/22/2015 12:52:28 AMTo use it, it requires your existential belief in it's metaphysical objectiveness. It is belief, because there is no physical proof for it's existence.
-
I like how paulb0t is using logic to debate the existence of logic
-
Me too. Logic is wonderful, but it cannot objectively be proven via physical or material means. It requires faith in it.
-
Edited by fraggumz: 3/22/2015 1:46:19 AMThat sounds like the bewilderment a ten year old would have the first time they were exposed to multi-variable calculus or something. I was an engineering major so I started off with basic elementary math as a kid and passed through differential equations, quantum mechanics, chemistry, general relativity, kinetics, biology, metaphysical philosophy, etc etc in college. I went through the whole deconstruction period including indulgence into existential nihilism. It's boring. Not to mention that you lump logic and science together. Two completely different fields. The truth is that where we are now didn't come out of nowhere. We can't look at advanced information and say, "you can't prove that!" The fundamentals were proven and that's why we have -blam!- like lasers. Most of What we call knowledge today has common roots. Trying to deny science at this point is just giving into juvenile resistance against the grain. Your little straw man makeshift come backs are ignorant, uneducated, and lame.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 3/22/2015 1:48:24 AMLogic =/= science I love having the opportunity to school pseudo-philosophers. [quote][b]The Objective Laws of Logic Exist[/b] We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place. [b]The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws[/b] These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding logical, immaterial thought processes. [b]The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent[/b] The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location. [b]The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind[/b] The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans.[/quote]
-
Keep talking with your circular reasoning fallacy brah
-
Edited by cxkxr: 3/22/2015 1:58:27 AMLet me educate you too, if you would indulge me. Do you believe the material and physical Universe is all that exists? If not, this discussion isn't meant for you.
-
Nope, I don't. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative. Just commenting on the science and logic discussion here.
-
Edited by cxkxr: 3/22/2015 2:13:28 AMOkay then. I'm not trying to argue that logic is false, I'm saying that logic is false [b][i]if[/i][/b] the material Universe is all that exists, considering it's an immaterial truth. I don't believe the material Universe is all that exists. I believe the laws of logic are transcendent from a metaphysical "law giver".
-
So your point in regards to my OP is....
-
Edited by cxkxr: 3/22/2015 1:08:25 AM
