- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
It only became necessary to explain that the present persists because I was dealing with a retard who thinks it’s clever to say that “there is nothing but the present” but at the same time, “the present is gone”.
No matter how many times at least three gaping holes in your position all you can say is “you’ve never answered”.
I’ve been talking to someone who literally looks at an article about 6 month infants comprehending quantity difference and determines “babies are born knowing math!” Sure dumbass, right along with their name which they respond to.
You are too fucking thick to grasp this simple point, that your position that “the entire future is entirely unknowable”, derives from the fact that some of the future is unknowable, which makes your position an INDUCTION! And not a valid one you fucking moron.
Hey, did it ever occur to you that it is circular to validate validity? Well, I suppose validity is now irrational. Oh wait, can you rationalize rationality? No?! Then it’s not valid?! OH THE NIHILISM!!
A priori knowledge, is knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences.
Which can only be derived with tools learned through experience. Keep ignoring that.
What parts of the future are known to you as you’ve claimed this several times?
I’ve provided a couple different answers to this now. Do you remember hydroge? Rules of logic? Ring any bells?
You’ve also totally backed yourself into a corner by admitting more or less everything is based on induction which you also admitted was an educated guess
The only thing I said about educated guesses is that, according to your view, they can’t be made any more reasonably than a completely absurd guess. I get it now, someone else is reading this to you, right?
so how do you justify your “educated guesses”?
Exactly. My point was that you cannot claim to make educated guesses because according to you they cannot be justified. It’s ok with me that you attack your own position as if it were mine, so long as this old ass topic moves a little bit.
You also cannot explain what persistent present even means
Of course I can, if you had ever asked. The present isn’t something that happens for a moment and then is gone. The present doesn’t go away, it persists. If you don’t know what that word means, ask for help with the online dictionary.
You deny innate knowledge exists as in your insistence regarding what scientists accept as fact regarding babies and math skills.
No they don’t. No research on the matter even studies new born babies. Your own example studies 6 month olds. 6 month old babies already know a whole world of things that they weren’t born knowing. But I’ll go into more detail where you posted your source (that proves my point).
Of course I can , persistence has nothing to do with my present moment evaluations
It has everything to do with it. You cannot observe the rules of logic at every given moment while simultaneously knowing them to be true and additionally applying them to subjects in no greater time frame than the present. Logic itself rests on the assumption that it’s own (unprovable) assumptions continue to be true (uniformity of nature).
I keep saying and you keep ignoring that humans do indeed accept fundamental assumptions but the whole point is logically it's irrational to do so
I responding and you keep ignoring that accepting such fundamental assumptions is necessary even for rationality and logic. It is no more irrational to accept the rationality of induction than it is to accept the validity of logic and reason. To call fundamentals irrational is to ignore the fundamental nature of rationality itself.
I’m should make a bet with someone that you still won’t grasp this basic concept.
Regarding my opinions about such matters you scoffed when I said they’re based on an educated guesss yet this is precisely what you do
I scoffed because your position does not allow for “educated guesses”. No guess can be more “educated” than another. Thus, making educated guesses is contradictory to your own position.
While educated guesses are not contradictory to my position, I do more than that. I accept, for example, the truth of fundamental assumptions of logic (such as the transitive principle and tautological truth) which I have learned through education, but which are nonetheless not guesses. They are fundamental truths.
sun rise blah blah blah...you still cannot justify this belief
I have thoroughly justified induction. You saying otherwise is not an argument. Even when I answer questions directly, you come back with “but you still won’t answer”. You’re bullshit.
You claimed part of the future is know to you but refuse to answer what part or parts?
Oh, case in point. Hydrogen, carbon, rules of logic, nature of reality. I have explained the answer to this question constantly.
Your belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow does not supply the slightest grounds for supposing this true
In the first instance, I stated why it is perfectly reasonable to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and I also presented some circumstances under which it could possibly not happen. The existence of possibility does not undermine belief in the overwhelming probability. But in your view, probability can’t even be figured or legitimized.
When you present a tautology, such as A=A, you cannot prove that this is true. You don’t have evidence that this is valid. Does this make you reliance on rationality somehow irrational? The answer is no in case you had to think about it.
My defence is perfectly logical persist means to continue , you know this how?
Again you assume to know the future how so?
If you utilize logic, you assume this as well. You also assume that A=A is true, you assume that A=-A cannot be true. You assume a whole host of fundamentals upon which rationality relies. Again, but probably not for the last time, it is not irrational to assume the truth of fundamentals. It is necessary to rationality itself. You’ve never addressed this point.
Clarify your “persistent present “ as in how does the present persist?
Your posts repeat themselves. I answered this in your other post. From here forward I will ignore questions I literally just answered in a post you literally just made.
I said certain reasoning ie inductive is based on assumptions in many cases which cannot be justified
ALL REASONING, including deduction, is based on assumptions that cannot be reasonably justified. Again, because “justification” itself relies on fundamental assumptions. Does that make fundamental assumptions circular? No.
But again you avoid what I actually said regarding the Uniformity of nature and how you justify such?
I literally answered directly. The very idea that you can “justify” things relies on the uniformity of nature. Your inability to grasp this fact does not disprove it.
This is entirely again to misrepresent what I’m actually saying
No, I’m not. And since your memory is so fuckin short, I’ll quote what you said
“How do you know that nature is uniform when your observations are based on locality?”
But again for the slow one, It is your local experience that has taught you that observation is local. Your local experience has taught you that you do not know everything. But it is an argument from ignorance to presume that the future is thus unknowable. Your position is, in fact, an incorrect INDUCTION!
Honesty, that’s probably all that needs to be said. The rest will just be me continually proving that I haven’t ignored anything (by referring to quotes and repeating myself). I’m tired of defending against that kind of baseless attack.
However, I will address your baby bullshit, because that is pretty funny.
Do you deny that humans possess innate knowledge?
Making you wrong again yet I bet you will say science is wrong .....again ....https://www.sciencemag.
I don’t deny they possess innate knowledge, I never have. Newborns know, for example, how to breath air (knowledge produced by the naturally inductive outcomes of evolution).
What newborns do not know is any math. They don’t know any language, they don’t know their ass from the floor or their hands from the ceiling. However, by 6 months, they have learned quite a lot. For example “New research indicates that infants as young as 6 months can understand the meaning of many spoken words.” Don’t be confused Jody, babies aren’t born knowing how to talk.
A 6 month old knows other things too. It:
“Knows familiar faces and begins to know if someone is a stranger”
“Responds to other people’s emotions and often seems happy”
“Responds to own name” (Holy shit Jody! Babies are born knowing their own name!)
“Begins to pass things from one hand to the other”
“Begins to sit without support”
And according to your own article, is attracted to the screen that shows significant dot variation (doubled from 10 to 20). That’s not fucking. Math and they aren’t fucking born with it. That’s simply awareness of quantity. Given all the other shit they’ve leaned, we shouldn’t be surprised. NOTHING in your source indicates we are born with innate math skills. You were duped by a click bait headline and you should have read further. The only thing this proves is that you and I would respond very differently to Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority.
So you have two options appeal to experience to what you have observed or justify the assumption independently of experience.
The ability to justify is learned through experience. Thus your two options are to accept fundamental assumptions (including the validity of learning) or fall into complete nihilism.
When you say that you cannot presume the rules of logic persists, it is a contradiction attempt a logical defense of this proposition. You cannot reasonably argue that reason is invalid, which is what you are attempting.
How do you know that nature is uniform when your observations are based on locality?
It is your local experience that has taught you that observation is local. It’s a true statement, but it cannot be used to invalidate itself. Knowing that knowledge means accepting that you cannot know everything through observation. It is your old straw man that supposes that the inability to know everything by experience means the inability to know anything.
You observe nature is uniform around here at the present time , then you infer that nature is like that at all those other times and places . Correct?
No. I’m not making inferences about the inside of a black hole. And if anyone makes a deductive statement about the inside of a black hole, they are assuming deduction is still valid there.
That's your whole argument and your justification is totally circular
No, You’ve restated your own argument, not mine. You don’t seem to understand yet that experience is fundamental even to logic and deduction. You rely on a logical progression only because you’ve learned that logical progressions are valid. You weren’t born with this. There is no scientific observation that says you were.
Actually you cannot so there goes another of your assertions put to bed
I can say “science agrees with me” just as surely as you can say it. Science agrees with me. Oh look, I said t again.
If it isn't true then why is my head wet?
There are a number of reasons, other than rain, that your head could possibly be wet. “It’s raining” is no more a tautology than “it’s not raining”. The fact that it’s not raining is enough to counter your incorrect observation that it is raining. Regardless of the weather, the post has nothing to do with induction, deduction, or the relationship between induction and deduction.
It's very boring, Amarel.
Tell me about it.
An observation that happens to not even be true, hence not tautological.
Let me help you out with the terms.
“Deductive reasoning moves from generalities to specific conclusions. Perhaps the biggest stipulation is that the statements upon which the conclusion is drawn need to be true.”
Its a simplistic website, just for you.
That's called remote viewing
No it’s not, it’s called inductive reasoning.
If you want to prove me wrong then I propose you tell me what next week's lottery numbers are. In part.
There’s a lot of predictions in that question. You predict there will be a lottery, that it will be next week, that it will have numbers. I bet you’re right. And I predict that the universe will include carbon. And I know I’m right.
That's great, but it still doesn't enable you to predict the future.
Induction allows us to, in part. And yes, that conclusion relies on induction. If you’re fine with the fact that logic cannot be validated without the logic of validation, then you should be fine with this too...if you’re logically consistent.
Even if they did, you have no idea what the rules of logic are in the first place. I've never once seen you write something which doesn't directly contradict itself.
This has been my point. If you don’t inductively reason that the rules of logic will persist, then you cannot make any logical argument. Induction is fundamental.
how do you know the future as you keep claiming you do
I know that the rules of logic will remain from one moment to the next. Your own position relies on this fact, so in theory you know this too. If you didn’t know this, you couldn’t make your argument, or any argument.
Science agrees with me regards my statement
False. Science agrees with me.... Hm, I guess anyone can say that.
Yeah but he killed probably close to a hundred or something like that...or was it some other number... I mean, he didn’t actively campaign against them, or rally crowds against them, but... or did he...oh who really knows how Hitler felt about the Jews. Some things are mysterious.