#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Why expect the Sun to rise tomorrow?
Add New Argument |
All evidence indicates that it will. There is no evidence to indicate that it won’t. Doubting that the sun will rise without any evidential reason is irrational. On the other hand, you could find yourself with some evidence. If you are in a very fast jet, you could see the sun rise in the West, or delay the sunrise itself. All evidence indicates that it will. We have no more reason to suppose that it will rise than we have to suppose it won’t There is no evidence to indicate that it won’t. There is no Evidence it will Doubting that the sun will rise without any evidential reason is irrational. It’s actually as rational as your position and possibly more so as your position is presumptive and is based on induction making your argument circular , in effect you’re claiming induction has worked in up to now , and therefore will continue to do so. What we have observed so far gives no guarantee as to what will happen in the future On the other hand, you could find yourself with some evidence. If you are in a very fast jet, you could see the sun rise in the West, or delay the sunrise itself. Again that’s based on what’s happened in the past and is speculative regarding future events We have no more reason to suppose that it will rise than we have to suppose it won’t Except for all the evidence. There is no Evidence it will Only if you’re a new born baby. If your a reasonably educated adult, you have all the evidence of your senses observing repeated iterations with a consistency of 100% and a thorough explanation for this consistency rooted in our oldest theories of physics and re-affirmed in all newer theories of physics. It’s actually as rational as your position Only to a new born baby. What we have observed so far gives no guarantee as to what will happen in the future No, not a guarantee. But the notion that inductive reasoning is not thoroughly rational is a baseless notion. To pretend that absolute skepticism is more reasonable than rational induction, is to pretend that, for example, walking in front of fast moving traffic is more rational than waiting for the crosswalk signal. It’s not. Only the ignorance of extreme youth can reasonably believe otherwise, which is why we hold a child’s hand when they cross the street. I know you will stick hard to this one since it was said by Hume and you are incapable of disagreeing with a perceived authority. He was wrong. You are wrong. What I’ve said on the matter is sufficient. I’m not going to waste time on someone who can’t grasp the rationality or induction. Good luck crossing the street. 1
point
I know you will stick hard to this one since it was said by Hume and you are incapable of disagreeing with a perceived authority. It's a lot older than Hume who I haven't as yet appealed to , your irrationality fails to acknowledge the simple fact many perceived authorities disagree with sceptics on this matter so I'm disagreeing with your appeal to these authorities It also typical of your hypocrisy especially since you spent 3 months appealing and failing to defend Descartes Cogito He was wrong. You're back talking about Hume who I haven't mentioned , regarding his position you cannot demonstrate how he was wrong You are wrong. I'm correct , you're irrationally negates you from offering a valid defence What I’ve said on the matter is sufficient. What you've said so far is merely a rant and typical, you had to type a second response before I replied to your first yet another indication of how butt hurt you are I’m not going to waste time on someone who can’t grasp the rationality or induction. Induction rests on a wholly unjustified and unjustifiable assumption , whenever you reason to a conclusion about what you haven't observed you're making an assumption So typical of you isn't it as in you take someone's position and re-state it into Amarel speak and all because you can offer no reasonable response Good luck crossing the street. What a stupid response,but this is from a gun nut guy who thinks swimming pools are more dangerous to the American public than guns Except for all the evidence. How is that a guarantee of future events? Only if you’re a new born baby A typically inane response If your a reasonably educated adult How do you define reasonably educated? I don’t think you’re in a position to comment but that will not stop you pontificating you have all the evidence of your senses observing repeated iterations with a consistency of 100% and a thorough explanation for this consistency rooted in our oldest theories of physics and re-affirmed in all newer theories of physics. Right , so that’s a gold plated guarantee on future events oookay Only to a new born baby. That’s you’re best ....oh dear No, not a guarantee. But the notion that inductive reasoning is not thoroughly rational It’s irrational regarding future events as it’s speculative is a baseless notion. Interesting , you know the future? To pretend that absolute skepticism is more reasonable than rational induction, Your position is circular as it appeals to induction for predictability in future events is to pretend that, for example, walking in front of fast moving traffic is more rational than waiting for the crosswalk signal. It’s not. Nonsense, that’s Ameral speak for your usual evasion of what was actually said into a favorable reinterpretation of what you actually think was said to fit your flawed narrative Only the ignorance of extreme youth can reasonably believe otherwise Again another sweeping generalization , how did you decide extreme youths are all ignorant? which is why we hold a child’s hand when they cross the street Why that has got to do with the topic is beyond me can you translate from Amarel into English? 0
points
All evidence indicates that it will. There is no evidence to suggest that it will. You are making a very common mistake (among imbeciles) in assuming the natural world to have a memory. It doesn't know what happened yesterday and it doesn't care. If a large enough comet or asteroid impacted the Earth (say from the direction of the Sun, meaning it would go undetected until it was too late) it would create dust clouds which would obscure the Sun and potentially (in a worst case scenario) knock the Earth out of orbit. Right. There’s no guarantee sun will rise, but all the evidence indicates it will, making it the most reasonable induction You’re appealing to experience as in what we have observed so far ,how can you justify your assumption independent of experience? . Unless you’re a new born baby or have the mind of one. Maybe attempt a rational defence all you’ve done so far is to claim you’re right and everyone else is wrong , maybe you could do your party piece as in yet again reinterpret an opponents position into Amarel speak, it’s your usual ploy when whipped 1
point
1
point
Who holds your hand when you cross the street? You’re a fucking moron. Parroting smart people when they are wrong doesn’t make you less of a fucking moron. The onus is squarely on you to show precisely what is wrong with the argument . When you stop ranting and making personal attacks as a deflection from actually offering what you cannot as in a reasoned response 1
point
1
point
1
point
I know the meaning loud and clear. Except that's a transparent lie. Show me this global census you have conducted in which you have managed to successfully record the opinion of everyone about a person over 99.99999999999999999999999999999999 percent of them do not even know. You're stupid, you're dishonest and you're a Nazi. Tell me I'm wrong. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You’ve merely echoed errors made by your long dead betters. It doesn’t elevate you. Lol. Oh, I see. It's an "error" that a person can't possess evidence of the future? That's nice. I feel genuine pity for you, Amarel. You're such a sneering, snivelling little retard. Stupid, completely and utterly irrational, and entirely incapable of ever admitting being wrong. Actually, on the cosmic scale, we can have evidence of the future. We know the physical laws that govern space and time, we know how planets interact, and where cosmic objects are situated near our vicinity. We can use the data to make a number of predictions with certainty. One of which is: the sun will rise tomorrow. It's inherent in the statement. Tomorrow. It's inherent in the statement. Tomorrow. This is actually a different approach than the one you and I have previously made, which is the most rational approach. This one is semantic: Will the sun rise tomorrow? Yes. Necessarily. If the sun doesn’t rise, then it isn’t tomorrow. If it’s tomorrow, then the sun has risen. On the other hand, tre semantics can work against you. Tomorrow necessarily never arrives. When it does, it is not longer tomorrow by definition. Thus anything that is supposed to happen tomorrow will never actually happen tomorrow, as it will be today by the time it happens. That’s all just word play. It doesn’t change the fact that rational induction is not only possible, but necessary. It’s not as though you can take a functional gun with functional ammo and put it to your head and pull the trigger all while assuming nothing specific will come of it given assumptions about the future are supposedly irrational. The whole debate is simply one of those irrelevant side ally’s of philosophy that cause rational people to look elsewhere. 1
point
Daft question. For one, the sun doesn't "rise". The Earth rotates which causes sunlight to hit different parts of the Earth, hence day and night. Secondly, there are no asteroids/exoplanets/quasars/black holes/neutron stars etc. within a proximity that would cause the Earth or the sun to be destroyed or knocked out of stable orbit or caused to in any way effect the natural day/night cycle for at least the next 24 hours (more reasonably the next 100 years or more): we have satellites, telescopes and a variety of probes that confirm this as fact. Therefore: the sun will "rise" tomorrow. No need for sophistic pseudo-intellectual "philosophical" bullshit on this one. Daft question. Most amusing considering this come from one of the daftest fucks on C D For one, the sun doesn't "rise". Most rational beings use such descriptive language to describe the phenomenon , undoubtedly being the pedantic bore you are you deliver a lecture instead of using a simple term understood by all The Earth rotates which causes sunlight to hit different parts of the Earth, hence day and night. Secondly, there are no asteroids/exoplanets/quasars/black holes/neutron stars etc. within a proximity that would cause the Earth or the sun to be destroyed or knocked out of stable orbit or caused to in any way effect the natural day/night cycle for at least the next 24 hours (more reasonably the next 100 years or more): we have satellites, telescopes and a variety of probes that confirm this as fact. Therefore: the sun will "rise" tomorrow. Christ you're a bore and your postion is totally irrational, the man who knows the future No need for sophistic pseudo-intellectual "philosophical" bullshit on this one. Yes best stick with you psychic "gifts" as it allows you asset certainty for future events You don't need to be psychic to understand simple physics. The Earth will continue rotating around the sun tomorrow because there's nothing near us that would cause it to do otherwise. Very simple. Very provable. Entirely correct. It's much easier to predict events at cosmic scales than at mundane ones. Effectively, we DO know SOME of the future of the solar system, because spacial dynamics take far more time and cover much vaster distances than the minutiae of human everyday life. We can predict with almost perfect accuracy that the Earth will remain in its current orbit for x years undisturbed, because we have evidence. I have absolutely no doubt at all that the sun will rise tomorrow. But please, continue refuting scientific evidence with insults. It makes you look well intelligent. You don't need to be psychic to understand simple physics. Good attempt at deflection, you do need to be psychic to know the future , you claim to be so The Earth will continue rotating around the sun tomorrow because there's nothing near us that would cause it to do otherwise. Very simple. Very provable. Entirely correct. It's much easier to predict events at cosmic scales than at mundane ones. Effectively, we DO know SOME of the future of the solar system, because spacial dynamics take far more time and cover much vaster distances than the minutiae of human everyday life. We can predict with almost perfect accuracy that the Earth will remain in its current orbit for x years undisturbed, because we have evidence. I have absolutely no doubt at all that the sun will rise tomorrow. Your appeal to induction regards future events is speculative and irrational, you're reasoning to a conclusion by appealing to induction , your argument is fallacious and irrational
But please, continue refuting scientific evidence with insults. It makes you look well intelligent. Actually this philosophical question has not been decided by common consensus by scientists and philosophers , but what would they know. You threw the first insult you clown by calling the question daft , you're a raging egotist who claims certainly regarding knowledge of the future Is it certain that the universe will decay and entropy will lead to heat death? Is it certain that the sun will expand into a red giant and consume the Earth? Is it certain that at some stage in future, all life on this planet will cease to exist? .... We know this stuff. It's fact. Actually this philosophical question has not been decided by common consensus by scientists and philosophers , but what would they know Maybe not by philosophers (who are mostly full of shit anyway), but certainly by planetary scientists. They don't speculate that there are no cosmic objects sufficient to interfere with our orbit today or tomorrow, they fucking know it because it is observed. It is a fact. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Yes it fucking will. I'll be back tomorrow and we can discuss how my raging egotism was actually complete and utter correctness, and your bullshit pretentious horseshit philosophy was bullshit pretentious horseshit philosophy. Is it certain that the universe will decay and entropy will lead to heat death? Is it certain that the sun will expand into a red giant and consume the Earth? Is it certain that at some stage in future, all live on this planet will cease to exist? Certain? You're the psychic not I Maybe not by philosophers (who are mostly full of shit anyway), but certainly by planetary scientists. Full of shit indeed says Mystic Meg , planetary scientists now have certainty as well , wow psychic scientists .....Start a cult maybe? You're just having a tantrum because you're not quite as smart as you think you are, with all your bullshit pretentious philosophical tripe. "We can't know any future events because that's the philosophical paradigm I subscribe to and I'm sticking to it!" --- sends digital message across globe with certainty of its delivery --- Stop trying to sound smart and deep, maaaaann. You're just having a tantrum because you're not quite as smart as you think you are A tantrum , really? How hilarious, stop sulking just because your irrationality has been exposed with all your bullshit pretentious philosophical tripe. This little hissy fit does not address what you cannot rationally answer as in how have you certainly about future events? --- sends digital message across globe with certainty of its delivery --- First message I attempted to send this morning was not delivered as the Wi Fi crashed , are you really this stupid and irrational? Stop trying to sound smart and deep, maaan You just sound Irrational and throughly stupid 1
point
It is cosmologically certain that our star will become a red giant and envelop the Earth or the space the Earth currently orbits. We know this is going to happen in around 7.5 billion years. And we know this because we understand how the elements inside stars burn up; the rate at which they burn; and the gravitational consequences when they run out of certain fuels. Our sun WILL become a red giant and then collapse into a white dwarf. Our planet WILL continue its current orbit for at least 24 hours (ergo, the sun will rise). The point being, we can "see the future" when we look at things on cosmological scales. The timeframes involved for cataclysmic events mean we can know well in advance when one is going to occur, and whether or not it will affect us. The distances and scales involved in cosmology mean that things happen very, very slowly relative to our perception here on Earth. That means there is a high degree of predictability. At present, there is nothing in our cosmic vicinity that would prevent the sun from rising tomorrow. Nonsense ....A theory of the entire universe, based on our own tiny neighborhood as the only known sample of it, requires a lot of simplifying assumptions. When these assumptions are multiplied and stretched across vast distances, the potential for error increases, and this is further compounded by our very limited means of testing. Your whole thesis fails as it based on locality and is speculative to say the least as it’s reliant on nature being uniform. Uniformity is based on localized patterns we have observed your assumptions lead you to conclude that these patterns are likely to carry on into portions of the universe we have not observed , including future and distant past. Your irrationally has been exposed .....again It's fairly trite to try to make yourself sound more authoritative on planetary physics than planetary physicists, by appealing to apparent assumptions. It is not an assumption that there is nothing in our cosmic vicinity that would cause the sun not to have risen yesterday. As I said the day before. It seems I was proven right, and you were proven wrong. The sun did, indeed, rise. It's fairly trite to try to make yourself sound more authoritative on planetary physics than planetary physicists, by appealing to apparent assumptions. I have made no assumptions , your constant appeals to authority are lamentable but predictable seeing as you’ve been exposed as a puffed up egotist. You are the one who claims certainty without any rational reason for doing so It is not an assumption that there is nothing in our cosmic vicinity that would cause the sun not to have risen yesterday. As I said the day before. Your stupidity leaves you clutching at straws again , you also made a statement that a message through internet arrives with certainty until I told you the wi fi crashed as I said the day before It seems I was proven right, and you were proven wrong. You are actually trying to say that we can have no idea if the sun will rise tomorrow. That's the premise of this argument. And I have clearly proven to you that we can. Argument over. Next. You are actually trying to say that we can have certainty regarding the idea if the sun will rise tomorrow. That's the premise of your argument. And I have clearly proven to you that we cannot Argument over. Next. 1
point
1
point
Read a book. Preferably a scientific one. A scientist wouldn't reject a theory that is taken seriously by other scientists without looking at the evidence. That is not called science, that is called being a closed minded wanker doodle with his fingers in his ears screeching like a gay chimpanzee. 1
point
Flat Earth Matrix plane theory? Load of horseshit, mengkeh. Top scientists literally believe in simulation theory and believe that this is an ancestor simulation you fascist butt plug penis doodle. Now tell me, why would a simulation designed to study evolution and sociology in organisms require a whole universe or solar system? That would be inefficient when they could just simulate a virtual plane with life-supporting conditions. Top scientists Pfft ... Now tell me, why would a simulation designed to study evolution and sociology in organisms require a whole universe or solar system? That would be inefficient when they could just simulate a virtual plane with life-supporting conditions Way to postulate without acknowledging that there fucking is a solar system. We know because we constantly send spacecraft across it. You're another one who just wants to propose a load of pretentious bullshit. Get a grip on reality ffs. The solar system exists. The universe exists. We can fucking see it. 2
points
You're a brain dead sheep pussy bitch cunt who mindlessly believes whatever nasa tells you. Have you ever considered that government officials know this is a simulation and are in contact with alien demigods who run the simulation and don't want you to know because that would compromise the experiment we are taking part in? 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Direct democracy by proportional representation and right to referendums with a 70% approval requirement, mandatory voting, protected economy, free movement, anti-war, socialist safety net, genuine living wage, non-interventionist foreign policy, conflict neutrality, internet neutrality, robust privacy laws, high corporate taxation, anti-monopoly, pro worker, single payer healthcare and education, nationalized infrastructure, Athenian representation in case of governmental collapse, anti-monarchy, anti-peerage, anti hereditary titles, pro-European, environmental protection, anti-classist, anti tax haven, pro freedom of religion with strict separation of religion and state, pro science. I also think certain positions must only be given to qualified people. Environmental positions for example should not be given to people without qualifications in the environmental sciences or who have conflicts of interest such as shares in oil and gas companies. Education ministry jobs should not be given to people who do not have degrees in educational psychology or other relevant fields. Etc etc. Make climate science graduates in charge of climate policy. Make sexual psychology graduates in charge of sex education. Make educational graduates in charge of education policies. Make medical doctors in charge of the national health service. Etc etc. 2
points
All societies and political paradigms aim to exert some level of control, and seek to invest power in a certain stratum of society. Whether that is innately good or bad depends on who ends up with that control. If you have a country run on direct democracy, the "state" is the electorate. The control is in the hands of many rather than few. That's directly in opposition to the ultranationalist, authoritarian dictatorships by which fascism is defined. Iceland is probably one of the closest examples that I can think of, to the society I would prefer. Very open, very forward thinking, very liberal, highly educated, safe, socialistic, democratic, ethical, prosperous. These are the fruits of common sense politics. Politics which are naturally deduced and organically formed, rather than dogmatized. 2
points
Publicly run programmes' policies and directions would be dictated by the electorate and implemented by qualified relevant personnel. They aren't "big government", so much as they are social organisations. Tax paid by the electorate is used for the benefit of the electorate, by the assent of the electorate. That means a bus and rail network subsidised through national taxation, as with healthcare, medicine manufacture and education. A lot of European countries already do this, and it works. 1
point
Are astrophysicists and planetary scientists, the various high powered telescopes and the litany of space-maps and asteroid trackers we have, comparable to the captain of the Titanic taking sight-readings from a half drunk young sailor with a bad telescope? We know for certain there is nothing in our vicinity that would impact us enough in 24 hours for the entire rotation and orbit of the Earth to be broken. It's not a conjecture. It's a fact. 1
point
1
point
1
point
Have you made contact with the companies that make compasses and let them know you are a COMPASS EXPERT ????????????????? LMMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.businessinsider.com/ https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ The Top 7 Compasses SafeWise Recommends: Suunto A-10 Field Compass. ... Cammenga Phosphorescent Clam Pack Lensatic Compass. ... Silva Polaris Compass. ... Brunton TruArc 3 Base Plate Compass. ... SE CC4580 Military Lensatic/Prismatic Sighting Compass. ... Eyeskey Multifunction Military Army Sighting Compass. ... Suunto MC-2G Navigator Compass. Apr 20, 2017 With your KNOWLEDGE you should contact the above COMPANIES and explain to them how COMPASSES do not WORK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. Time is not independent. The difference between past, present, and future is merely one of perspective. Your assumption to the contrary has no basis. This fact undercuts one primary premise of your position. 2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position. The very fact that you know induction does not create certainty is based on your experience that induction has erred in the past and can be expected to err in the future. Induction is also fundamental to my position on the rationality of it’s use. This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason. 3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises. Deductive statements reason from general premises to a particular conclusion. On real world matters, general premises are necessarily an induction as that is how we get general premises. Even methods of pure reason are learned (induced from past experience to future expectation). This is why you have yet to provide a deductive statement about the real world without an inductive premise. Yes, the fact that eggs are similar relies on induction, just as much as the fact that the future will resemble the past, which is a counter-argument to your premise. I’m done going into detailed examples and explanations of the above counters to your position only to have them ignored while you pretend at victory. Address them coward. The certainty of this Divine marvel of the Heavens is described in Ecclesiastes 1.5-11. THE SUN ALSO RISES. If it's scientific reassurance you want then check out the Ernest Hemingway novel of the same name. The Bull Run in Pamplona doesn't start until July 7th and continues through to the 14th of July, so it's going to keep rising at until the end of this event. 1
point
The supposed problem of induction arises out of an error of perspective. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the future is completely unknown or completely unknowable. We are living in the future constantly. Our experience of the present is always the actualization of the future and is simultaneously the future’s past. To say we cannot know anything about the future is no more valid than to say we cannot know anything about the past, as the past is always in reference to the future that we can supposedly know nothing about. But of course, we can know things about the past, we have significant experience with it. And we can know things about the future, as every past is the future of an earlier past. Thus we have significant experience with the future as well. In fact, we have just as much experience with the future as with the past, both are the present, and neither are the present depending on perspective. This error of perspective is similar to claiming that a road leading uphill cannot simultaneously lead downhill, as that is a contradiction. But the road does both. I dislike and discount arguments that challenge that which is axiomatic. The problem of induction is one such challenge as inductive reasoning is fundamental. Induction is itself a tool of reason. To rule out induction as a means to validate induction, is to rule out a tool of reason as a valid tool of reason. This is necessarily unreasonable. If you maintain that the circular nature of induction validation necessarily invalidates it, you may also consider the validation of reason itself. One can not prove the validity of reason or of it’s parts (logic, induction, etc). These are axiomatic. You can not validate the tools of validation without using the tools of validation. This fact doesn’t invalidate the tools, it invalidates the challenge. This is why accepting the notion that induction is invalid necessarily leads to absurdities such as those demonstrated in my previous examples. It is absurd to think firing a gun at one’s head is equally likely to have any number of consequences. If you find yourself believing that absurdities hold equal rationality, it may be caused by you belief in the invalidation of the very tools of rationality. 2
points
There is no reason whatsoever to think that the future is completely unknown or completely unknowable. LOL. There's an extremely good reason. It's called cause and effect. You can't obtain information about an effect before the cause has even occurred. Fuck off Amarel. Your pseudo-scientific gibberish is getting on my nerves. You're a fucking narcissistic moron who needs 10,000 words just to get to the point. 1
point
First, cause and effect is the reason for predictability. I have explained to you six times already that you cannot predict the future and I have explained why cause and effect prevent you from predicting the future. Your refusal to address anything I say is infantile, as are your fallacies in which you paste together both concepts you have already been debunked about and continue on as if I haven't just explained to you why they are false. A basic 30 second course on chaos theory is enough to prove the future cannot be predicted so you are literally just writing complete fucking anti-scientific bullshit, as per usual. Rhetorical devices are not a substitute for reason and logic you fucking persistent retard. Second, according to your bullshit, none of your claims have any validity beyond the moment you say them. Here we go again. If you want to play this game then fine buddy. According to YOUR bullshit, it's literally fine to sexually abuse toddlers. Explain why you think that's OK? You're a boring, stupid, infantile cunt and pretty much everybody in the world wishes you'd shut your stupid mouth. The supposed problem of induction arises out of an error of perspective. That’s inaccurate, induction relies on a generalization based on a specific number of observations There is no reason whatsoever to think that the future is completely unknown or completely unknowable. We are living in the future constantly. Our experience of the present is always the actualization of the future and is simultaneously the future’s past. But that’s mere speculation how can the unknown be known? To say we cannot know anything about the future is no more valid than to say we cannot know anything about the past, as the past is always in reference to the future that we can supposedly know nothing about. That’s not true the past is a known the future is unknown as yet But of course, we can know things about the past, we have significant experience with it. And we can know things about the future, as every past is the future of an earlier past. Thus we have significant experience with the future as well. In fact, we have just as much experience with the future as with the past, both are the present, and neither are the present depending on perspective. What things can you know with perfect accuracy regards the future? This error of perspective is similar to claiming that a road leading uphill cannot simultaneously lead downhill, as that is a contradiction. But the road does both. The only one making errors of perspective is you I dislike and discount arguments that challenge that which is axiomatic. The problem of induction is one such challenge as inductive reasoning is fundamental. Induction is itself a tool of reason. To rule out induction as a means to validate induction, is to rule out a tool of reason as a valid tool of reason. This is necessarily unreasonable. Again you totally miss the point as inductive arguments with true premises may or may not be true , deductive arguments are truth preserving as in if their premises are true then their conclusions must be true , you have no grounds for your position If you maintain that the circular nature of induction validation necessarily invalidates it, you may also consider the validation of reason itself. One can not prove the validity of reason or of it’s parts (logic, induction, etc). These are axiomatic. You can not validate the tools of validation without using the tools of validation. This fact doesn’t invalidate the tools, it invalidates the challenge. This is why accepting the notion that induction is invalid necessarily leads to absurdities such as those demonstrated in my previous examples. It is absurd to think firing a gun at one’s head is equally likely to have any number of consequences. If you find yourself believing that absurdities hold equal rationality, it may be caused by you belief in the invalidation of the very tools of rationality. My position is still sound although one relies on induction and the claim could be made chaos would reign otherwise you still cannot demonstrate why the original statement regarding the sun rising is irrational until you do so your merely repeating yourself. Regarding pure logic valid mathematical proofs are not circular because they do not assume the conclusion in the proof That’s inaccurate, induction relies on a generalization based on a specific number of observations The idea that there is an induction problem at all arises from the error of perspective, as I go on to explain. But that’s mere speculation how can the unknown be known? Things are often not strictly known or unknown. Knowing the game of rugby won’t tell you the outcome of the game, but it will give you insight into the manner in which the game will proceed. You have experience with rugby. You also have experience with the future, as I explain. That’s not true the past is a known the future is unknown as yet Neither the future nor the past is entirely known nor entirely unknown. But for their to even be a past there must be a reference future, which you actualize in the present. What things can you know with perfect accuracy regards the future? Your call for perfect accuracy is the straw-man I previously identified. We can’t know the past, present, or future with perfect accuracy. But this fact doesn’t create a problem for induction. The only one making errors of perspective is you A baseless assertion coming from one who hasn’t demonstrated an understanding of what you’re responding to. But it probably feels good to say. Can a road lead uphill and downhill at the same time? Again you totally miss the point as inductive arguments with true premises may or may not be true , deductive arguments are truth preyserving as in if their premises are true then their conclusions must be true , you have no grounds for your position This response is ignoring the section it is supposedly responding to. Deductive reasoning takes general premises and applies them to specifics. But all general premises concerning real things are the result of inductive reasoning. When you say “All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal”, you have to first induce from your experience that all men are mortal. The syllogism worked perfectly well for white swans once upon a time. “All swans are white, there’s a swan at the lake, that swan is white.” The first premise came from experience with many individual swans being white. But then it turned out that some swans are black. Thus, deductive reasoning is necessarily subject to the same errors as inductive reasoning given deductive reasoning relies on premises derived from inductive reasoning. Follow? My position is still sound although one relies on induction and the claim could be made chaos would reign otherwise you still cannot demonstrate why the original statement regarding the sun rising is irrational until you do so your merely repeating yourself. I’m not repeating myself, and your ignoring much of what I’m saying. Your position is no less and no more sound than the position that logic is invalid because it cannot itself be proved sound. While it is true that logic cannot be proved sound (since proof makes it circular), the challenge itself is irrational and any supposition resulting from such a challenge is absurd. Much like the sunrise scenario. Things are often not strictly known or unknown. What do you mean “strictly known” is 2+ 2 = 4 strictly known? Knowing the game of rugby won’t tell you the outcome of the game, but it will give you insight into the manner in which the game will proceed. Knowing the rules of a game can lead to speculation on how the game may be played may proceed it could be accurate or inaccurate Neither the future nor the past is entirely known nor entirely unknown How it is not entirely known you have dead ancestors? How is anything known about the future? . But for their to even be a past there must be a reference future, which you actualize in the present. What that is indicative of eludes me Your call for perfect accuracy is the straw-man I previously identified. We can’t know the past, present, or future with perfect accuracy. But this fact doesn’t create a problem for induction. I don’t care about perfect accuracy but if you’re saying it’s irrational to state the sun may not rise actually and you say it’s absurd to claim such you are indeed making a claim which resembles certainty, if you’re not then you have exactly no reason to hold the position you’re clinging to A baseless assertion coming from one who hasn’t demonstrated an understanding of what you’re responding to. Nonsense, you keep making very vague statements that requires constant clarification But it probably feels good to say. That’s no doubt an alien feeling to you Can a road lead uphill and downhill at the same time? Yes , as you are walking uphill on your imaginary road turn around and start walking you are now going downhill This response is ignoring the section it is supposedly responding to. Deductive reasoning takes general premises and applies them to specifics. But all general premises concerning real things are the result of inductive reasoning. When you say “All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal”, you have to first induce from your experience that all men are mortal. Deductive reasoning works by taking sure propositions, applying inference rules and coming to a sure conclusion. There is no possibility of an invalid conclusion, if no mistakes are made. The syllogism worked perfectly well for white swans once upon a time. “All swans are white, there’s a swan at the lake, that swan is white.” The first premise came from experience with many individual swans being white. But then it turned out that some swans are black. This example is a typical one of inductive reasoning and does not proceed from sure premises to sure conclusions.In inductive reasoning it is possible the premises are true but yet the conclusion is false. Follow? Thus, deductive reasoning is necessarily subject to the same errors as inductive Absolute nonsense I’m not repeating myself, and your ignoring much of what I’m saying. You actually are , I’ve ignored nothing Your position is no less and no more sound than the position that logic is invalid because it cannot itself be proved sound. While it is true that logic cannot be proved sound (since proof makes it circular), the challenge itself is irrational and any supposition resulting from such a challenge is absurd. Much like the sunrise scenario. Another opinion piece which in no way addresses what you cannot answer What do you mean “strictly known” is 2+ 2 = 4 strictly known? Sure. It’s also tautological, not a deduction. Is what you did yesterday strictly known? No. Is it strictly known that all swans are white? No. Even though what you did yesterday is in the past and white swans were once a valid premise in a deductive syllogism. Knowing the rules of a game can lead to speculation on how the game may be played may proceed it could be accurate or inaccurate No speculation is valid if it makes any “claims about unobserved future events“, according to your anti-inductionism. How it is not entirely known you have dead ancestors? It is known. That doesn’t mean the past is entirely known. In the same way, knowing that hydrogen atoms will exist in a moment doesn’t mean the future is entirely known. How is anything known about the future? Because we have experience with matter of the future, right before they become matters of the past. That’s how we know the nature of the future, though not everything about it. That’s how we know that hydrogen atoms will exist in a moment. And in another moment. What that is indicative of eludes me Past present and future are not independent of each other. To assume they are is an incorrect premise of the induction problem. I don’t care about perfect accuracy Good. Stop calling for it because it’s a straw man. but if you’re saying it’s irrational to state the sun may not rise actually and you say it’s absurd to claim such you are indeed making a claim which resembles certainty It’s not irrational or absurd to say it may not, but only because we can logically conceive of situations where not may not. What’s absurd is your claim that the most likely scenario, that the sun will rise tomorrow, “is as unjustified as the notion a million mile wide bowl of flowers will appear over the horizon instead”. That’s absurd. Which is why the problem of induction is itself absurd. We can know things about the future. Though not all things and not with perfect knowledge. But then, that applies to everything, not just the future. if you’re not then you have exactly no reason to hold the position you’re clinging to My position runs counter to the problem of induction, not to doubt. Nonsense, you keep making very vague statements that requires constant clarification You’ve indicated a need for clarification one time when you said the relevance of one of my statements eluded you. Yes , as you are walking uphill on your imaginary road turn around and start walking you are now going downhill My point with that is that an apparent contradiction is merely an error of perspective. When you consider different possible perspectives, the contradiction goes away. When you’re on that road, the road behind you and the road in front of you is the same road. While you cannot know everything about what lies ahead, you can know some things, as the road itself is familiar. We are not unfamiliar with the future. We enter into it constantly. It is unreasonable and baseless to assume the future is unrelated to the past. Deductive reasoning works by taking sure propositions, applying inference rules and coming to a sure conclusion. There is no possibility of an invalid conclusion, if no mistakes are made. When it concerns anything in life, the sure propositions of deductive reasoning are acquired through induction, ie “all men are mortal.” This example is a typical one of inductive reasoning and does not proceed from sure premises to sure conclusions. The premise was thought to be sure, until experience showed that it wasn’t. Nonetheless, the deductive syllogism derives its premise from inductive reasoning. Even though we do not know everything about the next swan we encounter, we can know something about the next swan we encounter. In inductive reasoning it is possible the premises are true but yet the conclusion is false. Follow? Sure. From that it does not follow that there can be no rational claims made about anything in the future. Absolute nonsense If you’d understood what I said, you would be able to say why it’s nonsense. Another opinion piece which in no way addresses what you cannot answer Again, if that were true, you would be able to explain your opposition. I said logic cannot be proved sound (since proof makes it circular), that’s not an opinion. The circular nature of its proof does not invalidate it, since tools of reason must necessarily be used in the reasoning process, this includes induction. Sure. It’s also tautological, not a deduction. A tautology in logic is not a circular argument and is valid and is certainly deductive No. Is it strictly known that all swans are white? No. Even though what you did yesterday is in the past and white swans were once a valid premise in a deductive syllogism. Why are you mentioning what happened yesterday into a piece on white swans and attempting to turn what’s an inductive problem into a deductive one? The white swans problem is based on an inductive argument (the first one based on the observation of many swans) is a probabilistic argument. No speculation is valid if it makes any “claims about unobserved future events“, according to your anti-inductionism. Correct, which is why we bet on the outcome of such games according to your pro inductionism the outcome is probably a given It is known. That doesn’t mean the past is entirely known. I know my past history pretty well I know absolutely nothing about my future as the difference is the future is entirely unknown In the same way, knowing that hydrogen atoms will exist in a moment doesn’t mean the future is entirely known. Yes , it’s totally unknown as yet Because we have experience with matter of the future, right before they become matters of the past. That’s how we know the nature of the future, though not everything about it. That’s how we know that hydrogen atoms will exist in a moment. And in another moment. Past events happened in the past, present events are happening now, and future events will happen in the future. Anything you have to say about the future is speculative Past present and future are not independent of each other. To assume they are is an incorrect premise of the induction problem. How are they dependent on each other as neither the future nor the past exist Good. Stop calling for it because it’s a straw man. I will when you stop calling opposing views absurd and this assuming certainties regarding the unknown It’s not irrational or absurd to say it may not, but only because we can logically conceive of situations where not may not. What’s absurd is your claim that the most likely scenario, that the sun will rise tomorrow, “is as unjustified as the notion a million mile wide bowl of flowers will appear over the horizon instead”. That’s absurd. It’s far from absurd as you cannot offer a convincing justification for your belief. You claim the sun will rise tomorrow but cannot supply the slightest grounds for supposing such is true. Your belief is as unjustified as the belief in the flower scenario put forward Which is why the problem of induction is itself absurd. We can know things about the future. Though not all things and not with perfect knowledge. But then, that applies to everything, not just the future. What things can you know about the future with certainty as in I know my ancestors are dead regarding the past , give me one such statement you can with the same certainty regarding the future? My point with that is that an apparent contradiction is merely an error of perspective. When you consider different possible perspectives, the contradiction goes away. When you’re on that road, the road behind you and the road in front of you is the same road. While you cannot know everything about what lies ahead, you can know some things, as the road itself is familiar. We are not unfamiliar with the future. We enter into it constantly. It is unreasonable and baseless to assume the future is unrelated to the past. That may be true regarding roads , how is the future familiar? Past and future do not exist for something to exist by definition means that it has to exist in the present. I said logic cannot be proved sound (since proof makes it circular), that’s not an opinion. Again I repeat .........A tautology in logic is not a circular argument and is valid and is certainly deductive. The circular nature of its proof does not invalidate it, since tools of reason must necessarily be used in the reasoning process, this includes induction. Again you casually attempt to lump inductive reasoning in with deductive reasoning as if to assume they are somehow equal regarding the veracity of their claims they make ,they’re not nor ever will be as inductive reasoning is more in line of an informed guess as to what might be true given the available data and is open to rebuttal A tautology in logic is not a circular argument and is valid and is certainly deductive 2+2=4 is the same as saying Y=Y, it’s a truism, a tautology. It’s necessarily true by its form. You may have to use deductive reasoning to arrive at that tautology if the problem is 2+X=4 and your task is to solve for X. The equation is not itself a deduction. Why are you mentioning what happened yesterday into a piece on white swans and attempting to turn what’s an inductive problem into a deductive one? What will happen tomorrow is not strictly known, but that applies to what happened yesterday too. That doesn’t mean we can’t know anything about either. “Yesterday”, the white swans deductive syllogism was considered valid and true. But not today. I’m not turning an induction into a deduction, I’m pointing out that with anything in life, deductive arguments have inductive premises. Rather than risk being accused of repeating myself, should I just tell you to “see above” where a given issue has already been addressed? The white swans problem is based on an inductive argument (the first one based on the observation of many swans) is a probabilistic argument. That’s right. As I said, deduction take general premises to and applies them to a specific conclusion. Or, as you put it “Deductive reasoning works by taking sure propositions, applying inference rules and coming to a sure conclusion.” This general premises, those propositions come from inductive reasoning. “All swans are white” was thought to be a sure proposition. Deductive reasoning relies on inductive premises. Correct, which is why we bet on the outcome of such games according to your pro inductionism the outcome is probably a given No, not correct. If you bet that the rugby game will be played like a tennis match, you will always, necessarily be wrong. If you bet that a giant sandwich will rise instead of the sun, you will be wrong. You can’t know everything about the future, but you can know some things. I you couldn’t, you would t be able to act. I know my past history pretty well I know absolutely nothing about my future as the difference is the future is entirely unknown The funny thing about memory is that it allows you to feel like your isn’t total shit. It is. Everyone’s is. And the funny thing about the future is that it isn’t entirely unknown. See above. Yes , it’s totally unknown as yet See above. Past events happened in the past, present events are happening now, and future events will happen in the future. Of course. But there is no basis to the belief that these are independent of each other. And without that baseless belief, there is no problem of deduction. Anything you have to say about the future is speculative See above. How are they dependent on each other as neither the future nor the past exist Information is a real phenomenon that exists and is not physical. We can discuss the pitfalls of strict materialism elsewhere. It’s sufficient for now that you couldn’t even form thoughts or speak sentences if there was no more to existence than moment to moment strict materialism. I will when you stop calling opposing views absurd and this assuming certainties regarding the unknown You’ll stop relying on straw man arguments if I agree with you? No thanks. Go ahead and keep using them. It’s far from absurd as you cannot offer a convincing justification for your belief. See above. If you understood it, you could address it rather than discount and repeat. Than you would know if it’s a convincing justification or not. You claim the sun will rise tomorrow but cannot supply the slightest grounds for supposing such is true. See above. Here it is put deductively if it makes you feel better: All days have a sunrise by definition. Tomorrow is a day. Tomorrow will have a sunrise. Your belief is as unjustified as the belief in the flower scenario put forward See above. If you want a better response, you’ll have to actually address what I’ve said above. Until then, see above. What things can you know about the future with certainty....give me one such statement you can with the same certainty regarding the future? The universe will contain hydrogen in a moment....I mean, see above where I already gave you that goddamn statement! That may be true regarding roads , how is the future familiar? Because we have experience with it. See above. Past and future do not exist for something to exist by definition means that it has to exist in the present. How long is the present? If it’s any length of time than the past and present exist. If it’s no length of time then even the present doesn’t exist. Again I repeat .........A tautology in logic is not a circular argument and is valid and is certainly deductive. This doesn’t actually address what is responding to. I’ll copy and paste, but for future reference, see above. Logic cannot be proved sound and that’s not an opinion. It’s also not a tautological math equation. It’s the nature of reason. You cannot prove the validity of any given tool of reason without recourse to the tools of reason. You cannot prove the validity of proof, of logic, of soundness, of deduction, or of induction, without recourse to such tools. The tools of reason are axiomatic. Again you casually attempt to lump inductive reasoning in with deductive reasoning as if to assume they are somehow equal regarding the veracity of their claims they make ,they’re not nor ever will be as inductive reasoning is more in line of an informed guess as to what might be true given the available data and is open to rebuttal Give me a deductive statement about the real world with a non-inductive premise. Two eggs and two eggs equal 4 eggs in the real world which is a priori knowledge This relies on the inductive supposition that any one egg is like the next, not a priori knowledge. That’s not a true supposition. Since one egg doesn’t even equal another, two pair won’t equal four. Try one with a more accurate inductive premise. This relies on the inductive supposition that any one egg is like the next, not a priori knowledge. Gibberish....... You did ask for a real world example by me stating 2 eggs plus 2 eggs = 4 eggs and demonstrating such one I presume I would arrange such eggs or any other items into the desired position to prove the point , I think if people like you said “ but there technically not eggs because one is not exactly like the others “ the men in white coats would come to give you something calming for your hurt sensibilities That’s not a true supposition. Since one egg doesn’t even equal another, two pair won’t equal four. Your pedantry is on a different level Try one with a more accurate inductive premise. I truly feel for you if you think one egg has to be exactly like another in weight , size , colour etc , otherwise they won’t equal 4 in your other world scenarios You did ask for a real world example by me stating 2 eggs plus 2 eggs = 4 eggs and demonstrating such one I presume I would arrange such eggs or any other items into the desired position to prove the point The fact that it cannot be done makes my point. Now I’ll make the point stronger: You wanted a real world example based on a priori knowledge, but there is none. Did you ever learn math? Why do you expect the rules of math to apply in the next moment? Math won’t work. Perhaps you thought all bachelors were necessarily single. Did you learn language? How can definitions be expected to persist into the future? How can language be expected to hold any of the properties it holds into the future? Semantics won’t work. The closest things to a priori knowledge is infant instinct, that which arises from the construction of the brain, and of human nature. But that comes from evolution, which relies on the fact of reality that the past present and future are not independent. Induction is a necessary tool of reason. Tools of reason cannot be negated without using tools of reason. Induction is as axiomatic as deduction, which relies on induction. the men in white coats would come to give you something calming for your hurt sensibilities Mental health workers are actually available for people who truly cannot figure what will happen next or use any other faculties of reason. I truly feel for you if you think one egg has to be exactly like another in weight , size , colour etc When you learned math and assumed the rules still apply, did you learn what = means? It means “exactly like”. The fact that it cannot be done makes my point Cannot be done? Course it can be done you actually want a debate on Platonic forms and ideals of such it seems , it seems only a perfect form of Amarels ideation of an egg will suffice as an example , how utterly ludicrous . Now I’ll make the point stronger: It sure could do with “strengthening “ You wanted a real world example based on a priori knowledge, but there is none. Did you ever learn math? Why do you expect the rules of math to apply in the next moment? Math won’t work. Perhaps you thought all bachelors were necessarily single. Did you learn language? How can definitions be expected to persist into the future? How can language be expected to hold any of the properties it holds into the future? Semantics won’t work So why do you expect the sun to rise tomorrow? You’re brilliant at beating your own arguments you’ve just admitted you’ve no justification for believing the sun will rise tomorrow A priori statement such as 2+ 2 does hold for out world and our collective experiences of such , your appeal to alternative world scenarios are merely philosophical ramblings amusing but utterly unconvincing . The closest things to a priori knowledge is infant instinct, that which arises from the construction of the brain, and of human nature. But that comes from evolution, which relies on the fact of reality that the past present and future are not independent. Read above Induction is a necessary tool of reason. Tools of reason cannot be negated without using tools of reason Induction is necessary but is still based on assumptions deductive reasoning is not . Induction is as axiomatic as deduction, which relies on induction. A priori knowledge is still something that can be known without experience or sense data no assumptions necessary as in your constant begging the question Mental health workers are actually available for people who truly cannot figure what will happen next or use any other faculties of reason. You better address them so , I can make an educated guess at what will happen next it’s still based on induction and it actually uses the faculties-of reason you claim I’m not using. You still don’t get it despite my saying it continuously that as humans we cannot help but reason inductively but that still leaves you with what you cannot and will not address as in you have no justification for your beliefs about the unobserved and thus no knowledge of the unobserved. It’s a belief you are stuck with without justification When you learned math and assumed the rules still apply, did you learn what = means? Yet you’re the one not I demanding perfect forms to carry out 2+2 otherwise the math fails according to you Cannot be done? Course it can be done No, it can’t. All deductive statements about the real world necessarily rely on inductive premises. You can try again if you’d like. it seems only a perfect form of Amarels ideation of an egg will suffice as an example Your idea of one egg being equal to another is an imprecise induction based on your experience with eggs. If the truth of your argument depends on an acceptance of vague approximations and fails in the face of precision, rethink your argument. So why do you expect the sun to rise tomorrow? My very first response to this question is appropriate. You’re brilliant at beating your own arguments you’ve just admitted you’ve no justification for believing the sun will rise tomorrow I put that statement in your terms to demonstrate the absurdity your position. The fact that you accept it does not work on your behalf. Now I’ll restate it in terms of my position: You had to learn math. You necessarily assume the rules of math still apply. That’s because you reasonably assume the nature of reality is consistent across time, your argument to the contrary notwithstanding. Language was learned as well, and it’s use is an induction from what was learned. Thus, semantics where premises are definitionally true still rely on induction. When I say they won’t work, I don’t mean they won’t work in the future, I mean they won’t work as non-inductive premises for deductive reasoning. A priori statement such as 2+ 2 does hold for out world and our collective experiences of such 2+2=4 is not a priori knowledge. If it was, it wouldn’t need to be taught on Sesame Street. There are few examples of knowledge that is actually fundamentally independent of experience, and even that is derived from evolution, which develops as a result of past circumstances. Pure reason can provide knowledge without experience, but reason is learned and presumed to persist across time. Thus, it is not fundamentally independent of experience. your appeal to alternative world scenarios are merely philosophical ramblings It takes a belief in alternative realities to suppose that absolutely nothing can be known about the future. Your internal contradictions lend to my position. Induction is necessary but is still based on assumptions deductive reasoning is not I have successfully demonstrated that deductive reasoning rests on inductive premises. You have yet to refute this. A priori knowledge is still something that can be known without experience or sense data no assumptions necessary Even knowledge gained without direct experience relies on tools acquired through direct experience, in much the same way deductive reasoning relies on inductive premises. as in your constant begging the question That’s a term identifying a logical fallacy. But you cannot validate logic. And no, logic is not a tautology. Tautology is a term within logic. Until you validate logic, it is as rationally invalid. (You will have no more success validating logic than you will deducing without induction). Yet you’re the one not I demanding perfect forms to carry out 2+2 otherwise the math fails according to you Math itself doesn’t fail. It fails to demonstrate deduction with a non-inductive premise. That’s just a product of inductions axiomatic nature. Math as such didn’t fail. I can make an educated guess at what will happen next Not if making claims about unobserved future events is irrational. Any given guess is as valid as any other. Adding in your education is merely applying what was learned in the past, as if it has some connection to the future. Does it have a connection; or are educated guesses irrational? No, it can’t. All deductive statements about the real world necessarily rely on inductive premises. You can try again if you’d like. Yes it can.Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here's an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." A good deductive argument has true premises , and must be valid as in the premises must logically entail the conclusion You can try again if you wish Your idea of one egg being equal to another is an imprecise induction based on your experience with eggs. Use your own idea of an egg then and see how that works for you maybe the conclusion will still be false (for you ) such is your cognitive dissonance If the truth of your argument depends on an acceptance of vague approximations and fails in the face of precision, rethink your argument. You are probably the only human alive who cannot in the comfort of his own armchair work out that 2+2 eggs equals 4 eggs because the eggs do not conform to the ideal form an egg should take in your attempt to justify your circular argument My very first response to this question is appropriate. Your first answer was this .....All evidence indicates that it will. Circular argument from your first comment as it appealing to induction There is no evidence to indicate that it won’t. There is no evidence to indicate it will , etc I put that statement in your terms to demonstrate the absurdity your position. The fact that you accept it does not work on your behalf. Now I’ll restate it in terms of my position: Nonsense, you don’t even know my position because you keep shifting the goalposts down other avenues in an attempt to avoid admitting the circularity of your deeply flawed position , your whole argument rests on a wholly unjustified and unjustifiable assumption You had to learn math. You necessarily assume the rules of math still apply. That’s because you reasonably assume the nature of reality is consistent across time, your argument to the contrary notwithstanding. Language was learned as well, and it’s use is an induction from what was learned. Thus, semantics where premises are definitionally true still rely on induction. When I say they won’t work, I don’t mean they won’t work in the future, I mean they won’t work as non-inductive premises for deductive reasoning. Nonsense, 2+2 does not rely on induction as it’s a priori ....still 2+2=4 is not a priori knowledge. If it was, it wouldn’t need to be taught on Sesame Street Yet new born babies are born with basic maths skills. A priori knowledge, namely is knowledge that is based solely on a priori justification. . There are few examples of knowledge that is actually fundamentally independent of experience, and even that is derived from evolution, which develops as a result of past circumstances. Pure reason can provide knowledge without experience, but reason is learned and presumed to persist across time. Thus, it is not fundamentally independent of experience. An ad hoc argument in an attempt to justify your opening remarks in this post It takes a belief in alternative realities to suppose that absolutely nothing can be known about the future I’m not gifted with your psychic powers as yet your internal contradictions lend to my position. Accusing me of your irrationally is merely deflection I have successfully demonstrated that deductive reasoning rests on inductive premises. You haven’t , you attempted a defence but failed You have yet to refute this. It’s been knocked out of the ball park , if you have anything new you can try it Even knowledge gained without direct experience relies on tools acquired through direct experience, in much the same way deductive reasoning relies on inductive premises. You’re repeating yourself , I’ve put that one to bed That’s a term identifying a logical fallacy. Yes , begging the question / circular justification, yet you keep doing it But you cannot validate logic. And no, logic is not a tautology. Tautology is a term within logic. You’re incorrect , circular reasoning is a violation of the rules of logic and reasoning , because the conclusion of an argument cannot be used as a premise of the argument A tautology is different. In a tautology the predicate restates the subject , But is in a different wording. All logic is ultimately tautological , but is definitely not circular Until you validate logic, it is as rationally invalid. (You will have no more success validating logic than you will deducing without induction). Math itself doesn’t fail. It fails to demonstrate deduction with a non-inductive premise. That’s just a product of inductions axiomatic nature. Math as such didn’t fail. Read above Not if making claims about unobserved future events is irrational Which is why I don’t make irrational claims. Incidentally what makes one claim more irrational regards another regarding the future? . Any given guess is as valid as any other. I said an educated guess , any given claim is a valid as any other .....I keep telling you this Adding in your education is merely applying what was learned in the past, as if it has some connection to the future. Does it have a connection; or are educated guesses irrational? I keep saying we are hard wired to rely on induction to justify belief in what’s more likely which is unjustified You’ve managed to make it through yet another novel without ever once addressing the holes I’ve pointed out in your position. So here’s the deal, I’ll address this post in detail (including the fact that babies don’t know their hands from the ceiling let alone basic math), only after you address these main points. 1. Time is not independent. The difference between past, present, and future is merely one of perspective. Your assumption to the contrary has no basis. This fact undercuts one primary premise of your position. 2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position. The very fact that you know induction does not create certainty is based on your experience that induction has erred in the past and can be expected to err in the future. Induction is also fundamental to my position on the rationality of it’s use. This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason. 3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises. Deductive statements reason from general premises to a particular conclusion. On real world matters, general premises are necessarily an induction as that is how we get general premises. Even methods of pure reason are learned (induced from past experience to future expectation). This is why you have yet to provide a deductive statement about the real world without an inductive premise. Yes, the fact that eggs are similar relies on induction, just as much as the fact that the future will resemble the past, which is a counter-argument to your premise. I’m done going into detailed examples and explanations of the above counters to your position only to have them ignored while you pretend at victory. Address them or admit your defeat is as simple 1, 2, 3. You’ve managed to make it through yet another novel Yes I just about made it through your novel (well spotted) I actually ignored the other one you wrote as it was just the same repetitive tripe said in a different way. Your whole pathetic argument from the start has been and remains .....all evidence indicates that it will. There is no evidence to indicate that it won’t. Doubting that the sun will rise without any evidential reason is irrational That’s it except if one wants to add in that you claim you know the future because again you say so. Every one of your monotonous posts were addressed you ignored every reply I made as you cannot formulate one, as your latest piece of nonsense shows you yet again Without ever once addressing the holes I’ve pointed out in your position. I’ve answered every point you made you ignoring my corrections just make you look like more idiotic than you are So here’s the deal, I’ll address this post in detail (including the fact that babies don’t know their hands from the ceiling let alone basic math), only after you address these main points. Here’s my deal back , when you actually reply to the several points I made without resorting to your usual avoidance , I may deem to correct you Regarding babies and basic math science again disagrees with you , you seem to think because you stupidly say something is wrong that’s it because you say so , you’re nearly always wrong so I guess it’s your go to option Here’s my deal back , when you actually reply to the several points I made without resorting to your usual avoidance I believe I have addressed any point you may have made. If not, list and number them in a clear, concise form as I have. Regarding babies, they have to be taught to distinguish thing from thing before they are even taught to count, which is a pre-req for math. Saying "science disagrees" isn't an argument. I believe I have addressed any point you may have made. If not, list and number them in a clear, concise form as I have. They were listed one by one not numerically , it should be pretty obvious you start at the first and work your way down Regarding babies, they have to be taught to distinguish thing from thing before they are even taught to count, which is a pre-req for math. Again you give an opinion based on nothing but your usual because you say so it’s right stance. Saying "science disagrees" isn't an argument. Most rational beings would at least do a tiny bit of research before shooting their mouths off , I was pointing you in that direction but no doubt you will do your usual squeal as in “ you’re appealing to science “ They were listed one by one not numerically No they weren't. If they were it will be easy for you to copy and paste them here. Of course that would make it very easy for me to respond to them, so I don't expect you to do it. I made it very easy for you to respond. I don't expect you to do that either. So stop being a fucking coward. Respond to my numbered points and place your points here. Or keep running away. No they weren't Yes they were , read from the first line and attempt to answer coherently If they were it will be easy for you to copy and paste them here. Read above Doofus Of course that would make it very easy for me to respond to them, so I don't expect you to do it. That would be a first as ignoring points made is your usual tactic I made it very easy for you to respond. I answered your ignored read above I don't expect you to do that either. You’re actually talking about yourself here So stop being a fucking coward. Says the idiot who bulldozed through my post and didn’t address one thing I asked Respond to my numbered points and place your points here. When you respond to what I asked in my last post Or keep running away. Who’s running numb nuts Says the idiot who bulldozed through my post and didn’t address one thing I asked I addressed everything you dishonest little shit. But just in case I didn’t, I have invited you, now repeatedly, to list whatever I’ve missed in no unclear terms. Since you know I’ve addressed it all, listing it here won’t help you in the slightest, hence your refusal to engage. It’s fucking simple. I’ve numbered concise points that you will not address. Saying you already have is a fucking lie. I’ve requested your position in clear concise points, so that I may address them (again). But you can’t help but bitch out. Let’s see if inductive reasoning will predict the nature of your next post. You will neither address my numbered points, nor provide your basic points for me to respond to. Once an intellectual coward, always an intellectual coward. Prove me wrong. I addressed everything you dishonest little shit. You didn’t you child molester But just in case I didn’t, I have invited you, now repeatedly, to list whatever I’ve missed in no unclear terms. I will repost my piece yet again and attempt to respond to each point I made or fuck off Since you know I’ve addressed it all, listing it here won’t help you in the slightest, hence your refusal to engage. You addressed nothing , you avoided everything I asked It’s fucking simple. I’ve numbered concise points that you will not address. Doesn’t work like that dummy you respond to what I asked first Saying you already have is a fucking lie. It’s not , you’ve still not responded I’ve requested your position in clear concise points, so that I may address them (again). But you can’t help but bitch out. You’re beginning to bore me Let’s see if inductive reasoning will predict the nature of your next post. You will neither address my numbered points, nor provide your basic points for me to respond to. Once an intellectual coward, always an intellectual coward. Prove me wrong. When you address what I asked point by point I may address you. Once a child molester always a child molester have you no shame? Put away your kiddie porn and address each point I made coherently....... No, it can’t. All deductive statements about the real world necessarily rely on inductive premises. You can try again if you’d like. Yes it can.Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here's an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." A good deductive argument has true premises , and must be valid as in the premises must logically entail the conclusion You can try again if you wish Your idea of one egg being equal to another is an imprecise induction based on your experience with eggs. Use your own idea of an egg then and see how that works for you maybe the conclusion will still be false (for you ) such is your cognitive dissonance If the truth of your argument depends on an acceptance of vague approximations and fails in the face of precision, rethink your argument. You are probably the only human alive who cannot in the comfort of his own armchair work out that 2+2 eggs equals 4 eggs because the eggs do not conform to the ideal form an egg should take in your attempt to justify your circular argument My very first response to this question is appropriate. Your first answer was this .....All evidence indicates that it will. Circular argument from your first comment as it appealing to induction There is no evidence to indicate that it won’t. There is no evidence to indicate it will , etc I put that statement in your terms to demonstrate the absurdity your position. The fact that you accept it does not work on your behalf. Now I’ll restate it in terms of my position: Nonsense, you don’t even know my position because you keep shifting the goalposts down other avenues in an attempt to avoid admitting the circularity of your deeply flawed position , your whole argument rests on a wholly unjustified and unjustifiable assumption You had to learn math. You necessarily assume the rules of math still apply. That’s because you reasonably assume the nature of reality is consistent across time, your argument to the contrary notwithstanding. Language was learned as well, and it’s use is an induction from what was learned. Thus, semantics where premises are definitionally true still rely on induction. When I say they won’t work, I don’t mean they won’t work in the future, I mean they won’t work as non-inductive premises for deductive reasoning. Nonsense, 2+2 does not rely on induction as it’s a priori ....still 2+2=4 is not a priori knowledge. If it was, it wouldn’t need to be taught on Sesame Street Yet new born babies are born with basic maths skills. A priori knowledge, namely is knowledge that is based solely on a priori justification. . There are few examples of knowledge that is actually fundamentally independent of experience, and even that is derived from evolution, which develops as a result of past circumstances. Pure reason can provide knowledge without experience, but reason is learned and presumed to persist across time. Thus, it is not fundamentally independent of experience. An ad hoc argument in an attempt to justify your opening remarks in this post It takes a belief in alternative realities to suppose that absolutely nothing can be known about the future I’m not gifted with your psychic powers as yet your internal contradictions lend to my position. Accusing me of your irrationally is merely deflection I have successfully demonstrated that deductive reasoning rests on inductive premises. But you cannot validate logic. And no, logic is not a tautology. Tautology is a term within logic. You’re incorrect , circular reasoning is a violation of the rules of logic and reasoning , because the conclusion of an argument cannot be used as a premise of the argument A tautology is different. In a tautology the predicate restates the subject , But is in a different wording. All logic is ultimately tautological , but is definitely not circular Not if making claims about unobserved future events is irrational Which is why I don’t make irrational claims. Incidentally what makes one claim more irrational regards another regarding the future? . Any given guess is as valid as any other. I said an educated guess , any given claim is a valid as any other .....I keep telling you this I keep saying we are hard wired to rely on induction to justify belief in what’s more likely which is unjustified I will repost my piece yet again and attempt to respond to each point I made or fuck off Well, since I actually did respond to you, I will address each of your bullshit comments with quotes from my own previous responses. This will demonstrate exactly how easy it actually is to respond if, in fact, you have previously done so. You haven’t. Mine points are laid out in 3 concise facts. You didn’t you child molester This is very clear ad hominem. You addressed nothing , you avoided everything I asked I’ve literally responded to everything. Doesn’t work like that dummy you respond to what I asked first You have to ask something. I’m waiting…. It’s not , you’ve still not responded I am responding to all of this nonsense. And still waiting for you to actually defend the glaring holes in the premises of your position. You’re beginning to bore me Holy shit. I say “this is getting boring” and you mimic. I say “see above” and you mimic. I say “I’ve already addressed this” and you mimic. That leads me to believe that you are either lying about getting bored, or you have elevated me to the status of an authority, whom you can only respond to by mindlessly mimicking. When you address what I asked point by point I may address you What did you ask? Once a child molester always a child molester have you no shame? The evidence of your cowardice is dripping from this debate. The evidence of child molestation is non-existent. You really don’t understand reasoning, do you? Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here's an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." Ok, this is a prime example of a point you have made that you suppose I haven’t addressed. I will quote exactly where I addressed it, and exactly how it does not in any way address what it is supposed to be a response to. I said that this is a “simplistic inductive statement and an argument that they can be inaccurate, which has never been a point of contention.” For the children in the room, that means I never said that inductive reasoning necessitates perfect knowledge of the future. I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a straw man. I have never argued against an inductive statement having true premises but leading to false conclusions. Now lets look back on exactly what you were avoiding responding to with this irrelevant bit: I said “All deductive statements about the real world necessarily rely on inductive premises.” Which is true. Your response was an inductive statement about grandfathers. That is blatant avoidance. I challenge you to something you have been unable to do, and you responded by doing something else. Now, there’s the proof, in quotes, that I have already responded to your little bit of ignorance. It would take too much time to go though and figure how many times I made this particular challenge, or how many times you used this particular straw man. That’s why I shortened it up to 3 simple points that you have thus far hid from. A good deductive argument has true premises , and must be valid as in the premises must logically entail the conclusion All deductive arguments about the real world has inductive premises. Your above statement does not address this fact. It merely makes you feel better about your inability to produce a deductive statement without a generalized premise. Has this now been thoroughly addressed to your satisfaction? Or don’t you know how to read? Use your own idea of an egg then and see how that works for you maybe the conclusion will still be false (for you ) such is your cognitive dissonance “The example doesn't concern some ideal egg, it concerns eggs. While we can conclude from experience that one egg is roughly the same as the next, closer examination shows they are not actually equal. Don't feel bad, your flawed induction simply proves your point that induction can be flawed. A point I never argued against.” Now that I am literally quoting my previous response to this shit, will you continue to pretend that I didn’t respond? I expect you will if it allows you to avoid 3 simple points. You are probably the only human alive who cannot in the comfort of his own armchair work out that 2+2 eggs equals 4 eggs because the eggs do not conform to the ideal form an egg should take in your attempt to justify your circular argument This is a repeat of what is directly above. The example is real world, and thus does not include some ideal of an egg. What you want to say is that 2+2=4, and you just put in “eggs” to try to make it “real world”. But the nature of real world eggs are an induction from experience, which makes my point. And idealistic math must be learned, which again makes my point. And no, babies aren’t born knowing math nor does science claim it. Any assumption to that effect is an example of incorrect induction. If you could even hazard a source, I would point it out to you. Look past the click bait stupid. Your first answer was this .....All evidence indicates that it will. Circular argument from your first comment as it appealing to induction All evidence does indicate that it will. Your argument against induction is self-defeating as it relies on experience. This has been my point if you weren’t too thick to understand it. Induction is fundamental, even to your own position. Oh, and this is covered in my 3 simple points where I said “My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason.” There is no evidence to indicate it will , etc There is all the evidence of all the experience of all human experience, which is valid evidence. If you think it is not, that is something you learned through your experience. You learned wrong. Incidentally, this was also addressed when I said “The difference between past, present, and future is merely one of perspective. Your assumption to the contrary has no basis. This fact undercuts one primary premise of your position.” Nonsense, you don’t even know my position because you keep shifting the goalposts down other avenues in an attempt to avoid admitting the circularity of your deeply flawed position I haven’t shifted any goal posts (Jesus Christ take a simple online class or something). I have thoroughly explained why induction in necessarily relied on in reason, including in your own argument. This isn’t because the argument is circular, but because induction is fundamental. I addressed this when I said “ Induction is also fundamental to my position on the rationality of it’s use. This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason.” I am repeatedly showing where I have addressed your stupid shit. I am addressing it again, and applying quotes to show where it was addressed before. This is because I’m not a little bitch and a liar who can’t respond to 3 simple points while the opponent who made those points invalidates a mountain of monotonous repetition of absurd shit. Nonsense, 2+2 does not rely on induction as it’s a priori ....still 2+2 isn’t anything. 2+2=4 is a tautology (as are all equations). You had to be taught these things. They are not a priori. The fact that reason can lead you to knowledge without experience rests on the assumption that the rules of reason learned in the past will persist into the future. I have addressed this as well, when I said “ Pure reason can provide knowledge without experience, but reason is learned and presumed to persist across time. Thus, it is not fundamentally independent of experience.” Yet new born babies are born with basic maths skills. No they aren’t. A priori knowledge, namely is knowledge that is based solely on a priori justification. I guess no one ever taught you not to use the word you're defining in the definition. A priori knowledge is knowledge derive without the necessity of experience. This can be done through reasoning. I’ve addressed this before when I said “Even knowledge gained without direct experience relies on tools acquired through direct experience, in much the same way deductive reasoning relies on inductive premises.” An ad hoc argument in an attempt to justify your opening remarks in this post I’ll assume you mean post hoc. Yes, this is a justification of my opening post. You pointing that out is not an actual argument and does nothing to counter it. Keep hiding bitch. There are 3 simple points for you to respond to. I’m not gifted with your psychic powers as yet Nor are you very good at reason. Did you really want to insist that I reply to this? What a fucking distraction. Meanwhile bitch, there are 3 simple points for you to respond to. You haven’t yet. You’re incorrect , circular reasoning is a violation of the rules of logic and reasoning , because the conclusion of an argument cannot be used as a premise of the argument My conclusion is that induction is a valid form of reasoning. Your argument against induction relies on induction. Induction is fundamental and is a tool of reasoning. Thus, it must be relied on in reasoning just as with any other tool of reasoning. This is no more circular that logic as a validation for reasoning, which will necessarily rely on logic and validation. Now, I have said this before bitch. I think you’re incapable of grasping it. Nonetheless, here is a quote from earlier “This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason.” All logic is ultimately tautological , but is definitely not circular Correct, logic is not circular. But no, all logic is not a tautology. Logic can be formal or informal. It can be deductive or inductive. While it has tautological axioms at it’s foundation, all logic is not a tautology. Sigh… You said ”I can make an educated guess at what will happen next”. You said this because you are too fucking stupid to realize that your own position eliminates the possibility of an educated guess. I pointed this out when I said “Not if making claims about unobserved future events is irrational”. In response to this elucidation of the implications of your own position, contradicted yourself with “Which is why I don’t make irrational claims.” You followed your contradiction with a question (look at that, I missed an actual question. Maybe that’s because I had literally answered it in the post you responded to with that very fucking question. Pay attention bitch!) The question was “Incidentally what makes one claim more irrational regards another regarding the future?. The answer which I already provided was that, according to your own position, “Any given guess is as valid as any other. Adding in your education is merely applying what was learned in the past, as if it has some connection to the future.” I followed that with another question that you have avoided. ”Does it (that past) have a connection (to the future); or are educated guesses irrational?” Well, I guess that leaves one more question for you to address bitch. 3 simple points along with ”Does it (that past) have a connection (to the future); or are educated guesses irrational?” I keep saying we are hard wired to rely on induction to justify belief in what’s more likely which is unjustified It’s not just that we are hardwired little bitch. It’s that the reason which you invoke depends on it. It’s fundamental to reason itself. Now bitch, you have 3 simple points awaiting you. I won’t hold my breath. If you could answer them, you wouldn’t be the little bitch you’ve clearly been identified as. Oh and bitch, just in case you forget: Don’t call me what your slut of a mother reared 18 posts from you now my oh my , you’re pretty upset , I may address and correct your latest pile of shit tomorrow and correct it ......in the meantime calm down and leave those kids alone you panting peado Don’t call me what your slut of a mother reared Ah the old “I know you are but what am i defense”, I would expect nothing more. Maybe I should explain my use of such distasteful language. I thought it important to express in the most concise terms you mental inferiority to a kindergartner coupled with your complete intellectual cowardice. That coupled with your consistent dishonesty has earned you little more than my disrespect. While I have no desire to hurt your feelings by my articulation of your qualities, I hope you know that I don’t particularly care. I may address and correct your latest pile of shit tomorrow and correct it I’ll save you some time bitch. At the root of it is 3 simple points yet to be addressed. Since you can’t manage that one, bitch you might as well not waste your time. 1. Time is not independent. The difference between past, present, and future is merely one of perspective. Your assumption to the contrary has no basis. This fact undercuts one primary premise of your position. 2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position. The very fact that you know induction does not create certainty is based on your experience that induction has erred in the past and can be expected to err in the future. Induction is also fundamental to my position on the rationality of it’s use. This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason. 3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises. Deductive statements reason from general premises to a particular conclusion. On real world matters, general premises are necessarily an induction as that is how we get general premises. Even methods of pure reason are learned (induced from past experience to future expectation). This is why you have yet to provide a deductive statement about the real world without an inductive premise. Yes, the fact that eggs are similar relies on induction, just as much as the fact that the future will resemble the past, which is a counter-argument to your premise. Ah the old “I know you are but what am i defense”, I would expect nothing more. Why would you expect more when every post you put forward is laced with constant sniping and cowardly attacks , when you make a good argument I may offer you encouragement if that in any way will calm you dow. Maybe I should explain my use of such distasteful language. I thought it important to express in the most concise terms you mental inferiority to a kindergartner coupled with your complete intellectual cowardice. Well in kindergartens here kids know 2+2 = 4 , burger chomping American kids find that to difficult because the question is to vague. Your continued obsession with kids is alarming That coupled with your consistent dishonesty has earned you little more than my disrespect. But why would I want the respect of a hate filled N R A nut? While I have no desire to hurt your feelings by my articulation of your qualities, I hope you know that I don’t particularly care. If you think an American gun nut in some way “gets to me “ you’re sorely mistaken , I do enjoy putting your type firmly in their place though. You know the type I mean as in slack jawed loud mouthed yanks like you BTW for someone who doesn’t care you post of 11 posts one after the other and went scurrying to address the first one after I demanded you do so , your need for my attention and approval is .....touching I’ll save you some time bitch. At the root of it is 3 simple points yet to be addressed. Since you can’t manage that one, bitch you might as well not waste your time. I will address your horseshit and correct it as a lesson to you , normally I don’t respond to convicted peados but hey I’m all heart today ....... 1. Time is not independent. The difference between past, present, and future is merely one of perspective. Your assumption to the contrary has no basis. This fact undercuts one primary premise of your position. Stop being so silly your stupidity is astonishing , there is nothing but the present. the present moment is all there ever is. Any philosophy that leads you into a conclusion that contradicts this truism, is nothing but utter nonsense. The future and past are nothing but human concepts 2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position. The very fact that you know induction does not create certainty is based on your experience that induction has erred in the past and can be expected to err in the future. Induction is also fundamental to my position on the rationality of it’s use. This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason. Finally you admit to your deeply flawed position you acknowledge that induction is indeed circular as in ...... My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason. Your position remains that you base your assertions on future events on assumptions made about generalizations regarding past events a totally fallacious and circular argument 3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises. Deductive statements reason from general premises to a particular conclusion. On real world matters, general premises are necessarily an induction as that is how we get general premises. Even methods of pure reason are learned (induced from past experience to future expectation). This is why you have yet to provide a deductive statement about the real world without an inductive premise. Yes, the fact that eggs are similar relies on induction, just as much as the fact that the future will resemble the past, which is a counter-argument to your premise. A priori knowledge is not grounded in inductive processes you clown , also we have innate knowledge which you deny babies have because of your dismissal of science in favour of your flawed reports gathered from some bizarre internet site no doubt Maybe you could also clarify how you know the future also without posting up a wall of garbled bullshit in your typical avoidance tactics ..... Hey you finally attempted to get to the point. Without your avoidance tendency, I don’t think “bitch” quite fits anymore. Let’s get to it. 1: Your rebuttal to this point is that “there is nothing but the present. The present moment is all there ever is”. When I previously asked you how long the present is, you responded that “the past is gone”. Well, that pretty much leaves nothing then. While it’s true that we are always only in the present, thus cannot be taken to ignore the fact that the presence persists. That extended persistence gives us causation, and a sense of “before” and “after” which are real phenomena. This persistent present has a consistent nature which is known to us by our extended exposure to the present. That’s induction. This exposure allows us to learn other things too. Things such as math, language, the rules of reason, and the fact that these rules remain (induction). 2: Your response to this point was to accept it, and to characterize it as as admission that “that induction is indeed circular”. Of course, if you accept this point, then you accept the necessary correlate, that tools of reason (such as induction) require the self-same tools to carry out tasks of reason such as validation. Thus, no position validated as rational (because rationality cannot be validated), or rationality is as valid as induction. I’m sure you will reject that there is a problem with the “circular” nature of rationality, while accepting the contradicting position that there is a problem with the “circular” nature of induction. I, for one, don’t maintain your contradiction. Nor do I expect you to understand what I’ve just explained, it’s hardly the first time. 3: To this point you maintain your failure to provide a deductive statement of the real world that does not rely on induction. You’ve also failed to articulate how you came to learn deductive reasoning without learning it in the past. You’ve further failed to address the fact that this deductive reasoning (and any other fact based in reality) you’ve learned in the past is expected to apply in the future. On a truly truly unrelated topic, some babies learn to respond to verbal cues remarkably early, but this doesn’t mean that newborns know how to talk. Guess what! They can’t do math either! No one, including yourself, has provided reason to think they do! If you’d like to attempt again to address these holes in your position, you’re welcome to, and I’ll be happy to respond to such addresses. But I won’t be wasting my time on the long posts of re-hashed, warmed over shit your becoming accustomed to. Hey you finally attempted to get to the point. Without your avoidance tendency, I don’t think “bitch” quite fits anymore. Let’s get to it. Hey peado you’re still avoiding answering how do you know the future as you keep claiming you do , so tell me peado what part of the future is known to you ......can you do so without posting a wall of bullshit? Your rebuttal to this point is that “there is nothing but the present. It wasn’t just that stop lying .....Stop being so silly your stupidity is astonishing , there is nothing but the present. the present moment is all there ever is. Any philosophy that leads you into a conclusion that contradicts this truism, is nothing but utter nonsense. The future and past are nothing but human concepts There you go you’re talking utter nonsense The present moment is all there ever is”. When I previously asked you how long the present is, you responded that “the past is gone”. Well, that pretty much leaves nothing then. Except the present you idiot While it’s true that we are always only in the present, thus cannot be taken to ignore the fact that the presence persists. That extended persistence gives us causation, and a sense of “before” and “after” which are real phenomena. This persistent present has a consistent nature which is known to us by our extended exposure to the present. That’s induction. This exposure allows us to learn other things too. Things such as math, language, the rules of reason, and the fact that these rules remain (induction). What a pile of pseudo intellectual clap trap , you a friend of Deepak Chopra? Absolutely classic Amarel bullshit .....”persistent present “ 🤣🤣🤣 extended exposure to the present 🤣🤣🤣 how do you “extend “ the present you idiot?
your response to this point was to accept it, and to characterize it as as admission that “that induction is indeed circular”. Of course, if you accept this point, then you accept the necessary correlate, that tools of reason (such as induction) require the self-same tools to carry out tasks of reason such as validation. Thus, no position validated as rational (because rationality cannot be validated), or rationality is as valid as induction. I’m sure you will reject that there is a problem with the “circular” nature of rationality, while accepting the contradicting position that there is a problem with the “circular” nature of induction. I, for one, don’t maintain your contradiction. Nor do I expect you to understand what I’ve just explained, it’s hardly the first time. What a pile of typically ridiculous bullshit although the “persistent present “ takes some beating 🤣🤣🤣 Let me help you in your confused state , the assessment of the probability of an event happening in the future is based on how frequently it has happened in the past. The only justification that probability will hold in the future is itself inductive. So thus continues your circular argument which you still cannot justify holding
To this point you maintain your failure to provide a deductive statement of the real world that does not rely on induction. Yet I did as in 2+ 2 = 4 which still despite your ridiculous attempted counter is A priori . You’ve also failed to articulate how you came to learn deductive reasoning without learning it in the past. Why not instead attempt to articulate your sun rising with a deductive argument or else accept that your argument is irrational and speculative , your constant restating what was not said into Amarel speak is all you have Ever hear of Innate knowledge Dummy? All innate knowledge is a priori you stupid cunt On a truly truly unrelated topic, some babies learn to respond to verbal cues remarkably early, No way 😱😱😱😱 Who would have thought it 🤣 but this doesn’t mean that newborns know how to talk. But you’re the only fucking idiot saying this Guess what! They can’t do math either! Do math??? I said babies are born with basic math skills you dishonest fuck No one, including yourself, has provided reason to think they do! Science agrees with me regards my statement, your denial of innate knowledge is hilarious I f you’d like to attempt again to address these holes in your position, you’re welcome to, and I’ll be happy to respond to such addresses. But I’ve addressed every stupid piece of bullshit you posted one can almost hear the gears shift in your infantile brain as you search for a new piece oh horseshit in an attempt to mask your stupidity......”persistent present “ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 But I won’t be wasting my time on the long posts of re-hashed, warmed over shit your becoming accustomed to. Your complete collapse and capitulation were inevitable, but please if you wish do post more snippets like “persistent present “ it’s comedy gold .......now run along to your NRA meet up and remember watch out for any swimming pools on the way as apparently some nut says they’re a bigger threat than guns 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 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. I know that the rules of logic will remain from one moment to the next. But the rules of logic don't enable you to see the future. 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. 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. This has been my point. That's great news. I agree with your point that I've never seen you write something which doesn't contradict itself. If you don’t inductively reason that the rules of logic will persist, then you cannot make any logical argument. That's great, but it still doesn't enable you to predict the future. 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. 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. It's raining. 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. https://examples.yourdictionary.com/ 1
point
An observation that happens to not even be true If it isn't true then why is my head wet? Let me help you out with the terms. Insulting me is not an argument that it isn't raining. “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.” This is not an argument that it isn't raining. Its a simplistic website, just for you. This is not an argument that it isn't raining. It's another sneering insult. I genuinely don't know why you bother to reply when you actually don't say anything. You offer no type of rebuttal or counterargument. You simply make outrageous statements, cut and paste things you don't understand and which have no immediate relevance, then top it off with a few snide insults. It's very boring, Amarel. 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. 1
point
There are a number of reasons, other than rain, that your head could possibly be wet. This is not an argument that it isn't raining. It’s raining” is no more a tautology than “it’s not raining”. This is not an argument that it isn't raining. The fact that it’s not raining is enough to counter your incorrect observation that it is raining. But that isn't a fact. That's the opposite of a fact. You telling me it isn't raining isn't an argument against the rain which I can plainly see thrashing down outside my window. I'm going to do something else because you're obviously an imbecile with precisely nothing relevant to say. Have a nice night. Amarel Speak = Using over the top flowery language that’s contradictory and totally irrational in an attempt to bullsit your way out of your contradictory positions Jody seems to think that mathematical equations ore found in the physical world. Amarel seems to think that lying about what people actually said will save his flawed position , it won't Seeing as you deny 2 + 2 = 4 is A priori and even when it was put to you as a real world example 2 + 2 eggs = 4 eggs you claim it's not 4 eggs as the eggs may differ in size , colour , weight so couldn't qualify , this is the sort of immature childish bullshit you adhere to as you cannot take your beating like a man Hey Amarel seeing as you’re struggling with definitions and posting up such , let me help with what you continue to struggle with ...... Deductive and Inductive Premises Arguments can be separated into two categories: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example: 1. All men are mortal. (premise) 2. Socrates was a man. (premise) 3. Socrates was mortal. (conclusion) As you can see, if the premises are true (and they are), then it simply isn't possibJe for the conclusion to be false. If you have a deductive argument and you accept the truth of the premises, then you must also accept the truth of the conclusion; if you reject it, then you are rejecting logic itself. An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example: 1. Socrates was Greek. (premise) 2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise) 3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion) It's all a matter of necessary vs probabilistic. Deductive =Absolutely Inductive =Possibly But hey maybe , Math, philosophy and logic all got it wrong and Amarel speak (bullshit ) is the way to go ...... A priori knowledge, is knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences. My “average” mind has you jumping from posting up red herrings , assorted straw men and downright misrepresentation, you still refuse to answer What parts of the future are known to you as you’ve claimed this several times? 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 , so how do you justify your “educated guesses”? You also cannot explain what persistent present even means because the statement is pure gibberish You deny innate knowledge exists as in your insistence regarding what scientists accept as fact regarding babies and math skills. Before you speculate on average minds which is merely you holding a mirror up to yourself , maybe you should re-examine why you think your mind is anything but average considering you actually agreed your world views at best are based on “educated guesses “ I know that the rules of logic will remain from one moment to the next. You don't , you assume they will remain based on assumptions that because they have done so this far they will in the future , so again how do you know the future? How do you know that nature is uniform when your observations are based on locality? You assume nature is uniform which is why you conclude the sun will rise tomorrow, the Universe and what we know is based on local regularities but no overall regularity , perhaps the Universe becaomes a chaotic mess elsewhere. So you have two options appeal to experience to what you have observed or justify the assumption independently of experience. You cannot know independently of experience you can only claim to know by observing nature , to claim that nature is uniform is to make a claim about what holds for all time and all places , yet you cannot observe all of nature can you? You cannot observe the distant past or the future 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?
That's your whole argument and your justification is totally circular 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. Actually I'm not the one making assumptions about the future ,I've stated this several times now Science agrees with me regards my statement False. True Science agrees with me.... Hm, I guess anyone can say that. Actually you cannot so there goes another of your assertions put to bed 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. 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. 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 , how are your assumptions justified because they're based on inference which is an educated guess? 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 We cannot help but believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow our minds are so constituted that when we are exposed to regularity we have no choice but to believe that regularity will continue. Belief is a involuntary knee jerk response to patterns we have observed Your belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow does not supply the slightest grounds for supposing this true , you still cannot justify this belief You claimed part of the future is know to you but refuse to answer what part or parts? When you say that you cannot presume the rules of logic persists, it is a contradiction attempt a logical defense of this proposition. My defence is perfectly logical persist means to continue , you know this how? Again you assume to know the future how so? Clarify your “persistent present “ as in how does the present persist? You cannot reasonably argue that reason is invalid, which is what you are attempting. I never said that I said certain reasoning ie inductive is based on assumptions in many cases which cannot be justified you still cannot offer a reason why you’re justified in your belief 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. But again you avoid what I actually said regarding the Uniformity of nature and how you justify such? 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. This is entirely again to misrepresent what I’m actually saying and you keep ignoring , I never claimed one had to know everything through observation I said basing future events on previous observations is to make a generalization that is unjustified .......there is no straw man here despite you pretending there is 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 not an answer as in how do justify the assumption nature is uniform? 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. Yet inductive reasoning regards the Sun rising is an illogical progression 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. 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. 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. 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 , how are your assumptions justified because they're based on inference which is an educated guess? 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 We cannot help but believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow our minds are so constituted that when we are exposed to regularity we have no choice but to believe that regularity will continue. Belief is a involuntary knee jerk response to patterns we have observed Your belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow does not supply the slightest grounds for supposing this true , you still cannot justify this belief You claimed part of the future is know to you but refuse to answer what part or parts? When you say that you cannot presume the rules of logic persists, it is a contradiction attempt a logical defense of this proposition. My defence is perfectly logical persist means to continue , you know this how? Again you assume to know the future how so? Clarify your “persistent present “ as in how does the present persist? You cannot reasonably argue that reason is invalid, which is what you are attempting. I never said that I said certain reasoning ie inductive is based on assumptions in many cases which cannot be justified you still cannot offer a reason why you’re justified in your belief 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. But again you avoid what I actually said regarding the Uniformity of nature and how you justify such? 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. This is entirely again to misrepresent what I’m actually saying and you keep ignoring , I never claimed one had to know everything through observation I said basing future events on previous observations is to make a generalization that is unjustified .......there is no straw man here despite you pretending there is 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 not an answer as in how do justify the assumption nature is uniform? 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. Yet inductive reasoning regards the Sun rising is an illogical progression 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. 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. 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. https://www.livescience.com/ https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/ What a pile of interminable bullshit , every post you make contradicts your previous pile of bullshit. Your denial of science , philosophy and basic common sense is typical and leaves you in pole position as the sites biggest bullshitter Highlights ...... "Persistent present" a typical piece of utter horse shit followed by "known future " more gibberish followed by 2+ 2 eggs actually is an unknown which proves what a fucking loudmothed idiot you are You're banned for gross stupidity and typing novels of utter repetitive contradictory horeshit watching paint dry would be more meaningful When you respond to what I asked in my last post There is literally nothing asked in your last post. But I’ve invited you to make your points. You can’t. I think that’s 3 irrational positions you’ve now fought for. You can’t handle gun statistics, you don’t understand that experience requires existence as a precondition, and now you think the future is unrelated to the past. I’ve invited you to make your points. You can’t. Why do you lie so much? You can’t handle gun statistics More likely he can't handle your farcical selection bias. I wonder whether you included these statistics? Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States 90 are shot unintentionally Every year, 113,108 people are shot. Among those: 36,383 people die from gun violence 12,830 are murdered Every year, 7,782 children and teens are shot in the United States. Among those: 1,488 children and teens die from gun violence 2,893 are shot unintentionally https://www.bradyunited.org/ you think the future is unrelated to the past. You think the future can be predicted by soothsayers and cosmic mediums you backwards fucking imbecile. There is literally nothing asked in your last post. You avoided everything I asked in my last post But I’ve invited you to make your points. You can’t. But I did you dishonest fuck I think that’s 3 irrational positions you’ve now fought for. You can’t handle gun statistics, I can , you live in the 121 st least peaceful country in the world and it’s you cannot handle them 80,000 gun accidents a year and 40,000 gun deaths you fucking idiot Oh I forgot swimming pools are a bigger threat according to you you don’t understand that experience requires existence as a precondition, Where did I say that exactly .....oh wait I didn’t and now you think the future is unrelated to the past. But you claim you know the future you clot Let’s look at your lunacy and positions you rabidly adhere to ...... 1: Serving a warrant on someone is an extreme act of violence 2: 2 eggs plus 2 eggs is an unknown unless the eggs are identical ( classic Amarel) 3: A fetus is a person / baby / toddler / citizen 1: Serving a warrant on someone is an extreme act of violence I still don't know what you think is peaceful about forcing a person into a cage. 2 eggs plus 2 eggs is an unknown unless the eggs are identical It's weird that your powers of observation are so weak that you never noticed that eggs vary in size. 3: A fetus is a person / baby / toddler / citizen Well, a baby is a person, and a fetus is an unborn baby, ergo...Haha, don't sweat it bitch. We know your powers of reason don't extend even a nanosecond into the future or past. How long is the present again? I still don't know what you think is peaceful about forcing a person into a cage. Right , serving a warrant in the U S involves putting one in a.....cage .....Christ you truly are dense It's weird that your powers of observation are so weak that you never noticed that eggs vary in size. Yet school kids here If asked to add such can do so ....but you’re Murican ...awesome..... Well, a baby is a person, and a fetus is an unborn baby, ergo...Haha, don't sweat it bitch. Amazing the way tough Muricans call everyone “bitch” you’re real scary .....but wait you’re carrying you’re good ole gun We know your powers of reason don't extend even a nanosecond into the future or past. How long is the present again? The present is gone dummy I note you steered away from your other failed topic as in guns......121st least peaceful country in the world U S A .....bitch Right , seeing a warrant in the U S involves putting one in a.....cage ..... Yeah. I suppose jail has a more peaceful connotation to you? Amazing the way tough Muricans call everyone “bitch” you’re real scary .....but wait you’re carrying you’re good ole gun Don’t misunderstand me. Your designation as a bitch is based entirely on your online behavior and ability. It carries with it no physical threat, as that would be ridiculous. It’s just that “bitch” is a lot easier than “intellectual coward of inferior capabilities”. The present is gone dummy Sigh. No bitch, that’s the past. You said that there is not past or future, but only the present. If you think the present is gone to, it’s no wonder you’re so full of absurdity. You can try that one again if you like Yeah. I suppose jail has a more peaceful connotation to you? I suppose lying and misrepresenting what I actually said is your only option still So police in the U S use brutality to serve warrants , you’re a fuckng idiot Don’t misunderstand me. Your designation as a bitch is based entirely on your online behavior and ability. Right so I’m a .....Bitch .... a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter Woof , Woof , You’re priceless 🤣🤣🤣 It carries with it no physical threat, as that would be ridiculous. It’s just that “bitch” is a lot easier than “intellectual coward of inferior capabilities”. No one could possibly be “intellectually inferior “ to a cretin like you , regards cowardice you have it in spades as your continued denial in refusing to answer how you know what no one else knows as in the future Sigh. No bitch, that’s the past. Did you not notice the “Is “ you dishonest prick You said that there is not past or future, but only the present. Correct , but you know the future and apparently can visit future and past , now that’s a special kind of stupid If you think the present is gone to, it’s no wonder you’re so full of absurdity. But it is and keeps going .....weird isn’t it? You can try that one again if you like I just did thanks for the thumbs up I note also you’re still sticking to 2+ 2 is not A priori Also your guns claims I debunked leave you mute again .....U S A 121 st least peaceful country in the world 😱😱😱 But hey guns don’t kill people etc , etc 🤣🤣🇮🇳 Regards babies and math you’re wrong again I know the studies you refer to they’re deeply flawed , no cigar again for you but keep trying Now that you have conceded that your defeat was as easy as 1,2,3, I will address some particulars here. First, Your very first response is a great example of your avoidance. You quoted my challenge to formulate a deductive statement about the real world without using and inductive premise. Despite this being your actual quote, your response was an simplistic inductive statement and an argument that they can be inaccurate, which has never been a point of contention. While it is the case that a good deductive argument about the real world will derive a true conclusion from true premises, the premises are general principles, which are necessarily inductions. If you through out induction as rational, you through out deduction as well. I distinguish "real world" because it is known through experience of the world. That doesn't make it circular, just fundamental. "Pure reason" is a method which follows from the attributes of the real world. A method which are learned through experience. Use your own idea of an egg The example doesn't concern some ideal egg, it concerns eggs. While we can conclude from experience that one egg is roughly the same as the next, closer examination shows they are not actually equal. Don't feel bad, your flawed induction simply proves your point that induction can be flawed. A point I never argued against. Circular argument from your first comment as it appealing to induction All tools of reason are validated through tools of reason. I'm sorry your too thick to get that, but it doesn't invalidate tools of reason. Yet new born babies are born with basic maths skills. No they aren't. I know the studies you are likely referring to, and they do not actually show that newborns know any math. That's merely a flawed induction. Hey that makes that one point of yours I didn't disagree with! Anyway, this is getting boring. I laid it out for you and numbered. I numbered it and kept it short just so I could demonstrate your inability to address the specific points I made. You indicated that you will not respond, which doesn't surprise me. If you do respond, you will no doubt avoid the points. But they are bolded and numbered, so it will be very easy for me to demonstrate your avoidance. It was kind of a side point, but you said there is only the present, and no past or future. I asked exactly how long you think the present is. You ignored that one as well, but I'm curious. Do you think the present has duration? Now that you have conceded that your defeat was as easy as 1,2,3, I will address some particulars here. I am sorry that nobody has explained this to you, but the point of debating is to find the truth, not to "defeat" people who disagree with you. Your childishly myopic attitude is simply a by-product of your severe narcissistic personality disorder. Listen up dummy you’ve totally ignored what I asked you to address being the egotistical twat you are , when you address my last post section by section I promise I will correct you .....again . Like the raging egotist you are from the start you cannot explain how you know what no one else does as in the future , I will ignore your latest tripe until you respond coherently to what was asked in my last post .... You know the baby studies I’m referring too and they’re flawed , you’re a special kind of fucking idiot you know the future and you know what others are thinking off ...🤣🤣🤣 Your defeat was actually from your first post when you couldn’t demonstrate why your unjustified belief in the sun rising is justified , you still cannot justify it ......You can try a new defence if you wish? We’ve done that long winded shit long enough. We’ve? You mean one child molester as in you? It provides cover for you to hide from my challenges. Reverse that Doofus and address my post That’s why I put them in clear terms. Now your avoidance is clear as day. Yet the rabbit running is you Others would be embarrassed to demonstrate so openly their inability. Others? But yet you’ve done it 15 times now 1,2, and 3. They’re waiting. 123456769 I’m still waiting .......who's they? Fellow child molesters? 1
point
|