Posted: Mar 04, 2018 12:22 am
by Cito di Pense
Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, that's the whole point of presenting the requisite discoursive rules...


That's pretty strict, Cali. Granted, all that is going on here is discourse.

Calilasseia wrote:without a test being possible, an assertion never loses that "truth value unknown" status.


Well, take your typical metaphysical conundrum, you know, about the difference between the observed world and the real world, to which I've been giving a little thought lately. If someone tells you that observed X is not X itself, how does she so conclude? Caution dictates that we might, in fact, be observing the real world just as it is, with the proviso that our observational equipment vary from person to person and lab to lab. It's not that jamest has made an untestable assertion; it's that his logic has failed him. His statement is not just truth-value-unknown, it's in the dumper. Observed X is not X itself is not simply untestable. It's pure bullshit, and we don't give it 'truth value unknown' like we're playing patty-cake, because somebody who says observed X is not X itself wouldn't be able to tell, either.

Calilasseia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:But you know the provenance of the 'god-type entity', don't you? Do you say you don't?


Actually, from the standpoint of the general form of the assertion I gave, the answer is "no, I don't". What I do know, however, is that any competent candidate isn't going to come from mythology. If that assertion is ever to be tested properly, and the devising of a proper test will propel the inventor thereof to Nobel Laureate status, then the contradiction and absurdity riddled candidates so beloved of mythology enthusiasts, will be conspicuously absent from the outcome of such test, simply by dint of being riddled with contradiction and absurdity.


You still don't fucking get it, do you? You're treating it as a word you can re-define, in case you find something that might fit, almost as if mythology was just primitive science. All you're doing is clinging to a word, like somebody who's still spooked.

Calilasseia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:We know it does because we have some very old documents that refer to a 'god-type entity'. The entity, then, arrives from deep in our past, courtesy of ignorant goat roasters and the propensity for succeeding ground apes to revert to "monkey see, monkey do".


That troublesome past history doesn't mean we can't learn to adopt a new approach. Which is, I gather, what scientists did when they launched modern science.


Cling on, my friend. Either that, or explain to me the value you find in 'adopting a new approach'. Sounds like an act of faith to me. Not the hope of a new approach, although hope and faith are related. It's that faith a new approach will change something when we are not talking about technology.

Calilasseia wrote:But then, I possess this human attribute called 'curiosity'.


Yeah, me too, brother. But I ain't carrying no coals to Newcastle for no one. You of all people, who bandy about the phrase "surplus to requirements" often enough, should understand immediately what I'm getting at. What requirement is it that we seek to satisfy? Curiosity? Mmm hmmm.