Test for competance for voting??

ashurbanipal · Apr 13, 2018

Mach said:
"Reality is", is axiomatic in any and all argumentation, of any kind, in any language, at any time.

No it isn't. I suppose truth may be. But reality is rather different.

Mach said:
To suggest that accepting a self-evident truth is a form of begging the question

It's not a self-evident truth. If it were, everyone would agree, and it's not merely the case that a few crazies disagree. There are quite a few smart and educated people who think there is no reality.

Mach said:
is both trivially shown to be false, and confirming of the fact that reality is true (which is a contradiction to what you wrote).

So, your assertion that there is reality proves that reality exists? That's just absurd.

Mach said:
"In reality, I claim that reality is not a premise in argumentation." (it was a premise for that absurd, false, claim too!)

Modify to "in truth, I claim that reality is not a premise in argumentation" and your argument seems to dissolve.

Mach · Apr 13, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
No it isn't. I suppose truth may be. But reality is rather different.

If we were not real, we couldn't discuss it. It's self-evidently true, and whether you accept it or not is irrelevant.

If it were, everyone would agree, and it's not merely the case that a few crazies disagree. There are quite a few smart and educated people who think there is no reality.

Wow, that's all kinds of stupid.
If something is a fact of realty "everyone would agree"? Funny stuff.

So, your assertion that there is reality proves that reality exists? That's just absurd.

You can't even get that correct.
My assertion is that "reality is", is self-evidently true. It's axiomatic.
You apparently don't know what axioms are, or self-evident, if you think those are used to "prove" the truth that is self-evident.

ashurbanipal · Apr 13, 2018

Mach said:
If we were not real, we couldn't discuss it.

Why not? You seem to be confusing the concepts of reality and truth.

Mach said:
It's self-evidently true, and whether you accept it or not is irrelevant.

Anyone can assert something like that. Look: it's self-evidently true that reality doesn't exist, and whether you accept that or not is irrelevant. See? Not a good way to argue.

Mach said:
Wow, that's all kinds of stupid.
If something is a fact of realty "everyone would agree"? Funny stuff.

That's not what I said. I was talking about something being "self-evident," not something being true, real, or whatever. When I divide up a post and put my response below a certain bit, the response is meant toward that bit, not the whole post.

Mach said:
My assertion is that "reality is", is self-evidently true. It's axiomatic.

Alright. My assertion is that "reality is not," is self-evidently true. It's axiomatic. Your assertion is meaningless without an argument. (Incidentally, I do not actually assert there is no reality. I'm arguing to show why your clams are problematic).

Mach said:
You apparently don't know what axioms are, or self-evident, if you think those are used to "prove" the truth that is self-evident.

I usually don't respond to this kind of baiting, but what's this bit about "those are used to 'prove' the truth"? That doesn't make any sense in context of what I wrote. You are asserting that the claim "reality exists" is self-evident. I'm pointing out that your assertion, just as such, means nothing, and it's false anyway. The meaning of something's being "self-evident" is not clear, but if something is genuinely self-evident, everyone, or almost everyone, will agree with it. Another way to say "self-evidently true" might be "just obviously true," and if something is just obviously true, everyone would agree. If there's substantial disagreement over some claim, that is an indication that the claim is not self-evidently true.

The question of whether that same claim is true or not is entirely different. You're making a claim, which I am attacking, about the epistemic status of reality.

Mach · Apr 13, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
Why not? You seem to be confusing the concepts of reality and truth.

You are literally holding the position that you do not exist. Which is fine with me, it's obviously absurd and false.

Anyone can assert something like that. Look: it's self-evidently true that reality doesn't exist, and whether you accept that or not is irrelevant.

Anyone can assert anything, it doesn't mean they are correct, or reasonable. Why would you suggest that because anyone can assert something, it's therefore relevant to something being self-evidently true or not? It's senseless.

(False claim you hold): I claim that reality doesn't exist!
assumes the premise of reality to be able to make that claim in the first place:
[As evidenced in reality] I claim that reality itself doesn't exist! Which is contradictory.

Imagine a living human being, telling you to your face that they do not exist. That's how incredible insane what you are typing is.

ashurbanipal · Apr 13, 2018

Mach said:
You are literally holding the position that you do not exist. Which is fine with me, it's obviously absurd and false.

Where did I say that I don't exist? Something can exist without being real. Heck, something can even be real without there being such a thing as reality (that is, a domain of real things).

Mach said:
Anyone can assert anything, it doesn't mean they are correct, or reasonable.

Yes, I already said that.

Mach said:
Why would you suggest that because anyone can assert something, it's therefore relevant to something being self-evidently true or not? It's senseless.

What's with this relevance question all of a sudden? Relevant in what way? My point is that just because someone asserts some claim C does not make C true.

Mach said:
(False claim you hold): I claim that reality doesn't exist!

I don't hold that claim. I even said I don't hold that claim. Whose posts are you responding to?

Mach said:
assumes the premise of reality to be able to make that claim in the first place

No. Truth and reality need have nothing to do with one another. It may be true that there is no reality. All kinds of propositions may be true without there being any reality.

Mach said:
I claim that reality itself doesn't exist! Which is contradictory.

Any claim that is self-contradictory can be proven to be so on the usual axioms of the applicable logic. So please, go ahead and prove the claim "reality doesn't exist" is self-contradictory. No need to symbolize--natural language will do. But it needs to be a proof. Here's an example:

1. S is true and not true.
2. S is true (decomposition of 1)
3. S is not true (decomposition of 1)
4. 2 contradicts 3 (principle of contradiction).
5. 1 is self-contradictory (by composition of 2 and 3).

You can look up all the principles I cited in any decent logic textbook (well, any written after about 1990--the principles used to have different names before that).

So, have at it.

Mach · Apr 13, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
Something can exist without being real.

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist,

At least by admitting you reject self-evident truth's, there is no need to proceed down your rabbit-hole since this is at the top. After all, that's what falsity is at its root isn't it? Denying reality.

Tim the plumber · Apr 13, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
Sure. More so than many who post on these boards. The position that everything is narrative isn't something one arrives at without intense reflection. I'd rather have that than someone who thinks the evidence "speaks for itself" and other such nonsense.

Scientist?

1, He posts on this forum.

2, Yes, forensic scientist or whatever.

Tim the plumber · Apr 13, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
No it isn't. I suppose truth may be. But reality is rather different.

No, it is not.

It's not a self-evident truth. If it were, everyone would agree, and it's not merely the case that a few crazies disagree. There are quite a few smart and educated people who think there is no reality.

Only those who are scamming the gullible. Post modernism etc.

So, your assertion that there is reality proves that reality exists? That's just absurd.

It is absurd to argue that there is anything beyond or different to the real world.

Modify to "in truth, I claim that reality is not a premise in argumentation" and your argument seems to dissolve.

??

ashurbanipal · Apr 13, 2018

Mach said:
At least by admitting you reject self-evident truth's, there is no need to proceed down your rabbit-hole since this is at the top. After all, that's what falsity is at its root isn't it? Denying reality.

I never said I reject self-evident truths. You just don't understand the depths in which you're swimming.

Mach · Apr 13, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
I never said I reject self-evident truths.

The world does not require you to admit you're wrong, for you to be wrong.

You have identified your fallacy here, and because you cannot defend it except to ad hom, I accept that you have given up. A wise choice.

ahsurbanipal said:
Something can exist without being real.

Funny stuff...denying reality, that's as real as it gets.

ashurbanipal · Apr 13, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
No, it is not.

Alright, show me why the concepts of reality and truth are connected in such a way as to deny my claim.

Tim the plumber said:
Only those who are scamming the gullible. Post modernism etc.

I'm not a huge fan of post-modernism. There are plenty of analytic anti-realists. Famously, Stephen Hawking became an anti-realist about 7 years ago.

Tim the plumber said:
It is absurd to argue that there is anything beyond or different to the real world.

Why?

Tim the plumber said:
??

Why the double question-marks? It's perfectly simple. Truth is a concept needed in logic. Reality is not. Reality is something like a consistent domain of real things. Propositions can be true without there being any consistent domain of real things.

ashurbanipal · Apr 13, 2018

Mach said:
The world does not require you to admit you're wrong, for you to be wrong.

You have identified your fallacy here, and because you cannot defend it except to ad hom, I accept that you have given up. A wise choice.

I defended it without an ad hom. Show me where I said I reject self-evident truths. Show me where I ad hom'd anybody.

And I have not given up. You didn't respond in any substantive way to my last post. I repeat: there is a distinction between the concepts of truth and reality, the latter being a kind of metaphysical add-on that may be supposed to ground truth in some way, but it's perfectly reasonable for someone to argue that truth is a primitive notion (that's the way people usually understand Gottlob Frege's deflationary position on truth, for example).

Now you're just building straw men. Anyway, I repeat: prove that my position (i.e. that there can be truth without reality) is self-contradictory, using recognized principles of logic. If you're right, that ought to be easy. Self-contradictory statements are easy to prove self-contradictory. So again, have at it, if you can.

ashurbanipal · Apr 13, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
1, He posts on this forum.

OK. So what?

Tim the plumber said:
Yes, forensic scientist or whatever.

Why do you think he couldn't evaluate such evidence fairly? I'd think someone who's been reflective enough to arrive at his position could do so. I'd probably much rather have a reflective person think about such evidence than someone who just accepts it blindly (especially given the fact that both sides usually present experts with conflicting opinions, and most juries decide on the basis of which one was more charismatic).

Mach · Apr 13, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
I repeat: there is a distinction between the concepts of truth and reality

Quote me denying that. You cannot, because it never occurred, you're engaged in strawman.

The below, for the third time, is where your error was, and you have yet to accept it, or even try to justify it.
[QUOT=ashurabanipal]Something can exist without being real.[/QUOTE]
Which you wrote in response to my claim:
Mach: "Reality is", is axiomatic in any claim.

You reject my claim, and my claim, which means you are literally denying reality. It's self-evidently true, to deny it is false/absurd. You understand that a self-evident truth doesn't have some long and winding proof because it's "self-evidently" true....yes? To deny it is to affirm it. To affirm it doesn't change that by affirming it, it was already affirmed in any and all utterances.

Which is obviously true. If there was no reality, we would not be discussing things in the first place, because reality is presupposed as all that exists.

Even basic definitions get this one correct, second time I'm posting these definition that you have yet to refute:

Reality:
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, .
the state or quality of having existence or substance.

If you cannot see why that contradicts your claim:

Something can exist without being real.

That's not my problem, it doesn't get any more simple than that. It's a vanilla contradiction.

Things that exist may not be real. <- you
vs
Realty is the state of "existing". <- definition

It's a contradiction.

ashurbanipal · Apr 13, 2018

Mach said:
Reality:
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, .
the state or quality of having existence or substance.

Hmmm...I'd think it'd be obvious why this definition is problematic. Things need not be in a world or state, or make a world or state. A thing (to use the word in the definition) may exist without being in a world. As for the "state or quality" and "existence or substance," whoever wrote that ignored about three millennia of human thought. States and qualities are not the same, nor is existence and substance.

Mach said:
Things that exist may not be real. <- you

Realty is the state of "existing". <- definition

1. Real is not identical with reality. You have to make the assumption that they are identical to prove your case--reality involves the extra assumption that there is some domain, world, state, etc.

2. There is a distinction between "real" and "exist" in western thought that goes back quite a long way. Plato defined "exist" as "to have an effect." "Real" is from the Latin "res" meaning "thing," hence to be real is to be a thing, i.e. a physical thing. Those are clearly not the same concept.

3. You didn't say anything about truth.

4. I see no reference to any principles of logic, or even any understanding of formal logic, in your "proof."

Try again. Show that the claim "Truth does not require reality" is self-contradictory. I gave you an example to follow, and if you're right, this ought to be very easy.

Mach · Apr 13, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
Hmmm...I'd think it'd be obvious why this definition is problematic. Things need not be in a world or state, or make a world or state.

The discussion is about reality/existence. World not part of my claim, or the claim you are faking like you are defending.

Real is not identical with reality.

Another strawman, otherwise you would quote me saying the "word real is identical to the word reality". Which you cannot, and will not do.

Please try to defend your claim that:
Things that exist may not be real

Similarly, you can try (I have no idea why/how), to demonstrate that this is not self-evidently true:
"Reality is" is self-evidently true/axiomatic.

Notice the word "world" isn't being debated.
Notice no one claimed "real" is identical to "reality".

If you want to use the definition of real, go ahead:
real- actually existing as a thing

You: Things that exist may not be real
Me: Real is defined as actually existing
(you contradict the definition....still)

If you didn't understand the relationship between real and reality, why didn't you just look up the definition?

gdgyva · Apr 13, 2018

Bodhisattva said:
People should only be allowed to vote if they pass a test and

People should only be allowed to sit on a jury if they have a college education or an IQ minimum of 100...

sorry but no

one of the greatest movies ever put out was called "12 angry men"

if the verdict had been left up to the judge, prosecutor, and court appointed defender....we would have had an entirely different verdict

do "people" sometimes get a wrong verdict...(ie OJ trial....just one of many famous ones)

i can live with those cases....i want the human touch of the jurors, making those decisions, even though most of them absolutely dont want to be there....

Especially when we have a huge amount of public defenders who just cant handle their caseloads

ashurbanipal · Apr 13, 2018

Mach said:
The discussion is about reality/existence. World not part of my claim

The definition you posted was:

Reality:
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, .
the state or quality of having existence or substance.

World very clearly is part of your claim. To bring this back to the original point, usually people who think there is no reality don't deny that there is truth, and may not even deny that things exist, or even that there are real things. They deny that there is a consistent domain--a world or state--in which truth dwells.

Mach said:
Another strawman, otherwise you would quote me saying the "word real is identical to the word reality". Which you cannot, and will not do.

You wrote:

Things that exist may not be real. <- you

Realty is the state of "existing". <- definition

Your definition has nothing to do with what I wrote, since "real" is not identical with "reality." I wrote "real". You wrote "reality." My point is that your refutation suffered from a problem of relevance. You cannot show my claim wrong by making an irrelevant claim about something else.

Mach said:
Things that exist may not be real

Sure. "Exist" is not identical with "real." Ergo, it's possible for something to exist, but not be real.

Mach said:
"Reality is" is self-evidently true/axiomatic.

Again, easy. If a claim is possibly false, it cannot be self-evidently true. Right? In that case:

"is" denotes being, which is a different concept from "reality." Therefore, possibly what is true of being is not true of reality. Ergo, "Reality is" is possibly false, and hence cannot be self-evidently true. I can spell all this out in formal symbols if you want (though it may be a little while; I'm leaving for a conference shortly), but I cannot imagine why it'd be necessary. The math obviously works.

Mach said:
real- actually existing as a thing

That's not quite what I wrote. I said "to be real is to be a thing, i.e. a physical thing." You're confusing different concepts, and treating them as if they're all identical: truth, real, reality, existing, being. Those are all apparently different, and only identical if you make certain further metaphysical assumptions.

Mach said:
You: Things that exist may not be real
Me: Real is defined as actually existing
(you contradict the definition....still)

Not exactly...I deny that you've given me or anyone any reason to accept your definition, and that furthermore, in the absence of a reason to accept it, it's reasonable to deny it, and furthermore, upon denying it, it's reasonable to think there is no reality.

Mach said:
If you didn't understand the relationship between real and reality, why didn't you just look up the definition?

It could be because I'm smarter than the people who write dictionaries, and am accustomed to talk over these and other similar issues with people who are also smarter than the people who write dictionaries.

Bodi · Apr 13, 2018

gdgyva said:
sorry but no

one of the greatest movies ever put out was called "12 angry men"

if the verdict had been left up to the judge, prosecutor, and court appointed defender....we would have had an entirely different verdict

do "people" sometimes get a wrong verdict...(ie OJ trial....just one of many famous ones)

i can live with those cases....i want the human touch of the jurors, making those decisions, even though most of them absolutely dont want to be there....

Especially when we have a huge amount of public defenders who just cant handle their caseloads

I didn't say take the jury out if it...

Test for competance for voting??

Just waiting for my set...