These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » Intergalactic Summit » Announcement: Temple to the Red God (Mk. II ) Operatio...

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page34567Next pageLast page

Announcement: Temple to the Red God (Mk. II ) Operational
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Nicoletta Mithra

Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque

Khimi Harar

Likes received: 789

#81 - 2014-09-15 16:18:28 UTC | Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra

Vizage wrote:

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

Stitcher wrote:

There is no such thing as objective moral truth.

I'll stop there in quoting you: You have no proof for this. It's your personal worldview that this is the case - and in fact it is one that is logically

The default scientific position is scepticism. The burden of proof is always on the claimant of existence, not on the claimant on nonexistence.

While I abhor the use of absolutes like that which was just used. Stitcher in this case would need to be proven wrong as the case needs to made for objective moral truth existing in the first place.

Edit: Furthermore claiming that Duty cannot exist without objective moral truth is a causation fallacy. As you've neither proved the existence for the causation (in this case; objective moral truth,) nor the requirement that one must proceed the other.

Note: You cannot use the existence of something of the latter to prove the former when the former is claimed as required for the existence of the latter. It is cyclical logic and wrong.

Alas, the existence of moral truths, objective or not, is not a subject of natural - or in general: empirical science. It's the subject of philosophy and thus should be held up to the standards that are fitting for the discipline it falls under. Else, we would have to think that inductive logic - and thus science - doesn't work. Not only that: the two wouldn't even exist, as both can't be proven empirically to exist, strictly.

The 'scepticsm' you bring up here is one that only applies to the empirical realm. (And no: Objectivity doesn't mean, nor necessarily does imply empiricity.)

As to your edit: No, it's not a causation fallacy - it's an elliptic statement. Also, it could only be a causation fallacy if I'd claim a causal relationship: Which I don't. I claim a logical relationship. I'm not trying to prove anything: I'm pointing out the self-defeating nature of the proposition.

Jace Sarice

Likes received: 22,218

#82 - 2014-09-15 16:34:55 UTC

Vizage wrote:

The default scientific position is scepticism. The burden of proof is always on the claimant of existence, not on the claimant on nonexistence.

Science, strictly speaking, is a generally agreed upon method - not a worldview or value statement. It does not have a 'default position.' Science utilizes the empirical, it is not necessarily empiricist. It utilizes logic, it is not logical positivism. Etc.


Nicoletta Mithra Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque Khimi Harar Likes received: 789	#83 - 2014-09-15 16:37:26 UTC 1 I agree so much, Cpt. Sarice. Maybe Cpt. Vizage meant 'Scientism' not 'science'? The followers of the former oftentimes assume that the two are one and the same...

Vizage

Capital Allied Industrial Distribution

Likes received: 338

#84 - 2014-09-15 16:37:48 UTC | Edited by: Vizage

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

Vizage wrote:

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

Stitcher wrote:

There is no such thing as objective moral truth.

I'll stop there in quoting you: You have no proof for this. It's your personal worldview that this is the case - and in fact it is one that is logically

Edit: Furthermore claiming that Duty cannot exist without objective moral truth is a causation fallacy. As you've neither proved the existence for the causation (in this case; objective moral truth,) nor the requirement that one must proceed the other.

Alas blanket statements such as morality does not fall under the purview of philosophy require a serious amount of evidence.

Simply saying it is not convincing, and in my opinion entirely incorrect.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. (Gal-pedia)

Morality falls squarely into this definition. I'd be happy to listen to how it doesn't however..

Furthermore, the scientific method absolutely does have a default position. The entire concept of peer review is based on the default position of scepticism and challenges.

And finally you cannot make the claim that it is not a world view anymore than any other philosophic position. Without first quantifying what a world view is.


Nicoletta Mithra Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque Khimi Harar Likes received: 789	#85 - 2014-09-15 16:41:29 UTC \| Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra Cpt. Vizage: I'd ask you to re-read what I wrote: "Alas, the existence of moral truths, objective or not, is not a subject of natural - or in general: empirical science. It is the (In the sense of a) subject of philosophyand thus should be held up to the standards that are fitting for the discipline it falls under."

Vizage

Capital Allied Industrial Distribution

Likes received: 338

#86 - 2014-09-15 16:44:43 UTC | Edited by: Vizage

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

Cpt. Vizage:

I'd ask you to re-read what I wrote:

"Alas, the existence of moral truths, objective or not, is not a subject of natural - or in general: empirical science. It is the subject of philosophyand thus should be held up to the standards that are fitting for the discipline it falls under."

^ This is called the unfalsifiabilty fallacy, and is also wrong by any standard or classical logical formulae.

I should probably elaborate.

Claiming that philosophy is not scientific is the fallacy. Most logical conclusions are drawn from a mathematical basis. If A and C then B therefore A and B then C, for example. Philosophy is absolutely a science and attempting to remove it from the logical landscape is simply incorrect.

Stitcher

School of Applied Knowledge

Caldari State

Likes received: 4,468

#87 - 2014-09-15 16:45:21 UTC | Edited by: Stitcher

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

Alas, the existence of moral truths, objective or not, is not a subject of natural - or in general: empirical science.

Which is my definition for whether or not something is subject to discussions of whether it is objectively true. For something to be true, it must be empirically, scientifically demonstrable as true.

We seem to be on the same page.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders


Nicoletta Mithra Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque Khimi Harar Likes received: 789	#88 - 2014-09-15 16:49:19 UTC \| Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra Are you even able to explain what consitutes the "Unfalsifiable Hypothesis fallacy" and what the conditions are for it to apply, Ms. Vizage? Cpt: Stitcher, yes, were on the same page: If it's not empirical science, it doesn't matter to you. Doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

Nicoletta Mithra

Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque

Khimi Harar

Likes received: 789

#89 - 2014-09-15 16:56:39 UTC | Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra

Vizage wrote:

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

I never claimed that philosophy is not scientific or science. I claimed that to the discipline of philosophy other standards apply then to empirical sciences. Not all science is empirical. Math largely isn't empirical.

By the way, (A˄C)→B ∴ (A˄B)→C is a fallacy, if you employ the material implication. It's a variance of affirming the consequence.

Vizage

Capital Allied Industrial Distribution

Likes received: 338

#90 - 2014-09-15 17:01:01 UTC

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

Are you even able to explain what consitutes the "Unfalsifiable Hypothesis fallacy" and what the conditions are for it to apply, Ms. Vizage?

Cpt: Stitcher, yes, were on the same page: If it's not empirical science, it doesn't matter to you. Doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

My apologize Mithra, I edited my previous post to clarify further.

On subject however. Asking me to define the unfasifiability fallacy instead of simply doing it yourself and challenging my claim is pettifogging plain and simple. But for the sake of moving this forward I provide the follow citation

Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.
Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.
Example #1:

I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus. Unfortunately, these cannot be detected by any kind of scientific equipment.
Explanation: While it may actually be a fact that tiny, invisible, mythological creatures are occupying this person’s opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal, it is a theory that is constructed so it cannot be falsified in any way; therefore, should not be seriously considered without significant evidence.

Anslo

Scope Works

Likes received: 32,337

#91 - 2014-09-15 17:02:57 UTC | Edited by: Anslo

The fact that you people are arguing over the ethics of a journalist assisting in freeing some tortured prisoners oddly doesn't surprise me. Facetiousness aside, eggers seem to be able to turn even the most well meant acts into some tool to attack the individual involved in said well meant act.

Ok she's a journalist who helped free people. Rightly so. Even if it was to the Amarr, it's better than leaving them with Nappy. But can you people just give her a pat on the back and some kudos? Nope you gotta debate the credibility of her character due to your ******* interpretation of ethics. It's ******* pathetic.

Jandice, you did good. Damn good. Well done.
To her haters? **** off.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]


Vizage Capital Allied Industrial Distribution Likes received: 338	#92 - 2014-09-15 17:05:10 UTC \| Edited by: Vizage 1 Nicoletta Mithra wrote: Not all science is empirical. Math largely isn't empirical. Now this right here is a hefty claim indeed. You will most definitely have to provide adequate evidence for this to be even remotely considered true.

Nicoletta Mithra

Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque

Khimi Harar

Likes received: 789

#93 - 2014-09-15 17:14:05 UTC | Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra

Vizage wrote:

Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.
Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Now, did I make an assertion in regard to the truth of any hypothesis? That is not even a logical fallacy...
By the way, falsification can be done in non-epirical ways.


Vizage Capital Allied Industrial Distribution Likes received: 338	#94 - 2014-09-15 17:15:29 UTC \| Edited by: Vizage Nicoletta Mithra wrote: By the way, (A˄C)→B ∴ (A˄B)→C is a fallacy, if you employ the material implication. It's a variance of affirming the consequence. Thank you for proving my point. ;)


Vizage Capital Allied Industrial Distribution Likes received: 338	#95 - 2014-09-15 17:16:18 UTC \| Edited by: Vizage 1 Continuing to claim non-empirical science without providing the requested evidence for its very existence isn't very convincing. P. S. Apologize for the formatting issues my interface is on the fritz.


Nicoletta Mithra Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque Khimi Harar Likes received: 789	#96 - 2014-09-15 17:17:29 UTC 1 If you have a point, it flies just past me, as it just doesn't fit to what I said.


Vizage Capital Allied Industrial Distribution Likes received: 338	#97 - 2014-09-15 17:20:56 UTC \| Edited by: Vizage 1 Nicoletta Mithra wrote: If you have a point, it flies just past me, as it just doesn't fit to what I said. The point was you just used empirical math to prove a logical fallacy.

Vizage

Capital Allied Industrial Distribution

Likes received: 338

#98 - 2014-09-15 17:24:41 UTC

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

Vizage wrote:

Now, did I make an assertion in regard to the truth of any hypothesis? That is not even a logical fallacy...
By the way, falsification can be done in non-epirical ways.

Your claim that philosophy is non-empirical science is the assertion I am referring to.

Nicoletta Mithra

Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque

Khimi Harar

Likes received: 789

#99 - 2014-09-15 17:24:56 UTC

Vizage wrote:

Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

If you have a point, it flies just past me, as it just doesn't fit to what I said.

You point was you just used empirical math to prove a logical fallacy.

You are aware that this statement doesn't make sense on so many levels? I won't respond any further to this nonsensical babble. I suggest you start thinking before writing, and reading before thinking, if you are able to do so.

Everything else has been quite eloquently said by Cpt. Anslo, though I'd like to extend it to the non journalists: Well done, to all that brought that heretic down and rescued the poeple from his vile clutches.


Anslo Scope Works Likes received: 32,337	#100 - 2014-09-15 17:25:51 UTC Nicoletta Mithra wrote: eloquently said by Cpt. Anslo. Why thank ya~ [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

First pagePrevious page34567Next pageLast page