NO.
That’s exactly why? 
1 Like
Is this a party or a debate forum, take your time? 
2 Likes
Oh! I hadn’t thought of that. Ummm. What if I shoot myself in the head first?
1 Like
And yes, this will be on the test…
1 Like
Rhetorical question?
Individually, yes, we’re all going to wither and die. As a species on this planet, who knows? I sincerely doubt any of us will be around to see if it happens. Or if we annihilate ourselves.
Ummmmmmmmm. >BANG!<
If I knew all the things I didn’t know, then it stands to reason I would know everything. However, since what I know now is everything I know, then how am I suppose to know about the things I don’t know? But since I know there are things I don’t know, how do I know that without knowing what those things are? And if I knew what those things are that I don’t know, then I obviously don’t not know those things anymore. Ya know?.. (scratching head)…
1 Like
Dammit…that’s the second time that has happened!! (I’ve got to get better at this…)
Edit (Now where’s that Doris Day record?)
Uh, hang on there Quik-lube…
A. When you say “If I knew”, are you saying “if I was aware of”? Or are you saying “If I knew what I could not know because I already established that I did not know those things”?
2. If indeed you do not know what you do not know, then that which you do not know may
include the knowledge of whether what you think you know about what you don’t know isn’t about not knowing, but rather, not known unknown knowledge, of unknown knowing…
.
.
Edit know what I mean Vern?
1 Like
God forbid someone were to use a little imagination!
Indisputably. And humans are going to leave the solar system. We’ve got another 5.5 billion years to make it happen. In the last 400 we’ve done … what …? Extrapolation, my friend … extrapolate the data.
I “speculate” you should take that carrot out of your butt once in a while.
Don’t have time. I’m busy working. Giving hand jobs to the homeless. Company’s called “Homeless Handjobs Limited”.
Oh. “Fusion Power”? Never heard of it. Is it possible to replicate on Earth by chance?
5.5 billion years to master time and space. Plenty. I can’t imagine human beings sitting idly while the sun burns out knowing full well that there are millions of others in the vicinity.
Phhhhhhna!
Sure we can. We know where they are. We just aim our rocket at it and pull the trigger. May take a while to get there. Who cares?
It also provided a proof of how much of that reality can be known based on set theory and Russell’s Paradox. The result was that if we can know anything about, say, Physics, we can know everything - including how to master fusion, how to master gravity, how to achieve light speed space travel, etc. Did you follow the proof?
I bet you ask the same thing at party forums
1 Like
So no then.
Are they? You know something I don’t then, or is this just something you are imagining again?
Have we, can you objectively evidence that assertion? Make an effort to think hard now before you answer.
So unevidenced assumption then?
Again you’re drawing several conclusions here that you’d need to objectively evidence, before my answer to the thread OP could change.
That’s hardly an answer.
Levity again?
No I didn’t, as I explained, publish it and when scientists in the related fields validate your conclusions, let me know. Until then it remains dubious speculation.
Uhh. We’ve got Fusion power in the works. The most recent attempt yielded net power output.
We can successfully freeze and unfreeze sperm and ova.
We know the locations of exoplanets.
Yep. I saw it in a documentary. A Netflix documentary starring Brad Pitt.
An educated guess.
I’ve given you the ingredients for star travel and rehabitation on other planets.
Phnnnnaaaaaa!
Well … you are welcome to try to follow the proof.
“The barber who shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves.”
do you find this statement paradoxical? It doesn’t rely on evidence - objective or otherwise.
It’s a logical statement that leads to a contradiction. You do realize that logic is required in science alongside objective evidence, yes?
Logic leads to knowledge, and I’ve provided a logical argument leading to logical conclusions. No Unevidenced assumptions.
But yes. I’ll publish it in “The Journal of Logical Arguments Scientific Weekly” so that it can be peer reviewed 
So still no then, unless you think those straw men are objective evidence we can use interstellar travel to new solar systems? Which by the way also have dying stars. Again the objective evidence is that our species existence is finite, using a smattering of scientific facts to indulge fantasy conclusions doesn’t change that.
Nope, you’ve indulged fantasy.
That’s not how peer review works, it doesn’t get the ok from me (some Billy no name) on the internet.
The law of non-contradiction suggests it is not logical, quite the opposite.
Again publish your proof, when **your conclusions are validated by peer review I’ll accept them, until then I remain dubious.
Behave yourself ratty, this thread is littered with unevidenced assumptions you’ve made.
You seem to be both suggesting it carries scientific weight, and that it does not, which is it? If it does then peer review is an essential first step to replicating your results, and establishing they support your conclusions.
In the meantime my answer to the thread question remains the same.
Mighty presumptuous of you to assume you know what I do or don’t know. For all you know, I may not know anything, much less everything. Or, maybe I know something about everything, and everything about nothing. Then again, if I knew anything at all about things I don’t know, exactly how much would I know that’s worth knowing? Regardless, you should know better than to tell somebody what they know as if you already know. Because if we actually knew the things we think we know, we would already know what we need to know without somebody else telling us what we know.
(Edit for know whey, Jose.)
2 Likes
Hmm are you trying to “Tinman” me? ( not to be confused with steel-manning)
I ass-hume nothing (except when I assume that I assume nothing) zzz
What I said was…
If you notice, I used may (not to be confused with April or “does”)
Therefore and to-whit, I trust this will clarify and bring into focus any and all questions and/ or misunderstandings you may have…
Edit (lift the veil from their eyes)
Awww, fuck… I can’t say this without stepping over the line, and I am already missing two toes. Also, there just isn’t room for another lump in the back of my head. I have to pass… but it had something to do with girlfriends, freezers, and cups of … um… ice cream. Yeah, ice cream. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Shit, I just blew coffee out my nose on that one!!
You are so far past the line already that you can’t see it anymore…
However, for some odd reason, the “Tasty-freeze man” popped into my head, and it is probably your fault…
Edit (did anyone hear a bell?)
Straw men? Am I characterizing your argument in a manner that befits mine? I think not.
No, once you add enough components to the whole package it starts to make sense. We may not have the whole package yet, but given the objective evidence surrounding the upwards and onwards progression of technology it seem likely. More likely than the idea that we’ll fizzle out in 5.5 billion years.
Well, you’ve indulged in cynicism. Enjoy your sour apple.
“Peer reviewed logical arguments”? What are you on about, Shelly?
Stating that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time. How does this apply to my argument exactly?
Give me a reference to a peer reviewed scientific journal that publishes logical arguments and I will.
Interesting how you avoid the question of whether truth and/or knowledge can be obtained solely by objective evidence, or also by the rationale of logical argument. Care to comment on that?
It does not. It makes an argument about the nature of knowledge.
Tallyho! Keep in keeping on!