Sheldon, high on the eggnog Tin man had slipped into his evening tea, continued his logical discourse with the ratty Jello mold.
2 Likes
…(staring down at feet… rubbing back of neck uncomfortably)… Uh, yeah, about that. Well, uh, ya see, uh, whatta happened was… Uhhh… I think I might have messed up the dosage. The suggested dosage was maybe one fluid ounce of nog for every four ounces of tea. And, uh, welllll… Uhhh… I think I MIGHT have put in four ounces of nog for every one ounce of tea. Sooooo… (wringing hands nervously… shuffling from foot to foot)… Look, on the plus side, it’s likely Shelly will not remember anything that happens for the next couple of days. In the meantime, though, we might want to put a bell around his neck to make it easier to keep track of him. For his own safety, of course.
(Edit to announce: Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!)
1 Like
It didn’t work with David. sigh
1 Like
Do I need to explain them again? It’s where you falsely pretended I had disputed facts, rather than the dubious claims you were pretending those facts supported.
Using a straw man fallacy.
You’re adding unevidenced fantasy. You may find that sensible of course, I chose to base my answer on the objective evidence.
Oh dear, please tell me this is levity again?
Oh now I see, adding fantasies and peppering them with facts, is “more likely” than just the using the facts, do you even hear yourself?
Straw man fallacy. I have stuck solely to the facts, and withheld belief from your claims that are unsupported by objective evidence.
Peer review, and its importance in validating ideas, like the idea we have the knowledge to, and can survive interstellar travel using cryogenics.
Not sure I can simplify the point really, you’ve provided an hilarious oxymoron, all wrapped up in a very short concise sentence?
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?
[/quote]
Not as interesting as you dodging that false claim you made. Or your inability to see the irony of claiming to have a logical argument that involves unevidenced assumptions, and even claiming that a logical argument can violate a principle of logic by leading to a contradiction.
Oh dear, law of non contradiciton…
What? 
Shiraz, not eggnog, but yeah it’s beading up and rolling off him as usual.
It was 2/3 of a bottle of Shiraz, not rohypnol?
Did you know that the acronym DNA stands for National Dyslexic Association?
2 Likes
All knowledge is based on language. Language is constructed from concepts, which are abstract units of meaning that simulate reality. However, there are certain aspects of reality that cannot be adequately represented through this method. Furthermore, the very nature of this method renders all knowledge false, as it is merely an imitation of reality rather than reality itself.
I find this highly dubious. Language is simply an effective means of communicating ideas and knowledge. We absorb knowledge as babies before we can speak or understand language for a start. Other animals seem to possess knowledge without language as well, it would be necessary for animals that have evolved to live in societal groups for a start.
Wow, this would of course make that claim false.
Is that username a windup?
Wow, this would of course make that claim false.
Language has the ability to comprehend language itself. It can also generate predictions about reality. However, knowledge about reality derived from language is merely a replica or imitation of reality. It is akin to constructing a LEGO model that represents something real. Although the LEGO model may closely resemble the original, it can never be an exact replica. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that the LEGO model is not the original itself, but merely a representation of it.
Is that username a windup?
I’m new here, and I’m not sure if I’ve done something wrong.
Get over it man. I have no idea what you’re talking about with your vague references to “false pretensions” and “dubious claims”. I’m not here to argue about whether interstellar travel is “possible”. Clearly it is.
Mmm hmm. Yes. Well. I appreciate that you’re offended again. Par for the course as far as I’m concerned. I’m well within my jurisdiction to evidence reasons why interstellar space travel is possible.
Mmm. Fanstasy? Was “going to the moon” objectively possible up until the 20th century? Hmm?
No, no. Nothing to do with levitation. Of course, that will be possible once “gravity” has been fully worked out … but, again I’m not sure you understand the gravity of this situation. In either instance … not “levity” as you say.
I don’t think you’re capable of comprehending the nature of my logic. You’ve said as much. You can’t even point to what causes you doubt (besides the truth that I have as yet not submitted this argument to the fossils of scientific literature [as if such a catalogue of arguments existed - HA!]).
Now who’s using “straw man’s”?
I’ll correct you for the sake of levity. The logical argument in the original idea points to the conclusion that we either are capable of knowing everything about God or nothing.
The talk of interstellar space travel was a mere aside brought about (no less) by one of your rouge comments.
Blithering (muffled comment)! The contradiction is the proof by contradiction. The contradiction proves that the case in question does not make sense and that the alternative case is the only one applicable.
“The barber who shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves.”
This statement is not logically consistent and thus impossible. Hence:
“The barber who shaves himself as well as those who do not shave themselves.”
Is the “abnormal” set. The only type of set which can be attributed to knowledge of anything … including “God”. Ergo, my earlier conclusion regarding the epistemics of God. Do try to keep up, young man.
Not as interesting as how you clearly think I care enough about you to give a shit what you think that false claim was. Not as interesting as how intellectually dishonest it is to accuse someone of making false claims, while never actually printing out what those claims were. What a fucking witch hunt (as per the norm). You’re offended again aren’t you?
What are you on about? Duplicitous notions of star travel or the epistemic nature of knowledge according to set theory and Russell’s Paradox? Pick one, please.
You’ve misread the argument. To take a page out of your own handbook, I suggest you go right back to the beginning of the thread and re-read the argument.
Oh dear, reductio ad impossible … lmao 
logic isn’t your stronghold, eh?
Flag off you bully wanker 
PS. I still love you
That is all false of course, by your rationale.
That statement negates every claim you make using language. Not to worry it also negates itself, so seems irrational.
No you’re fine, only it is a colloquialism for something in parts of the UK, and I just wondered.
Let’s rephrase this concept. When language asserts things about reality, it is actually referring to the models it creates instead of directly representing reality. Consequently, these affirmations do not align with reality itself. Hence, even if these statements accurately reflect reality, they are essentially false but still valuable in their usefulness.
Conversely, when language makes statements about its own nature, those statements are true because they pertain to the inherent characteristics of language.
I have no idea what you’re asking of me here, but this is again not an argument?
Wrong on both counts.
I’m not offended at all, you can be as irrational as you want, I am just not swayed by irrational arguments, such as the straw man fallacy you used. Where you implied I was denying scientific facts, rather than the unevidenced conclusions you were claiming they were evidence for.
Except it’s not, so you can’t, but do contact NASA and let them know, they’ll be very interested.
No obviously, as they lacked the necessary knowledge to achieve this? is this more humour that’s gone over my head?
That’s because one can’t have one’s own logic, by definition, since it is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation.
I can and have repeatedly pointed this out? You are making unevidenced assumptions, some of them demonstrably erroneous.
It is mere fantasy that you invoked to imply humans can have an infinite existence, but the objective evidence does not support this.
This exchange sums up where we are.
I don’t believe that human knowledge can be limitless, since the objective evidence demonstrates that our star which makes life possible, has itself a finite existence. When it goes, we go with it.
Evasion.
I did, but try your claim that interstellar travel is possible.
Nope.
Asked and answered then.
true
adjective
- in accordance with fact or reality.
Since being in accordance with reality is a necessary characteristic of truth, that assertion makes no sense? How can truth exist outside of reality? Also every claim you’re making exists in reality thus again your rationale would render them all false?
So the assertion that the earth is not flat is false in reality? I remain dubious.
Actually reflecting reality is literally the definition of true?
Well, the problem here lies in the fact that the statements we make are not about reality itself, but rather about the mental model we create to understand reality. For example…
So the assertion that the earth is not flat is false in reality? I remain dubious.
This assertion is only true for the representation we construct of reality, not for reality itself. For instance, the way we represent reality using language is a generalization. In reality, the Earth could be flat in certain areas, spherical in others, and so on. We have merely developed a model with a specific level of accuracy and make assertions based on this model.
The earth is not flat.
You know I think you may be wrong.
Once again then, things are defined as true only if they’re in accordance with reality, so your assertion is saying that’s only true because that is how we define true, which is tautologically redundant.
That’s just sophistry, as the two statements are not the same, they both reflect reality as well.
Indeed words reflect our perception of reality, and the assertion that the world is not flat is a true statement, since it is in accordance with reality, and that is how the word true is defined.
things are defined as true only if they’re in accordance with reality
To put it another way, if we consider our LEGO model of the Earth to be similar to the real Earth, we assume it is true. However, no matter how many pieces we use to construct this LEGO model, it will always be different from the actual Earth.
Thus, we have assumed an imperfect representation of things as truth, and it comes with its own set of problems. The Ptolemaic model of the solar system made numerous correct predictions that aligned with reality. However, it was fundamentally flawed and provided a completely inaccurate explanation for the observed phenomena. Therefore, the fact that statements align with reality does not automatically deem them true.
What I am trying to convey is that any model of reality merely serves as a representation. Consequently, any statement made about reality carries the same level of truth as the affirmations made by the Ptolemaic model about the solar system or as a LEGO model has to the original entity it represents.
In conclusion, we can assert that the map is not synonymous with the territory. Regardless of the map’s precision, it will always represent a distinct entity separate from the actual territory.
Indeed words reflect our perception of reality
No, words are a reflection of how we have chosen to divide our perception of reality into fundamental units of meaning. It is possible to construct a different language with distinct concepts, and even with that language, one can define reality.
Well your assumption that reality involves a deity is entirely unsupported by any objective evidence as yet. I think you might address that, before shooting for perfection.
Yes it really does, that is what the word means.
True
adjective
- in accordance with fact or reality.
That’s a false equivalence fallacy.
Nonsensical word salad.
Did you have a point?
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?
You are shifting the topic. Our current discussion revolves around the limits of knowledge. From my understanding, the limits of knowledge correspond to the limits of language.
That’s all.
Well you have evaded the question in the other thread, and you have claimed to believe in a deity, thus it is salient. Answer in the other thread if you prefer.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that this knowledge includes an extant deity?
The other way around I’d say, but they drive each other since language changes and evolves to encompasse new ideas and knowledge, so that doesn’t really address the thread question.
Language grows/drifts/shifts in response to knowledge/information/need.
If you are attempting to say that a word represents a thing, but is not the thing, okay. We agree. That’s a pretty simple concept which has been made far more complex than need be, it seems to me, via your conversation.
If, as you’ve said, knowledge is derived from language, how do you explain knowledge derived from experience?
So what? I don’t think it’s meant to be the actual territory. I know that the letters r, e, and d, when strung together represent a particular frequency of reflected light and that it is not the reflection itself. Big deal. This isn’t a huge revelation. That these three letters are a representation, does not render false my knowledge that the apple I’m holding is red.
I guess I just don’t understand your assertion that because language is representative, all knowledge is bupkus.
1 Like
That sounds false. 
2 Likes
Yeah it did to me as well, but of course with the usual theistic flurry, it was presented sans evidence, and without ever looking back to address any objections.