No one has claimed it would.
They are defined as mythical for a reason though. Or do you disagree that they’re mythical?
So I repeat my question: How are we to define a unicorn (or any other term) then, if not by common usage? Shall we invent lists of definitions by uncommon usage, defining these alternative agenda-driven usages of the words to be correct, in order to confuse and derail any discussion?
Is it a free-for-all to define words as we wish, to obtain a particular goal? Who decides how we define a unicorn? You?
2 Likes
Are they generally accurate in their descriptions?
I ask again then, are you saying unicorns are not mythical?
1 Like
As per my previous comment that you are repeatedly ignoring:
Stop repeatedly misrepresenting my argument. It’s intellectually dishonest. I have re-iterated this point multiple times and you ignore it.
Just saying strawman on its own is a bare assertion fallacy. You haven’t supported the claim whatsoever.
Anyone who wishes to, as you state can see I responded to your point and challenged whether you viewed it as a necessary characteristic or not, and when you complained that you didn’t use the word necessary, I pointed out that I did, and was asking whether you considered it necessary or not, and gave responses based on either response for that binary choice - either it’s not necessary and therefore definitions can change, or it is and you would need to prove that point.
They can also see that you keep ignoring that point as I have said above and keep complaining that you never said the word necessary, despite my pointing out as above that I didn’t say you did, but I responded with a binary choice and you keep ignoring that.
Yes, and notice how, as per my response, I said potential, possible future. Which means I’m not telling the future. My point still stands, and your response ignores that.
Not a lie, my point stands as above. the fact I used the word future was irrelevant - I said “potential, possible” and that was the key point that meant I wasn’t telling the future.
And I already told you I never said you did. I gave you a binary choice.
No. I am not suggesting that. Please see what I have been saying as it is getting tiresome repeating myself.
False dichotomy. Seriously. My argument has been clear. This is just shameful misrepresentation of what I have been saying.
And yet you even included a quote from me saying I didn’t say you did use the word. Yet again, misrepresenting my argument by quibbling over single words being used. I am allowed to use my own words you know.
Neither. I am saying that - as per the example with Gorillas - definitions are subject to change. If a unicorn does happen to exist somewhere or if in the future, a creature that looks like a unicorn is named as a unicorn, then the dictionary definition doesn’t prevent either possibility.
I am not disputing what the dictionary says, I am disputing the definition having any authority. As per above. Just as Gorillas were once mythical by definition, that was found to be incorrect, and the definition changed. People didn’t say, “oh well, the dictionary says they’re mythical, so they’re mythical by definition. Guess we’ll have to call these things something different.”
The dictionary is correctly reflecting common usage of a word, but that doesn’t make it authoritative over the definition itself. A definition isn’t enforced.
And? Doesn’t change the point as before. Repetition doesn’t make your argument correct.
It would be one double negative, not two, and it also wouldn’t be a double negative - at least not in the grammatical sense.
A (grammatical) double negative is when: “two negative words are used in the same clause to express a single negation.”
So the phrase, “this isn’t no use” is a double negative because it has two negative words (isn’t, no) for the same clause.
Whereas my statement “A non-mythological unicorn is not logically impossible” - the non-mythological unicorn is one clause, and “not logically impossible” is another clause, so this wouldn’t be a grammatical double negative.
“not logically impossible” does count as a logical double negative however, as “not” and “impossible” would be logically equivalent to “logically possible”.
If you were meaning a logical double negative, then I will acknowledge that there is one.
As for objective - in the context, if a non-mythological unicorn is logically possible, then it is metaphysically possible. Given that horns and horses exist, and there is no physical contradiction in a horse having a horn, then such a possibility is also within the laws of biology and physics so it would be a nomological possibility also.
except you did when you made a point about the order, as I have highlighted in your quote.
It’s not valid when your objections are about incorrect points, such as whether or not you used a word, and I had already pointed out you didn’t, and that it wasn’t the point as I never claimed you did. When I have made this argument in response, you have ignored my response and keep repeating the same initial response, which is where my point comes about you repeating the same argument.
If a person says “X is Y” and another person challenges, “If you’re saying X is only Y, then you would need to prove it, or are you saying X can be Y, in which case, X could be Z also” - the first person then complaining that “I never said only” doesn’t address the point the other person made, and to then repeatedly make the same complaint despite the other person stating they never said the person did say only, and that they used the word as part of a binary choice (either only or can be other things), this would be an invalid argument because the person would be failing to address the response.
I gave a binary choice, either it’s a necessary characteristic, in which case you have the burden of proof, or it isn’t a necessary characteristic, in which case, the possible existence of a non-mythological version by some means would mean the definition either changes or expands to accommodate the non-mythological version as it enters common usage.
They are defined as mythical for a reason, yes. That reason is that the common usage of the term unicorn is for a mythical version. If a unicorn was found to exist (or a new discovery is named as a unicorn), then there would be common usage for that too, and the dictionary would update its definition accordingly.
Aside from acknowledging I am a theist (as per my profile) I haven’t made any claims as to any specific belief systems or acknowledged that I follow any particular belief system.
I acknowledge that a number of belief systems have a range of different interpretations and views in relation to their beliefs. I don’t see an issue with this. Scientists have a range of different views on things, even when there is substantial evidence available (take climate science for one example), so a diversity of views is seen across a range of domains - theology, science, etc. - personally I see this as a sign of critical thought.
Well that sounds like a poisoning the well fallacy - my arguments can stand or fall on their own. Doesn’t matter who the person making the argument is, or what their position might be on unrelated matters, or how you view things the person is associated with.
I’m not rejecting the definition as it stands, and my arguments have been clear on this point. I have only argued that the definition can change if there is reason for it to do so.
For example, if a unicorn happens to be found existing, or if a new species is discovered on another planet and is named as a unicorn because it looks horse-like and has a horn on its head.
To further clarify, I am not claiming that is the case now. I am not disputing that unicorns are mythical as far as we know. I have only referenced possibilities - potential, possible future knowledge. Nothing more.
My point has been that definitions can change, and that dictionaries reflect common usage, they don’t dictate it. So if a definition does change in the future, the dictionary would update accordingly.
That is my point. The original point has long since been lost in the thread with this deep dive into the very semantics of words and definitions, sadly. It wasn’t my intention to have a deep discussion about semantics, but I will defend my arguments even if it means having to respond to arguments that make such a deep-dive.
It all began with an argument over what possible means (may be, may not be - not yet viewed as impossible, etc.) and the unicorn reference was simply an example of something being possible.
The silliest part is, I initially referenced a unicorn (specifically an invisible pink unicorn) as something completely ridiculous existing on another planet in the universe, to highlight how saying something is possible doesn’t give it any more weight, and doesn’t set it apart from saying an invisible pink unicorn could possibly be on a planet in a galaxy at the farthest edge of the universe.
How we’ve spent almost a month arguing about the possibility of unicorns existing when the whole point of the reference was just to highlight how vacuous a claim of possibility is…
As they have fallen. Name one member here who you’ve convinced with your argument. That is what debating is about.
Whether or not anyone agrees doesn’t determine whether an argument is sound. Requiring people to be convinced is an appeal to popularity.
Do you agree that unicorns are mythical?
Not interested, I never used tge word necessary, I never implied it, address what I actually said please.
I didn’t say it on it’s own, I quoted my original assertion and your response in full, and verbatim.
Indeed, and they can read that i never said it was necessary, and asked you necessary for what?
Nope, I responded by asking you if you disagree with the definition of unicorns as mythical? Since you challenged my assertion that they are “mythical by deginition”.
Of course I noticed you made a prediction about the future, I said so, and you denied it, clipping the word future out of your quote.
You literally said something might be possible in the future, sonething currebtly defined as mythical, and that is unevidenced.
In the future…do you need another quote?
Then you agree they are mythical?
You literally compared gorillas to unicorns as people once thought gorillas mythical. What was your point if not to suggest this lent credence to your claim unicorns are objectively possible?
I’m done defending myself over a word you introduced and assigned to me, I know I didn’t use the word, that was my point. Move on.
With evidence yes, being wrong about gorillas doesn’t mean unicorns are objectively posdible.
Do you agree that unicorns are mythical?
Do you agree that the definition is accurate?
Straw man, i never said nor implied it did, i was pointing out that you denied prediction the future, yet literally did that, and then clipped the word future from your own post in your quotes.
Though not objectively, this is where we fundamentally disagree, unsurprisingly.
False equivalence, they dontexist on mythical unicorns.
Only to point out tgey are degined as mythical, thus to claim, as you did, that is is an objective fact that unicorns are horse like creatures with horns, is innaccurate. They are mythical creatures, imagined with those attributes. That horses exist and horns exist diesnt make unicorns existing objectively possible, anymore than eagles and lions existing makes the existence of a griffin objectively possible.
They werent incorrect.
Or i made no claim using the words necessary characterisitic, as of course is the case. Only that they are defined as mythical, and asked you if you agree that they are in fsct mythical, or do not, which is also a binary choice, but in this instance you have challenged tge definition as irrelevant, and an answer is apropos.
You didn’t answer my question, again. Do you agree that unicorns are mythical?
As far as I am aware there is no evidence to warrant the definition of unicorns as mythical should change, unless you know of some they remain mythical.
This is possibly true for epistemic, but less so for objective possibility, which requires that something can exist in objective reality. At least many philosophers would argue that this is the case. Either way I think the distinctions are important.
Well to be fair, it was an unlikely outcome given the venue, that theists and atheists fundamentally disagree as to what constitutes compelling evidence for example, shouldn’t really be a surprise to either theists or atheists.
1 Like
You mistake why I said it. I don’t deal in popularity. I deal in cold hard facts. Otherwise I wouldn’t be an Atheist. If you have actual evidence for the existence of any deity, by all means squat and produce.
1 Like
I have already stated, at least once, that I am not disputing the present view that unicorns are mythical. That has never at any point been something I have tried to argue otherwise. To the contrary. This whole discussion started when I used an invisible pink unicorn as an example to highlight how vacuous it is for something to be called possible.
I have repeatedly addressed what you said, as per:
So please address what I actually said instead of sticking to this point that I have now answered countless times.
Yes, but your response to that quote was “Strawman” which is just saying strawman on its own. You didn’t say anything else in support of this point. Quoting the thing you are calling a strawman is not saying anything else. My point still stands.
and they can see that I have repeatedly stated
and gave responses for both possible responses in the binary choice, which explains why I used the word necessary.
which, by your own words, demonstrated that you ignored what I said. If your response to my question (the binary choice) is to ask a different question, you were and are ignoring my question.
That’s not how predictions work. Predictions are claims that something will happen. Not acknowledgements of potential, possible things.
If someone says “USA will win the next soccer/football world cup” that is a prediction.
If someone says “USA could possibly/potentially win the next soccer/football world cup” that is an acknowledgement of a potential/possible future event and is most definitely not a prediction.
And? The word possible distinguishes the statement here. That’s not telling the future. It’s speaking as to something being possible.
Obviously in certain contexts when describing possibilities, they are necessarily future possibilities. Like the above example, it is possible that USA will win the world cup. It is impossible that the USA are winning or have won the world cup. It is only possible as a future possibility because the past and present don’t fit.
Do you need me to highlight how you literally quoted that I said the fact I used the word future was irrelevant?
See my response above. Not sure why it even matters what I personally think.
it is to lend credence to my claim that something being defined as mythical/mythological doesn’t mean that such a thing can’t possibly exist, or that a definition can’t be updated.
the claim that unicorns are objectively possible was supported separately, by pointing out that horses and horns exist, that there are no logical contradictions in a unicorn existing (and if anything, the point about gorillas and unicorns supports the fact that a dictionary definition does not present a logical contradiction), and that there are no biological or physics laws that would contradict the possibility of a unicorn existing.
I didn’t assign it to you. That was my point. I framed your argument of “by definition” as a binary choice and gave answers based on that binary choice for you to choose accordingly.
No, with common usage. But that’s beside the point. Yes, if a unicorn was sufficiently objectively evidenced as existing, then the definition would change - whether that is because a unicorn was discovered, or a new species on another planet was named as a unicorn based on its appearance is by the by.
I never said it was. The gorillas bit simply showed that something being mythical by definition in and of itself does not prevent that thing from existing. I already provided evidence for unicorns being objectively possible, but you tried to use the dictionary definition to fight that evidence. The gorillas example only serves to rebut your point about the dictionary having any impact on whether something is objectively possible or not.
You literally just quoted me above this saying:
That answer is sufficient.
I never said you said or implied it did. I was responding to the fact that you were repeating the same points over and over.
except I literally didn’t. I said potential, possible = hence not a prediction.
and explained repeatedly afterwards that the word wasn’t relevant. If I said potential, possible world, potential, possible present, potential, possible past, potential, possible election results, etc. it doesn’t mean I’m predicting anything about other planets, the past, present, future, or specific events. It means I’m talking about something being potential, possible. Those were the two key words that made my point. Including “future” after them didn’t somehow magically turn it into a prediction.
metaphysical possibility is a form of objective possibility - but I also went on to state they were nomologically possible, which is the other form of objective possibility. So yes, I am essentially stating they are possible in each possibility state.
We’ve already been through the argument of fictional contexts, and I see no reason to re-hash that argument if you have nothing further to offer on it.
Also it’s not false equivalence if you’re quoting me explaining why a unicorn is nomologically possible. Obviously I’m not saying a mythical unicorn is nomologically possible so your false equivalence claim is a false equivalence.
Again, even in the mythos context, it’s an accurate claim but there’s no point re-hashing the fictional context argument if you have nothing further to add.
It’s objective evidence in support of the objective possibility. If horses or horns didn’t exist then they wouldn’t support a unicorn existing. If biology and physics laws do not otherwise prevent the possibility, it’s a possibility.
Doesn’t matter. You said they were mythological by definition, so I reframed it as a binary choice, either their being mythological was a necessary trait in the definition (which means that removing it from the definition would break the definition - like a square having four equal sides is a necessary element of the definition) or it wasn’t necessary and therefore it being by definition doesn’t mean anything more than it being the current common usage of the word, and subject to change.
I used the word necessary, as I am allowed to use my own words as I see fit. I didn’t say you used the word, I made it clear it was my word not yours, and that I had used it to present a binary choice in which case my responses were as stated above depending on which view you took.
the mythical/mythological definition is irrelevant to possibility, yes. The Gorilla example proved that.
I haven’t claimed otherwise. This is about possibilities, not actualities.
Objective possibility is still vacuous. It may rank slightly higher than epistemic possibility in the grand scheme of things, but that’s still infinite objectively possible things.
Have I at any point tried to make any sort of claim, or expressed any sort of belief that I have stated or implied is something I cannot support with logic and/or supporting evidence?
I try to be careful with my words, and I argue from a position of logic as best I can. I don’t claim to be perfect, far from it. and I have made errors in the past and have had to admit mistakes in my logic or faulty reasoning. I am willing to learn from such mistakes.
I fully support your position to deal in cold hard facts, though I acknowledge we may disagree on what facts are “cold and hard” I hope it is only a disagreement on matters of logic and philosophy, because I don’t intend to deal in anything here that no reasonable atheist philosopher could agree with at least in principle.
As per my repeated statements, not my intention in the least. I know it may be difficult to trust someone with the theist tag in their profile, but as much as people may disagree or even detest me here, it won’t be because I tried to push theological beliefs (i.e., unevidenced, subjective views of a theological nature)
1 Like
Thank you, I must have missed those other response, not to worry. So ultimately I disagreement is about the definition of objectively possible, clearly. With you adhering to one philosophical definition, and me to another.
Again it was not offered on it’s own, all anyone need do is scroll up and see that I quoted both my assertion and your straw man response verbatim for proper context.
Still no answer then?
Yes, you gave responses to a question aimed at me about a word I’d not used, and was not relevant to my assertion, and seem intent to continue repeating irrelevant claims about it, despite me drawing a line under it several times in as unequivocal a manner as is possible.
One last attempt then: I’ll use big letters and see if this helps.
I did not use, imply or intend to use or imply the word necessary when I asserted unicorns are mythical by definition.
NB Note nothing in there accuses anyone of anything, move one please. I will from now be copy and pasting that exact response if this nonsense is repeated.
I note the word future seems conspicuously absent again, do you need a quote again to refresh your memory? You made a claim predicting a possible change from mythical to objectively real happening in the FUTURE.
It is absolutely making a prediction about the future, the fact it is not a specific or absolute prediction was irrelevant, as I never claimed it was. it might be possible that you will stop rehashing pointless arguments, when the a actual post is there for all to see** in the future,** is a prediction about the future.
Nope I can see it right there, ironically the claim is irrelevant, as everyone can see that you literally made a prediction about the future.
No I absolutely did not, that was an assumption you made, and you then changed it to a question, and I asked for clarification, and got none, then made my position absolutely clear, and you have pursued me nonetheless.
Ironic really that you use the word future in a claim, then deny it was a a prediction about the future, whereas I never used nor implied the word necessary and you are like a dog with a bone.
Only if they can exist in the real world. With epistemic possibility it is a shrug of the shoulders, a we don’t know, a denial carries the burden of proof, but the opposite is true of objective possibility, the person making the claim must demonstrate it can exist in the real world.
Now I grant you this is not a universally accepted position by philosophers, religious philosophers of course would lean towards a hidden metaphysical reality, but I have seen no compelling reason to accept that claim in the complete absence of any objectively verifiable evidence.
Well, I have provided a supporting source for the types of possibility, and I have explained the logic for my reference to unicorns being metaphysically and nomologically possible. What definition of possibility are you referring to that is different from this, and on what basis does it support the view that it cannot be called possible?
Well, if you’re not going to explain it, and are just going to remain on the point that all you did was quote what you were calling a strawman, then there’s nothing for me to answer, other than “no it wasn’t.” - it’s fairly balanced with your single word rebuttal.
You ask me this but given that your big letters makes it clear you don’t want to argue this point further, I respect your wishes and will not argue this specific point further.
I’m not sure why you just quoted me and said the word future seems conspicuously absent again when my quote literally has the word in there, as highlighted.
And again, to remind you what I specifically said about future to refresh your memory:
One does not predict possibilities. They’re possibilities, they don’t need prediction, they’re either possible or not. One can’t predict something being possible in the future, that’s just saying something is possible.
Predict is defined as: “to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell.”
none of those apply to a statement about “a potential, possible future.”
Again, you keep misrepresenting my arguments. I never made any predictions, I never used the word prediction. We’re discussing possibilities.
is also not a prediction. For it to be a prediction, it has to be a claim about something happening (or something that has happened) before knowledge of that event has circulated.
The word “possible” and in your example “might be possible” precludes it being a prediction as it is no longer a claim about something happening.
Again, as per your large writing, I am not going to respond to this point. Given that you have made this argument after your large writing, that seems a little unfair, as you’re making more arguments, while also telling me to drop the point. It’s only fair that if you want me to drop it, you drop it too.
Horses exist in the real world. Horns exist in the real world. There is no biological or physics reason why a creature that is horse-like could have a horn on its head, if such a creature evolved with these traits.
I have given different possibilities as to how this could occur. Here’s another. There is a possibility - albeit extreme and requiring a number of key conditions - for a horse species, over millions of years to evolve a horn, and would then biologically match the literal definition of a unicorn, albeit without the mythological characteristic. That too makes it nomologically possible. Evolution is an accepted theory, convergent evolution sees similar solutions arise in unrelated species, and horns exist in nature in different forms.
Once again I have provided evidence supporting the possibility - a vacuous possibility again, but a nomological possibility nonetheless. If you have a different definition of possibility or a rebuttal to this, by all means, go ahead.
The meaning of objective possibility differs significantly for materialism and metaphysics, and whilst I cannot claim that only the material world exists, I can assert it is an objective fact that it exists, but see no compelling evidence anything exists beyond the material physical universe. Note disbelief in your claim here is not a contrary claim.
You must do as you are minded, but my original claim and your response were more than sufficient in my opinion. If you don’t want to examine those at all so be it.
If we don’t know they are are possible then a claim they might be is a prediction, if that claim says “in the future” then ipso facto it is a prediction about what might be possible in the future.
Sure it does if one predicts something might be possible in the future, then one is making a prediction about the future.
You did indeed make a prediction, and I never claimed you’d used the word prediction or implied it. And whilst your claim was about a potential possibility, it was also a claim that something might be possible in the future, and this is a prediction, and it is about the future. hard to imagine why you’d argue otherwise.
Unless you meant I don’t know whether it will be possible in the future, in which case the assertion was pretty misleading. I have never disputed epistemic possibility, but your assertion never said epistemic, and I have only ever disputed the claim unicorns are objectively possible, so that was the context you set.
Clearly it is, and clearly there are different types of predictions, offering examples of how they differ is not relevant as far as I can see.
You are just highlighting two different types of prediction. It is a claim about what might be possible in the future, ipso facto it is a type of prediction about the future.
Neither of those are mythical, so a false equivalence as has been explained. Superman has a human like body, humans exist in reality, this does not make Superman objectively possible.
no it would not, as the literal definition says unicorns are mythical. Your claim was that unicorns were objectively possible, now it seems to be that horses could have evolved horns, which is a different claim, that a a mythical creature resembles a natural one does not make the mythical creature objectively possible, this is the same false equivalence I rejected at the start.
Again lions exist, eagles exist, this does not make the evolution of griffins objectively possible. Superman has a human body, this does not make Superman objectively possible, as that is not the total of the imagined character.
And once again I have refuted them logically.
Are you trying to convince me or yourself?
I see what you did there. Because I’m seeing the complete opposite from what you’re claiming.
That’s fine, but this was about a (non-mythological) unicorn being objectively possible. If a unicorn (objectively possibly) existed it would be material/physical, not metaphysical. It would just be a regular animal.
That’s fine, I haven’t attempted to claim otherwise.
That would be shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, so it would be up to you to provide an explanation to support it as required.
No, because the claim that they might be is an acknowledgement of epistemic limitation. We don’t know that they are, or are not and/or we don’t know that they will be or will not be.
A prediction is a claim about the actual world. A possibility is a claim about a possible world. There is a clear distinction here.
As above. By all means, attempt to provide a definition that supports your view otherwise, but I have provided a clear definition that disputes this.
As above. Not a prediction for the reasons stated. You keep voicing your objections but you haven’t supported them.
That’s what possibility is. We’ve already been over this at length. Possibility is a position of uncertainty (remember that?) To say something is possible is to say it is not known whether it will be or whether it won’t be. It hasn’t been ruled out as impossible.
Do we really need to go through what possibility means again?
The difference between a unicorn and superman is that superman also has a body that is powered by a yellow sun, has various traits like flight, laser eyes, x-ray vision, etc., and comes from a planet called Krypton.
For Superman to be considered objectively (nomologically) possible, one would need to establish that each of those traits is possible within the laws of biology and physics, which they are not.
A unicorn by comparison need only be a horse-like creature with a single horn on its head. Given that the necessary qualifying characteristics are established as possible, and various means by which those traits could exist in combination are established as possible, a unicorn is therefore objectively (nomologically) possible.
We’ve already been over this. If a horse evolved with a horn. It is perfectly reasonable to consider people would call it a unicorn, and as it would be called a unicorn, the dictionary would recognise the common usage of this and the definition would be amended to reflect that a unicorn is not necessarily (my usage of the word) mythological.
Not a different claim - an example of how the claim of objective possibility could manifest.
Which is a misrepresentation of my argument from the outset, yet again.
I’m not talking about a mythical creature being objectively possible. I’m talking about a creature that is currently described as mythical being objectively possible, and if that possibility manifested in one form or another, it would not be described as mythical.
The mythical characteristic only applies to the current usage. I’ve already addressed this with the Gorilla example. When Gorilla’s were proved to exist, no one would have said, “they can’t exist because mythical creatures are not objectively possible” - the “mythical” characteristic was dropped from the definition because it was no longer correct in common usage.
If you are seeing the complete opposite, please can you quote where I have done so?
There is no such regular animal as a unicorn though, that’s rather the point. So I can’t see any reason to agree that they are objectively possible.
I understand, but we are looking at objective possibility from two difderent positions, hardly a surprise really. Anyway work is now reaching an apotheosis, so I’ll have to reapond piecemeal, and when I can.
that’s not a supportable claim. You can claim that a regular unicorn has not been evidenced as existing, etc. but as a generalisation, it cannot be said that no such thing exists anywhere - there’s an entire universe out there. We don’t even know the entirety of our planet.
I’m not saying they do exist, I’m just saying we don’t have the means to sufficiently objectively evidence the non-existence of anything in a general sense.
And further to that, it doesn’t matter if they exist or not. We’re still talking about objectively possible. As I stated in the quote you included, “it would just be” - not “it already is”.
As before, I would be interested to know how your position is defined if it is different to the version I provided evidence for.
No worries, I can be patient 
take care!