The Skeptical Crackpot

<< < (31/34) > >>

Teleological (August 08, 2010, 13:41:37 PM):
Hey Tele, how about you show some understanding that idealised geometric models and the proofs involving them are only useful to the extent that they actually mirror reality. If your model of reality is wrong, your proofs are meaningless.
Well, there are several problems with those statements for you from your philosophical naturalistic point of view.

1) You have no way of knowing what reality is in the first place. There is no self, enduring agent that observes reality. How you think your above statement makes sense is a mystery anyway. (If you think this is an ad hominem directed at you or your silly naturalism, don't worry, I am with you in thinking you have no self or enduring first-person agent to direct any ad hominems at :P)

2) You fail to recognize or distinguish the difference between an analytical judgment and an empirical judgment.
An analytical judgment is independent of experiencing the fact through our senses. For example, when two quantities are added to give a third (say 1 + 21 = 22), you consciously realize this is true. There is no need to sense 22 stones or coins or whatever to realize the fact is true. The same goes for geometrical and other proofs.

I think you problem as a naturalist is that you can not take consciousness seriously in the first place as well and therefore find it difficult to take abstract geometrical proofs seriously.

3) You fail to distinguish between universals and particulars. Universals are idealized abstractions of reality generated by our brains. When you think about a dog, you have some abstract universal idea of what a dog is. It has two eyes, four legs, canine teeth etc. However this abstract idealization of a dog does not exist in reality, only specific, actual dogs such this particular Fido or that particular Brutus or that particular Bongo over there or whatever. The same goes for triangles. They have three sides and on Euclidean planes their interior angles ALWAYS add up to half of a full rotation (again, this is an analytical judgment not an empirical one). In reality, these universal idealizations of triangles do not exist, only this particular triangle or that particular triangle. Realty does not exist as universal idealizations, but what you also seem to fail to understand is that from particulars we are able to intellectually grasp abstract universal idealizations and make analytical judgments.

All this of course (as mentioned above) is one massive problem for the naturalist since the philosophical naturalist can not take consciousness seriously and mathematics becomes a bit of a burden since it too is meaningless tripe (for the naturalist).


Hermes (August 10, 2010, 14:56:07 PM):
Universals are idealized abstractions of reality generated by our brains. When you think about a dog, you have some abstract universal idea of what a dog is. It has two eyes, four legs, canine teeth etc. However this abstract idealization of a dog does not exist in reality, only specific, actual dogs such this particular Fido or that particular Brutus or that particular Bongo over there or whatever. The same goes for triangles. They have three sides and on Euclidean planes their interior angles ALWAYS add up to half of a full rotation (again, this is an analytical judgment not an empirical one). In reality, these universal idealizations of triangles do not exist, only this particular triangle or that particular triangle. Realty does not exist as universal idealizations, but what you also seem to fail to understand is that from particulars we are able to intellectually grasp abstract universal idealizations and make analytical judgments.
Pearls of wisdom, shiver my bones! And to think that you are casting it to us swine....
A universal truth holds under all circumstances. A mathematical theorem proves such universality. It has nothing to do with the "abstract idealization of a dog". If there is a theorem that proves all dogs to have four legs, I'd like to hear it. "Intellectually grasp abstract universal idealizations" nogal.
Teleological (August 10, 2010, 16:22:10 PM):
A universal truth holds under all circumstances. A mathematical theorem proves such universality. It has nothing to do with the "abstract idealization of a dog". If there is a theorem that proves all dogs to have four legs, I'd like to hear it.
Monkey sees a three sides figure. Monkey draws three sided figure. Monkey figures out all three sides figures on an Euclidean plane have interior angles that always add up to half a rotation. Monkey calls it a triangle on an Euclidean plane. Monkey also sees examples of triangles that are not perfect, in fact the monkey has not observed a perfect triangle, he just intellectually grasps the idea of triangles.

Monkey sees a four legged creature with two eyes and looks like a wolf. Monkey figures out this particular four-legged creature can be domesticated. Monkey calls it a dog. Monkey also sees dogs with three or two legs due to birth defects or other accidents, in fact, monkey has not seen a perfect dog, he just intellectually grasps the idea of what a dog is.

If P, then Q
P,
Therefore Q

If three-sided figure on Euclidean plane, then interior angles always add up to half a rotation.
Given three-sided figure on Euclidean plane.
Therefore interior angles add up to half a rotation.

Or
If domesticated form of the gray wolf, then it is a dog.
You see a domesticated form of the gray wolf,
Therefore it is a dog
Hermes (August 10, 2010, 17:17:28 PM):
Round about the crackpot go:
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Fillet or a fenny snake,
In the crackpot boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and crackpot bubble.
Teleological (August 10, 2010, 18:20:56 PM):
Round about the crackpot go:
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Fillet or a fenny snake,
In the crackpot boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and crackpot bubble.
Ouch, those poor skeptical crackpots :D.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page