How do we KNOW knowledge?

[Oncedeceived]

Requiring you to support your arguments with evidence is not a logical fallacy. Please learn how logic works.

1. I am not required to support a straw man argument.
2. You are the one that is using an argument from ignorance.
3. You have taken what was being discussed in this thread and ignored my actual claims and presented claims that I have not made in the thread at all.


So to get back to what the actual question was:


Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Are you implying that the logic which claims something is what it is and isn't what it is not is a logical fallacy, are you implying that the logic that something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense is a logical fallacy as well as a statement is either true or false without middle ground is a logical fallacy?

Now you can answer the actual question and keep to the discussion of this particular thread.

​

You have used that argument on multiple occasions to support a God of the Gaps.





And now we move the section of the discussion where you pretend you never made specific claims after making those specific claims on multiple occasions. Hide it under a bushel?

It doesn't matter what I've done in other discussions. Stick to this one.

"This fallacy lives up to its striking name because the Texas sharpshooter takes a random cluster, and by drawing a target onto it makes it appear to be causally determined, as if the Texan were shooting at the target. Similarly, when looking at data, there is a danger of jumping to a conclusion that a random cluster is a causal pattern. Without further testing, such a conclusion is seldom if ever justified. "
The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

I would normally ask again what I left out in creating the bulls eye but I am going to remain focused on the original discussion and not take off in another direction.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. I am not required to support a straw man argument.

So you aren't claiming that the supernatural exists?

2. You are the one that is using an argument from ignorance.

Requiring you to support your arguments with evidence is not a logical fallacy. Please learn how logic works.

3. You have taken what was being discussed in this thread and ignored my actual claims and presented claims that I have not made in the thread at all.

You are denying the existence of the supernatural?

It doesn't matter what I've done in other discussions. Stick to this one.

I think it is rather pathetic that you can't stand by your own words.

I would normally ask again what I left out in creating the bulls eye but I am going to remain focused on the original discussion and not take off in another direction.

I would normally use the same quote until you actually address what it says.

"This fallacy lives up to its striking name because the Texas sharpshooter takes a random cluster, and by drawing a target onto it makes it appear to be causally determined, as if the Texan were shooting at the target. Similarly, when looking at data, there is a danger of jumping to a conclusion that a random cluster is a causal pattern. Without further testing, such a conclusion is seldom if ever justified. "

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you aren't claiming that the supernatural exists?

I was not making any such claims in this discussion.

Requiring you to support your arguments with evidence is not a logical fallacy. Please learn how logic works.

I am not required to support a straw man. That is not how logic works. Which reminds me, how does logic work? How do you explain that we have the ability and innate understanding of logic that transcends humankind?

You are denying the existence of the supernatural?

I am just not making claims of the existence in this thread. Do you understand the notion of multiple subject matter being isolated and specific in nature?

I think it is rather pathetic that you can't stand by your own words.

You mean the words you've put in my mouth?

I would normally use the same quote until you actually address what it says.

"This fallacy lives up to its striking name because the Texas sharpshooter takes a random cluster, and by drawing a target onto it makes it appear to be causally determined, as if the Texan were shooting at the target. Similarly, when looking at data, there is a danger of jumping to a conclusion that a random cluster is a causal pattern. Without further testing, such a conclusion is seldom if ever justified.

Yep. I know what the fallacy says. Thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was not making any such claims in this discussion.

Have you made that claim in other discussions?

I am not required to support a straw man.

How is it a strawman?

How do you explain that we have the ability and innate understanding of logic that transcends humankind?

The same way that 2 hydrogens can bond to an oxygen to form a water molecule.

I am just not making claims of the existence in this thread.

Hide it under a bushel?

You mean the words you've put in my mouth?

Words that have come out of your mouth on several occasions, by your own admission.

 

[Kylie]

It goes this way:

YOU define a good mom. Then you get it done.
So you know.

Other's opinions are not important.

That is how we really know anything.

This is nonsense. Are you saying that I can KNOW that I am a, say, magical elf by simply claiming that a magical elf is, by definition, anyone who fits my description?

It's foolish to think you can create knowledge by defining it into existence.

I suspect that you have no idea how to actually discuss things logically.

 

[Kylie]

The better question might be why does it work?

Because it is right.

How do we determine what is right and what isn't?

By testing it and seeing if it works.

We basically have the innate ability to form logical thought and reason to determine correct correlations with reality. Without the ability to reason logically and the fact that the universe has order and can be intelligently known we would not have Science at all.

And...?

The nature of Science is to discover the workings of the material universe we live in. Sometimes our discoveries are very accurate and at other times we find we must make corrections to our findings. We could not do so with out the ability to use reason and logic and a universe that has order and can be comprehended.

Agreed. We have the ability to use reason and logic, and the universe certainly seems to operate with predictable laws.

What's your point?

Yes, and everyday we use our ability to use the innate logic we are equipped with to understand that if we jump up in the air there is an element we labeled gravity that will pull us back down so that we don't keep going up.

So we are agreed that testing things is a valid measure of determining how accurate they are.

Strange isn't it? We as human being have the ability to understand the universe and get accurate results? It was like the universe was just created for us to be able to understand it and we ourselves equipped with that ability.

Oh, naughty naughty. Don't start speculating, you'll produce a bias in your conclusions.

Do you wonder why?

Because they are right?

Depends on what has been demonstrated to be accurate and if that is a confirming demonstration.

Really? Care to give an example?

In what situation would a person NOT be foolish to hold onto a particular viewpoint once that viewpoint has been shown to be false?

How do you know the truth? Don't you know that truth exists due to the logic and reason we are equipped with? Truth can only be known to exist if we have the ability to know that truth exists and that false exists and that is done with the innate reason and logic that transcends mankind and Science.

Truth does not require an observer who is capable of recognising it.

If all life in the universe were to suddenly vanish, would gravity still be true? Of course it would be. The truth that gravity exists does not require there to be beings capable of recognising that it exists.

 

[Kylie]

I as with others we do at times use logical fallacies but the fact that they can be recognized as such is still in support of my point.

Unfortunately you are wrong, because monkeys exist. Now, of course, the existence of monkeys has absolutely no bearing on the validity of your claim, despite the fact that I suggested that it did. What I did was a logical fallacy. Of course, I'm sure you recognised it as a logical fallacy. And the fact that you recognised it as a logical fallacy means it still supports my case, and you are wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Have you made that claim in other discussions?

Irrelevant.

How is it a strawman?

UH...it isn't may argument.

The same way that 2 hydrogens can bond to an oxygen to form a water molecule.

do 2 hydrogens bonding to oxygen forming water think about bonding? Do they use logic to do so?

Hide it under a bushel?

Do you ever discuss politics? If I were to see you discussing politics in a thread and then used it to alter the discussion in another would that make sense?

Words that have come out of your mouth on several occasions, by your own admission.

Irrelevant. I don't go through threads and take comments out of context to use in my arguments and I think that it stands to reason that discussions are multifaceted and should be specific to the claims within it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Irrelevant.

Completely relevant.

If you can't stand by your own words, then what is the point of a discussion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Unfortunately you are wrong, because monkeys exist. Now, of course, the existence of monkeys has absolutely no bearing on the validity of your claim, despite the fact that I suggested that it did. What I did was a logical fallacy. Of course, I'm sure you recognised it as a logical fallacy. And the fact that you recognised it as a logical fallacy means it still supports my case, and you are wrong.

So we have opposing views...I think we do anyway. Lets assume we do have opposing views, we both know innately that one of us must be wrong. We know this because all statements must be true or false. Agreed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Completely relevant.

If you can't stand by your own words, then what is the point of a discussion?

This is relevant:

The same way that 2 hydrogens can bond to an oxygen to form a water molecule.
​

do 2 hydrogens bonding to oxygen forming water think about bonding? Do they use logic to do so?

This is a claim that you have made. You claim that logic can be explained in the same that 2 hydrogens can bond to an oxygen to form a water molecule. Please provide the proof of your statement.

 

[bhsmte]

Completely relevant.

If you can't stand by your own words, then what is the point of a discussion?

I guess we need to complete ignore what posters have claimed in other threads.

 

[Loudmouth]

do 2 hydrogens bonding to oxygen forming water think about bonding? Do they use logic to do so?

This is a claim that you have made. You claim that logic can be explained in the same that 2 hydrogens can bond to an oxygen to form a water molecule. Please provide the proof of your statement.

Logic is nothing more than the ability of the human brain to accurately model what happens in the universe, what happens when hydrogen is oxidized by free oxygen.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it is right.

How do you know it is right? Do you not agree that without the ability to reason logically and the fact that the universe has order and can be intelligently known we would not have Science at all.

By testing it and seeing if it works.

IF it were not ordered and we didn't have the ability of reason and logic how would we test it?

And...?

So I take this as an agreement with said statement?

Agreed. We have the ability to use reason and logic, and the universe certainly seems to operate with predictable laws.

What reason do you attribute this order and predictable laws to?

What's your point?

Wondering in your view what you attribute the orderly universe existing versus a chaotic one which might be predicted by the Big Bang?

So we are agreed that testing things is a valid measure of determining how accurate they are.

Yes, and we seem to agree that without logic and reason and an ordered and comprehensible universe said testing could not exist. Correct?

Oh, naughty naughty. Don't start speculating, you'll produce a bias in your conclusions.

So I can take from this that you do not speculate to how an ordered and comprehensible universe can be known by the human species or how this ability originated?

Because they are right?

This is begging the question.

Really? Care to give an example?

In what situation would a person NOT be foolish to hold onto a particular viewpoint once that viewpoint has been shown to be false?[/Quote]

Do you know of anytime in the history of Science that something has been shown to be false after being accepted to be true?

Truth does not require an observer who is capable of recognising it.

I totally agree. As observers how are we capable of recognizing that there exists only true and false statements?

If all life in the universe were to suddenly vanish, would gravity still be true? Of course it would be. The truth that gravity exists does not require there to be beings capable of recognising that it exists.

Again I agree. Just as if we did not exist A would still be A, things would still be either true or false and they could not be otherwise. How do you explain that as observers we know this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Logic is nothing more than the ability of the human brain to accurately model what happens in the universe, what happens when hydrogen is oxidized by free oxygen.

So logic is just chemicals firing in the brain?

 

[Loudmouth]

So logic is just chemicals firing in the brain?

Logic is a set of human constructs that we use to model the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I guess we need to complete ignore what posters have claimed in other threads.

The purpose of threads is to discuss what is being presented in the thread. Were you not aware of that. If you are going to discuss something and use an unrelated quote from a link you would be quote mining and the same is true here. You can't take something out of context. It doesn't matter what position someone holds if they are discussing a general or specific element that is held by someone else.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Logic is a set of human constructs that we use to model the universe.

In that case A is A was not true before the human mind constructed it?

 

[bhsmte]

The purpose of threads is to discuss what is being presented in the thread. Were you not aware of that. If you are going to discuss something and use an unrelated quote from a link you would be quote mining and the same is true here. You can't take something out of context. It doesn't matter what position someone holds if they are discussing a general or specific element that is held by someone else.

You may be unaware of the importance of intellectual honesty when you try to engage in discussion with others.

When you become known and your positions become known to others (statements you have made) they tend to go along with you and don't just disappear when you want them to.

 

[Loudmouth]

In that case A is A was not true before the human mind constructed it?

Two hydrogens combined with one oxygen (really 4 hydrogens and 2 oxygens) to make water before there were any humans to write it down in a science book. This was true before hydrogen was H and oxygen was O.