What is the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' and how have I committed it. Remember, I'm a dumbo so I not be understanding this stuff. — Bartricks
No, persons refers to individual persons, not groups - so you're just being tedious. — Bartricks
But to remove any ambiguity, here:
1. Reason makes assertions
2. A person and only a person can make an assertion
3. Therefore Reason is a person
Same argument, and it is valid and sound.
If we weren't ignorant we wouldn't ask questions because we'd already have all the facts.
— Harry Hindu
Where do you have them, and how do you know? You're claiming no questioning. What summons them, then? — tim wood
How is this any different than saying that the universe is filled with information/facts that is the answer to some question?
— Harry Hindu
The Universe is not filled with facts. Facts are constructs of the mind. And they can only be considered 'Facts" if they contain 'truths. And 'truths' solve problems or answer questions. — ovdtogt
All assertions are made by language users.
Reason is not a language user.
Reason does not make assertions. — creativesoul
I made no assumption about your intelligence, only your capacity to see reasoning as more inclusive than simply appeals to Reason. — Possibility
“No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample — Possibility
My counter argument (and I may not have made this clear enough for you) has been to point out that if my subjective experience of truth extends beyond appeals to Reason, and includes empirical evidence that other subjective experiences of truth do the same, then it is reasonable to at least consider the possibility that an appeal to Reason is insufficient for an inclusive and objective understanding of what truth is. — Possibility
No, Reason would have to be a person - a mind - because Reason asserts things (and values things, and prescribes things) and minds and only minds can assert things (and value things, and prescribe things). — Bartricks
What could the solution to world peace be if not whatever Reason asserts it to be? I mean, when we try and figure out what the solution to world violence is, what are we doing? Consulting our reason, surely? — Bartricks
Note too that an analysis of truth is not going to give you the answer to substantial questions about what's true. — Bartricks
Mind isn't a person. Mind is an abstraction that refers to a person's ability to think and reason. Only a person can assert things. — Andrew M
You seem to be treating reason as a homunculus. — Andrew M
But in this case, an analysis of truth has yet to be made. — Andrew M
Positing Reason as a person who asserts truth just pushes that analysis back a step — Andrew M
What you’re doing here is reducing potential energy to energy and energy to vibration, by stating that it is “only potential with respect to the work it is directed towards”. This is a common move for physicists/physicalists (not assuming either), where the ‘potential’ or ‘potentiality’ is only considered relative to the actual, rather than the other way around. This error of correlation (in my opinion) is why quantum mechanics is so difficult for many to understand outside of the calculations. — Possibility
How on earth can one reason without appealing to reason? — Bartricks
No, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying that potential energy is not actual energy; it is. Potential energy is actual energy. However, its potentiality is relative. For example, both kinetic and potential energy are energies; but the difference is with respect to the state in which they are manifest. 'Potential' and 'kinetic' are expressions of the conditioning of the energy, and thus potential energy can translate to kinetic and vice-versa. In both cases, it is impossible to negate the aspect of them as being 'energy' even when the conditioning changes. My point is, the perspective of reality as energy is all-inclusive, because it can be applied to all components of reality. — BrianW
Can you also explain to me what you mean by 'evidence'. For example, how can any sensation constitute evidence without an appeal being made to Reason? — Bartricks
So, explain to me on what grounds you think you know something, if it is not by appeal to reason.
It seems to me that you are not remotely reasonable. But of course, that's not a vice, is it, by your book?
You just know that some things are true, and furthermore if the reason of you and others seems to contradict you, that - for you - is not evidence that you are wrong.
There's a name for that: it is called 'dogmatism'. — Bartricks
Now, it seems to me that you are thinking that if some people of limited cognitive abilities and/or a stubborn conviction that I am wrong about anything and everything, object to some argument I have made, then that shows that the argument is not sound, or not valid, or that I am not reasonable in rejecting or ignoring what they have said. — Bartricks
You've reached incoherence my friend — creativesoul
You're equivocating the terms "Reason" and "truth" — creativesoul
You've changed the terms between the premisses and the conclusion on multiple occasions. — creativesoul
Not much more I can do here. The astute reader will be served. — creativesoul
Don’t get me wrong - your argument appears to make sense from a logical perspective. — Possibility
That's the only one that matters. Everything else is ego and posturing. — Bartricks
This statement is true if and only if it is true
I think this forum would benefit from a 2 sentence maximum rule. — ovdtogt
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.