Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The use of logic in establishing truths
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 5 of 171 (438545)
12-05-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
12-05-2007 9:09 AM


Re: The T The Whole T and nothing but the T
What is truth? (by definition)
Good question.
This, or something close to it, has derailed a number of discussions in the past so it's probably a good idea to get this out of the way.
I would say 'truth' is probably another axiom. It may seem to have a self evident definition but it really has to be agreed upon to mean a certain thing before it can be used in any argument.
My own personal usage of the word could be described as follows.
that which represents the actual state of reality in the universe, whether we are aware of it or not.
'FACT' means pretty much the same thing to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 12-05-2007 9:09 AM Phat has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 8 of 171 (438561)
12-05-2007 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dawn Bertot
12-05-2007 10:14 AM


a case of refinement
The first problem is that the premise "Dead men don't tell tales" is poorly defined.
What precisely do you mean by "dead men"? Are you limiting it to men or do women count too? (a small and rather useless question but it illustrates the point)
What precisely do you mean by "don't tell tales"?
If it is taken to include non verbal communications then dead men tell a whole bunch of tales. They can tell you their age, usually what killed them, the kind of food they ate and many other things. As an analytical chemist I sometimes have to deal with forensic analysis so I can certainly vouch for this.
Then again what about resurrections? Jesus performed them did he not? Were those people able to tell tales?
The phrase, as it is written is very ambiguous so it is most certainly not axiomatic.
If you refine it a little to say something such as "Dead men or women, who are still currently in a state of non-life, do not tell tales by means of standing up and verbally talking, of their own volition" then you are getting closer to something which you could argue to be true.
Oh wait a minute... Jesus did that too didn't he?
he was certainly not in a normal living state when he spoke to Thomas. He had a very large spear hole in his side that would be fatal to any living man. Thomas put his hand in it.
Millions of people believe this is literally true (I don't know if you happen to be one of them) so it really puts the final nail in the coffin of the phrase "dead men tell no tales" as being an axiomatic statement.
It quite obviously is NOT self evidently true because if it was then everybody would be forced to believe it. If even one person does not believe it, then it just plainly isn't an Axiom in the sense that you have been defining it.
Quite frankly I would challenge you to come up with any one single statement across all of time and space that is self evidently true about the real universe.
To be self evident, anybody who looks at it has to (by definition) see its obvious truth. If they don't then your 'axiom' is invalidated.
The concept of a real-world axiom is not logically defendable. It can only be used as a premise on which all parties (in the discussion) agree. If even one participant does not agree then the axiom is invalidated for the 'truth' of the axiom is no longer accepted.
I really don't understand why you don't just use the accepted meaning of the word axiom instead of insisting on using your interpretation of the narrow meaning that you got from one dictionary among hundreds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-05-2007 10:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 9 of 171 (438563)
12-05-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Stile
12-05-2007 10:27 AM


Re: The T The Whole T and nothing but the T
The only way we can know The Truth, is by having multiple people test "the actual state of reality" and agree upon what it is. That is, we must be able to show reality to others in order to verify that it is The Truth. The important part here is "able to show", not "others".
Even then can we really know the truth?
What we are doing in reality is increasing our confidence in that what we think that we know is actually true.
It is like an exponential error curve that never quite reaches the Y axis of absolute certainty
Other than that little quibble, right on

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Stile, posted 12-05-2007 10:27 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2007 11:00 AM PurpleYouko has not replied
 Message 13 by Stile, posted 12-05-2007 11:11 AM PurpleYouko has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 14 of 171 (438579)
12-05-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Stile
12-05-2007 11:11 AM


Re: The T The Whole T and nothing but the T
Sounds good to me.
I was pretty sure you would only have made such a mistake by complete accident (or typo).
95%+ confidence would seem to be a fair starting point for defining what we believe to be 'TRUE'
I can live with that as an arbitrary definition for the discussion.
Anything below that is just 'pretty sure'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Stile, posted 12-05-2007 11:11 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 53 of 171 (438923)
12-06-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 11:35 AM


The demonstratable fact and the direct evidence that dead people talk to no one is not assertion or quibbling. If it is please prove me wrong. I am not being Glib, yopu simply offer nothing of SUBSTANCE for me to reply to. RAZDs excellent wording or whatever, is not a substitute for a argument, the conclusion of which should be here is the direct evidence that shows why dead men dont talk. Just say you are licked and we can move on.
I already addressed this in my earlier post.
Do you believe that Jesus resurrected people? Did they talk afterward?
Do you believe that Jesus himself rose from the dead and spoke to people?
Furthermore do you believe he was raised as a living man? With a giant hole in his side? I think not.
He was a dead man and he spoke.
Now I personally don't believe a word of this but I can assure you that many millions of people do believe it so to them, the phrase "dead men tell no tales" is completely untrue.
Then there people who are absolutely certain that they can hear the dead speak to them.
These include people who go to seances or mediums, Ancestor worshippers and many many others.
You can't possibly deny that there is a not one single person on this planet who honestly believes that they or someone else has ever received a message from a dead person.
If you really insist then I will have no trouble in filling the entire available space of this server with documented examples of people who believe that the dead can, do and have spoken. The internet is so full of them that it isn't even worth while to bother giving you an example.
However just to prove the point, here is one anyway
When we die our spirit go in heaven and live with God as I hear during funerals as priest and pastors said. Are the spirits of dead evil? They are our ancestors, My greatgrandma, my great grandfather my aunties and uncles comunicated me through dreams about the inheritance land that was abandoned for about forty years. After 13 dreams I got the title of land in my name. I have many dreams that turned into reality. If you don't fully understand about this matter you just jump into conclusion "Evil". These spirits of dead people are living in the spirit world together with the holy spirit and they can comunicate directly and will give us messages. That is my understanding.
This person quite obviously believes that you are wrong and that is all it takes.
To this person your 'axiom' is quite patently NOT a self evident truth.
Whether I or anyone here believes it to be possible for the dead to speak is utterly irrelevent. The fact is that some people believe they can and do. That is all we need.
In order for your phrase to be an Axiom, everybody has to agree to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 11:35 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 9:21 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 9:58 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 68 of 171 (438984)
12-06-2007 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dawn Bertot
12-06-2007 9:21 PM


What people say and what they can prove are two different things. This takes care of the is whole post. The FACT, that you need is NOT what they say or believe, but what they can demonstrate. Please provide the evidence.
The evidence is that they believe it.
We need nothing more.
The fact that anyone believes it is more than enough to prove that your 'axiom' is NOT self evident.
If something is self evident then, by definition, everyone will recognize its truth when they see it.
The FACT is that some people do not believe your axiom so it is, by definition, NOT an axiom. Even by your definition of the word.
You assert that it is an obvious self evident truth that dead mean do not talk.
I provided evidence that there are people who do not believe your 'self evident truth'. In fact to these people, their 'self evident truth' is that dead men do tale tales. They honestly believe that they communicate with these dead people on a day to day basis.
Like I said, it doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. The plain facts are that lots of people believe lots of different things and have lots of utterly conflicting 'self evident truths'
Find something that every last person believes as a self evident truth and we might get somewhere with your definition of 'axiom'. "dead men tell no tales" isn't it I'm afraid.
{ABE}
Listen carefully. When people are alive they are not dead. If they were resurrected or came back to life they are not dead. Dead people dont say anything. Yes I believe these stories, but you do not. So whats the point?
On the point of Jesus talking to people after the death of his physical body, the story says that he came back and spoke to people (Thomas for example) in his physical form such that his wounds were still there. It was supposedly several days before he ascended to heaven and became a divine being once more. During this time he was in effect an animated corpse. He wasn't a spirit since he had a physical body. He wasn't a living man since the body he used was still dead.
I may not believe this but I certainly know the story very well.
Edited by PurpleYouko, : Forgot to address this point

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-06-2007 9:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-06-2007 11:16 PM PurpleYouko has not replied
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 12:37 AM PurpleYouko has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 93 of 171 (439070)
12-07-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 12:37 AM


this is a complete waste of time
The evidence is that they believe it.
We need nothing more.
The fact that anyone believes it is more than enough to prove that your 'axiom' is NOT self evident.
It simply is no evidence that people believe things.Enough said.
You really don't have a clue do you?
Do you even know what evidence means?
Your assertion == "Dead men tell no tales" is a self evident truth, an AXIOM.
This absolutely requires that everybody who sees this statement HAS to believe it. If it is self evident then they have no choice.
Therefore your assertion is that EVERYBODY sees the obvious truth in it.
What kind of evidence could invalidate/debunk/nullify your assertion?
Simple. Evidence that any person DOES NOT see the obvious truth in it.
I provided evidence of one person at least who does not agree with you. It is utterly irrelevent whose belief is correct. The actual evidence in this situation is very simply that not everyone sees your 'axiom' as a self evident truth. As long as there are those who believe otherwise then it cannot be self evident.
If you can't even understand the concept that this utterly destroys your assertion then I am wasting my valuable time on you.
ALIVE, DEAD. ALIVE, DEAD. Jesus was then alive. Hence the foundation of the Christian belief. Hence he was not dead. Dead men tell no tales. The expression animated corpes is a contradiction of terms. I am not trying to be funny here, only to help you see that it is an axiom of the highest order.
What can i say?
You are basically redefining the meaning of "dead" so that no example can ever debunk your idea. That is called moving the goalposts.
Basically you are saying that even if a dead man gets up and talks then you will define him as being alive for the purpose of your argument.
That is total BS.
Plenty of people believe in animated corpses. Zombies they call them. Take a look at some of the voodoo beliefs. Zombies are often involved there and that too invalidates your assertion that your 'axiom' is really a self evident truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 12:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 10:01 AM PurpleYouko has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 100 of 171 (439087)
12-07-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dawn Bertot
12-07-2007 10:01 AM


Re: this is a complete waste of time
You really don't have a clue do you?
Do you even know what evidence means?
Yes I do and I am still waiting for it.
You are totally missing the point.
The evidence is that there are people who believe other stuff. That is all it requires, that somebody somewhere believes something different. It makes no difference what they believe. it makes no difference if they are correct or not.
All that matters is that these people, when faced with your assertion that dead men don't speak, will likely laugh in your face and tell you not to be so stupid.
These people honestly believe that it happens so to them it is NOT self evident that it does not.
I don't understand why you can't see that just saying that something is self evident, doesn't make it self evident to everybody. I have provide many examples of people to whom it isn't.
As i have said before (many times ad nauseum) all it takes to invalidate your axiom is that just one person does not agree that it is self evident.
If you show me a Zombie that is both dead and alive at the same time, I will believe you. Fair enough. Heck if you can even show me a dead Zombie talking, Ill believe. As you can see though, Im not worried that this is going to happen. As I told JB1740 and RAZD. You need to quit using these people as examples if you dont even belive in their stories. that dosent make much sense.
Whether I believe their stories or not is totally beside the point.
The only point is that THEY believe and therefore to them your axiom is NOT an axiom. It is NOT self evident. They will NOT accept it as true because to them it just plain isn't.
If something is an Axiom it must be accepted as true by everybody that sees it. Any exception to this rule proves it is not an axiom in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-07-2007 10:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024