Cavediver writes:
Just what is the actual axiom you are discussing, of which your Spock-scenario is but an example?
I believe I left off here. I cant believe anyone is so so silly as not know we are actually speaking about the only two possibile alternatives to the existence of things. An eternal God or the eternality of matter itself. You cannot think or contrive another possibility that does not fall within the two, or is a combination of the two. Have you been on this palnet for the lastmonth?
PaulkK writes:
Because it doesn't. Spock has no way to know if the aliens have a means of responding that would work, but that they have not yet attempted.
UNABLE and UNWILLING.
It is neither axiomatic nor logical and a valid counter-example has been provided.
Wrong as I have numerous times demonstrated.
Par writes
What Spock's reasoning in my version comes down to is: they're either unwilling to respond, or they're unable to, or they simply don't exist. Your attempt to equate nonexistence with inability is quite amusing but it doesn't work.
What is amusing is you attempt to change the whole scenerio to fit in an answer. You cant change reality to ingnore the obvious. Even if they didnt exist, Spocks statement would be valid. They are UNABLE because they are not there. Nice try though.
The aliens being there in the actual scene has no bearing on my example. We are not talking about the actual scene, we are discussing a hypothetical situation which you say has only two solutions. You suggested that there is no other logical possibility, your opponents showed you there is. One of the solutions could be that at the moment Spock uttered his conclusion, he could be wrong because it was also possible that there were no aliens on the other ship. You have been proved wrong.
Try to understand this simple point. UNABLE AND UNWILLING do not describe hypothetical knothead, they are actual things, hence the expression ABLE and WILLING. These are the only two categories in reality that will allow you to do or not do a thing. Everything will fall within the two,its axiomatic and reality.
Changing the scenerio would be like changing the whole context of reality. again, even if they were not there it would not change the validity of his statement.
Well, what if the aliens simply weren't paying attention? Would that constitute unwillingness, or inability? Have you shot yourself in the foot?
Unable and unwilling apply to both parties and reality, not just one side.
Subbie writes:
I really think this Spock thing has run its course. Isn't it about time for you to trot out the "Dead men tell no tales" line, so we can destroy that while you ignore our arguments?
This demonstrates my point exacally, you euate attempts with actual answers. No doubt you actually believe there is a way for a dead person to ACTUALLY talk. The first axiom hasnt and cant be unsettled, let alone this one. Wow.
Onifre writes:
Both of these are not supported with any evidence that shows the nature of reality at that point in time, it cannot be falsified and is nothing more than an attempt at an answer without any supporting empirical data. You are simply circling around that point. You can say its an axiomatic truth, you can say its not an axiomatic truth, both of those statements have equally non-supporting data. The nature of certain things are not known, their origins would then be less understood and to postulate about it would just be philosophical musing.
Sorry my comic relief friend, reality is not NOT unsupporting data. You can avoid all of this rehtoric by simply giving me another alternative besides the two,or one that will not fall within the two. Another possibility, less jabbering.
And Christ, could we stop talking about Star-Trek, chics aren't gonna show up to this thread.
And if I worshipped someone it would ofcurse be 7 of 9, even if she could kick my butt.
Huntard writes:
No I'm not joking. I have a mind to do a great many things, but I don't do them all. The fact that I don't do everything I want to do doesn't mean I don't WANT to do them though.
UNABLE. Getting tired yet.
But fine, whatever, let's concentrate on the main argument here, I'm done with this, you won't concede anyway. Please provide some "axioms of reality" so we can discuss them.
You ignore the axiom right in front of you and your ability to show it as not one, then ask me to provide one. OK heres another one. Bluejay stated that a chemical has the possibiltiy of two choices, to react or not react, this is correct. Please provide me with another possibility. If it does it did, if it doesnt it didnt, what or are the other choices in that context,now remember dont change the scenerio and reality.
Straggler writes:
The beings in the other ship could have methods of decision making that are totally alien to human beings. Methods that mean that they are both willing and unwilling and able and unable all simultaneously. Methods that are perfectly legitimate and valid by their own forms of "reason".
We need to be able to expand our own methods of reasoning in order to understand their actions and intentions.
You really dont pay attention do you. OUr abilites have nothing to do with the REALITY that they were unable to GET the message through, FOR WHATEVER REASON.
If you do not state which axiom has been violated by the above answer to your original example I will assume that you are simply unable to do so because no such axioms exist.
Pay very close attention and you will see that I did.
reuh writes
It was just the way the script was worded in order to add suspense to the show
All the tribbels on the deflector dish garbled the communication
.
UNable and unwilling apply to both parties as they would in reality. In this one they were unable to recieve the transmission. Your changing the situation, like one would try and change reality to fit in an answer. it would be like saying Gravity does not exist because we are not really here, it wont work.
I could continue, however it seems to be very irrelevant to your point. What does any of this have to do with an axiom of nature? Which axiom are you addressing specifically? How do you know that it is in fact an axiom? Most importantly how do you know that you deductive logic is not faulty and therefore producing a faulty result?
If by "continue" you mean that you can actually provide another solution, then by all means continue. Further, I know my logic is not faulty because reality is what it is and it will not let you do otherwise.the Spock is example is weak.
RT writes:
Bertot, you are tying yourself in knots trying to defend your hypothesis. If anything, this shows the danger in trying to hang on to axiomatic truths in the face of contrary evidence.
I don't believe axioms exist in nature in the way you define them. Can you give a real example of one? Personally I don't think we can even assume that the rules of logic necessarily apply to the universe, without evidence.
Actually, just the opposite is true, it is yourselves that are tying yourselves up, looking for a solution to the problem. You would spend your time better providing a solution than saying you dont believe they exist. Then you ask me to give you an example of something I am describing. I am in the affirmative and have provided it, you need to give an example of why it is not, you could not if you wanted.
Further, logic and deductive reason apply to EVRYTHING. Try and find something that it does not apply to after you wake and start your morning. Man I cant believe this is so hard to understand. Heres the iorny, if you applied deductive reasoning, maybe you would understand.
Strag writes:
The whole point of Bertot's methodology is to make hypotheses and the associated testing unnecessary when rendering conclusions reliable.
Instead of the practical and valid form of investigation in the real world, namely:
This is a total misrepresentation of my overall position. Most if not all forms of investigation are valid. Axioms and deductive reasoning are simply two valid methods. You are purposely misrepresenting me to draw attention away from the real issue. YYou have not even scratched the surface in removing the validy of axioms. They are a part of realitym and cannot be unsettled. I either exist or I dont, reality would suggest that I do. What are the other choices besides these two?
Axioms are a valid and practical method of investigation. Actually they will dictate the course of all subsquent investigations.
Of course if he is unable to even cite what these axioms actually are even this will be unnecessary to discredit his position.
If not for fear of getting in trouble from admin, I would say this is just dishonest, so I wont say it.
Prediction: Bertot's posts within this thread will display increased levels of demonstrably subjective reasoning, greater numbers of assertions will be made on the basis that "it is obvious" or "it is self evident" and Bertot's position will become even more untenable and even more ridciulous than any of us have yet witnessed. Resorting to biblical quotes and references to scripture are a distinct possibility in the face of obvious humiliation.
Im still waiting for an answer to the first axiom. My prediction is that we could wait another 900 post and way beyond and you will still be floundering. You rehetoric above is what you are best at though. Ill demonstrate my point again, give it another try or simply reproduce the last knuclehead attempt by saying we simply dont understand them. You saw how easily this one was dismissed with by the word UNABLE.
803 writes
So a axiom of nature could be that "nature will always follow the laws of Chemistry and physics in how reality is manifested in concious perception." Maybe?
We are not talking about nature only but reality. Reality will only let you make certain deductions no matter what the physical characteristics are, as in the example of the UNABLE AND UNWILLING Axiom, there are no other terms that will not be apart of these two, as there are no other possibilites than the two for the existence of things, reality will not allow it.
stag writes
Note that no empirical testing is involved in Bertot's methodology. Just "axioms" and logic. If the axioms themselves are empirically derived then Bertot's whole case falls irretrievably apart. As per Deductive Logic and Evidence Based Investigation: Part 2 (The Revenge) (Message 295 of Thread GOD IS DEAD in Forum Faith and Belief )
When you dismiss deductive reasoing as an invalid method of emperical testing you will have a point, thus your contention is nonsesnse.
Night train writes:
Scotty (interjecting), 'Ah, Skipper, no offence to Mr. Spock, but don`t you think it`s about time you let me fix that friggin` transmitting antenna.'
While humerous this makes a very good point. Spock and Scotty have valid methods of arriving at conclusions and solving problems. Thanks Nighttrain.
Percival writes:
Hi Bertot,
I know everyone wants to stop talking about your Star Trek example, but there are tons of other possibilities. I haven't seen or don't recall the episode so these might not fit perfectly, but you'll get the general idea:
There's no other ship, it's an illusion.
There is no other ship, it's just playback from the ship's computer.
The whole segment is a dream sequence.
The Enterprise's receivers are malfunctioning.
The other ship is communicating just fine, Uhura is lying about receiving no signal.
The other ship is communicating just fine. Though Uhura says there is no signal on any frequency, she has made a mistake and failed to check some frequencies.
The point is that our understanding of reality is never axiomatic but always provisional. Independent of whether you're right or wrong about there being an absolutely unambiguous underlying reality, it's a reality we can never know with anything approaching certainty. No human statement of that reality can escape the provisional nature of our understanding. No matter how long Spock makes his list of possibilities, it is doomed to be forever incomplete.
You simply dont understand do you? All of these examples will fall in one of the two categories or they change the reality of the situation. Axioms have context in reality, you cnat change the fact that gravity is real to say that it is not, then have your argument work. Even though we dont understand ll things it should be simple enough to demonstrate that some axioms are applicable no matter what else we dont know, as per the example I have provided. People are scrambling to find a solution adn they cant.
Ive got to stop here, some appointments this mornig. Stragglers estimation that I will simply give up or that I will resort to scripture are both false and unnecessary. However, I might point out that reality is also Gods Word.
D Bertot
™ Version 4.2
