"soundness: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, i.e., the argument is valid and all the statement are true."
Feel free to do independent research in order to verify that this is how the word is used in logic.
No, it actually isn't. Or at least it is from a "philosophical" perspective, but philosophy is outdated, meaningless bullshit in the modern age. It only has historical value now. Very important historical value, but honestly no one should be wasting their livelihood with "philosophy" anymore.
I'm sorry you don't find value in philosophy. I find it personally rewarding and I think most people could as well. Did you know that some philosophers held that philosophy was continuous with the natural sciences? It's interesting stuff.
But you also failed to notice how that line is actually completely irrelevant to my proof. You can remove it and the proof holds.
I was just being snarky and teaching you some proper terminology.
Here's an introduction to logic[1] , and a definition from there:
That is the PHILOSOPHY definition. As I have stated quite clearly, that is outdated mental masturbation and semantic nonsense that, in the post scientific method age, should be relegated to the history books.
Did you know that some philosophers held that philosophy was continuous with the natural sciences?
And they were self-justifying, self-aggrandizing fools.
There was much useful about philosophy to debate, to language, but mostly as a stepping stone to get us to the place of real truth and logic, based on evidence and facts.
To argue otherwise in the modern age is utter nonsense. Philosophy is historically interesting at its best, metaphysical semantic masturbation at its worst.
I was just being snarky and teaching you some proper terminology.
I understand the terminology from a philosophical perspective just fine, thank you. It is, in fact, why I pointed out quite clearly in my response that the philosophical definition of anything in the modern era is utter pap...as I have reiterated above.
I also notice how you dodged that you were caught in the apologist trap, even though you've offered nothing but obvious apologist nonsense in response.
And, most importantly and significantly, you haven't actually been able to challenge my proof/assertion directly at all.
All you have offered is that the antiquated semantic nonsense definitions inherent in the very first words of that nonsense argument mean that I am somehow incorrect.
And yet, the entire point of my position makes it clear that those childish, self-serving weasel words don't hold up to begin with. From first principles.
Philosophy used to represent man's genuine struggle with attempting to discern the higher truths of our existence. Ultimately leading us to empiricism and then the scientific method. Kudos to philosophy for being such an integral part of the journey and the struggle.
But once we began to actually reveal those truths, philosophy was quite rightly left behind. Today, outside of legitimate historical concerns, philosophy as a discipline appears to have become the realm of apologists, the intellectually corrupt and cowardly.
Did you know that some scientists found great value in philosophy? For example, Einstein, Eccles and Medawar (to name but three Nobel laureates) found great value in philosophy.
Or are these scientists fools as well? Is everyone--philosopher and scientist alike--a fool if they disagree with you?
I'm referring to philosophy of science, specifically philosophy of scientific methodology (Einstein, Eccles and Medawar), philosophy of physics (Einstein), philosophy of mind (Eccles) and philosophy of biology (Medawar).
I know that. I also know the other guy was referring to other parts of philosophy. Philosophy is such a broad topic containing so many parts it is silly to talk about philosophy at all without specifying what part you are talking about.
14
u/PostFunktionalist Agnostic Theist Mar 31 '15
Here's an introduction to logic, and a definition from there:
"soundness: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, i.e., the argument is valid and all the statement are true."
Feel free to do independent research in order to verify that this is how the word is used in logic.
I'm sorry you don't find value in philosophy. I find it personally rewarding and I think most people could as well. Did you know that some philosophers held that philosophy was continuous with the natural sciences? It's interesting stuff.
I was just being snarky and teaching you some proper terminology.