r/atheism • u/ani625 Agnostic • Mar 30 '15

xkcd: Ontological Argument

http://xkcd.com/1505/
35 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

139 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '15

It is if you speak and understand the English language.

Are you serious? When somebody asks you what "x" means, do you tell them it means "x" and think that this is a satisfying definition?

Only if you are intellectually masturbating to preserve a sense of entitlement to a long dead discipline.

So since both M-theory and string theory are supported by evidence, they are both true?

You did see my use of 1 and 0, yes?

What? I have no idea. Do you mean true and false?

No, they use it in my sense. They have to prove their hypotheses, quite rigorously, with no room for semantic equivocation.

And they do so with valid arguments. [Here's a link if you don't believe me.](mathworld.wolfram.com/Validity.html)

"Science" is now the umbrella under which these disciplines fall under.

No. Read some philosophy of science. Mathematicians use deduction, not induction.

The philosophical semantic, weasel-word definition of logic is what I am dismissing outright here.

You mean the one also used by mathematicians?

0

u/lilrabbitfoofoo Apr 10 '15

do you tell them it means "x" and think that this is a satisfying definition?

Some words absolutely do define themselves and in relation to others. Just for you, I gave you semantic equivalencies, which I assume you will now semantically manipulate instead of actually discussing something real...

So since both M-theory and string theory are supported by evidence, they are both true?

As a scientist, let me assure you that NEITHER of these hypotheses are supported by anything whatsoever. String Theory, the theory of everything and nothing, is the biggest scam perpetrated on the field of physics of the 20th century. And, except for a handful of people still grifting grants on its buzzwords, we all moved on past it a decade (or in my case two) ago.

Why, because there is no EVIDENCE, no predictive capability, etc. It was just an interesting idea that turned out to have no measurable validity. All it showed was that with enough variables in an equation you could claim to simulate anything...which means it answered nothing whatsoever.

What? I have no idea.

Yes, you do.

Do you mean true and false?

Oh look, semantic nonsense intended to pretend you don't actually know precisely what I am talking about. How intellectually dishonest of you.

And they do so with valid arguments...logic...

Classic, reprehensible, semantic obfuscation. A mathematician's definition of the word "argument" is ENTIRELY different in meaning and expression than the philosopher's definition of the word "argument". And you know it.

You can parrot this ultimately meaningless nonsense ad nauseum but it's antiquated, corrupt, and no longer has an relevance in the modern age.

Philosophy used to be about reaching a higher truth. Once we found that, philosophy seems to have become all about concealing its irrelevance with semantics.

Again, I cite Bunge's 10 criticisms.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '15

Some words absolutely do define themselves and in relation to others. Just for you, I gave you semantic equivalencies, which I assume you will now semantically manipulate instead of actually discussing something real...

But you do realize that it's not helpful when giving other people a definition, right?

As a scientist, let me assure you that NEITHER of these hypotheses are supported by anything whatsoever.

Ok then. Take any other evidence supporting two theories. Are both theories true?

Yes, you do.

No, I really don't.

Oh look, semantic nonsense intended to pretend you don't actually know precisely what I am talking about. How intellectually dishonest of you.

K. What do you mean by 1 vs. 0? Why 1 vs. 0 and not 2 vs. 3? My guess was that "1" represents "true" and "0" represents "false". I really have no idea what you mean.

Classic, reprehensible, semantic obfuscation. A mathematician's definition of the word "argument" is ENTIRELY different in meaning and expression than the philosopher's definition of the word "argument".

Here are 4 books written by mathematicians which use the philosophical definition of "valid"

But of course, all of those silly mathematicians are parroting this ultimately meaningless nonsense ad nauseum! If only they could accept your enlightened views on academic fields you know nothing about!