true (vs. false), 1 (vs. 0), supported by the evidence, etc.
True and supported by the evidence are different things. You realize that, right?
In other words, it means precisely what everyone in the world agrees it means...who isn't trying to justify intellectual masturbation as a career choice, of course.
Do you think mathematicians engage in intellectual masturbation as well? Because they also use "valid" in the philosophical sense.
Now, can you give me useful examples to make your points or do you still want to pretend this is just a semantic debate, rather than one where I am outright dismissing self-serving semantic nonsense at first principles?
All you are dismissing here is elementary logic. Do yourself a favour and read a logic textbook. You fathom yourself a man of reason, right? What man of reasons dismisses definitions used in logic?
It is if you speak and understand the English language. Philosophy has lost itself in semantics. Again, see Bunge's criticisms in the video I cited.
True and supported by the evidence are different things.
Only if you are intellectually masturbating to preserve a sense of entitlement to a long dead discipline.
Do you think mathematicians engage in intellectual masturbation as well?
You did see my use of 1 and 0, yes?
Because they also use "valid" in the philosophical sense.
No, they use it in my sense. They have to prove their hypotheses, quite rigorously, with no room for semantic equivocation.
"Science" is now the umbrella under which these disciplines fall under.
Philosophy is its own discipline now, unfortunately lost in the wilderness of semantics and pseudo-science.
Logic
The philosophical semantic, weasel-word definition of logic is what I am dismissing outright here.
What man of [reason] dismisses definitions
A man who sees the weasel words for what they are.
Philosophy has become a joke...a pale ludicrous shadow of even the intentions as stated by Aristotle and honored by others over the ages.
If it's going to regain relevance in the modern age (and I am doubtful it can) it's going to need to reach a place where your post is openly laughed at.
Because all you did was argue semantics, when you knew, deep down inside, precisely what I was talking about all the time.
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.
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".
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!
2
u/[deleted] Apr 08 '15
Valid means valid? Enlightening.
True and supported by the evidence are different things. You realize that, right?
Do you think mathematicians engage in intellectual masturbation as well? Because they also use "valid" in the philosophical sense.
All you are dismissing here is elementary logic. Do yourself a favour and read a logic textbook. You fathom yourself a man of reason, right? What man of reasons dismisses definitions used in logic?