E.G. someone says "All truth is relative." Meaning what is true for you may not be true for me. To show that this statement is self-defeating, ask this person in response: "Is that a relative statement?" The word relative used in this context was meant that truth changes from viewpoint to viewpoint.
Anyways, it looked like you tried to counter claims I made, when I actually meant the same things you did.
Quote
What about the realm of "concepts"?
Again Vrael, I was in opposition to the idea that sense perception leads to absolute uncertainty. Now, according to the idea that sense perception is the only means of gathering info, the only information you would ever receive come from only the senses. If someone thinks about the number two, you are right, that is not using sense perception directly, although any information you used to think in the first place was only made possible by information that you received through your senses. So what about "two"? Well, if you hadn't received any information through sense perception would you be able to think about "two"? Probably not. In any case, remember, I don't agree with the idea that the only means of gathering information is through sense perception, and I tried to show that this idea is self-defeating as well. Although it seems to have just confused you =[
Let me rephrase my counter to the idea that the only means of acquiring info are through the sense:
In order to know that the only means of obtaining information is through our sense, then you would be able to see something BEYOND what your senses can tell you. That "something" would be the idea that the sense are the only means of obtaining information. Therefor, it is impossible to know that the only means of gathering info are through the senses, if the only means of gathering info are through the sense, making any claims like "the only means of gathering info are through the senses" meaningless. This is what I tried to portray in post 14.
Quote
It is important to note that people can say anything they want: it doesn't automatically qualify as a valid claim or as logic. Sometimes, the use of an illogical statement can "stump" you simply because you don't realize that it's illogical, kind of like the 3 claims above. I think (but could be wrong) that you fell into this trap, Cecil, because you said "similar truth claims to uncertainty" at one point, then called it "in opposition to this logic" later.
I really must have done a terrible job of explaining what I meant. I meant to say that these 3 statements were illogical. Let me show how the statements I provided were self-defeating:
"Truth is relative" I probably should have originally written this statement like this to avoid confusion: "All truth is relative from person to person" This probably clears up ambiguity as to what truth is relative to. Now, this statement is making a truth claim. A truth claim, as defined by myself, is a claim to a fact which is regarded as truth (remember my original definition of truth). This statement is claiming to be true in that all truth is relative from person to person. If all truth is relative from person to person, then that statement itself would be relative from person to person. If that were true, then that leaves room for absolute truth to exist, and the statement completely destroys its goal.
"What is true for you may not be true for me" Well, this is just another way to rephrase this sentence: "All truth is relative from person to person" and I have already shown that this statement is self-defeating.
"You can't know anything for certain!" Here is a claim to a truth that there is no certainty. If this statement were true, then nothing can be certain, including that statement. If this statement may not be true, then that means there is room for absolute truth to exist, and the statement is shown to nullify itself.
I also agree with how you showed the differences between truth claims and opinions, like this:
Here would be an opinion:
I think that the moon is green.
Here would be a truth claim:
CecilSunkure thinks that the moon is green.
Here is another truth claim:
The moon reflects light at exactly 530 nm (also known as green).
About disproving 2 + 2 = 4. Well, here is definition of math: Mathematics: a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn).
This means that 2 + 2 = 4 simply is because we have defined it to be that way. If I created a statement and said that a Gumpler mixed with a Redmogg makes a Pillgooth, and I created a definition of each of the two components and the product, then my statement would be true. My statement would be true because it is what I defined it to be. So arguing that 2 + 2 != 4 is really only arguing against the definition that 2 + 2 = 4. If you want to disprove that 2 + 2 = 4, then you will simply need to create a new definition and superimpose the new one upon the old one, though I doubt very many people will want to conform to that definition you create.
[Edit] I know people stated the above tow paragraphs already, but I wanted to try to say it in a clearer way if possible for others who are reading this.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 30 2009, 4:05 am by CecilSunkure.
None.