# "You don't need philosophy to prove reality" - Geeser

Kind of proves my point LG.Kind of proves my point LG.Exactly, kind of proves my point again LG.

Ah but I did or didn't you notice the very first line of the quote I posted. here it is again, and there I've coloured it for you.Am I. then show me where I err. Sorry, Modus Ponens Assumes the premise, it has no truth base to start with. In the use of reasoning, how do we know that the premises are true? we can only attempt to classify the reasoning according to the kinds of guarantees that we have about it, how do we know what probabilities to assign to the premises? the answer is that we don’t. This limits the value of those "truths". We don’t know anything for certain; everything is open to doubt.
Also Modus Ponens are not a foregone conclusion, Vann Mcgee has shown them to be invalid with counterexamples with so called "true" premises and conclusions. So sorry, you fail.So what is certain within a closed system, nothing. From day one on this thread I've been told I can't know for sure that anything is true, which I must add I haven't challenged, The facts we work with are insufficient, observations we make through our physical senses which are themselves unreliable. Thus we do not have by any means sufficient data to use a method of raw logic. The way we assemble ideas is suspect, If our data is neither qualitatively nor quantitatively complete and accurate we are not able to put together absolutely reliable ideas to work with. The data we are using is not able to be elevated to a level of facts. only at most a close approximation Our method of drawing inferences is not reliable. which brings us to two methods of logic: deductive and inductive. As I have stated before, philosophic arguments are not deductive as they are not rigorous and as such cant prove anything. But they can be very powerful.
Deductive logic produces no new information. It is just a set of rules that allow us to cautiously handle information and definitions so that we only introduce conclusions that are directly derivable from the data we begin with.
Inductive logic makes generalisations from accepted data. Since there may be data or situations not included, considered or known, and since there is no way to rule out other possible generalisations not anticipated, induction only produces a degree of certainty. It does not produce absolute truth and is always subject to error. either way it can only be opinion.Then show me where I err, show where the concept of proof applies in regard to philosophy.Oh yes. very familiar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Oop's I did it again.Then I suggest you take that up with LG he started the thread, and I haven't seen too much rationality, on this thread either, most certainly from(sorry cant say that nothing is certain) LG, Have you read some of his posts, in the religious section. You all appear to know how to word your posts, and appear intelligent by I fear that this is not proof, (oh wow there's that concept of proof again). This here is a reply that a another member made to LG, it kind of says it all in his regard, however hopefully not in anyone else regard here.

Oh yes I agree, a person is always unwelcome when they have an opposing viewpoint, especially when the person has a firm basis for their argument. Being unwelcome happens an awful lot when debating the religious. They too don't like their opinions stepped on, even when they are bullying, inculcating a person to get they opinion across.
I really don't need to be here, (but I will be back if someone replies to my post, as is my prerogative.
You lot just need to accept your wrong once in while.

"The only thing I know is, That I don't know anything" - Socrates.
(And yes I know it's contradictory, that's the point)
Do you really want to continue embarrassing yourself like this?

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

We don’t know anything for certain; everything is open to doubt
Then why do you keep making sweeping statements, such as this one, in blunt, certain terms?

Also Modus Ponens are not a foregone conclusion, Vann Mcgee has shown them to be invalid with counterexamples with so called "true" premises and conclusions. So sorry, you fail.So what is certain within a closed system, nothing. From day one on this thread I've been told I can't know for sure that anything is true, which I must add I haven't challenged, The facts we work with are insufficient, observations we make through our physical senses which are themselves unreliable.
And more statements of certainty. Note the way certainty slips in in the word 'shown'. A verb that implies proof, though the self-contradiction is missed.

Thus we do not have by any means sufficient data to use a method of raw logic.
Again using a kind of philosophical argument to prove something objective about us and reality. More of the same clipped below.

Oop's I did it again.Then I suggest you take that up with LG he started the thread, and I haven't seen too much rationality, on this thread either, most certainly from(sorry cant say that nothing is certain) LG, Have you read some of his posts, in the religious section.
So if he makes errors elsewhere he must be making errors here. Is this the argument? Philosophy can point out the error in this line.

Oh yes I agree, a person is always unwelcome when they have an opposing viewpoint, especially when the person has a firm basis for their argument
.
This implies that since sometimes people are unwelcome because they have an opposing viewpoint, this is the reason Glaucon said that in your case. Despite the fact that LG, Glaucon, Signal and I all have opposing viewpoints on certain issues and have disagreed, I have not seen any of react this way to each other.

Being unwelcome happens an ing the religious.
Are you assuming for some reason that Glaucon is religious?

"The only thing I know is, That I don't know anything" - Socrates.
(And yes I know it's contradictory, that's the point)
And, in general, Socrates, as presented by Plato, used questions instead of essay writing to approach truths. IOW unlike you he avoided statements in certain terms. In this way he lived his quote more clearly. Though there is an irony finding this quote here since the basic idea is one promoted often by mystics, like Socrates.

Do you really want to continue embarrassing yourself like this?
I don't feel I am, (he said smugly).
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
Exactly, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Then why do you keep making sweeping statements, such as this one, in blunt, certain terms?
It's not a sweeping statement, I'm yet to see someone produce some certainty.
Doreen said:
And more statements of certainty. Note the way certainty slips in in the word 'shown'. A verb that implies proof, though the self-contradiction is missed.
What word do you suggest I use to explain Vann McGee counterexamples, when his result invalidates the Modus Ponens, this is pure semantics.
Doreen said:
Again using a kind of philosophical argument to prove something objective about us and reality. More of the same clipped below.
So if he makes errors elsewhere he must be making errors here. Is this the argument? Philosophy can point out the error in this line.
Yes! but can it (insert any word you wish)prove/show(remove these words if you so wish)anything, is it anything other than opinion, is it not a subjective discipline.
Doreen said:
This implies that since sometimes people are unwelcome because they have an opposing viewpoint, this is the reason Glaucon said that in your case. Despite the fact that LG, Glaucon, Signal and I all have opposing viewpoints on certain issues and have disagreed, I have not seen any of react this way to each other.
Over all the years I've been on this site and others, This simply is a very common theme, when people are losing their stance against a person with an opposing viewpoint.
Doreen said:
Are you assuming for some reason that Glaucon is religious?
Not at all, but I came here directly from the religion forum, so I used those people as my main guide.
Doreen said:
And, in general, Socrates, as presented by Plato, used questions instead of essay writing to approach truths. IOW unlike you he avoided statements in certain terms. In this way he lived his quote more clearly. Though there is an irony finding this quote here since the basic idea is one promoted often by mystics, like Socrates.
It's just a quote, is it wrong? here's another, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - Buddha

When I first saw this thread, I wanted to say only

Monkeys have no use for philosophy.

But I tempered my snobism and decided to cooperate, thought that I shouldn't be so preumptuous to kill an inquiry at its inception. "Give the man a chance," I figured.

I was wrong. Now, I can only repeat:

Monkeys have no use for philosophy.

When I first saw this thread, I wanted to say only

Monkeys have no use for philosophy.

But I tempered my snobbery and decided to cooperate, I thought that I shouldn't be so presumptuous as to kill an inquiry at its inception. "Give the man a chance," I figured.

I was wrong. Now, I can only repeat:

Monkeys have no use for philosophy.
Agreed and why would they. However remember we are all Monkeys

Agreed and why would they. However remember we are all Monkeys

Agreed an opinion is not a fact, however how do we establish a fact?

Agreed an opinion is not a fact, however how do we establish a fact?
Its a fact that without philosophy (or at least a poor form of it) one cannot support an opinion, what to speak of a fact.

eg

Doreen : This implies that since sometimes people are unwelcome because they have an opposing viewpoint, this is the reason Glaucon said that in your case. Despite the fact that LG, Glaucon, Signal and I all have opposing viewpoints on certain issues and have disagreed, I have not seen any of react this way to each other.

Geeser : Over all the years I've been on this site and others, This simply is a very common theme, when people are losing their stance against a person with an opposing viewpoint.

Last edited:
Nothing, except your thinking, can be proved to even exist, much less be a “fact” (mathematical truths excepted as they are not about anything) as Bishop Berkeley pointed out at least 300 years ago.

Its a fact that without philosophy (or at least a poor form of it) one cannot support an opinion, what to speak of a fact.

I empathize with the spirit of Geeser's position, though.

It is precious to have the conviction, to feel certain that one can access objectivity at one's will.

I empathize with the spirit of Geeser's position, though.

It is precious to have the conviction, to feel certain that one can access objectivity at one's will.
thats usually how it goes ... until they get swiped by the hand (claw?) of fate

thats usually how it goes ... until they get swiped by the hand (claw?) of fate

lol

But on a serious note... I would venture to say that it is typically those people who ardently refuse to question their convictions that more often than not end up on some ideological zealous path of destruction...

Mind, that's heading off into the Ethical and/or Political realm....

I empathize with the spirit of Geeser's position, though.

It is precious to have the conviction, to feel certain that one can access objectivity at one's will.

I too can empathize with the notion, but, I can't honestly say that I can comprehend it.
To be so vain seems to me to indicate either: introspective laziness or, epistemological ignorance.

But on a serious note... I would venture to say that it is typically those people who ardently refuse to question their convictions that more often than not end up on some ideological zealous path of destruction...

While I agree, I can not support the idea of "educating people" or "showing them the error of their ways", if at the same time, such an educator is unable or unwilling to provide the person a viable alternative.

This viable alternative does not pertain only to a more philosophically advanced way of reaosning, but also to solutions to the social, economical, psychological and possibly other problems that a person is likely to experience as they change their basic ways of reasoning.

Suppose Geeser were to drastically change the way he reasons. It would most likely mean that he would alienate or even lose the majority of his friends and family, he may encounter serious problems at work and all other social interaction.

How many of us would be his friends then? How many posters here who are eager to show him the error of his ways are actually concerned about what is in his best interest, what his long-term welfare and happiness are?

I realize I am shooting myself in the foot here. Those of us who are fortunate to have some higher education are all too often acting on it without much compassion. Threads like this are like a fox hunt.

Mind, that's heading off into the Ethical and/or Political realm....

The personal is political.

I too can empathize with the notion, but, I can't honestly say that I can comprehend it.
To be so vain seems to me to indicate either: introspective laziness or, epistemological ignorance.

Or just plain pragmatic need and concern.

One fault that many philosophically inclined persons have is that they lack compassion. Even if they claim to "correct the other person for their own good".

I empathize with the spirit of Geeser's position, though.
As I do yours, However I also feel sorry for you.
Signal said:
It is precious to have the conviction, to feel certain that one can access objectivity at one's will.
Well we can know of objects prior to experiencing them for ourselves, from other consciousness's experiences etc, all objects must conform to this, thus the object must exist externally to our own minds IE it must be mind independent.
Signal said:
Not so, you can question it all you like, you can add to it, if you so wish, though it would be infantile to do so. Remember knowledge is objective if it exists independent of the perceivers perception of it.
I would venture to say that it is typically those people who ardently refuse to question their convictions that more often than not end up on some ideological zealous path of destruction...
Yes that could be a possibility.
gluacon said:
Mind, that's heading off into the Ethical and/or Political realm....
And we don't want to go there do we,
glaucon said:
I too can empathize with the notion, but, I can't honestly say that I can comprehend it.
Yes I saw that in you too, it saddens me, that you cant seem to move out of your closet.
glaucon said:
To be so vain seems to me to indicate either: introspective laziness or, epistemological ignorance.
I'm loathed to understand where vanity comes into it, therefore laziness and ignorance born from vanity, makes no sense.
While I agree, I can not support the idea of "educating people" or "showing them the error of their ways", if at the same time, such an educator is unable or unwilling to provide the person a viable alternative.
There lies the problem.
Signal said:
This viable alternative does not pertain only to a more philosophically advanced way of reaosning, but also to solutions to the social, economical, psychological and possibly other problems that a person is likely to experience as they change their basic ways of reasoning.
Suppose Geeser were to drastically change the way he reasons. It would most likely mean that he would alienate or even lose the majority of his friends and family, he may encounter serious problems at work and all other social interaction.
You said it! They would think I was an imbecile, I would be relegated to the basement, or worse never taken seriously again, I would loose the trust of my family and friends etc.. My business would fold. I may as well tear up any Degree's, Doctorates etc I have. It would be suicide.
signal said:
How many of us would be his friends then? How many posters here who are eager to show him the error of his ways
None because none can.
Signal said:
are actually concerned about what is in his best interest, what his long-term welfare and happiness are?
I realize I am shooting myself in the foot here. Those of us who are fortunate to have some higher education are all too often acting on it without much compassion. Threads like this are like a fox hunt.
Yes we should kerb our propensity to look down on others, but I fear it is human nature especially when the other party is coming from such an absurd standpoint.
Signal said:
The personal is political.Or just plain pragmatic need and concern.
One fault that many philosophically inclined persons have is that they lack compassion. Even if they claim to "correct the other person for their own good".
"philosophically inclined persons" I love that. Legends in their own minds. Ego, such a force, it makes the imbecile a master.

Last edited:
While I agree, I can not support the idea of "educating people" or "showing them the error of their ways", if at the same time, such an educator is unable or unwilling to provide the person a viable alternative.

Nor can I.
There's a distinct difference between criticism and instruction.

This viable alternative does not pertain only to a more philosophically advanced way of reaosning, but also to solutions to the social, economical, psychological and possibly other problems that a person is likely to experience as they change their basic ways of reasoning.

Agreed. I think the trick here is not only that one be able to provide such but also that the recipient is at least willing to entertain the notion...

The personal is political.

Not necessarily, IMO.

Or just plain pragmatic need and concern.

Again, I can't see it that way. How could being pragmatic possibly coincide with a total resistance to seeking alternatives??

One fault that many philosophically inclined persons have is that they lack compassion. Even if they claim to "correct the other person for their own good".

A fair generalization.

I'm loathed to understand where vanity comes into it, therefore laziness and ignorance born from vanity, makes no sense.

Actually, it makes complete sense.
To have the conviction that, despite the entire history of human endeavours to do so, you alone somehow have access to an 'objectivity' cannot be anything but vanity. Such a personal entitlement is cause for great concern, if not medical attention.

Mod Note:

And we don't want to go there do we,

Of course not, as there are other Fora for these specific subjects.

As I do yours, However I also feel sorry for you.

Yes I saw that in you too, it saddens me, that you cant seem to move out of your closet.

geeser,

I have to advise you to refrain from negative personal characterizations such as these. I'm sure you can stay on topic without having to toss these jibes out.
You can consider this a verbal Warning.

Suppose Geeser were to drastically change the way he reasons.
If we had geeser locked up in a basement somewhere and were people into denying someone their freedom of choice about such interactions, perhaps it would turn out that geeser was like many people who can drastically change their ways of reasoning in such situations. Both cults and their opponents, deprogrammers, use such drastic methods, usually to strip away the old and then stick in the new 'ways of reasoning'. But this isn't the situation. The internet is a poor brainwashing tool. And I use the term brainwashing because the mind's defensive nature is so strong that generally that is what it takes to overcome beliefs quickly and without the consent of the person who is changing. Minds have, usually, amazing resistence to drastically changing their beliefs, let alone ways of reasoning. Someone may get frustrated, doubt for a time that the reasons they have for being sure they are right are as clear and logical as they thought. Though often this is not coupled with doubt they are right. One may bring up some anxiety. But drastically changing someone through discussion, and only less so I would think with internet discussion, is pretty rare. Generally you need, further, to hook into some motivation on the other person's part. A tired worker not making ends meet might be able to shift from viewing unions as the devil's work to something related to justice. They have strong motivations and a skilled union organizer can even, over time and with much effort, convince some people who have beliefs currently that are dead set against union participation to shift. People who are spiritual seekers are often willing to try on belief systems and see what happens. But they were often rejecting a paradigm held by many of their relatives and contacts. Lonely traumatized people or addicts or people otherwise in great need may rush to swallow beliefs that seem to offer solace or hope, even though these ideas may not fit with what they already believe if they had the time, space and strength to look at their current beliefs. But I am not sure the ideas geeser is running into here are the kind that are grabbed at by people in those states of need, not in this dry contextless discussion.

So we have geeser expressing his views. He could be bluffing, but he seems rather confident and there are many places he can turn to to find support for his views, as he points out essentially above. That kind of objective realism is taken for granted by many. In fact it is probably the dominant view here at sciforums also, which is not insignificant if we are concerned about geeser. If geeser's views were more marginal or minority, his position might be more vulnerable. But even then he has so much control of the discussion, his participation in it, I am not that concerned about him/her being overriden, stripped of a worldview that gave structure and security and devastated by the effects of being disagreed with, here. Geeser would likely just find other things to do.

Last edited:
Actually, it makes complete sense.
To have the conviction that, despite the entire history of human endeavours to do so, you alone somehow have access to an 'objectivity' cannot be anything but vanity. Such a personal entitlement is cause for great concern, if not medical attention.
Mod Note:

Of course not, as there are other Fora for these specific subjects.

geeser,

I have to advise you to refrain from negative personal characterisations such as these. I'm sure you can stay on topic without having to toss these jibes out.
You can consider this a verbal Warning.
My apologies if you think they are personal jibes.
I accept your warning albeit an extremely unfair one, considering there are these remarks from you, a little hypocritical, don't you think.
And on a similar par to mine. If mine are to be deemed personal jibes, then so must yours.
Being a moderator shouldn't give you the right to be unfair, or be exempt from any criticism should it. You should give yourself a verbal warning too.
glaucon said:
Some people seem to be immune to reason. post#23
glaucon said:
But it is that very belief that is being called into question (and a rare one at that) post#33
glaucon said:
you certainly seem intelligent enough. post#33
glaucon said:
I'm starting to suspect that Signal might be correct with his diagnosis... post#55
glaucon said:
your position is unsound (if not ridiculous). post#59
glaucon said:
You have no conception whatsoever of where the concept "proof" applies.
glaucon said:
I have no doubt that you're not familiar with the fallacy Argumentum ad Verecundiam. You should be. post#59
glaucon said:
Such a personal entitlement is cause for great concern, if not medical attention. post#77

Nothing more need be said

If we had geeser locked up in a basement somewhere and were people into denying someone their freedom of choice about such interactions, perhaps it would turn out that geeser was like many people who can drastically change their ways of reasoning in such situations. Both cults and their opponents, deprogrammers, use such drastic methods, usually to strip away the old and then stick in the new 'ways of reasoning'. But this isn't the situation. The internet is a poor brainwashing tool. And I use the term brainwashing because the mind's defensive nature is so strong that generally that is what it takes to overcome beliefs quickly and without the consent of the person who is changing. Minds have, usually, amazing resistence to drastically changing their beliefs, let alone ways of reasoning. Someone may get frustrated, doubt for a time that the reasons they have for being sure they are right are as clear and logical as they thought. Though often this is not coupled with doubt they are right. One may bring up some anxiety. But drastically changing someone through discussion, and only less so I would think with internet discussion, is pretty rare. Generally you need, further, to hook into some motivation on the other person's part. A tired worker not making ends meet might be able to shift from viewing unions as the devil's work to something related to justice. They have strong motivations and a skilled union organizer can even, over time and with much effort, convince some people who have beliefs currently that are dead set against union participation to shift. People who are spiritual seekers are often willing to try on belief systems and see what happens. But they were often rejecting a paradigm held by many of their relatives and contacts. Lonely traumatized people or addicts or people otherwise in great need may rush to swallow beliefs that seem to offer solace or hope, even though these ideas may not fit with what they already believe if they had the time, space and strength to look at their current beliefs. But I am not sure the ideas geeser is running into here are the kind that are grabbed at by people in those states of need, not in this dry contextless discussion.

So we have geeser expressing his views. He could be bluffing, but he seems rather confident and there are many places he can turn to to find support for his views, as he points out essentially above. That kind of objective realism is taken for granted by many. In fact it is probably the dominant view here at sciforums also, which is not insignificant if we are concerned about geeser. If geeser's views were more marginal or minority, his position might be more vulnerable. But even then he has so much control of the discussion, his participation in it, I am not that concerned about him/her being overriden, stripped of a worldview that gave structure and security and devastated by the effects of being disagreed with, here. Geeser would likely just find other things to do.

I think it is quite apparent that Geeser is not in danger of the consequences I was concerned about, yes.

However, my focus is on how ethical it is to challenge another person's views.
Even in a medium designed for such purposes, such as this forum.