The necessary truth of any truth

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

ACB wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

Wait, and what is your issue here?

Two things. Firstly, I have no idea what "possible father" (or "father candidate") means. Can we have a non-circular definition, please?

Secondly, statements such as "my father is not necessarily my father" or "my father has not necessarily become my father" commit the fallacy of equivocation, since (as I have explained) they use the term "my father" in two different senses.

Did you ever have sex with a woman? (Or, if you are a woman, with a man?) Did you take precautions? What reason would you have to take them, besides disease prevention? Wouldn't it be that having sex with a woman puts you the position of being a possible father? (Or, if you are a woman, a "possible mother"?) Or you still don't know what I am talking about?

Possible fathers are not a particular kind of father as is generous father or reluctant father. "Possible fathers" are just males who might become fathers under certain conditions. The trouble is that you are reifying the term "possible father".

Did you notice that your arguments are becoming increasingly far-fetched? So lets dig in: did you notice the essential difference between "generous father" and "possible father"? Let me remember you: the first is either a possibility or an actuality, while the second is expressly a possibility. But you have problems with possibilities, since for you they are not real, right? So for you anyone that takes a possibility seriously is "reifying" it. That is, if your girlfriend tells you to take precautions before sex, you tell her: baby, you are reifying this possibility...

Oh my! Why am I discussing anything at all with this chap? You think that a possible father is like a tall father. Let me just point out one difference. A possible father need not be a father. But a tall father need be a father. Therefore, no possible fathers are fathers. QED.

"Truth lies in the eye of the beholder"means there is no such thing as "objective reality". Truth is "what works" and "belief" is the degree of confidence is "what works". The fact that there is much statistical agreement in this matter has already been discussed. As for the status of propositional logic in all this, that is a mere mathematical exercise in set theory only occasionally involved in "confidence levels".

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

ACB wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

Wait, and what is your issue here?

Two things. Firstly, I have no idea what "possible father" (or "father candidate") means. Can we have a non-circular definition, please?

Secondly, statements such as "my father is not necessarily my father" or "my father has not necessarily become my father" commit the fallacy of equivocation, since (as I have explained) they use the term "my father" in two different senses.

Did you ever have sex with a woman? (Or, if you are a woman, with a man?) Did you take precautions? What reason would you have to take them, besides disease prevention? Wouldn't it be that having sex with a woman puts you the position of being a possible father? (Or, if you are a woman, a "possible mother"?) Or you still don't know what I am talking about?

Possible fathers are not a particular kind of father as is generous father or reluctant father. "Possible fathers" are just males who might become fathers under certain conditions. The trouble is that you are reifying the term "possible father".

Did you notice that your arguments are becoming increasingly far-fetched? So lets dig in: did you notice the essential difference between "generous father" and "possible father"? Let me remember you: the first is either a possibility or an actuality, while the second is expressly a possibility. But you have problems with possibilities, since for you they are not real, right? So for you anyone that takes a possibility seriously is "reifying" it. That is, if your girlfriend tells you to take precautions before sex, you tell her: baby, you are reifying this possibility...

Oh my! Why am I discussing anything at all with this chap? You think that a possible father is like a tall father. Let me just point out one difference. A possible father need not be a father. But a tall father need be a father. Therefore, no possible fathers are fathers. QED.

Then answer me, chap: what a possible father is? Nothing? So there is no possible father, only actual fathers, that's what you would say. The guy was born a father. The world is a series of actualities, right?

The problem is that, in the real world, an actual father must have become a father at some point in the past, right? So he must have been a non-actually possible father once, otherwise he could never have become an actual father, don't you agree? So at some point he was a possible father without yet being an actual one, otherwise he would never have become an actual father to begin with: he, precisely, couldn't have become an actual father without being first a (non-actually) possible father. And you are right: a possible father does not exist in the same way an actual father does - either one exists in its own way.

kenneth, Who in the world inculcated all those negative ideas on you? Do you check under your bed every night before going to bed?

If you are blind to them, I guess trying to use reason is useless.

cicerone imposter wrote:

If you are blind to them, I guess trying to use reason is useless.

How would you know if you haven't tried? So far, all I've seen from you are snide remarks. You're not adding anything to this discussion.

Refute all you want; just show me evidence where I'm wrong.

Tell that to the folks who say my opinions are wrong.

A possible father need not be a father. But a tall father need be a father. Therefore, no possible fathers are fathers. QED.

kennethamy wrote:

A possible father need not be a father. But a tall father need be a father. Therefore, no possible fathers are fathers. QED.

This syllogism is nonsense, but even if it weren't, what would it have contributed?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Tell that to the folks who say my opinions are wrong.

Opinions can't be right or wrong because they are subjective statements. That's what makes them opinions. These people would be making a category error.

Night Ripper doesn't understand the simple understanding of what an opinion is, and he's trying to tell me everything I say isn't right or wrong.

Night Ripper doesn't understand the simple understanding of what an opinion is, and he's trying to tell me everything I say isn't right or wrong.

Does Night Ripper know that medicine is just as much an art as it is science? That economics is art, and not science? All those doctors and expert economics could never be wrong, because they are just subjective statements.