Can you explain what you mean by this sentence?
And no I do not have a personal agenda, I will flag your posts too if I see you type out 3000 words at the guy calling him abusive names. Which I believe you will pretty soon at this rate
He is. He gets linked short articles, like 5 paragraphs long, reads the first few sentences, then comes back. He's demonstrated this multiple times by saying he read it and coming back and asking a question that is explicitly posed and answered in the second paragraph.
He acts in bad-faith every time he's presented with any kind of evidence whatsoever and he always just dismisses it out of pocket.
Let's go over the worst thing. He says he assumed proposition X. He has an assumption Y. Proposition X has been mathematically proven to imply Z. Z directly contradicts Y. So he just says "oh, that's philosophy, it doesn't matter," over and fucking over again when it's literally a goddamn mathematical proof in the formal language of ZFC.
disagreeing with anybody regardless of their level of education is nothing to be ashamed about on either side.
i think its a shame that he believes that, specifically.
well, surely i believe in what i believe in. confirmation bias ahoy. my agenda is to understand what ewiz thinks as a representative of "philosophy people" and see how he responds to my beliefs. i have pretty much accomplished this.
You know, self-education and other informal education can be just as valid as formal education, so you should answer the following question: what's your educational background with respect to science, math, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics? Not just formal, but self-education as well. And what form did the self-education take?
note that i properly identified the step at which i rejected the argument.
(the mind accesses metaphysical mathematical objects and is therefore metaphysical)
why does you keep asking this?
if anything I think you're acting in bad faith since I don't think you have dabbled in the subject being discussed enough to decide if hbotz is the one acting in bad faith, to me it seems like you're just riding ewiz's coattails, which makes sense since he's much more aggressive and legitimizes his posts with citations from books or otherwise, whereas hbotz just seems to spout his thoughts around
1 Like
It is when you reject actual facts that have been proven and give no reason for dismisall. It is when you refuse to read more than a single paragraph when a short article is linked to you. You are not arguing in good faith. You provide no actual counterargument to everything I say and dismiss it as "philosophers are just confused. You have nothing to fucking add to this conversation because you don't even have a minimum baseline of knowledge to engage in it.
You don't even understand the fucking position you advocate for. Hint: you have done nothing to engage in science or empiricism and have provided no way to test your claims under the framework of empiricism. You don't get to tout the primacy of science if you can't formulate your assertions in a manner that is acceptable to science.
You know, self-education and other informal education can be just as valid as formal education, so you should answer the following question: what's your educational background with respect to science, math, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics? Not just formal, but self-education as well. And what form did the self-education take?
This isn't the problem. It's that he asserts his thoughts as truth, when there are actual mathematical proofs that show he is 100% wrong.
Excuse me? Are you asserting that pointing out bad faith arguing is abusive language????
Did you reply to the right person
this is a snarky argument, but i can tout whatever i want. apparently i can freely wrangle about in concept space in a way that is not comprehensible to you and doesnt fit your metaphysical truth. so either your metaphysical truth is wrong, or your model of "accessing metaphysical truths" fails to capture human cognition.
How about you flag your own posts for insinuating Iām an abusive person - or does that not fit your personal agenda in flagging posts that have āabusive namesā??
Yes, and this is provably true. Godel was able to prove there is an isomorphism between any abstract mathematical structure in which a certain sentence is true and ZFC with a finite amount of extrinsic axioms that are either consistent or independent of the original axioms.
You are way, way out of line asoul
okay. explain whatever it is im doing under your paradigm.
Moreover
-
being more educated doesn't make someone automatically right or give them the right to abuse someone else in the discussion
-
ewiz isn't as educated as he acts/claims, he purports to be an expert and acts in this extremely aggressive/abusive/argumentative way even on topics he is not well versed in. Very few people in the world with ewiz's level of education/experience think they are incontrovertible experts who can never be disagreed with the way he does
-
this is clearly a personality issue as this guy (electro wizard) has this kind of interaction on many topics and with many people and feeding into it by following him around parroting his "did you read the wikipedia article / this guy's such a bad faith troll piece of shit!!" posts at the other guy is actually dangerous and destructive
This is absolute bullshit. You say that anything that isn't empirically verifiable is useless and/or should be rejected out of pocket. Mathematics is not empirically verifiable. Is it useless? Your "consciousness exists in the brain" argument isn't empirically verifiable. Should we dismiss that claim out of pocket?
you seem to have a narrow definition of science, but
- if math was wrong, i would predict physics to be wrong, so i would predict physics to make inaccurate predictions.
- physics does not make inaccurate predictions.
- therefore math is unlikely to be wrong.
this seems just fine to me. if your complicated theory rejects reasoning like this that is strange to me.
Shut the fuck up you goddamn moron. It is very fucking clear that hbotz is arguing in bad faith. I provide citations, he refuses to read them. He makes an assumption, I cite the proof that his assumption contradicts all of his other assumptions, and he refuses to acknowledge that and waves it off with his hand.
- It's not a matter of more educated. It's a matter of the fact that he has zero education on this, whether formal or even reading fucking wikipedia articles. Absolutely zero way for him to navigate this conversation or make any meaningful claims. Then when he's given 5 paragraphs to read, he refuses to do it.
- I've provided the citations to proofs by both Zermelo and Godel, two of the greatest mathematicians to ever exist. My education is irrelevant. Hbotz isn't disagreeing: he's dismissing mathematically proven consequences of his assumptions with absolutely zero effort to make a substantive response.
- He is fucking arguing in bad faith. You fucking argue in bad faith. You two are the only people I've made those claims about. So shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down because you don't know what you're talking about