|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
On January 03 2013 12:36 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:20 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types. Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then??? I'm waiting. What's all this? You're defending contradictions within your own belief system by asking me to state my belief system? And here I was thinking Reason was simple, logical, and uncompromising... I think I'll decline. I'm not the one laboring under the illusion that my beliefs are scientifically and logically demonstrable.
I never said they were. I gave my opinions and my reasons for them, you don't have to agree with them but at least provide reasoning behind your own beliefs before you criticize mine, repeatedly.
|
On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:27 Reason wrote:
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong. of course I am not claiming this. That is tautologically false. edit: I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is.
You're happy to use these methods and theorems to disprove what I'm saying but you refuse to acknowlege the implications that follow from your own line of reasoning.
If the statement "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more than those which aren't provable and testable"
is wrong
then
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth the same as those which aren't provable and testable"
or
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
and so
"all beliefs are equally valuable"
or
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
which again leads to
"all beliefs are equally valuable"
|
On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 12:27 Reason wrote:
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong. of course I am not claiming this. That is tautologically false. edit: I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is. You're happy to use your methods and theorems to disprove what I'm saying but you refuse to acknowlege the implications. If the statement "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more than those which aren't provable and testable" is wrong then "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth the same as those which aren't provable and testable"
this does not follow
also, your argument was not of form "worth more." your argument was that "for all belief x, belief x is meaningful iff scientific"
edit: if you want to say "worth more" that is going to require some more technical explanation as to what you mean
edit:
this
On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"all beliefs have a seperate value,
does not imply this
meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
the point of contention is that I hold that a belief can be judged without being proven, and you deny this.
|
On January 03 2013 12:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 12:27 Reason wrote:
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong. of course I am not claiming this. That is tautologically false. edit: I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is. You're happy to use your methods and theorems to disprove what I'm saying but you refuse to acknowlege the implications. If the statement "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more than those which aren't provable and testable" is wrong then "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth the same as those which aren't provable and testable" this does not follow also, your argument was not of form "worth more." your argument was that "for all belief x, belief x is meaningful iff scientific" edit: if you want to say "worth more" that is going to require some more technical explanation as to what you mean
Then what does follow? You tell me. I gave an OR....
Also allow me to quote you, AGAIN, my "argument" so there's no more confusion here.
|
On January 03 2013 12:39 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:36 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 12:20 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types. Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then??? I'm waiting. What's all this? You're defending contradictions within your own belief system by asking me to state my belief system? And here I was thinking Reason was simple, logical, and uncompromising... I think I'll decline. I'm not the one laboring under the illusion that my beliefs are scientifically and logically demonstrable. I never said they were. I gave my opinions and my reasons for them, you don't have to agree with them but at least provide reasoning behind your own beliefs before you criticize mine, repeatedly.
No thank you.
I just checked my Argument 101 handbook, and there's no rule in there about that. It says I don't have to explain my own beliefs in order to point out where someone else's beliefs fail the test of their own logic.
Especially considering it is part of my argument here that the assumptions upon which we base our belief systems are not subject to proof or disproof in the traditional logical or scientific senses.
|
On January 03 2013 12:45 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:39 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:36 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 12:20 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types. Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then??? I'm waiting. What's all this? You're defending contradictions within your own belief system by asking me to state my belief system? And here I was thinking Reason was simple, logical, and uncompromising... I think I'll decline. I'm not the one laboring under the illusion that my beliefs are scientifically and logically demonstrable. I never said they were. I gave my opinions and my reasons for them, you don't have to agree with them but at least provide reasoning behind your own beliefs before you criticize mine, repeatedly. No thank you. I just checked my Argument 101 handbook, and there's no rule in there about that. It says I don't have to explain my own beliefs in order to point out where someone else's beliefs fail the test of their own logic. Especially considering it is part of my argument here that the assumptions upon which we base our belief systems are not subject to proof or disproof in the traditional logical or scientific senses.
I just read making good use of my time 101 handbook and it says talking to you isn't such a good idea.
On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.
That was my original statement before you try to reword it again.
"the point of contention is that I hold that a belief can be judged without being proven, and you deny this."
What criteria do you judge it by then?
|
the second option is fine, I'll accept that, it doesn't claim much unless you want to make a deal of "more or less" not including "equal to"
edit:
how do you pick between these beliefs:
a) no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
b) it is not the case that no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
is one of these more or less valid than the other?
if so, why?
|
On January 03 2013 12:48 sam!zdat wrote:
the second option is fine, I'll accept that, it doesn't claim much unless you want to make a deal of "more or less" not including "equal to"
edit:
how do you pick between these beliefs:
a) no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
b) it is not the case that no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
is one of these more or less valid than the other?
if so, why?
Since I'm claiming what you've said amounts to :
"all beliefs are equally valuable"
and you're denying this, I didn't want to upset you by putting "equal to" in there.
On January 03 2013 12:48 sam!zdat wrote:
the second option is fine, I'll accept that, it doesn't claim much unless you want to make a deal of "more or less" not including "equal to"
edit:
how do you pick between these beliefs:
a) no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
b) it is not the case that no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
is one of these more or less valid than the other?
if so, why?
Very interesting. Demonstrate to me first how your method of reduction and my following proposed conclusions do not lead you to claim that "all beliefs are equal".
|
On January 03 2013 12:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:48 sam!zdat wrote:
the second option is fine, I'll accept that, it doesn't claim much unless you want to make a deal of "more or less" not including "equal to"
edit:
how do you pick between these beliefs:
a) no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
b) it is not the case that no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
is one of these more or less valid than the other?
if so, why? Since I'm claiming what you've said amounts to : "all beliefs are equally valuable"
no, that's subject to the same reductio ad absurdum:
1) "all beliefs are equally valuable"
2) assume "it is not the case that all beliefs are equally valuable"
3) if 1 is true, then 2 is true
4) if 1 is true, then 2 is false
5) universe explode
edit: you only think I'm saying that because you already believe that "if a belief is not scientifically valuable, it is not valuable, therefore if you show that not all beliefs that are valuable are scientific then all beliefs are equally valuable" which doesn't even make sense on its own terms.
|
On January 03 2013 12:53 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: you only think I'm saying that because you already believe that "if a belief is not scientifically valuable, it is not valuable, therefore if you show that not all beliefs that are valuable are scientific then all beliefs are equally valuable" which doesn't even make sense on its own terms.
No, I very clearly outlined the process of reaching the conclusion that that's what you're claiming.
|
why would your (1) possibly imply your (2)?
|
Because
On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
does not imply
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
Refutation of positivism does not imply relativism
edit: (it only does if you refute positivism and then assume positivism in assessing the implications of the refutation of positivism, which is what I said in the edit above)
edit: it's only if you assume that it has to be scientific in order to to be not-relative that (a) implies (b), but that's what I'm refuting
|
On January 03 2013 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:Because Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
does not imply Show nested quote +
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
Refutation of positivism does not imply relativism edit: (it only does if you refute positivism and then assume positivism in assessing the implications of the refutation of positivism, which is what I said in the edit above)
So what does it imply?
You've said there's no framework, so upon what basis do you make these judgments?
|
On January 03 2013 12:47 Reason wrote:As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.
This position is self-contradictory, as has been pointed out several times in the past few pages.
The belief that "no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" is a belief that is based on untestable and unprovable assumptions. By its own decree, therefore, it is no more or less valid than a belief that President Obama is a clone sent from the future by vindictive Kenyan Muslims.
By continuing this conversation, then, you're hoisted by your own don't-bother-talking-to-me-about-philosophical-discourse petard.
|
On January 03 2013 13:02 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:Because On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
does not imply
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
Refutation of positivism does not imply relativism edit: (it only does if you refute positivism and then assume positivism in assessing the implications of the refutation of positivism, which is what I said in the edit above) So what does it imply?
it implies that positivism is false.
|
On January 03 2013 13:03 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:47 Reason wrote:As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. This position is self-contradictory, as has been pointed out several times in the past few pages. The belief that "no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" is a belief that is based on untestable and unprovable assumptions. By its own decree, therefore, it is no more or less valid than a belief that President Obama is a clone sent from the future by vindictive Kenyan Muslims. By continuing this conversation, then, you're hoisted by your own don't-bother-talking-to-me-about-philosophical-discourse petard.
LOL are you paying any attention?
On January 03 2013 13:03 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:02 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:Because On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
does not imply
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
Refutation of positivism does not imply relativism edit: (it only does if you refute positivism and then assume positivism in assessing the implications of the refutation of positivism, which is what I said in the edit above) So what does it imply? it implies that positivism is false.
If positivism is false, what is true? What is the opposite of positivism?
How is the opposite of positivism NOT claiming that all beliefs are equal or that "all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual".
If you can't tell me what this basis for judgement is then I have to conclude it's simply what I've stated there.
|
Wait, wait, wait. Making Reason argue with two people at once is unfair. I will bow out until sam!zdat exhausts himself. Which could be years from now.
|
On January 03 2013 13:06 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:03 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 12:47 Reason wrote:As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. This position is self-contradictory, as has been pointed out several times in the past few pages. The belief that "no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" is a belief that is based on untestable and unprovable assumptions. By its own decree, therefore, it is no more or less valid than a belief that President Obama is a clone sent from the future by vindictive Kenyan Muslims. By continuing this conversation, then, you're hoisted by your own don't-bother-talking-to-me-about-philosophical-discourse petard. LOL are you paying any attention?
But I will answer this last question: Yes.
|
On January 03 2013 13:06 HULKAMANIA wrote:
I will bow out until sam!zdat exhausts himself. Which could be years from now.
That's why they call me The Indefatigable Sophist
|
On January 03 2013 13:06 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:06 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 13:03 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 12:47 Reason wrote:As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. This position is self-contradictory, as has been pointed out several times in the past few pages. The belief that "no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" is a belief that is based on untestable and unprovable assumptions. By its own decree, therefore, it is no more or less valid than a belief that President Obama is a clone sent from the future by vindictive Kenyan Muslims. By continuing this conversation, then, you're hoisted by your own don't-bother-talking-to-me-about-philosophical-discourse petard. LOL are you paying any attention? But I will answer this last question: Yes.
I'm not here to argue with anyone, the difference is that samdzat is making a real effort to explain his beliefs and explain his disagreement with mine and I'm actually learning and understanding more about his viewpoint as time goes on.
You were merely interested in trying to essentially make fun of me without expressing your own views so I'm not interested in continuing that line of discussion, does that suprise you?
SO!
On January 03 2013 13:03 sam!zdat wrote:
it implies that positivism is false.
If positivism is false, what is true? What is the opposite of positivism?
How is the opposite of positivism NOT claiming that all beliefs are equal or that "all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual".
If you can't tell me what this basis for judgement is then I have to conclude it's simply what I've stated there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
