GENIUS FORUMS

hey Q, pursuent to our ongoing discussion:did you know that Rudolf Carnap in his 'testability and meaning' was aware of the inadequacies of the principle of varification, so instead he offered the notion of conformation, acknowledging that complete conformation is usually impossible since the field of observations is usually infinite. I suppose it all comes down to language, so he concluded that confirmation was defined as a reduction of a sentence to a class of observable predicates.What do you think? the major logical relation that he used was the common bilateral reduction sentence, (Q1>Q3=Q2) in which Q1 and Q2 are properties composed of observable predicates P1,P2...Pn. Q3 may be a nonobservable theoretical term. What do you think? He also required that (x)(-Q1(x) ) not be valid, for if it were, then the bilateral reduction sentence would always be true regardless of the values of Q2 and Q3, since a false antecedent always renders a TRUE implication. Testible sentences were those sentences with observable predicates.thus, all testable sentences were confirmable, but not all confirmable sentences were testable since confirmable sentences could be generated by the bilateral reduction sentence in which the nonobservable predicate Q3 was related to Q1 and Q2 which were confirmed by sets of observable predicates. By defining meaning in terms of confirmability and by showing how to relate thoeortical terms to predicates that were observable, he offered a demarcation line between meaningful science and meaningless metaphysics of the type you so clumsily pontificate here, ad nauseum....your ravings,philosophically speaking are nothing but journalistic jargonese,which you have obviously repeated so much, it has become your mantra....who knows, if you repeat it often enough you might even go beyond the veil!!!!! But I'm a patient man and I wait for your honest reply...but I don't think I'll give up my day job, which happens to be lecturing in physics...

see ya genius....






written by lightening for your edification

Very impressive, all those big words and whatnot. I'm sure you didn't just copy them from somewhere.

Anyway, it would be more impressive if you knew the difference between "verify" and "varify".

I wonder in what ways your attitude affects your ability to impart knowledge.

Do you harbour this arrogance up there on the lectern, or are you just as frank?

If you had a student like David Quinn, would you deal with him in the same fashion?

zarathustra wrote

hey Q, pursuent to our ongoing discussion:did you know that Rudolf Carnap in his 'testability and meaning' was aware of the inadequacies of the principle of varification, so instead he offered the notion of conformation, acknowledging that complete conformation is usually impossible since the field of observations is usually infinite. I suppose it all comes down to language, so he concluded that confirmation was defined as a reduction of a sentence to a class of observable predicates.What do you think? the major logical relation that he used was the common bilateral reduction sentence, (Q1>Q3=Q2) in which Q1 and Q2 are properties composed of observable predicates P1,P2...Pn. Q3 may be a nonobservable theoretical term. What do you think? He also required that (x)(-Q1(x) ) not be valid, for if it were, then the bilateral reduction sentence would always be true regardless of the values of Q2 and Q3, since a false antecedent always renders a TRUE implication. Testible sentences were those sentences with observable predicates.thus, all testable sentences were confirmable, but not all confirmable sentences were testable since confirmable sentences could be generated by the bilateral reduction sentence in which the nonobservable predicate Q3 was related to Q1 and Q2 which were confirmed by sets of observable predicates. By defining meaning in terms of confirmability and by showing how to relate thoeortical terms to predicates that were observable, he offered a demarcation line between meaningful science and meaningless metaphysics of the type you so clumsily pontificate here, ad nauseum....

And yet, in the very act of offering this demarcation line, he automatically went beyond the realm of science. Where did he go? Into the realm of meaningless metaphysics?

This is the main problem with the postmodernist line of thinking promoted by Canarp, Godel and co. As soon as they try to verify, confirm, or prove their theories, they immediately enter into hypocrisy.

There are essentially two main ways to verify a theory about the world - either through empirical observation/experimentation, or through pure logic. Each is just as valid as the other, but it is the fashion of our modern era to only recognize the former. But like all fashions, this will seem antiquated and silly in future.

hey Q, pursuent to our ongoing discussion:did you know that Rudolf Carnap in his 'testability and meaning' was aware of the inadequacies of the principle of varification, so instead he offered the notion of conformation, acknowledging that complete conformation is usually impossible since the field of observations is usually infinite.

So he only half-confirmed this, then? Or did he quarter-confirm it? Perhaps he was lucky and managed to two-thirds confirm it? What do you think?

Whatever the case, since he didn't completely confirm it, we have no choice but to treat it as suspect.

your ravings,philosophically speaking are nothing but journalistic jargonese,which you have obviously repeated so much, it has become your mantra....who knows, if you repeat it often enough you might even go beyond the veil!!!!! But I'm a patient man and I wait for your honest reply...but I don't think I'll give up my day job, which happens to be lecturing in physics...

My words are actually very pointed and precise, but they are currently going over your head.

But not to worry, you can always write a poem about it.

Poetry: an escape route for the inadequate.

-

Q up to your old tricks again I see: carnap a postmodernist!you silly little arrogant bag of indignant hot air. Let me again enlighten you: fucking rudy carnap was as postmodern as your body guard's sunglasses!!!!! he was a fucking logical empiricist-
a member of the Vienna Circle, which was hardly a hot bed of post modernist thinking...for your edification, he did later come to recognise the weakness of his own program and proposed to replace it by means of partial interpretations. these are the measurements used by scientists as tests in their experiments which are also known as rules of correspondence...dahhh!

leyla.....Imparting knowledge? unfortunately sweet lady, this is not a forum for imparting knowledge, but a soap-box for a collection of old school new age metaphysicians who beat around a bunch of tired old philosophical resonances, which, if anyone happens to disagree with they then subject to ridicule or righteous indignation, as they look down from their ivory towers....which, consequently, are made of glass, very brittle glass...have you noticed: they have not once entered into debate with me, they merely pontificate, ridicule, hit and run.....

zarathustra wrote:have you noticed: they have not once entered into debate with me, they merely pontificate, ridicule, hit and run.....

Z., do you honestly have something you want to discuss, or do you just want to wave your dick?

Note: discuss, not debate. Debate implies that you have some fixed position you are defending, and if you move from that position, you lose.

I'm not really interested in debate.

It’s apparent that he/she perceives this forum as a threat.
And if this isn’t the case, why the condescending hostility?
What purpose does this aggressive assault serve, with such an obvious non-threat?
Unless, Zarathustra is just simply a school-yard bully, which, if that is this case, fear is still the underlying motive for that behavior as well...<shrugs>...

Zarathustra wrote:

Q up to your old tricks again I see: carnap a postmodernist!you silly little arrogant bag of indignant hot air. Let me again enlighten you: fucking rudy carnap was as postmodern as your body guard's sunglasses!!!!! he was a fucking logical empiricist-

Logical empiricists are almost identical to the postmodernists when it comes to the fundamentals. They both subscribe to the belief that everything is relative and uncertain, that logical reasoning is limited in its ability to discern truth, that science is the highest method of obtaining knowledge, that Ultimate Truth cannot be understood by the human mind, and so on.

In effect, they are like Catholics and Anglicans.

a member of the Vienna Circle, which was hardly a hot bed of post modernist thinking...for your edification, he did later come to recognise the weakness of his own program and proposed to replace it by means of partial interpretations. these are the measurements used by scientists as tests in their experiments which are also known as rules of correspondence...dahhh!

If his thinking on this issue was shonky, then why did you bring it up?

-

you missed your calling Q - you should have been a magician....I mean your bag is so full of tricks...

'almost' is not good enough QQQQQ!!!!! the point is they are not! which ever way you look at it - you lose...

hode....have I got something to discuss? dahhh...wanker

hodg......how about verification and confirmation?...ok lets discuss....bring it down to your lever: your past utterances both varify and confirm that you are a complete flip!!!

Is there something you want to discuss?

It's fairly apparent you have long since lost your footing in this forum. You are very unsure of yourself, that much is clear, to, I suspect, almost everyone who reads this board regularly.

David Quinn is not trying to fool you with sophistry, perhaps you could be a little less paranoid about being duped. Not everyone is a liar.

hey hodg, here's your 'profound' response to the subject matter of this forum:

'very impressive all those BIG WORDS and WHAT NOT. I'm sure you didn't just copy them from somewhere...'

'anyway it would be more impressive if you knew the difference between varify and verify...'


first he accuses me of being a plagarist, then he said my discussion topic would have been more impressive if I hadn't made a typing error!

this is how this fuckwit treats almost everyone who posts in these forums, he's like an uneducated thief in the night, who waits in the shadows for someone to come along with something of value...and when they do he jumps out and mugs them!!

prince of darkness......obviously this forum is an olygarchy of like-minded, closed minded, text book metaphysicians...who huddle together to keep eachother warm...reason? genius? truth? - balls!

if you were in politics you'd all be fascists...

hi zarathustra,

You are doing the same to him. no difference.

No one can be taught. No one can be guided. it is useless path.

Unless you like to play.

peace
unknown