Pattern-chaser

There are 'laws', as you say, that we invent, and we get punished if we break them. And there are 'natural laws' that describe how the universe works,...

Just the same as for atoms: underlining.]

So you're fine with the concept of "something perfectly imperfect", and yet you think there's an objective definition of "perfection"? Does that make ...

OK, but how does that relate to whether there is "an objective definition of perfection"? :chin:

I can't really disagree with that. Deduction is the ideal-world tool, but cannot always be correctly applied. The obvious example of this is when ther...

Yes, of course, but this is a more or less universal truism; it's not confined to this discussion of "meaning". I said as much, and more. My point is ...

The latter, definitely. :up: That's how many (most?) English words work.

There are many words that carry multiple meanings. Many of these carry meanings that can be distinguished easily from the context in which they are us...

I'm not quite sure how this corresponds to what I said. :chin: What's the point you're making?

I think we all know what it means. ... But describing and defining it in words, with any sort of precision? Not so easy. And yet it remains the case t...

Isn't he saying that, although induction is unjustified and unjustifiable, we use it anyway because we have no choice? When there's nothing better ava...

Yes, as I said. Why phrase it as though I was claiming it to be mind-independent? :chin:

I'm a strict traditionalist in this. Burn the witches!!! :up:

<like>

The old jokes are still the best ones, eh? :up: :smile:

"Verify" is no more common or uncommon than "falsify". :chin: :chin: :chin:

For a start, socialism accords with most major religions. That should garner considerable support for it. And that's just for starters. Alternative po...

Quite so. There is no statistical technique (that I know of) that will allow any numerical value to be placed on a hypothetical probability such as th...

I've been thinking about this. "Good" seems to be some kind of special case. Yes, it's relative, in the sense that it isn't absolute, or 'mind-indepen...

All of the above, and probably much more too? :up: For me: philosophy is a learning opportunity, and an opportunity to share that learning. Perhaps th...

New Age as a "field of study"? Hmm. I would think "personal path" is the more suitable of your two suggestions. I'm not convinced that any view of rel...

Isn't 'meaning' simply something that humans recognise? Isn't it a concept we invented to describe things we believe to hold some sort of significance...

By learning, but not by use. You can't use something until you have it there to be used.

I think that you must reach that understanding first, then you are able to use that understanding.

The story of the tortoise only seems paradoxical because, with each observation of the hare's position, we allow half the time interval since the last...

First, let's be clear what we're discussing. "Good" is not an absolute term, as I've already said. But "moral sense" is something else again. For myse...

No, I don't. I take the view that "good" is vague because the concept it labels is a vague one. "Good" is relative to who or what the thing is good fo...

No, I think "good" and "evil" are fine. We just need to avoid the pit-trap of assuming they're absolute, not relative.

A sort of philosophical apartheid, is that what you're getting at?

<like>

Sorry, my meaning extraction process failed utterly with this. :chin:

No, not really. I find "good" to be a term of limited use. When I do use it, I choose to use it in the everyday sense, with an intentionally broad and...

On reflection, what I had to say is not on-topic. :blush:

Same observation as ever from me: "good" and "evil" are relative terms. To indulge in such descriptions without being so misleading as to be plain wro...

Sounds right! :smile:

No, of course not. But when we wish to *apply* ethics, we need to understand what it is that we're applying, and such a description is (at the least) ...

Yes, and don't we then follow on by using that description as a tool of understanding?

A worthy aspiration! :smile: ... :chin:

Yes, thank you. But this (below) is still the relevant bit of what I posted:

OK, try this. You refer to (good) and NOT(good). But "good" is a relative term, so your references are incomplete, and in this case, the incompletenes...

Then surely ethics is not a tool, but a collection of tools? My sentiment still applies, I think. That (above) was the useful and meaningful bit. :up:

Yes, the two statements contradict one another. Is it relevant to note here that contradiction is relative (each statement contradicts the other)? You...

No, there is no contradiction. Any apparent problems are resolved when we explicitly acknowledge that "good" is a relative term. So the situation you ...

OK, you know best. I retire from this skirmish.

I have already quoted from the Wikipedia entry myself. It isn't great, as regards the particular use to which science puts the term "axiom", but it's ...

No, it doesn't. I suggest you check this out for yourself, since you won't take my word for it. Just as a dividend is something quite specific in arit...

I think you're mistaken. That the speed of light is constant is not an axiom. An axiom, in science, is formally defined, and it refers exclusively to ...

No, it doesn't. That's the purpose of axioms. They are accepted as being true without inquiry or investigation. Axioms are not tested, by science or b...

Isn't this just a restatement of the axiom of causality? Does Leibniz offer any reason why he believes this, or is it just an assertion of causality?

Isn't this the core of your topic, another attempt to prove the existence of God? :chin: