I can use examples you've posted elsewhere if you like. Here's one: "I’m saying a human being’s life starts at its conception." What would be evidence...
It was justified, but the justification wasn't accepted, because you're appealing to proof, not evidence. What you're doing could be done with any emp...
It's not a subject change. Again, the issue here is understanding how empirical evidence works with knowledge claims. Your objection here could be giv...
So give me an example of empirical evidence that you believe couldn't be interpreted in more than one way, where you believe the empirical evidence in...
If you believe that some empirical evidence can support some conclusions, you need to look at why you believe that, so that you can adjust your view o...
It only equally shows that we experience our brain phenomena if you think that all empirical evidence equally shows every possibility related to it (i...
Because "ruling out possibilities" is otherwise known as "proof," but that's not at all what empirical evidence is about. That a category error, a red...
I already answered directly and you already let me know that you don't understand how evidence works in relation to knowledge, because you're appealin...
Not at all. This is answering the question. But for you to understand the issues here, you need to understand how empirical evidence works in relation...
Yes. And I'm trying to help you figure out how empirical evidence works in relation to knowledge, because that's turned out to be necessary to the dis...
My point at the moment is that you apparently do not realize how knowledge works in relation to empirical evidence, and you're appealing to the idea o...
Because you're going to be OCD now? I'm explaining why, but by getting you to think so that you can realize the answer for yourself. So why would you ...
The latter requires evidence that they're different. There is no evidence that they're different though. What there is, however, is evidence that any ...
It's exactly the point. The evidence does not PROVE that the two are identical. But it does show that they are. As expected, you're appealing to the i...
What would be the evidence suggesting that the two are different? (By the way if you post a link I'll look at it instead of complaining that you shoul...
I gave you a handful of examples. I couldn't care less that you either reason so poorly or that you have such ineffective psychological manipulation m...
That's not going to work. Again, if you're actually interested in the evidence, look at it. How many times do I have to tell you, in order for you to ...
Meaning isn't an object external to us. Meaning is the act (or event) of making mental associations. If I'm saying that meaning is identical to a ment...
So say that you have two rocks and a tape measure. You put one end of the tape measure on one rock, and stretch it out to the other rock. You don't ac...
Meaning is a subset of thought. In other words, not all thoughts are meaning, but some are. The existence of the thought in question (the thought that...
Sure, that's possible, but I don't know how we'd avoid that wholesale, as every word we use represents something someone might be unfamiliar with or s...
The "ism" is just a name representing the views in question. It's easier to say "Jaws" than it is to explain all of the characters, the whole plot, et...
Meaning isn't something different than thinking, so what you're asking here makes no sense. You're talking about meaning as if it's something independ...
You can talk about P at T1, and I can talk about P at T1, and P at T1 is identical to P at T1--so what we're talking about can be identical. You're co...
I'm definitely not interested in arguing. Correct. At least not arguing for its own sake. Again, what matters for empirical claims like this is eviden...
Evidence is what matters here. If you just want an argument clinic because you like to argue for its own sake, I'm sure a lot of other people are look...
You asked for examples of evidence. Those are examples of evidence. If you're interested in the evidence, look at the examples. If you're not really i...
As I said above, "If you're interested in it, look at the evidence and comment on it. There's no need to repeat what it says. Look at it if you're sin...
I did this the first time you asked. I gave you five examples that were hyperlinked. At which point you proceeded to completely ignore it. If you're i...
Earlier when you asked this--well, or something very similar to it--you claimed that you were asking for supporting evidence of it . . . at which poin...
You already agreed with that. The only difference is that you're not agreeing to name a particular thing "color" that I'm naming "color" rather than t...
By the way, even if the argument you're endorsing didn't rest on a completely inane confusion between x and the experience of x (a confusion where one...
"But if the original statement" maybe? Again, could you read this stuff out loud and fix typos prior to posting it? Truth value is a judgment that an ...
Experience is mental, yes. What the experience is of isn't mental. The experience of x isn't going to be identical to x. Obviously, right? Thus forwar...
Of course it doesn't "appear red," if we're using "appear" to refer to experience of it, unless it's looked at. That doesn't mean that it's not red if...
Again, I'm pretty sure that you're not even familiar with nominalism. Note that what nominalists are saying is that this: A and this: A are not actual...
Comments