Petition to ban Sculptor

[promethean75]

U guys gotta check out Wittgenstein's take. He explains how equivalent expressions (2 2s and 4) lack any sense, and when calling mathematical propositions true or false, it's a different kind of true or false that indicates only rule following or not. Whereas contingent empirical propositions express 'facts' about the world.

When u say 'the cat is on the mat', this expression is not true in the same way 2+2=4, is true. The former is a contingent proposition and has a sense. The latter does not. It's just a tautology, and tautologies tell us nothing about the world (they lack any sense).

W goes in too, bro. Shit gets deep.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am not impressed by Wittgenstein at all.

"1+1=2" merely means that the two expressions ("1+1" and "2") have one and the same meaning. It's a statement about language. It states that within certain language (that of mathematics) certain expressions ("1+1" and "2") have one and the same meaning. Fundamentally, it's not different from statements such as "The Earth is round".

[gib]

If I were a mod on a science forum, I would ban you for imposing junk science despite repeated attempts to reason with you about why you're wrong and your claims are the farthest thing from fact.

But you wouldn't ban Sculptor. No, I wouldn't. Banning Sculptor because he's rude is a leftist thing to do but banning Motor Daddy because he disagrees with you is obviously not.

Oh God, not you too.

I just finished calling out Motor Daddy on his strawman arguments with respect to the reasons the mods banned him, and now I have to do the same to you. Given my reasons for saying I would ban MD (which you quoted), where do you get off saying I would ban him "because he disagrees with me"? Is that at all what I said?

But besides that, I think it's pretty clear that there's a big difference between a science forum and a philosophy forum with respect to what's bannable. Like I said before, I assume that science forums have certain rules about keeping the subject matter science--which excludes discussions about politics (for example) or persistent unscientific claims falsified by the evidence despite numerous attempts by other members to point that out. Philosophy forums will have a whole different set of rules. It is the place for unscientific claims (opinions, conjecture, reason, etc.), so I wouldn't ban Sculptor for making unscientific claims on a philosophy forum. But it all comes down to the rules. Are they being violated or not? And as I said before, if Sculptor is violating ILP forum rules (which he probably has given all the lude vulgarities, name calling, and character attacks he engages in), I'll back you up 100%. But remember what I also said: we've probably all violated ILP forum rules at one point or another (especially name calling and character attacks), so be prepared to suffer the consequences of your own statutes. You especially, Magnus. I could probably find 100 posts in which you carelessly attacked other members with vulgarities like "idiot" or "imbecile" or "moron". So if you want to ban Sculptor on the grounds of name calling and character attacks, be prepared to be brought up on the same charges.

First you say that's not a fact, then you say fine, you'll give me that. Which is it? Is 2 + 2 = 4 a fact, or not?

I'm saying we can go either way. It's up to you. It all depends on what you mean. I'm showing you the logical options you have and where they lead.

You can't go either way. 2 + 2 = 4 is either a fact or it is not. Yes, so the logic can go either way depending on how you define fact. You are merely saying that if we change what that expression stands for that we can make it false e.g. if what we mean by "2" is "three", it becomes false. But what you're doing here is changing the meaning of the expression. You can do the same with any other kind of statement. You can do it with "The Earth is flat" too. But you don't say that. You don't say we can go either way with "The Earth is flat". You don't say that if we define the word "flat" to mean "round" that we can make that statement true. Basically, what you're failing to realize is that the truth value of a statement is determined AFTER its meaning is established. You first UNDERSTAND what someone is saying and THEN determine whether or not what they are saying is true or false.

No, that is not what I'm doing. I'm not changing the meaning of '2' or '4' (or '+' or '='). I'm contemplating what the definition of "fact" is--because that's not established, not here in this thread anyway. Typically, a "fact" is considered something that has been verified in reality (empirically, tangentially). 2 + 2 = 4 is a perfectly logical statement but it is not a statement we accept because we've verified it in reality (as if we need to conduct an experiment before we accept it). I mean, it could be verified scientifically (and I would think it has numerous times by numerous people) simply by taking 2 objects and taking another 2 objects and counting them to see that there are indeed 4 objects all together, but I don't think we can say this about any mathematical statement (when was the last time you verified that a billion objects added to a billion objects gives you 2 billion objects?). Nonetheless, the term "fact" is loosely defined as not only that which has been verified but anything that appears self-evidently true--like mathematical or logical statements--and laypeople will often describe those as "facts". This isn't wrong per se, it's just the way language evolves. When enough people start using a term in a certain way such that it acquires a new meaning that people in general know and accept, that term can be said to actually mean that. What this means for the word "fact" is that we could go either way--we could go with the formal definition (a statement that has been verified empirically to be true) or we could go with the layperson's definition (a statement that has either been empirically verified or is self-evidently true). Since these two renditions are both alive and well in our culture, it isn't disingenuous to consider both meanings in the context of this thread. But either way, my point was, it won't fly on a science forum. A scientific "fact" is a fact according only to the first definition.

It's not merely counter-intuitive, it's also logically impossible. It's like saying that 2 + 2 is equal to 5. That's both counter-intutive (it goes against what we intuitively think it's true) and logically impossible (it contradicts existing definitions.)

As fort this, I will respond in the next post (I've basically got to teach Intro to Logic 101).

[gib]

-

It's not merely counter-intuitive, it's also logically impossible. It's like saying that 2 + 2 is equal to 5. That's both counter-intutive (it goes against what we intuitively think it's true) and logically impossible (it contradicts existing definitions.)

It is not like 2 + 2 = 5. I'm surprised to find how many people can't tell the difference between a counter-intuitive idea and an illogical idea. So many people think "logic" is just what makes sense to them, what seems real/rational. Logic is a lot more specific than that.

I recommend to anyone who hasn't already, pick up an intro to logic text book. In it, you will find that formal logic (the kind professional logicians study) is a set of rules that allows one to draw certain conclusions beginning with a set of premises. Any logic text book worth its salt will start with the idea that propositions can be symbolized with variables just as quantities in algebra. So you might have this:

A = "Alice went to the opera."
B = "Bob accompanied Alice."
C = "Charlie stayed home."
D = "Don went to the opera but not with Alice and Bob."

Then you have a set of logical operators:

∧ - and
∨ - or
~ - not
→ - implication (if/then)
() - precedence (do this first)
etc.

And finally, you have your logical rules, beginning with Aristotle's fundamental 3:

1) Law of identity: if A is the case, then A is the case: (A → A).
2) Law of non-contradiction: if A is the case, then not-A is not the case: (A → ~(~A)).
3) Law of excluded middle: either A is the case or A is not the case and there are no other options: (A ∨ ~A).

But that's not all. You also have the syllogistic rules:

4) Modus ponens: If A is the case, then B is the case. And A actually is the case. Therefore, B must be the case: (((A → B) ∧ A) → B).
5) Modus tollens: If A is the case, then B is the case. And B is not the case. Therefore, A cannot be the case: (((A → B) ∧ ~B) → ~A).
6) Contraposition: If it is the case that A → B, then it is also the case that ~B → ~A: ((A → B) → (~B → ~A)). (Just a different form of modus tollens if you ask me.)

Then there are more complex rules of logic:

7) Transitivity: If A → B and B → C, then A → C: (((A → B) ∧ (B → C)) → (A → C).
8) Construction: If A → B and C → D and A ∨ C, then B ∨ D: (((A → B) ∧ (C → D) ∧ (A ∨ C)) → (B ∨ D)).
9) De Morgan's law: If it's not the case that A and B, then it's not the case that A or it's not the case that B: (~(A ∨ B) → (~A ∨ ~B)).

The list goes on.

Here's an example of a (formal) logical argument. I'm going to posit 3 premises and derive the conclusion: ~C ∨ ~D:

Premise 1: ~(A ∧ B)
Premise 2: C → A
Premise 3: D → B
--------
1) De Morgan's law on Premise 1: ~A ∨ ~B
2) Modus tollens on Premise 2: ((C → A) ∧ ~A) → ~C
3) Modus tollens on Premise 3: ((D → B) ∧ ~B) → ~D
4) Conjunction on 1) and Premises 2 and 3: (~A ∨ ~B) ∧ ((C → A) ∧ (D → B))
5) Distribution on 4): (~A ∧ ((C → A) ∧ (D → B))) ∨ (~B ∧ ((C → A) ∧ (D → B))
6) Simplification on 5): (~A ∧ (C → A)) ∨ (~B ∧ (D → B))
7) Substitution on 6) with 2) and 3): ~C ∨ ~D

Note what this is saying. It's saying that if it's not the case that both A and B are true, and if C implies A and D implies B, then either C is not the case or D is not the case. Seems pretty self-evidently simple (intuitive) but notice how complicated it is to derive logically. Notice that one cannot call it logical unless it is derived using exclusively logical rules.

Also notice that it doesn't even matter what A, B, C, or D stand for. They could stand for anything. Logic has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter--whether it's about space and time, simultaneity, science vs reason, or my grandma's peach cobbler recipe. In other words, if you find yourself claiming that something is a logical contradiction by virtue of the subject matter (i.e. whether simultaneity is relative or not), then you're probably mistaking intuition for logic. It may be counter-intuitive but that's not the same as illogical.

If you want to prove that the relativity of simultaneity is a logical contradiction, then you need to present your argument in the above format--that is, lay out your premises (ideally as variables), and derive a contradiction step-by-step using ONLY the rules of logic for each step.

[Pedro I Rengel]

2 + 2 = 4 is a perfectly logical statement but it is not a statement we accept because we've verified it in reality (as if we need to conduct an experiment before we accept it).

Well, it kind of is. If you put 2 beans next to 2 beans, you have 4 beans next to each other. That's a little bit how math was created in the first place, measuring reality.

Logic, too, refers necessarily to reality (if it is not pseudo-logic). To verify whether it is the case that if A is B and only B, and B is not C, then A is not C, you need to come up with a real life example to verify whether it makes sense.

And, in fact, alternate formal logics that follow different rules have been developed, like Boolean logic, always founded on their verifiable relation to real things.

If you are referring to the fact that you can design methods of measurement without actual reference to any real thing, such as has happened in theoretical mathematics that underpinned, for example, the work of Einstein, they are always developed with foundations on methods of measurements that refer to real things. If it is not built on something that refers to reality, it doesn't work. No matter how fancy math gets, it never escapes from the simple premise of 2 beans next to 2 beans making 4 beans. You never add a method or premise that doesn't refer to reality.

It's a sad kind of modern solipsism that leads many today to believe that logic is some kind of innate human thing that exists before any reference to reality. That is not how logic works or was built. And it was built.

The legitimacy of any logical system is in its referenciability to reality.

Wittgenstein was an idiot precisely because he was confused about this. It's not his fault, though, he read too much Plato.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Ironically, the contention of an abstract logic that requires no reference to reality which is held as a discredit of mysticism was developed by Plato based on the explicitly mystical Pythagorean tradition, which itself posed itself opposite "practical" mathematics such as used in commerce.

To add irony to irony, Plato's success was in forcing Pythagorean postulates to refer to reality.

[Pedro I Rengel]

As a good example of what I am talking about, Arab mathematicians, and later European ones, were fond of commenting that reading Hindu mathematical treatises was like fishing for diamonds in a pile of garbage. They would postulate brilliant methods that advanced mathematics several stages surrounded by others that were demonstrably nonsensical and false (note: demonstrably). The language itself was not particularly different for both types, and the same general formal rules were followed. However, the nonsense parts have faded into oblivion and are accepted by no one as "logical" simply because they obey formal and consistent rules. It was their reference to reality that made the ones that were innovations a success.

Another example is the first book on algebra, which was written without a single symbol or logical operator, except for the use of numerals, and laid down the rules for algebra that are still used today.

Symbols and logical operators are just abbreviations. The = sign wasn't even widely accepted until well into the XVII century, by which time infinitesimals were already highly developed, for example. I think even Fermat didn't use it.

[Magnus Anderson]

Given my reasons for saying I would ban MD (which you quoted), where do you get off saying I would ban him "because he disagrees with me"? Is that at all what I said?

You said that banning Sculptor for his rudeness is a lefty thing to do and that you're against it. You did say that, right? You stated it quite explicitly.

But now, you're saying that it's totally fine for a science forum to ban its members merely because their beliefs do not align with those of the scientific establishment.

It's perfectly okay for a science forum to ban someone who wants to make the case that the Earth is flat (regardless of how well presented their argument is) but it's totally not okay for a philosophy forum to ban rude people (that's a horrible lefty thing to do.)

Don't you see the problem?

Philosophy forums will have a whole different set of rules. It is the place for unscientific claims (opinions, conjecture, reason, etc.), so I wouldn't ban Sculptor for making unscientific claims on a philosophy forum. But it all comes down to the rules. Are they being violated or not? And as I said before, if Sculptor is violating ILP forum rules (which he probably has given all the lude vulgarities, name calling, and character attacks he engages in), I'll back you up 100%. But remember what I also said: we've probably all violated ILP forum rules at one point or another (especially name calling and character attacks), so be prepared to suffer the consequences of your own statutes. You especially, Magnus. I could probably find 100 posts in which you carelessly attacked other members with vulgarities like "idiot" or "imbecile" or "moron". So if you want to ban Sculptor on the grounds of name calling and character attacks, be prepared to be brought up on the same charges.

First of all, why should forum members be punished for something they said 10 years ago? Who cares? And if it's true that they should be punished, then they should be punished -- whether they like it or not. Your argument is no more than an appeal to consequences.

But your earlier argument -- the first that you presented in this thread -- was that you're against banning Sculptor because it's a lefty thing to do and because it violates our right to free speech. Your argument wasn't "I don't want Sculptor to be banned because if we ban him we'll also have to punish every single person who violated the rules in the past but wasn't punished for it". That's a different argument and I'd like it if we could stick to one at a time.

[Magnus Anderson]

I'm contemplating what the definition of "fact" is--because that's not established, not here in this thread anyway. Typically, a "fact" is considered something that has been verified in reality (empirically, tangentially).

The word "fact" simply means "that which is true". Given that "2+2=4 is true" and "Whatever is true is a fact" it follows that "2+2=4 is a fact".

2 + 2 = 4 is a perfectly logical statement but it is not a statement we accept because we've verified it in reality (as if we need to conduct an experiment before we accept it).

We did verify it. And we verified it in reality. Where else can we verify things but in reality? You just have to understand what that statement stands for so that you can know how to go about verifying it. "2 + 2 = 4" simply means that expressions "2+2" and "4" mean one and the same thing. So in order to verify that statement, you have to check what these expressions mean. If they truly represent one and the same thing, then the statement is true. Otherwise, it's false. But where in reality is the meaning of those expressions located? It's located within human minds. So to discover the meaning of those expression, you have to look inside human minds. But whose minds? Well, that depends on whose word-concept associations we're talking about. If we're talking about mine, we have to look inside my mind.

I mean, it could be verified scientifically (and I would think it has numerous times by numerous people) simply by taking 2 objects and taking another 2 objects and counting them to see that there are indeed 4 objects all together, but I don't think we can say this about any mathematical statement (when was the last time you verified that a billion objects added to a billion objects gives you 2 billion objects?).

You don't need 2 billion objects in order to verify that 1 billion + 1 billion = 2 billion. All you have to do is look at the concepts. But concepts aren't physical objects like apples are, so people aren't comfortable with them.

A scientific "fact" is a fact according only to the first definition.

And that first definition is "that which is true". So both "2 + 2 = 4" and "The Earth is round" are facts (so as long they are true, of course.)

[Sculptor]

And that first definition is "that which is true". So both "2 + 2 = 4" and "The Earth is round" are facts (so as long they are true, of course.)

2+2=4 is a fact of a completely different kind to "the earth is round".

2+2=4 is definitively true since the very meaning of the mathematical operators in this context and the necessary relations between 2 and 4 make this an anaytically true fact.

"The earth is Round" is an emprical fact and is not analytically true but synthetically true.
Actually the world is not "round" it is in fact an oblate spheroid, that is a fact but will never be an analytical fact.

[Sculptor]

Given my reasons for saying I would ban MD (which you quoted), where do you get off saying I would ban him "because he disagrees with me"? Is that at all what I said?

You said that banning Sculptor for his rudeness is a lefty thing to do and that you're against it. You did say that, right? You stated it quite explicitly.

But now, you're saying that it's totally fine for a science forum to ban its members merely because their beliefs do not align with those of the scientific establishment.

It's perfectly okay for a science forum to ban someone who wants to make the case that the Earth is flat (regardless of how well presented their argument is) but it's totally not okay for a philosophy forum to ban rude people (that's a horrible lefty thing to do.)

Don't you see the problem?

Philosophy forums will have a whole different set of rules. It is the place for unscientific claims (opinions, conjecture, reason, etc.), so I wouldn't ban Sculptor for making unscientific claims on a philosophy forum. But it all comes down to the rules. Are they being violated or not? And as I said before, if Sculptor is violating ILP forum rules (which he probably has given all the lude vulgarities, name calling, and character attacks he engages in), I'll back you up 100%. But remember what I also said: we've probably all violated ILP forum rules at one point or another (especially name calling and character attacks), so be prepared to suffer the consequences of your own statutes. You especially, Magnus. I could probably find 100 posts in which you carelessly attacked other members with vulgarities like "idiot" or "imbecile" or "moron". So if you want to ban Sculptor on the grounds of name calling and character attacks, be prepared to be brought up on the same charges.

First of all, why should forum members be punished for something they said 10 years ago? Who cares? And if it's true that they should be punished, then they should be punished -- whether they like it or not. Your argument is no more than an appeal to consequences.

But your earlier argument -- the first that you presented in this thread -- was that you're against banning Sculptor because it's a lefty thing to do and because it violates our right to free speech. Your argument wasn't "I don't want Sculptor to be banned because if we ban him we'll also have to punish every single person who violated the rules in the past but wasn't punished for it". That's a different argument and I'd like it if we could stick to one at a time.

I've not breached any rules.

[gib]

2 + 2 = 4 is a perfectly logical statement but it is not a statement we accept because we've verified it in reality (as if we need to conduct an experiment before we accept it).

Well, it kind of is. If you put 2 beans next to 2 beans, you have 4 beans next to each other. That's a little bit how math was created in the first place, measuring reality.

Yes and no. If you read the sentence immediately following this, you'll see I acknowledge something like this:

I mean, it could be verified scientifically (and I would think it has numerous times by numerous people) simply by taking 2 objects and taking another 2 objects and counting them to see that there are indeed 4 objects all together, but I don't think we can say this about any mathematical statement (when was the last time you verified that a billion objects added to a billion objects gives you 2 billion objects?).

But my point was that we accept that 1 billion + 1 billion = 2 billion because that's what we get when we follow the rules of mathematics, not because we tested it by counting a billion objects and another billion objects and counting the total to find 2 billion objects.

Logic, too, refers necessarily to reality (if it is not pseudo-logic). To verify whether it is the case that if A is B and only B, and B is not C, then A is not C, you need to come up with a real life example to verify whether it makes sense.

Not quite. One can check this against reality to confirm it's true (which would make it a scientific truth as well as a logical truth) but one doesn't need to in order to understand that ((A → B) ∧ (B → ~C)) → (A → ~C) (which is just a logical truth). Logic doesn't "refer" to reality, it is derived from reality. Logic is a system that is developed in the brain as a part of growing up (and to an extent, continues to develop even after that). We don't begin life with a fully developed set of logical rules, we learn to use them by making mistakes and learning from them. A perfect example is the fallacy of affirming the consequence (which many adults will still commit in so many cases). If you've seen The Campaign (hilarious movie!), you'll remember the scene where Will Ferrel's character tries to tarnish the reputation of Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis's character) by making the link between wearing a moustache and being a tyrant. Hitler, Stalin, and Sadam Hussein had moustaches. You know who else has a moustache? Marty Huggins! The logic of that argument goes: if you are a tyrant, you'll wear a moustache (which itself isn't true, but that doesn't matter). Therefore, if you wear a moustache, you're a tyrant. It takes the form: ((A → B) ∧ B) → A. But that's a fallacy. Yet many people fall for it. However, some don't. The ones who don't most likely fell for this fallacy at one point in their lives but after several occasions of experiencing being wrong, their brains adjusted and came up with a rule: you can say ((A → B) ∧ A) → B but you can't say ((A → B) ∧ B) → A. This is what reality does. It provides developing brains the experiences it needs to learn the rules of logic, through trial and error, through humans making predictions, seeing those predictions fail, and learning what their mistakes were in their thinking. The act of correcting those mistakes is the development of logic.

So I suppose, in a sense, you could say these logical rules "refer" to reality, but this only means they were abstracted from reality (and that doesn't mean that when we think of a logical rule like Modus Ponens, we're reflecting back on a childhood memory). If you want to talk about what logical statements/arguments are about (i.e. what they refer to in the standard sense), they can refer to reality (and I suppose they're meant to) but they don't have to. What thing or situation in reality does ((A → B) ∧ A) → B refer to? What are A's and B's in reality? These are abstractions. They are abstractions for a reason. We want to abstract our thinking away from reality (temporarily) in order not to be bogged down with the specifics of contingencies, in order to apprehend the "pure" structure of logical statements. And once we're certain about the logical integrity of that structure, we can then apply it to specific cases in reality. But insofar as this happens only in our thinking, it still doesn't qualify as a scientifically verified statement. One still has to conduct an experiment and derive empirical evidence from the results in order to say the statement is a scientific fact (or at best, a scientifically supported statement).

And, in fact, alternate formal logics that follow different rules have been developed, like Boolean logic, always founded on their verifiable relation to real things.

The above IS Boolean logic.

It's a sad kind of modern solipsism that leads many today to believe that logic is some kind of innate human thing that exists before any reference to reality.

Why is that solipsism? <-- I think you're using the wrong word.

Symbols and logical operators are just abbreviations. The = sign wasn't even widely accepted until well into the XVII century, by which time infinitesimals were already highly developed, for example. I think even Fermat didn't use it.

The symbols don't matter. They're simply a convenience. What matters is the system. Logic is a system of proposition, operations, and rules. Express those however you wish.

[Magnus Anderson]

2+2=4 is a fact of a completely different kind to "the earth is round".

They are indeed different kinds of facts. One is about language, the other is about Earth.

2+2=4 is definitively true since the very meaning of the mathematical operators in this context and the necessary relations between 2 and 4 make this an anaytically true fact.

Whether or not something is definitely true is a matter of one's degree of confidence. As far as I am concerned, Earth is definitely round (though not in the literal sense of the word) even though I am slightly more certain of "2+2=4" than "Earth is round" .

"The earth is Round" is an emprical fact and is not analytically true but synthetically true.

Yes.

Actually the world is not "round" it is in fact an oblate spheroid, that is a fact but will never be an analytical fact.

Right.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yes and no.

Well, I mean, it's either yes or no. It either depends on verifiability in reality, or it doesn't.

But my point was that we accept that 1 billion + 1 billion = 2 billion because that's what we get when we follow the rules of mathematics, not because we tested it by counting a billion objects and another billion objects and counting the total to find 2 billion objects.

We tested it by adding 2 beans to 2 beans. I can also say the sun is round without testing it, and know it's true (enough). I can say any planet anywhere is round (enough) and know I am right. I do not need to go around testing every planet. It still refers to reality, and its relationship to reality is what determines the validity of its logic, not the fact of consistent internal rules.

Not quite. One can check this against reality to confirm it's true (which would make it a scientific truth as well as a logical truth) but one doesn't need to in order to understand that ((A → B) ∧ (B → ~C)) → (A → ~C) (which is just a logical truth).

One, in fact, does. That is the whole point. Until you have tested a logical system against reality, you don't really know if it makes sense. Other systems, equally consistent, like the Boolean, have been developed and discarded because they don't stand to applicability to reality. Many mathematical propositions have been discarded simply because they don't correspond to reality, without violating any actual known mathematical rules. Math is actually largely composed of this.

The symbols don't matter. They're simply a convenience. What matters is the system. Logic is a system of proposition, operations, and rules. Express those however you wish.

Except, in reality, it went the other way around. For thousands of years math was simply expressed rhetorically. Then propositions, operations, and rules were developed as abbreviations. What you are saying is like saying that ancient theater was just movie making, they just hadn't developed photography yet.

[gib]

Given my reasons for saying I would ban MD (which you quoted), where do you get off saying I would ban him "because he disagrees with me"? Is that at all what I said?

You said that banning Sculptor for his rudeness is a lefty thing to do and that you're against it. You did say that, right?

Absolutely!

But now, you're saying that it's totally fine for a science forum to ban its members merely because their beliefs do not align with those of the scientific establishment.

Absolutely not! Go back and read what I said. I said I'm assuming science forums have rules against posting unscientific claims (and even then, I would think one would have to persistently argue in defense of one's unscientific claims despite the chagrin of being persistently shown to be wrong, and also warned that one is violating the forum rules). My entire argument rests on the violation of forum rules.

Don't you see the problem?

Yes, you don't read carefully.

First of all, why should forum members be punished for something they said 10 years ago? Who cares? And if it's true that they should be punished, then they should be punished -- whether they like it or not. Your argument is no more than an appeal to consequences.

I wouldn't disagree with this. If one's crimes are in the distant pass, then sure they deserve a second chance. Are you saying you haven't resorted to slandering and name calling on this forum for a significantly long time?

Appealing to the consequence applies to arguments about the moral standing of something (an action, a thought, a phrase, whatever). You'd be right to say this if I were arguing that it's morally permissible to allow Sculptor to insult and offend if the opposite meant we're all guilty and deserve the same consequences. But I'm simply arguing that banning Sculptor on the grounds of being offensive or rude may not be desirable even for those who wish to ban him because of the potential consequences. And even that wasn't quite my point--my point was just to give you (and others) something to think about before taking any action. IOW, I leave it up to you (and others) to decide whether you wish to pursue this line of action. I would still argue that it's morally wrong to offend/insult/be rude even if we decide not to take action in fear of the consequences, but in that case, we might consider forgiveness and also try to improve ourselves so as not to be offensive/insulting/rude ourselves.

But your earlier argument -- the first that you presented in this thread -- was that you're against banning Sculptor because it's a lefty thing to do I did say it was a lefty thing to do but I didn't say that was my reason for not wanting to ban him. and because it violates our right to free speech. Yes Your argument wasn't "I don't want Sculptor to be banned because if we ban him we'll also have to punish every single person who violated the rules in the past but wasn't punished for it". That's a different argument and I'd like it if we could stick to one at a time.

Sure thing, Magnus. But let me just point out that one can have more than one argument for a case. And the distinction I made above still stands--that of considering the consequences to ourselves before coming to any decisions vs. that this makes Sculptor's behavior on ILP morally acceptable--and that what I said was meant to be taken in the former sense.

The word "fact" simply means "that which is true". Given that "2+2=4 is true" and "Whatever is true is a fact" it follows that "2+2=4 is a fact".

I guess we need to agree to disagree on this point Magnus. Not that I think the above can't be true, just that this definition isn't the only player in town, and so it depends on which definition we choose.

We did verify it. And we verified it in reality. But we didn't need to. Have we verified that 1 billion + 1 billion = 2 billion? Where else can we verify things but in reality? In our heads. I never said we couldn't do this, just that this wouldn't count as scientific (or a fact). You just have to understand what that statement stands for so that you can know how to go about verifying it. "2 + 2 = 4" simply means that expressions "2+2" and "4" mean one and the same thing. You bet. So in order to verify that statement, you have to check what these expressions mean. You have to understand their meaning beforehand, if that's what you mean. If they truly represent one and the same thing, then the statement is true. Otherwise, it's false. Agreed. But where in reality is the meaning of those expressions located? It's located within human minds. Ah, so you're considering introspection as counting as verification (empirical?) So to discover the meaning of those expression, you have to look inside human minds. But whose minds? Well, that depends on whose word-concept associations we're talking about. If we're talking about mine, we have to look inside my mind.

Yes, when it comes to the semantics of our statements. Even then, however, I don't think we have to "inspect" our minds before we understand the meaning of the words we utter--I think the utterance comes with the meaning (i.e. we tend to know what we mean when we say things). But that's beside the point. The only thing we can verify by introspecting is that we indeed have certain thoughts, certain beliefs (and mental experiences in general), and that certain conclusions we come to seem logical, even that we can't come to any other conclusions. But that's different from verifying that such conclusions are in fact true (scientifically, empirically). The truth we see in our minds is often, to our surprise, contrary to what turns out to be true outside our minds.

You don't need 2 billion objects in order to verify that 1 billion + 1 billion = 2 billion. All you have to do is look at the concepts. But concepts aren't physical objects like apples are, so people aren't comfortable with them.

I think we're having the same issue with the word "verify" as we did with the word "fact". Keep in mind, when I made these points to Motor Daddy, it was in the context of proving Einstein wrong with a thought experiment. I have therefore stuck with a scientific definition of "fact" and "verify"--and I think that's faithful to the formal definitions of these words--but if you mean "verify" as in: just check the logic of your thought process, then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. I feel comfortable saying I know that 1 billion + 1 billion = 2 billion, but I call this a logical fact/truth. And it also makes a difference to your claim that all mathematical statements are verified against reality before being accepted, as introspecting them to check their logical validity would count as a type of verification. And if mental entities are just as much a part of reality as outer objects, as you say, then we verify them in reality.

However, this blurs (at best) the distinction between "verification" and "fact" in the scientific sense and in the sense you're using (at worst, it obliterates it entirely), and my point was that we ought to keep such a distinction in focus as Motor Daddy's attempt to falsify Einstein's theories hinges on this distinction.

A scientific "fact" is a fact according only to the first definition.

And that first definition is "that which is true".

Huh? No! It's not! Try verifying that by going back and reading the first definition. You'll see this:

What this means for the word "fact" is that we could go either way--we could go with the formal definition (a statement that has been verified empirically to be true) or we could go with the layperson's definition (a statement that has either been empirically verified or is self-evidently true).

Your definition--that a fact is "that which is true"--is closer to the second definition if anything.

[gib]

Well, I mean, it's either yes or no. It either depends on verifiability in reality, or it doesn't.

Yes and no. Yes if there is only one sense in which "we accept that 2 + 2 = 4 because we've verified it in reality" can be true (or false), but no if there are different senses in which that statement can be true (or false). Typically, when people respond with "yes and no" they mean in one sense yes, in another sense no. And I gave the two senses in which it could be "yes" or "no" (no, I won't repeat it).

We tested it by adding 2 beans to 2 beans. No we didn't. I can also say the sun is round without testing it But we do need to test that 2 + 2 = 4?, and know it's true (enough). Because you rely on other people's verification. I can say any planet anywhere is round (enough) and know I am right. I do not need to go around testing every planet. You would if you were the first scientist to propose this. It still refers to reality, and its relationship to reality is what determines the validity of its logic No it isn't, not the fact of consistent internal rules.

Then you have a different definition of "logic" from what you will find in every textbook on logic. Besides, where do you think those rules come from? And you should know that this:

All grass is green.
All men are grass.
Therefore, all men are green.

...is a perfectly logical argument.

One, in fact, does. That is the whole point. Until you have tested a logical system against reality, you don't really know if it makes sense. How the hell do you come to that conclusion? Other systems, equally consistent, like the Boolean, have been developed and discarded because they don't stand to applicability to reality. Boolean logic has not been discarded. I don't know where you're getting your information from. Many mathematical propositions have been discarded simply because they don't correspond to reality, without violating any actual known mathematical rules. Math is actually largely composed of this.

Give me an example. I don't know what to say about mathematical systems that got thrown out because they failed to match up with reality--sounds like theories that had a mathematical way of being expressed failing scientific testing--which happens all the time--but it's the theory that's thrown out, not the rules of mathematics. But I can't really speak to what you're talking about unless I have some examples.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "makes sense". Often, it's the reverse. Things that make sense to us turn out to be totally wrong once tested against reality. We thought the Earth was flat once. It seemed to make sense--you look at the ground and see that it's flat, no curvature--so it makes sense to suppose the Earth is flat. But various means of verification and scientific observation proved this was wrong.

Except, in reality, it went the other way around. For thousands of years math was simply expressed rhetorically. Then propositions, operations, and rules were developed as abbreviations. What you are saying is like saying that ancient theater was just movie making, they just hadn't developed photography yet.

If I didn't know any better, Pedro, I'd say you were disagreeing with me just for the sake of disagreeing with me. This is a response to a point I made that agreed with what you said, and now you want to turn on that?

Here's what happened. You said:

Symbols and logical operators are just abbreviations. The = sign wasn't even widely accepted until well into the XVII century, by which time infinitesimals were already highly developed, for example. I think even Fermat didn't use it.

Then I said:

The symbols don't matter. They're simply a convenience. What matters is the system. Logic is a system of proposition, operations, and rules. Express those however you wish.

Which is just another way of saying "Symbols and logical operators are just abbreviations."

Now you seem to be turning on that and saying the symbols and logical operators are more than just abbreviations, they're central to the very nature of logic itself, without which you wouldn't have logic (or something like that).

I'm not sure how your analogy about theater applies. I wasn't even making any statements about what logic used to be in the ancient past and what it is now. Are you saying the fact that logic has been refined into a system of propositions, operators, and rules makes it something different than what it used to be?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Which is just another way of saying "Symbols and logical operators are just abbreviations."

Now you seem to be turning on that and saying the symbols and logical operators are more than just abbreviations, they're central to the very nature of logic itself, without which you wouldn't have logic (or something like that).

Listen, we can toot each other's horns here with semantics, or we can look each other in the face and admit that what is at stake is whether there is a dimension or function or reality or whatever you would like to name it where logic exists abstracted from reality or there isn't.

I wasn't even making any statements about what logic used to be in the ancient past and what it is now.

The order in which logic was constructed speaks to the order in which it exists: namely, that it is an application of thought to reality, and not an independent thought function, whatever in the heavens or below that might mean.

If you can make statements that constitute math without formal systems of logic, then we can deduce that logic follows reference to reality rather than vice-versa.

All grass is green.
All men are grass.
Therefore, all men are green.

...is a perfectly logical argument.

Certainly not. It may be consistent, but logical it isn't. All men are not grass.

Same as if you postulated:

2+4=5
2-6=5
Therefore
4-6=5

You would be postulating nothing logical. The numbers refer to reality, as do A, B and C in the examples you have given.

We can even be more fastidious, and avoid a misinterpretation of numerals as variables, and postulate thus:

II+IIII=IIIII
II-IIIIII=IIIII
therefore
IIII-IIIIII=IIIII

And if you substitute the symbols for rhetoric, like "added to" or "subtracted from" and "gives," the absurdity becomes even clearer.

It is not absurd because it violates any rules, it is perfectly consistent.

Boolean logic has not been discarded. I don't know where you're getting your information from.

I may have written too cryptically. I didn't say Boolean logic has been discarded. I said systems that were invented later on, like Boolean logic was, were discarded.

No we didn't.

Well, we certainly did. It first happened that 2 beans were added to 2 beans, or two lengths of a wall, or two coins, before a system of math was developed around it. The transactions occured first, the math was created based on the verification.

Give me an example. I don't know what to say about mathematical systems that got thrown out because they failed to match up with reality

I will get back to you on these. You know how it is, you read about some and then forget the exact ones. We tend to only remember the ones that made it. But I will get back to you.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "makes sense".

Things that make sense to us turn out to be totally wrong once tested against reality.

Not when you look closely, and it is bore out carefully. Then one typically says "ah! that makes sense."

We thought the Earth was flat once.

Excusez moi, who did?

[Sculptor]

We thought the Earth was flat once.

You only think that because that is what you were told in Primary School and because of that stupid song about Cristobal Colon. "They all laughted at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round..."

Flat Earthers still exist today, but it was never a mainstream notion and Columbus/Colon did nothing to change people's views because it was never a widely held POV.
Colon knew full well the earth was a sphere and his trip was designed specifically to find a Western route to the Indies, that is why the American Natives were called Indians.

[Magnus Anderson]

Absolutely not! Go back and read what I said. I said I'm assuming science forums have rules against posting unscientific claims (and even then, I would think one would have to persistently argue in defense of one's unscientific claims despite the chagrin of being persistently shown to be wrong, and also warned that one is violating the forum rules). My entire argument rests on the violation of forum rules.

Yes, you don't read carefully.

The problem is that you said nothing against those forums. You were quick to criticize me for suggesting that rude posters should be banned from philosophy boards but you said absolutely nothing -- not a single word -- against forums that ban people merely because they argue in favor of beliefs that do not align with those of the scientific establishment. You made an effort to defend Sculptor's right to be rude on philosophy forums but you did absolutely nothing to defend Motor Daddy's right to argue in favor of unpopular beliefs on science forums.

I'm simply arguing that banning Sculptor on the grounds of being offensive or rude may not be desirable even for those who wish to ban him because of the potential consequences.

Well, let's put it to rest: it's desirable. Yes, even if they end up banning me because of what I said 10 years ago.

[T]his definition isn't the only player in town, and so it depends on which definition we choose

I am sure there is really only one definition of the word "fact". Fortunately, that's not really important, so we can put it aside. Do you remember what started this branch of discussion? It was Motor Daddy's claim that he was banned for presenting facts. So the only thing that matters is what HE means by "fact" -- and I'm sure he means no more than "that which is true". And one of the facts he presented on that science forum is that time is absolute. You really don't have to pay so much attention to the word "fact". If you have trouble with it, try replacing it with "truth". Anyways, that time is absolute is something you can know through reason alone. In other words, it's a logical / definitional / analytic truth. So when Einstein says that time is relative, he's quite simply wrong, and no amount of experiments can make him right. And if scientists want to change the definition of the word "time", they have to do it properly. They shouldn't act as if they DISCOVERED that time is relative. Instead, they should just admit that they CHANGED the definition of the word "time". It's akin to me proclaiming that I discovered that humans have four legs when in fact I merely changed the definition of the word "human" to that of "centaur".

We did verify it. And we verified it in reality.

But we didn't need to.

Every claim must be verified before it can be adopted (unless your brain is damaged.)

Have we verified that 1 billion + 1 billion = 2 billion?

Yes. We verified it by examining what the two expressions mean ("1 billion + 1 billion" and "2 billion".)

Where else can we verify things but in reality?

In our heads.

And where do these heads exist if not in reality? They are either real or they are not. If they are real, they are part of reality.

The meaning of words is located within human minds, so if you want to figure out what some word means, you have to look inside human minds. If you want to know what meaning YOU assign to some word, you have to take a look inside YOUR mind. If you want to know what meaning OTHER people assign to some word, you have to take a look inside THEIR minds. And all minds that are real exist in reality.

Ah, so you're considering introspection as counting as verification (empirical?)

I don't know if introspection can be said to be empirical -- that depends on the definition of the word "empirical". But introspection is most definitely a type of observation.

But the thing is that, if you want to know whether or not 2 + 2 equals to 4 according to standard mathematical definitions, you have no choice but to look OUTSIDE of your mind. You didn't invent the language of mathematics, right? Other people did. So you have to look inside OTHER PEOPLE'S minds which means that you have to use something other than introspection -- your eyes, ears, etc.

[Motor Daddy]

I am sure there is really only one definition of the word "fact". Fortunately, that's not really important, so we can put it aside. Do you remember what started this branch of discussion? It was Motor Daddy's claim that he was banned for presenting facts. So the only thing that matters is what HE means by "fact" -- and I'm sure he means no more than "that which is true". And one of the facts he presented on that science forum is that time is absolute. You really don't have to pay so much attention to the word "fact". If you have trouble with it, try replacing it with "truth". Anyways, that time is absolute is something you can know through reason alone. In other words, it's a logical / definitional / analytic truth. So when Einstein says that time is relative, he's quite simply wrong, and no amount of experiments can make him right. And if scientists want to change the definition of the word "time", they have to do it properly. They shouldn't act as if they DISCOVERED that time is relative. Instead, they should just admit that they CHANGED the definition of the word "time". It's akin to me proclaiming that I discovered that humans have four legs when in fact I merely changed the definition of the word "human" to that of "centaur".

Exactly!

...and it is disheartening that science should be open minded to such things, but is not. What I found on a science forum is not science, but RELIGION, which bans ideas not in agreement with theirs. It is akin to me going on a religious forum and making claims that there is no God, because there is no evidence of a God. They will ban me because my speech isn't in line with their belief in a God, and that is to be expected on a RELIGIOUS forum. After all, religion is about FAITH, not evidence. SCIENCE is not religion, science is about EVIDENCE, of which I produced a mathematical piece of evidence which shows Einstein's second postulate to be bunk. Einstein's postulate is not evidence of a science experiment, it is a statement of FAITH, which belongs on a religious forum! So what do they do? They ban ME for presenting a mathematical piece of evidence that refutes Einstein's faith. That is not science, that is religion, in the name of science!

[gib]

Listen, we can toot each other's horns here with semantics I'd just appreciate some consistency from you, or we can look each other in the face and admit that what is at stake is whether there is a dimension or function or reality or whatever you would like to name it where logic exists abstracted from reality or there isn't.

I'm not a Platonist if that's what you're getting at. Is logic abstracted from reality? Yes, but that doesn't place it in a parallel world (unless you consider the mind a parallel world).

Let's try this: if it's a dragon, it breathes fire. Unicorns don't breathe fire. Therefore, unicorns aren't dragons. <-- Does this refer to reality?

The order in which logic was constructed speaks to the order in which it exists:

So logic didn't exist before it was constructed?

Logic is discovered, not constructed. It is the result of centuries of observing human thought--that is, the rules it follows that allow it to get things right. As long as humans have been using thought to make predictions about reality (successfully), there have been rules it follows in order to accomplish that. Philosophers and logicians from Aristotle onward simply took the extra step of making us aware that there were these rules that thought follows to get reality right. They did so by observing thought, how it works, how it unfolds, the patterns it follows, what it insists on and what it unconditionally rejects. And this is still an ongoing discipline. We will keep discovering new rules and adding them to what we (or some of us) call formal logic. This is what's being constructed. It's not a mere willy-nilly fabrication we made up just for shits and giggles, it is a very methodological (and scientific) study of something real about human cognition.

If you can make statements that constitute math without formal systems of logic, then we can deduce that logic follows reference to reality rather than vice-versa.

I'm not sure how that follows, but math is a subset of logic. It's a whole set of additional rules that can be applied when your propositions are about quantities (i.e. "there are 6 shoes").

All grass is green.
All men are grass.
Therefore, all men are green.

...is a perfectly logical argument.

Certainly not. It may be consistent, but logical it isn't. All men are not grass.

There was a reason I gave that example. Did you think I believed all men are grass? I gave this example to show how logic can sometimes contrast with reality. And this drives home the point I opened with:

I'm surprised to find how many people can't tell the difference between a counter-intuitive idea and an illogical idea. So many people think "logic" is just what makes sense to them, what seems real/rational. Logic is a lot more specific than that.

I can appreciate that so many misunderstand what logic really is. We often use the term "logic" in conjunction with making claims about reality. We might say "It's only logical that so-and-so is the killer," implying that so-and-so really is the killer. People learn words primarily by how they see them used. If the word "logic" is used in conjunction with claims about reality, it's not a surprise that people misconstrue logic to mean "true about reality" (I believe this is where you're coming from). But formally speaking, what logic actually is (what professional logicians mean by the term) is just a set of rules applied to propositions. The above argument (about men being grass) follows the rule of transitivity. And it doesn't break any other rule. The content may be fallacious (that's the part that refers to reality), but the form, which is completely independent of the content, is logical (i.e. it conforms to the pattern of logical thought). It means that given the premises "All grass is green" and "All men are grass", logic allows you to conclude "All men are green".

And I'm not making this shit up. This isn't just my opinion on what logic is. I got all this from a formal education. This is what they teach in school. Say what you want about logic, stick to the layman's definition, I won't fight you on that, but you can't deny that there is a vast network of really intelligent and educated people spanning the globe, a network of people who call themselves logicians, and they all agree on and contribute to this body of abstract thought they call "logic", the same one I'm trying to explain here. <-- This is just a fact. You can prove it to yourself by picking up any intro to logic textbook. This is what I mean when I talk about logic. You can mean something else if you want. But if you want to insist that your definition is right, and the definition of countless logicians around the world--derived from centuries of studying human thought when it gets reality right, and passing it on to college students the world over--is wrong, that's a hegemony on definitions I simply don't grant you.

Same as if you postulated:

2+4=5
2-6=5
Therefore
4-6=5

No, that's an example of misapplying the rules of mathematics. The example I gave would be analogous to something like:

There are 8 fingers on each human hand, and there are 20 thumbs on each human hand. And since humans have 5 hands each, they possess (8 + 20) x 5 = 140 digits. <-- No rules of mathematics are violated there but all the premises are false. The reason my example above counts as logic is the same reason (8 + 20) x 5 = 140 counts as math.

The numbers refer to reality, as do A, B and C in the examples you have given.

In the example I gave, yes (or at least they're meant to), but if all you're given are the abstract symbols A, B, and C, what in reality do they refer to? Really, I want to know. What do you think A refers to? What about B and C? Nonetheless, everyone will agree that if A entails B and C, and B or C turns out not to be the case, then A can't be the case. They would say that's logical--without having any clue what A, B, or C refer to, if they refer to anything at all. Logic is the form, not the content.

It is not absurd because it violates any rules, it is perfectly consistent.

Are you kidding?

Well, we certainly did. It first happened that 2 beans were added to 2 beans, or two lengths of a wall, or two coins, before a system of math was developed around it. The transactions occured first, the math was created based on the verification.

Really? Who conducted these verifications? When in history did this happen? Was it one individual or a whole team of people? And how easy was it to convince others that 2 + 2 = 4? Were there contending theories like 2 + 2 = 5? Did they have to fight to get their thesis accepted, or was it an easy sell? And did it convince everyone, or only those who watched them demonstrate the experiment? And once they proved that 2 + 2 = 4, did they have to move on to 3 + 3 = 6? What would happen if someone suggested that 9 + 14 = 23? Would they have to go conduct an experiment to prove that? And before they proved any of this, were people just incapable of knowing how many objects they'd have if they had 2 objects in their left hand and 2 objects in their right hand?

I will get back to you on these. You know how it is, you read about some and then forget the exact ones. We tend to only remember the ones that made it. But I will get back to you.

Sure, no sweat. I'd be eager to find out. It actually does sound interesting.

Not when you look closely, and it is bore out carefully. Then one typically says "ah! that makes sense."

But that's not testing a hypothesis against reality. That's going in without a hypothesis at all. That's what we do when we just want to explore, not expecting/predicting what we'll find, just being curious. But have you seriously never had an idea that you thought made sense only to find that the reality was totally different? And how does it make sense that you have an idea in your head, something you believe/predict, that doesn't make sense to you? We don't try to verify our beliefs in order to clear up the confusion about what our beliefs mean. We wouldn't even know how to verify such beliefs. No, it has to make sense to us first before we make predictions that can be tested.

We thought the Earth was flat once.

Excusez moi, who did?

Is this your first time hearing this? Someone did. Many people did. Many people still do. I can't give you names, but it's well known that many people used to believe the Earth was flat.

But even if you don't grant that, I'm sure even you can think of examples of ideas people used to believe (or even you believed) that made sense at the time but turned out to be wrong.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And BTW, what is your general point? What do the things you say imply about your views of theoretical science vs. experimental science? Are you saying that if I come up with a scientific theory that happens to be flawlessly logical throughout and based on premises that happen to be absolutely true, and I knew this, I would not need to conduct a scientific experiment to verify it? Are you saying it's possible (and permissible) for scientists to come up with theories and say "We don't need to test this. It's gotta be true. Let's just accept it in the canon of science without verifying it empirically at all"?

[gib]

You only think that because that is what you were told in Primary School and because of that stupid song about Cristobal Colon. "They all laughted at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round..."

Flat Earthers still exist today, but it was never a mainstream notion and Columbus/Colon did nothing to change people's views because it was never a widely held POV.
Colon knew full well the earth was a sphere and his trip was designed specifically to find a Western route to the Indies, that is why the American Natives were called Indians.

Yes, Sculptor, I'm very well aware of this. I never said "widely held" (and who says it wasn't widely held?). But for the purposes of the point I was making to Pedro, all I need is one example of one person at one point in history. Hell, there must have been some point in history when it was widely held. Were human beings genetically predisposed to believe the Earth is round since the dawn of our species?

[gib]

The problem is that you said nothing against those forums. You were quick to criticize me for suggesting that rude posters should be banned from philosophy boards but you said absolutely nothing -- not a single word -- against forums that ban people merely because they argue in favor of beliefs that do not align with those of the scientific establishment. You made an effort to defend Sculptor's right to be rude on philosophy forums but you did absolutely nothing to defend Motor Daddy's right to argue in favor of unpopular beliefs on science forums.

Is this because I didn't bring up the rules of ILP? There is no rule at ILP against being rude (that I know of anyway), though there is this in the FAQs:

Why did I receive a warning?
Each board administrator has their own set of rules for their site. If you have broken a rule, you may be issued a warning. Please note that this is the board administrator’s decision, and the phpBB Group has nothing to do with the warnings on the given site. Contact the board administrator if you are unsure about why you were issued a warning.

After some digging, I found Carleas's ILP Forum Philosophy which says this about the forum's rules:

Signatures

The standard request for signatures is to not exceed 250px high in size total (text and images combined).
ILP staff reserves the right to request adjustments to member signatures as needed, or remove signatures if members do not comply with the requests.

Staff Intervention

If a member's behavior is disruptive to discussions, staff will intervene to prevent further disruption. Ideally, a private message or a post in a given thread will be enough, but if it not, additional actions may be taken based on the number of similar actions a user has incurred in the past 6 months:
1st warning: board warning, no further action
2nd warning: 48 hour ban
3rd warning: 7 day ban, with the possibility of a permanent ban based on moderator consensus.
Any further warnings: permanent ban.

Not exactly specific enough to warrant a ban by virtue of rudeness, but definitely at the mods' discretion.

He also links to the rules on 4 boards:

Philosophy
Religion
Arts & Music
Rant House <-- Doesn't even call them 'rules'; calls them 'guidelines'.

Obviously, there's more than 4 boards on this site, so some board (apparently) don't even have rules (either that or they're implicit). In any case, I didn't read through them so I don't know if they list rules against anything Sculptor did (and I don't even know what Sculptor did, not exactly, or which boards he did them in). So I feel I'm not in a position to say whether Sculptor violated any forum rules or not, but like I said before, if you can show that Sculptor has violated any ILP rules, I'll back you up 100%.

I am sure there is really only one definition of the word "fact". The fact that we're arguing about the definition shows that there isn't. There is at least yours and mine. Fortunately, that's not really important, so we can put it aside. Do you remember what started this branch of discussion? It was Motor Daddy's claim that he was banned for presenting facts. So the only thing that matters is what HE means by "fact" Sure, but then I don't see why it's such a surprise that he got banned for presenting unscientific facts (more on this below) -- and I'm sure he means no more than "that which is true". And one of the facts he presented on that science forum is that time is absolute. That's begging the question. You really don't have to pay so much attention to the word "fact". If you have trouble with it, try replacing it with "truth". Anyways, that time is absolute is something you can know through reason alone. Then show me the logical argument that proves it (and remember what I said--you need to start with premises we all agree with and show how each step in your argument follows specific rules of logic) In other words, it's a logical / definitional / analytic truth. No it is not. It refers to something in reality. If the nature of that something turns out to be different from what we thought (what the definition says) then our definition refers to something that doesn't exist. So when Einstein says that time is relative, he's quite simply wrong, and no amount of experiments can make him right. And if scientists want to change the definition of the word "time", they have to do it properly. They shouldn't act as if they DISCOVERED that time is relative. Instead, they should just admit that they CHANGED the definition of the word "time". It's akin to me proclaiming that I discovered that humans have four legs when in fact I merely changed the definition of the word "human" to that of "centaur".

Is that really all this is about? You're saying that once they discovered that the thing the word "time" refers to turns out to work differently than we thought, they should have started using a different word? Like "shtime"? And then anyone who clings to the word "time" is living in a fantasy world?

I mean, we all have our ways of reacting to counter-intuitive discoveries, but it's quite common (and perfectly ok) to use the same word and just conceptualize its referent differently. This is what we did with the word "sun". Ancient religions (I believe the Egyptians) use to believe the sun was a god being pulled across the sky in a chariot. But when we discovered the sun was really a huge ball of burning hydrogen, we didn't start calling it the "shtun", we just said the sun isn't what we thought it was. <-- Are you saying this was an invalid move? Are people correct in saying the sun is a god being pulled across the sky in a chariot simply because that's what the concept was at one point (like people being correct in saying dragons breathe fire)?

If that's what you're saying then I don't know what the point is of arguing on a science forum that time is absolute--no more than I would know what the point is of arguing on a science forum that the sun is a god being pulled across the sky in a chariot. If what Motor Daddy meant by "fact" is simply what's true of his definition of time (which he didn't make explicit), then why is he surprised that he got banned seeing as how nobody on any science forum shares that definition or even knows that's the definition he's using? I challenged him on this because it seemed obvious that when he claims he got banned for presenting FACTS, his intention was to make it sound like he was present the truth about reality and that the scientists are living in a fantasy world and were being completely unscientific. Ironically, it turns out that he's living in a fantasy world and is the one being unscientific (or in his word, RELIGIOUS).

Every claim must be verified before it can be adopted (unless your brain is damaged.)

...

Yes. We verified it by examining what the two expressions mean ("1 billion + 1 billion" and "2 billion".)

Oh right, you believe introspecting counts as verification.

The meaning of words is located within human minds, so if you want to figure out what some word means, you have to look inside human minds. If you want to know what meaning YOU assign to some word, you have to take a look inside YOUR mind. If you want to know what meaning OTHER people assign to some word, you have to take a look inside THEIR minds. And all minds that are real exist in reality.

That may be true, but like I said before, that only confirms what someone means by a term, or whether an argument they make follows logical rules. But that doesn't tell us whether the term refers to anything outside the mind or whether the argument is true.

But the thing is that, if you want to know whether or not 2 + 2 equals to 4 according to standard mathematical definitions, you have no choice but to look OUTSIDE of your mind. You didn't invent the language of mathematics, right? Other people did. So you have to look inside OTHER PEOPLE'S minds which means that you have to use something other than introspection -- your eyes, ears, etc.

Ah, strange that this is what you meant by verifying outside your mind. Given that this discussion is about scientific verification/observation (which is to measure/experiment with things in the physical world) I would think you'd want to make this clear from the get-go. But yes, you do have to look outside your own mind to understand what people mean by '2', '4', '+', and '=', but as far as scientific observation/verification goes, you're only verifying what people say about the meaning of '2', '4', etc. (i.e. you observed the physical act of speaking). As for observing/verifying what's going on in their minds, you're inferring--that is, you're taking their word on faith (which is perfectly reasonable)--or better yet, the act of listening to their words simply instills the meanings of '2', '4', etc. in your mind. But what I mean by "verifying/observing that 2 + 2 = 4" (and I suspect you know this) is that before you can believe that 2 + 2 = 4, you must take two object and put them beside another two objects and count them. If you get 4 objects, then that confirms that 2 + 2 = 4. <-- I'm saying one doesn't have to do that in order to know that 2 + 2 = 4.

[Magnus Anderson]

[I]f you can show that Sculptor has violated any ILP rules, I'll back you up 100%

This thread isn't merely about whether or not Sculptor violated any existing forum rules. It's more general than that. It's about whether or not Sculptor should be banned.

As for whether or not he broke any rules, how about the following one?

2.1 Show courtesy to other posters at all times: no flaming. Insulting, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards others will result in a warning.

I'm pretty sure he broke it at numerous ocassions -- not merely once or twice -- but here's a recent instance.

No it is not. It refers to something in reality. If the nature of that something turns out to be different from what we thought (what the definition says) then our definition refers to something that doesn't exist.

That's where we disagree. "Time is absolute" is true by definition. In other words, the word "time" is defined to refer to something that is absolute. Thus, if you're going to say that time is relative, you might as well say that squares can be circles.

And then anyone who clings to the word "time" is living in a fantasy world?

That's not what I said. Absolute time does exist. It's not a fantasy.

This is what we did with the word "sun". Ancient religions (I believe the Egyptians) use to believe the sun was a god being pulled across the sky in a chariot. But when we discovered the sun was really a huge ball of burning hydrogen, we didn't start calling it the "shtun", we just said the sun isn't what we thought it was. <-- Are you saying this was an invalid move? Are people correct in saying the sun is a god being pulled across the sky in a chariot simply because that's what the concept was at one point (like people being correct in saying dragons breathe fire)?

I'm not sure you understand how definitions work. Ancient people didn't define the word "sun" to mean "god being pulled across the sky in a chariot". They used the word the same exact way we use it today -- they used it to refer to that which manifests as yellow circle in the sky (whatever that is.)

Look at it this way. The word "United States" refers to a specific region on Earth and it does so regardless of what's inside that region. Whatever is inside that region, that region can be called "United States". Now, you may have wrong ideas about what's inside that region but that does not mean you define the word "United States" that way. You may think that United States is inhabited by unicorns but that does not mean you define the term "United States" as "a territory in North America inhabited by unicorns". You might still be defining it as merely "a territory in North America regardless of who and/or what populates it".

If that's what you're saying then I don't know what the point is of arguing on a science forum that time is absolute--no more than I would know what the point is of arguing on a science forum that the sun is a god being pulled across the sky in a chariot. If what Motor Daddy meant by "fact" is simply what's true of his definition of time (which he didn't make explicit), then why is he surprised that he got banned seeing as how nobody on any science forum shares that definition or even knows that's the definition he's using? I challenged him on this because it seemed obvious that when he claims he got banned for presenting FACTS, his intention was to make it sound like he was present the truth about reality and that the scientists are living in a fantasy world and were being completely unscientific. Ironically, it turns out that he's living in a fantasy world and is the one being unscientific (or in his word, RELIGIOUS).

You're missing the point. The point is that the word "time" has been traditionally defined as something that is absolute i.e. as something that is the same for everyone regardless of their situation (e.g. regardless of how fast they are moving in space.) That being a definition, it's neither true nor false, but it's something that was (and still is) more than useful. And it's certainly not a fantasy concept i.e. a concept for which there is no example in reality. Then Einstein came along and changed the definition of the word "time". He did so without realizing what he did (that he merely created a new definition of the word "time") and why he did it (that he created it because it made it easier for him to complete his work.) Moreover, he acted as if he discovered something that was true about time understood in the conventional sense of the word which is why the notion that time is relative was met with so much surprise. Without that part, that statement would have been received as rather banal and uninteresting.

But yes, you do have to look outside your own mind to understand what people mean by '2', '4', '+', and '=', but as far as scientific observation/verification goes, you're only verifying what people say about the meaning of '2', '4', etc. (i.e. you observed the physical act of speaking). As for observing/verifying what's going on in their minds, you're inferring--that is, you're taking their word on faith (which is perfectly reasonable)--or better yet, the act of listening to their words simply instills the meanings of '2', '4', etc. in your mind.

If you want to discover how people use words, you can simply ask them and listen to them (as you say) but you can also observe their behavior. There are, in fact, many ways to go about it.

But what I mean by "verifying/observing that 2 + 2 = 4" (and I suspect you know this) is that before you can believe that 2 + 2 = 4, you must take two object and put them beside another two objects and count them. If you get 4 objects, then that confirms that 2 + 2 = 4. <-- I'm saying one doesn't have to do that in order to know that 2 + 2 = 4.

I know. And no, you don't have to do that. That's unnecessarily expensive. You can simply look at the concepts.

[Motor Daddy]

I challenged him on this because it seemed obvious that when he claims he got banned for presenting FACTS, his intention was to make it sound like he was present the truth about reality and that the scientists are living in a fantasy world and were being completely unscientific.

That's exactly what I am saying, that I am presenting the TRUTH, and science is living in a fantasy world and being completely unscientific. Moreover, I am saying science boards are corrupt, AND current accepted theory is actually not science, but it is RELIGION. Moderators on science boards are protecting their religion (Special Relativity) by banning the truth that I have presented to them. They are not interested in doing science (which is communicated by the language of math), they are only interested in defending Einstein's BS.