User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 44

  1. #31
    Senior Member Maabus1999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    528

    Default

    Truth in Science relies on your Senses. Therefore is it the science that is true? Or your senses?

    Theories in Science rely on mathematics. Mathematics is a descriptive alphabet, but again only descriptive. It does not make it true.

    Philosophy does not rely on senses but instead thought. Thought always seems true but its description comes from our senses.

    Anything formed from our senses can actually be false.

    Philosophy pursues the truth.
    Science pursues the truth.
    Both seek to understand our senses.
    Different roads.
    Same destination.
    Neither guarantee you will reach the destination.

  2. #32
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maabus1999 View Post
    Truth in Science relies on your Senses. Therefore is it the science that is true? Or your senses?
    Or is it truth that is true? Who can say? When are the chickens returning? The mystery is unabated. How does Wildcat do it?
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  3. #33
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Or is it truth that is true? Who can say? When are the chickens returning? The mystery is unabated. How does Wildcat do it?
    Quite simply, define the terms for the present discourse. In this case we say, this is what 'truth' is going to mean in this context and only in this context. We make no attempt to establish how this term is to be used in all contexts. But regarding this discourse, whoever does not use it in the way it has been defined here is disqualified from participating.

    Your point however is clear, we do indeed attribute many different meanings to the same word. This means that we need to explain clearly and thoroughly how we are using each word.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #34
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Sir reason, I demand you address me!
    we fukin won boys

  5. #35
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Sir reason, I demand you address me!
    Illustrious one, rely primarily on Ti and not Ne if you wish for your further attention whoring attempts in threads like these to be successful!
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #36
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    I prefer both simultaneously.
    Its possible. I've seen it.

    The later portion of my post...
    No wait I got a better one: This isn't your battle bluejob. And save the type jargon for the type threads.
    As clever as you must think yourself, I see through the silliness that Ti is capable of attention whoring.
    Nice try but my habits will continue.
    Tune in next time when PT and BlueDog try, and fail, to deglorify my unquestionably great habits.
    we fukin won boys

  7. #37
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    I prefer both simultaneously.
    Its possible. I've seen it.

    The later portion of my post...
    No wait I got a better one: This isn't your battle bluejob. And save the type jargon for the type threads.
    As clever as you must think yourself, I see through the silliness that Ti is capable of attention whoring.
    Nice try but my habits will continue.
    Tune in next time when PT and BlueDog try, and fail, to deglorify my unquestionably great habits.
    Ti people may attention whore by virtue of their Feeling faculty, as the Feeling function is the only one that directly connects to the human element. Ti in itself, however, cannot.

    You can use both simultaneously, however, it is inevitable that one would be relied upon heavier than the other as the two contrapose each other on certain levels (for example one is perceiving, the other insists on cessation of input of new information in order to organize the previously registered information). You can rely on both to a satisfactory degree if you are good at such a skill, however because you are not, it is best that you make a conscious effort of relying on one significantly more than the other.

    Once you have shown an ability to handle your non-primary function well whilst making little conscious effort to curb the influence of the primary, you may take the training wheels off, but I do not see that coming for you in the near future.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #38
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Sir reason, I demand you address me!
    Hello
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  9. #39

    Default

    Creating a theory of truth, I think is a perhaps an unsolvable problem.

    Of all our concepts, truth may be our most basic.

    Ultimately, conceptualization is about labeling and categorizing, and we either implicitly or explicitly care about truth during conceptualization.

    So, when we conceptualize about correspondence, utility, coherence, and other such things, we will still at base need to consider what we mean by true (or perhaps just not true, provably true, or provably untrue, or something else).

    You may be interested in category theory. It forms the basis of about how I think about epistemology. I'm too sleepy to explain now, and I would almost definitely have to resort to diagrams.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #40
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Once you have shown an ability to handle your non-primary function well whilst making little conscious effort to curb the influence of the primary, you may take the training wheels off, but I do not see that coming for you in the near future.
    Apart from you being wrong, I can point out that I don't care whether I have your permission.
    I wonder if you think you're very good at it either...
    I can never help myself but wonder where the confused notion that I have any interest in making sure you understand what I have to say came from. You and The Poriferan share this problem.
    Here's a tip -- if you've got nothing interesting for me, I'm going to jerk you around. But in the particularly grumpy mood I happen to be in now, I figured, instead, I'd just slam you publicly.

    Besides, my foray into this thread has virtually nothing to do with any of what you've said.
    I insist that reason's OP is more complicated than you seem to think, and while I don't expect you to assume you'd ever miscalculate, again, I don't leave it up to you.
    we fukin won boys

Similar Threads

  1. Hap's Theory of Dynamic Type
    By Haphazard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 01:42 PM
  2. The theory of enlightenment
    By ThatGirl in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 10:39 AM
  3. [MBTItm] Theory of Dominae Intuitus
    By Martian Manifesto in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 09-21-2008, 05:23 PM
  4. Moment of Truth on Fox
    By CzeCze in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 02:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO