Economic Misinformation

[ParkCungHee]

Cause can create effect like a series of dominoes falling over. I would understand the objection if you were questioning causation in this world , but how can you deny causation per se. An object causes a change in reality which leads to, in the next period of time, another part of reality being different. You would either have to assert pure randomness, deny change or deny time.

I do deny change, and I do deny time, and if you had been paying attention, I've done so before in this thread. It is odd that a fan of causality can't actually use a cause to illustrate his points. A series of dominoes suffers the same logical problems that any claims to causality have, and you have not even begun to make a logical argument in their defense

Empirically, I act (and you probably know of the same feeling), and logically it is possible.

Perhaps it is, but you haven't demonstrated any evidence that it is logically so.

According to who is that the standard? This train of reasoning holds true based on the prerequisites of logical consistency and the world being one in which man acts. It is like how theological views are correct given the existence of God.

But the train of reasoning breaks down at step one: that man acts, an entirely illogical proposition, so it fails its own logical consistency. You chose logical consistency when it aids your argument, and when that breaks down

I cannot prove to you that I exist, but I know I exist, and you know you exist.

So you have an article of faith, again. You know, lots of people have faiths, but they at least admit they think in a certain way regardless of logic or empirical evidence.

I think therefore I am.

Evidence of this? Evidence of an I?

Euclidean geometry is true IF you are working on a plane (you can only know this empirically). If someone claims to have empirically found a 181 (interior)degree triangle on a plane, that is wrong.

Well if you can only know something empirically, it can certainly be wrong, and I never claimed that you can empirically find a 181 degree triangle on a plane, only that does not preclude their existence, nor make it impossible to hypothesize.

 

[Death Lord]

I do deny change, and I do deny time, and if you had been paying attention, I've done so before in this thread. It is odd that a fan of causality can't actually use a cause to illustrate his points. A series of dominoes suffers the same logical problems that any claims to causality have, and you have not even begun to make a logical argument in their defense

You deny th ability for things to be different? And you deny things being in a past or future? What would be the point of having this conversation then? You are arguing it is impossible for people to believe in causality, yet clearly we both do (at least I in my mind and presumably you in yours).

Perhaps it is, but you haven't demonstrated any evidence that it is logically so.

You were the one asserting it was logically impossible. Evidence cannot be arrived from logically. The introspection is empirical.

But the train of reasoning breaks down at step one: that man acts, an entirely illogical proposition, so it fails its own logical consistency. You chose logical consistency when it aids your argument, and when that breaks down

How is man acting illogical?

So you have an article of faith, again. You know, lots of people have faiths, but they at least admit they think in a certain way regardless of logic or empirical evidence.

I KNOW I exist. I KNOW I act. What faith?

Evidence of this? Evidence of an I?

Thought means there is an I.

Well if you can only know something empirically, it can certainly be wrong, and I never claimed that you can empirically find a 181 degree triangle on a plane, only that does not preclude their existence, nor make it impossible to hypothesize.

You cannot hypothesize a 181 degree triangle on a plane. Just as an omnipotent being cannot be hypothesized in a world which adheres to the first law of thermodynamics. They are logical contradictions. You can only know if you are working on a plane empirically, but if you presume that, you can know things logically.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Just because geometry has "empirical laws" doesn't mean that they are exempt from testing. One of the major parts of geometry classes is testing and proving the laws of geometry.

 

[Death Lord]

Just because geometry has "empirical laws" doesn't mean that they are exempt from testing. One of the major parts of geometry classes is testing and proving the laws of geometry.

Testing is not how you prove geometry, any attempt to do so is absurd.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Testing is not how you prove geometry, any attempt to do so is absurd.

I never said you test to prove. You test to confirm that the laws are valid. Proofs exist to prove laws/theories/etc.

 

[Death Lord]

I never said you test to prove. You test to confirm that the laws are valid. Proofs exist to prove laws/theories/etc.

Yes, but you would not say the geometrical theory was wrong based on empirical data, but on the logic on which it was based.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Yes, but you would not say the geometrical theory was wrong based on empirical data, but on the logic on which it was based.

Not necessarily.

 

[Death Lord]

Not necessarily.

Yes you do. Maths/geometry is not tested empirically.