if you can't tell whether you're wrong

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

.

Love Ya, jvhlife!



Love All As ONE!
One!life

**************************************
How can you be sure you're right
April 26 2012 at 3:59 AM
No score for this post
JVH say (Login JVH)
---------------------------------------
if you can't tell whether you're wrong
---------------------------------------
rejected and denied by many,
accepted and embraced by few
: falsifiability - it is not
what we (think we) know
that matters, it is what
we can show true that
does as the maxim demands;
truth is demonstrably fact
and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability
Scoring disabled.
You must be logged in to score posts.
Respond to this message
*************************************
How can you be sure you're right
if you can't tell
whether you're wrong
March 26 2012 at 3:28 PM
No score for this post
JVH say (Login JVH)
----------------------------------
?
----------------------------------
rejected and denied by many,
accepted and embraced by few
: falsifiability - it is not
what we (think we) know
that matters, it is what we
can show true
that does as the maxim demands;
truth is demonstrably fact
and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability
Scoring disabled.
You must be logged in to score posts.
Respond to this message

http://www.network54.com/Forum/677144/message/1332793739/How+can+you+be+sure+you%27re+right+if+you+can%27t+tell+whether+you%27re+wrong

... you seem to have a misunderstanding of what (common) logic is because if you would have a proper understanding of what (common) logic is you would have understood right away what the 'question' conveys in the first place and would not have posed what you posed in the second place since it demonstrates that misunderstanding.

You seem to think (common) logic is something it is not.

Could, and would, you put in your own words what you think (common) logic is.......

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

Simple Logic as most might "understand" it (possibly youself) is typically related to what a person perceives within the physical world with their five senses.

Since God, Spirit, and other non-physical ideas are conceivably beyond the above standard logic, the answers to questions such as yours would certainly be misunderstood each and every time, ...all completely due to a particular and individual conditioning (if that indeed be the case).

"Individual conditioning" probably mostly depends on what "rules" were originally authored and accepted as "reasonable and logical" in order to facilitate, or create, or manipulate to the desired outcome.

... as commonly defined:

- the science that deals with and investigates the principles governing correct or reliable [the validity of] inference; the science of the formal principles of reasoning; the system or principles of [proper] reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study; a method of reasoning or argumentation
 
Apparently you seem to think logic is something it is not.

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

... as commonly defined:

- the science ... [[You apparently have somehow come to believe that logic itself is a science. see this as the opportunity to rethink your position concerning your comprehension of logic ...because you seem to think it is something it is not.
]]

 

Hey, if you choose not to go by the common definition of something and rather redefine it, fine by me, be your guest, as long as you realize you are doing it because if not.......

Anyway .... you do realize a proposition that implies its own negation is necessarily false and a proposition that is implied by its own negation is necessarily true, right?

Logic Evaluates

 

_____________________________________________
discussion; communication et al., becomes pointless
when people make up their own meanings of definitions
or simply redefine them into something hitherto totally
unknown to anyone other than themselves - rendering it
fiction, by definition

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

Since science comes from logic, science itself can not be logic. The scientific 'method' is logical surely. However, since logic is not a science and does not come from science, logic is used in a valid test FOR science. Science makes use of logic in such a way that whenever some "truth" is to be proven ..logic is a tool science uses. Science is not a tool of logic. It is the other way around.

science 

noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
EXPAND
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

 

Since (common) logic is the subject here, it looks like you are trying to change the subject. Why would you want to do that, since it, ironically, is a classic fallacy for one thing?

Those who understand the subject under discussion wouldn't dream of doing such, only those who don't would.

And that's the irony of incomprehensibility; by its very nature it forces itself to be exposed. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Since science comes from logic, science itself can not be logic.
The scientific 'method' is logical surely.
However, since logic is not a science and does not come from science, logic is used in a valid test FOR science.
Science makes use of logic in such a way that whenever some "truth" is to be proven ..logic is a tool science uses.
Science is not a tool of logic. It is the other way around."

Could you explain what you are saying here, because if not it would serve as the proof you really have no idea what you are on about because as an argument it makes no sense whatsoever and would serve as the proof you have no idea what a logical argument actually is.

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

If from your loaded question to logic to illogic is to big a problem for you ...then so be it - (not a problm here though).

You might have for yourself a great many self imposed rules alternate definitions?

"Since science comes from logic, science itself can not be logic.
The scientific 'method' is logical surely.
However, since logic is not a science and does not come from science, logic is used in a valid test FOR science.
Science makes use of logic in such a way that whenever some "truth" is to be proven ..logic is a tool science uses.
Science is not a tool of logic. It is the other way around."

Could you explain what you are saying here, because if not it would serve as the proof you really have no idea what you are on about because as an argument it makes no sense whatsoever and would serve as the proof you have no idea what a logical argument actually is.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/677144/message/1336031458/Illogic

.

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

What argument? Thre ain't no argument ...logical or otherwise.

Just saying take a peek outside the box.

i.e. Ask yourself some question like: Why is a crowbar made of ore from a mountain not simply called "mountain". Then run your answer (whatever it may be)through your current "truth system" for your proof. Keep trying and once you get the correct answer and you're fully convinced (you'll know when) ..apply the same reasoning to your LOGIC and your SCIENCE. Then, if it still all makes sense to you with no misunderstandings (this is the tricky part), you'll be ...well ...better wait and see...

 

I asked you to explain what you said, twice...

Apparently you can't, or won't ... and both those options, inability and unwillingness, happen to be self-explanatory.

Carry on ................

 

 

- a proposition that implies its own negation is necessarily false
a proposition that is implied by its own negation is necessarily true -

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

Explained it ..twice ...and misunderstood ..twice. no matter. shows its not for you.

 

If the former, your responses show you are irrational - if the latter, you're making stuff up -- and both options paint you an odd colour. 

Carry on.........

 

- a proposition that implies its own negation is necessarily false
a proposition that is implied by its own negation is necessarily true -

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

A second explaination was provided at your request due to your misunderstanding of the first explaination.

By admitting you are unable to understand either simple explaination as given shows there is no point in yet another.

However asking for a third explaination implies you may be lacking in what it takes to comprehend ANY explaination, which infers you would not understand another explaination anyway and offering another could even result in even more confusion and frustration-you don't need more of that.

Ask yourself this: "What makes me believe I'd comprehend a third explaination when I already can not understand zigs' first and second explainations?

Another explaination would only make sense when that blockage gets gone. Until then any explaination will be meaningless to you.


Hope this helps.

"Since science comes from logic, science itself can not be logic.
The scientific 'method' is logical surely.
However, since logic is not a science and does not come from science, logic is used in a valid test FOR science.
Science makes use of logic in such a way that whenever some "truth" is to be proven ..logic is a tool science uses.
Science is not a tool of logic. It is the other way around."

http://www.network54.com/Forum/677144/message/1335998012/Re-+Logic

 

- propositions that imply their own negation are necessarily false
whereas propositions implied by their own negation are necessarily true -

 

So, it's always quite easy to determine straight away whether what a proposition offers is true or false. Since the propositions you posed imply their own negation, they are necessarily false.

Carry on .............

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

Crowbars are made FROM ore dug from mountains. Mountains are formed from the action of earthquakes. One might say crowbars were made possible by earthquakes while not meaning crowbars ARE earthquakes. Science uses logic. but logic is not a science (unless thinking be a science also).

Is your "argument" with this ?

 

http://www.network54.com/Forum/677144/message/1336645305/If+you+can%27t+tell+whether+you%27re+wrong

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

But if you CAN tell whether you're wrong or not, then you know when you're right.

Now wait......Are scientists ever wrong about anything, such as evolution?

if you can't tell whether you're wrong

 

But if you CAN tell whether you're wrong or not, then you know when you're right. -- Most probably, the 'question' however is, how.....

Now wait......Are scientists ever wrong about anything, such as evolution? -- I'm sure they are, but is not the point.

 

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

JVH say
(Login JVH) How can you be sure you're right
No score for this post
April 28 2012, 12:34 AM

if you can't tell whether you're wrong

But if you CAN tell
whether you're wrong or not,
then you know when you're right.
-- Most probably, the 'question'
however is, how.....

Now wait......
Are scientists ever wrong about anything,
such as evolution?
-- I'm sure they are,
but is not the point.

One!life > So what is it!

Left hang'n!


Love Ya, jvhlife!

Love All As ONE!
One!life


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rejected and denied by many,
accepted and embraced by few
: falsifiability - it is not
what we (think we) know that matters,
it is what we can show true
that does as the maxim demands;
truth is demonstrably fact
and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability



Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts. Respond to this message

 

Anyway ... yeah, what's the point, or rather, function, of a question that entails the answer?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/677144/message/1333669502/What+if+...+what+we+%26quot%3Bknow%26quot%3B+was+chosen+to+deceive-

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability

JVH: "Anyway ... yeah, what's the point, or rather, function, of a question that entails the answer?"


Then.........What is the answer?

Elenchus

... is provided through what 'the question' says and addresses.

So, if you understand what 'the question' says and addresses, then the answer should be obvious to you.

Since you request for the answer to be provided, it implies you are unable to derive it yourself from 'the question' posed, which infers you do not understand what the question says, addresses or both.

If so, what makes you think you'd understand the answer if you do not understand what 'the question' entails?

I mean, the answer would only make sense to you in direct relation to the context which doesn't seem to make sense to you in the first place, so, the answer would be meaningless to you.

Ergo; 'the question', or rather, the theorem or maxim, is not for you, yet it captures the essence of something within this one sentence.

 

 

you take an observed phenomenon, ask a question in direct relation to it,
come up with a hypothesis, get evidence that supports the hypothesis,
test the evidence to see if it supports the hypothesis,
then use the results of the test to check whether it fits the hypothesis
or whether the hypothesis needs to be to modified to reflect the evidence

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability