|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:19 pm
Medeus Very astute. So how can you tell the difference? logic bro
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:57 pm
Orphie Medeus Very astute. So how can you tell the difference? logic bro Right on sistuh. So if something doesn't make logical sense, it's reasonable to assume it's not true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:43 pm
Medeus Orphie Medeus Very astute. So how can you tell the difference? logic bro Right on sistuh. So if something doesn't make logical sense, it's reasonable to assume it's not true? Obviously this isn't always true, but generally speaking sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:51 pm
Orphie Medeus Orphie Medeus Very astute. So how can you tell the difference? logic bro Right on sistuh. So if something doesn't make logical sense, it's reasonable to assume it's not true? Obviously this isn't always true, but generally speaking sure. Well, the only places that Logic doesn't work is when you try to get into the logistics of "Why?" My favorite example: Quote: "Why is the sky blue?" "Because of the way Light reflects off of air particles, duh..." "No that's how the sky is blue. I'm asking why?" Is it possible for Logic to aid those questions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 2:54 pm
It's blue because that is the color refracted when the light goes off the water particles. We have no choice for it to be blue, so that is an accepted fact. It's backed up by evidence and supported, it is fact. Not much you can do to change it, so live with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:28 pm
l-Kathulu-l It's blue because that is the color refracted when the light goes off the water particles. We have no choice for it to be blue, so that is an accepted fact. It's backed up by evidence and supported, it is fact. Not much you can do to change it, so live with it. I thought it was blue because blue was the easiest color for the human eyes to see, and that it didn't actually have a tint at all, but that makes sense too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharkbutt The Orgiastic Crew
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:00 pm
Cabron LaSwan l-Kathulu-l It's blue because that is the color refracted when the light goes off the water particles. We have no choice for it to be blue, so that is an accepted fact. It's backed up by evidence and supported, it is fact. Not much you can do to change it, so live with it. I thought it was blue because blue was the easiest color for the human eyes to see, and that it didn't actually have a tint at all, but that makes sense too. I wonder if that's also why blue is psychologically perceived as a calming color, because it's the easiest to see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:04 pm
Medeus Quote: "Why is the sky blue?" "Because of the way Light reflects off of air particles, duh..." "No that's how the sky is blue. I'm asking why?" Is it possible for Logic to aid those questions? Yes. This is why I like science, actually, because given enough time, effort, knowledge, testing, analysis, and thought, you can answer nearly any question. And the beauty of it is that it only brings up more questions, leading to more discoveries, and so on. EDIT: Alright, now I see what you meant. But you know, it's kind of a silly point to make. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharkbutt The Orgiastic Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:17 pm
Wantcookie Medeus Quote: "Why is the sky blue?" "Because of the way Light reflects off of air particles, duh..." "No that's how the sky is blue. I'm asking why?" Is it possible for Logic to aid those questions? Yes. This is why I like science, actually, because given enough time, effort, knowledge, testing, analysis, and thought, you can answer nearly any question. And the beauty of it is that it only brings up more questions, leading to more discoveries, and so on. EDIT: Alright, now I see what you meant. But you know, it's kind of a silly point to make. xd Not silly at all. Completely reasonable. For instance, would it be logically reasonable to ignore the evidence and believe whatever we want about the color Blue? If I pointed to a Green crayon and said, "This is what color the sky is!" despite the evidence and common acceptance of the true color of the sky, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that there's a problem with My perception than the actual logical answer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:38 pm
Medeus Wantcookie Medeus Quote: "Why is the sky blue?" "Because of the way Light reflects off of air particles, duh..." "No that's how the sky is blue. I'm asking why?" Is it possible for Logic to aid those questions? Yes. This is why I like science, actually, because given enough time, effort, knowledge, testing, analysis, and thought, you can answer nearly any question. And the beauty of it is that it only brings up more questions, leading to more discoveries, and so on. EDIT: Alright, now I see what you meant. But you know, it's kind of a silly point to make. xd Not silly at all. Completely reasonable. For instance, would it be logically reasonable to ignore the evidence and believe whatever we want about the color Blue? If I pointed to a Green crayon and said, "This is what color the sky is!" despite the evidence and common acceptance of the true color of the sky, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that there's a problem with My perception than the actual logical answer? I'm sorry, my mind's eye just had a flash of toddler-Med with a green crayon raised high in the air and now I can't stop giggling. xd Also, it looks like I may have misunderstood you yet again. I don't really see how that connects to what I thought you meant, so I can only assume I thought wrong. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharkbutt The Orgiastic Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:52 pm
Wantcookie Medeus Wantcookie Medeus Quote: "Why is the sky blue?" "Because of the way Light reflects off of air particles, duh..." "No that's how the sky is blue. I'm asking why?" Is it possible for Logic to aid those questions? Yes. This is why I like science, actually, because given enough time, effort, knowledge, testing, analysis, and thought, you can answer nearly any question. And the beauty of it is that it only brings up more questions, leading to more discoveries, and so on. EDIT: Alright, now I see what you meant. But you know, it's kind of a silly point to make. xd Not silly at all. Completely reasonable. For instance, would it be logically reasonable to ignore the evidence and believe whatever we want about the color Blue? If I pointed to a Green crayon and said, "This is what color the sky is!" despite the evidence and common acceptance of the true color of the sky, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that there's a problem with My perception than the actual logical answer? I'm sorry, my mind's eye just had a flash of toddler-Med with a green crayon raised high in the air and now I can't stop giggling. xd Also, it looks like I may have misunderstood you yet again. I don't really see how that connects to what I thought you meant, so I can only assume I thought wrong. xd I wanna cartoon of that. Well I have no idea what you thought I meant, so I can't really clarify for ye. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:54 pm
Medeus Wantcookie Medeus Wantcookie Medeus Quote: "Why is the sky blue?" "Because of the way Light reflects off of air particles, duh..." "No that's how the sky is blue. I'm asking why?" Is it possible for Logic to aid those questions? Yes. This is why I like science, actually, because given enough time, effort, knowledge, testing, analysis, and thought, you can answer nearly any question. And the beauty of it is that it only brings up more questions, leading to more discoveries, and so on. EDIT: Alright, now I see what you meant. But you know, it's kind of a silly point to make. xd Not silly at all. Completely reasonable. For instance, would it be logically reasonable to ignore the evidence and believe whatever we want about the color Blue? If I pointed to a Green crayon and said, "This is what color the sky is!" despite the evidence and common acceptance of the true color of the sky, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that there's a problem with My perception than the actual logical answer? I'm sorry, my mind's eye just had a flash of toddler-Med with a green crayon raised high in the air and now I can't stop giggling. xd Also, it looks like I may have misunderstood you yet again. I don't really see how that connects to what I thought you meant, so I can only assume I thought wrong. xd I wanna cartoon of that. Well I have no idea what you thought I meant, so I can't really clarify for ye. razz Well, I thought you were starting to get into the eventual asymptotic nature of being able to answer "Why." xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharkbutt The Orgiastic Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 pm
Wantcookie Medeus Wantcookie Medeus Wantcookie Yes. This is why I like science, actually, because given enough time, effort, knowledge, testing, analysis, and thought, you can answer nearly any question. And the beauty of it is that it only brings up more questions, leading to more discoveries, and so on. EDIT: Alright, now I see what you meant. But you know, it's kind of a silly point to make. xd Not silly at all. Completely reasonable. For instance, would it be logically reasonable to ignore the evidence and believe whatever we want about the color Blue? If I pointed to a Green crayon and said, "This is what color the sky is!" despite the evidence and common acceptance of the true color of the sky, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that there's a problem with My perception than the actual logical answer? I'm sorry, my mind's eye just had a flash of toddler-Med with a green crayon raised high in the air and now I can't stop giggling. xd Also, it looks like I may have misunderstood you yet again. I don't really see how that connects to what I thought you meant, so I can only assume I thought wrong. xd I wanna cartoon of that. Well I have no idea what you thought I meant, so I can't really clarify for ye. razz Well, I thought you were starting to get into the eventual asymptotic nature of being able to answer "Why." xd Well that comes later. First we have to agree that Logic is a universal concept, and that individuals who deviate from the path of reason probably aren't too clear themselves on answers about "How", much less answers about "Why", eh? In short, finite truth should be something that everybody can reasonably agree upon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:10 pm
Medeus Wantcookie Medeus Wantcookie Medeus Wantcookie Yes. This is why I like science, actually, because given enough time, effort, knowledge, testing, analysis, and thought, you can answer nearly any question. And the beauty of it is that it only brings up more questions, leading to more discoveries, and so on. EDIT: Alright, now I see what you meant. But you know, it's kind of a silly point to make. xd Not silly at all. Completely reasonable. For instance, would it be logically reasonable to ignore the evidence and believe whatever we want about the color Blue? If I pointed to a Green crayon and said, "This is what color the sky is!" despite the evidence and common acceptance of the true color of the sky, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that there's a problem with My perception than the actual logical answer? I'm sorry, my mind's eye just had a flash of toddler-Med with a green crayon raised high in the air and now I can't stop giggling. xd Also, it looks like I may have misunderstood you yet again. I don't really see how that connects to what I thought you meant, so I can only assume I thought wrong. xd I wanna cartoon of that. Well I have no idea what you thought I meant, so I can't really clarify for ye. razz Well, I thought you were starting to get into the eventual asymptotic nature of being able to answer "Why." xd Well that comes later. First we have to agree that Logic is a universal concept, and that individuals who deviate from the path of reason probably aren't too clear themselves on answers about "How", much less answers about "Why", eh? In short, finite truth should be something that everybody can reasonably agree upon. Clearly. It is self evident and impossible to disprove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharkbutt The Orgiastic Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:34 pm
Wantcookie Clearly. It is self evident and impossible to disprove. Interesting analysis. If that's true, than how is it possible for so many people in one place to disagree about everything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
