Worldwide Genocide Continues: 13,867 DEAD from COVID-19 Shots

[Al-O-Meter]

Find a experiment that could falsify 1 + 1 = 2.

The capacity for proving 1+1=2 as being true or false is contained in the Principia Mathematica proof.

Bertrand Russell & Alfred North Whitehead - Principia Mathematica 1+1=2

Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead were British mathematicians who were in the vanguard of the British revolt.

www.storyofmathematics.com

Known or proved, not known and proved.

I'm going to need you to expand on that thought to understand what you are saying. Please give me an example of a thing that is known true but not proved true.

 

[One Brow]

The capacity for proving 1+1=2 as being true or false is contained in the Principia Mathematica proof.

You just pushed it off a level. Can you find a falsification for the method of logic used in Principia Mathematica?

I'm going to need you to expand on that thought to understand what you are saying. Please give me an example of a thing that is known true but not proved true.

Anything that is proven true is not falsifiable.

For your example, I offer any scientific theory you can name. Known true, but only because it is the best explanation of the available evidence, and all are unproven.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You just pushed it off a level. Can you find a falsification for the method of logic used in Principia Mathematica?

It is a 360 page proof. Are you asking me to prove the proof? I don't get what you are driving at.

Anything that is proven true is not falsifiable.

Falsifiability describes the capability to use evidence to conclusively prove or disprove a thing. I think we've got a miscommunication over this word that isn't important to the broader point of what differentiates opinion from fact. Let's go back to opinion versus fact.

For your example, I offer any scientific theory you can name. Known true, but only because it is the best explanation of the available evidence, and all are unproven.

Scientific theories are not scientific fact. The best explanation of the available evidence is typically called the null hypothesis. It isn't called scientific fact. Being considered scientific fact is a very high bar. Even ideas with a truly massive amount of evidence in support with no evidence against, such as Einstein's Special and General Relativity, are still not considered fact by PhD physicists.

As I said above, to get this back on track I think we should concentrate on how to distinguish fact from opinion. To be absolutely clear I don't intend this as a slight toward you but I am shocked at how confused our culture has made opinions and facts. When I googled 'opinion vs fact' all of the top results were from colleges. I hadn't thought this was college level stuff. That said, if you research opinion versus fact I think it will be clear where moral values fall.

 

[JazzyFresh]

Just a friendly reminder now that even the WHO is saying the lab theory is just as credible as the animal that was never found and a worldwide virus just magically apeared .435 miles away from the lab theory...

"There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases,"

"the thing we're extraordinarily confident about is that we're going to see this in the next few years."

-Fauci

Funder of said research... The guy who literally hid information that it could be lab leaked from day one for whatever reason.

 

[Red]

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

 

[One Brow]

It is a 360 page proof. Are you asking me to prove the proof? I don't get what you are driving at.

I'm actually pretty familiar with the proof.

What I'm getting at is that all mathematical proofs are based on assumptions that are declared to be obviously, reasoned at by methods that are declared to obvious, but there is not evidence that these assumptions and methods are true.

Falsifiability describes the capability to use evidence to conclusively prove or disprove a thing. I think we've got a miscommunication over this word that isn't important to the broader point of what differentiates opinion from fact. Let's go back to opinion versus fact.

More precisely, to whether everything that is not fact must therefore be an opinion, such as with th estatement you made, "Moral values are opinions. They cannot be falsified."

Scientific theories are not scientific fact. The best explanation of the available evidence is typically called the null hypothesis. It isn't called scientific fact. Being considered scientific fact is a very high bar. Even ideas with a truly massive amount of evidence in support with no evidence against, such as Einstein's Special and General Relativity, are still not considered fact by PhD physicists.

Fact is actually a very low bar in science. You see a piece of metal on a twisted wire move 1 degree, and that is a fact. The reading of 3.0 of a voltage meter is a fact. Facts are ordinary, everyday occurrences.

Theory and Fact | National Center for Science Education

One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

ncse.ngo

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

wise.fau.edu

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

As I said above, to get this back on track I think we should concentrate on how to distinguish fact from opinion. To be absolutely clear I don't intend this as a slight toward you but I am shocked at how confused our culture has made opinions and facts. When I googled 'opinion vs fact' all of the top results were from colleges. I hadn't thought this was college level stuff. That said, if you research opinion versus fact I think it will be clear where moral values fall.

I think it's pretty clear moral values are neither opinion nor fact. Part of your error is assuming opinion and fact form a partition over the class of all statements.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I think it's pretty clear moral values are neither opinion nor fact.

Do you believe that moral values are never a matter of opinion?

 

[Eminence]

Note - that is not what the phrase null hypothesis means at all.

 

[One Brow]

Do you believe that moral values are never a matter of opinion?

I think if the value is a matter of opinion, it is per force not a moral issue.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I think if the value is a matter of opinion, it is per force not a moral issue.

"Eating meat is wrong"

Is that an opinion or a moral value?

 

[One Brow]

"Eating meat is wrong"

Is that an opinion or a moral value?

It's a moral value. It may be correct or incorrect, but it's not an opinion. It's a conclusion based on premises that people may or may not accept.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

It's a moral value. It may be correct or incorrect, but it's not an opinion.

Given the dictionary definition of opinion you posted of an opinion being "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", how so? Your definition of opinion perfectly describes this situation yet you say it isn't an opinion. Do you have a different definition of opinion that would preclude a view or judgement which this clearly is?

I'm also curious as to how you think it could be correct or incorrect. By what metric would you judge correctness or incorrectness?

 

[One Brow]

Given the dictionary definition of opinion you posted of an opinion being "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", how so? Your definition of opinion perfectly describes this situation yet you say it isn't an opinion. Do you have a different definition of opinion that would preclude a view or judgement which this clearly is?

I'm also curious as to how you think it could be correct or incorrect. By what metric would you judge correctness or incorrectness?

Most adults who saying eating meat is moral, and most who say it is immoral, are basing their decisions on facts and knowledge.

You would judge by the metric of whether it is a conclusion to the correct set of of initial assumptions about the basic moral principles, contrary to them, or undetermined based on them but still with a moral value of it's own.

Let's go with something a little simpler and less likely to be controversial. Our commonly used mathematical system is based on a logical framework where every well-formed statement is either true or false. All of our commonly used are based upon adopting a set of 8 or so (depending on the construction) axioms/axiom schemas, which are chosen for seeming obviously true to us.

However, there will always mathematical statements that can't be proven true or false based on any non-contradictory axiom schema, and sometimes there will be statements that seem like they have to be true, and yet have consequences that are so absurd they seem obviously false. By the system we have set up, these statement have a real value of true or false, but we have no way of determining what that value is.

Given that this is true in something as simple as mathematics, I'm quite comfortable with the notion that in a more complex field like ethics, while every action that has a impact on others that they notice has a moral value, we may not be able to determine what they are. Our inability to authoritatively assign a value does not make every possible assignment equally valid.

 

[Avery]

This exchange by Al and OB is hands down the weirdest flirting I’ve seen in this forum.

 

[carey-scurry fan]

The VAERS database you just linked to is funded by taxes on the pharmacological companies and run the government you claim is keeping things secret.

You have nothing but slander and disinformation, stacked up by trying to prey on people's ignorance. We're all onto the game here. You haven't uncovered some secret cabal, you're not part of the chosen. you've been manipulated into feeling an exaggerated sense of importance.

Go do something that really matters. Give money to a homeless person, tell someone you love them, teach a child something new. You can really be important doing these things. Spreading the lies of the quacks and charlatans of the world only diminishes you.

No what you should do is gtfo my thread you were not invited here and thread is not titled attn one brow. You need to do something that matters like getting 20 karl malone flying elbows to the eye like isiah thomas or 20 porkchop elbows to the throat that stockton delivered. now thats a real crack-cine. u and al-o-meter need to start your own thread

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You would judge by the metric of whether it is a conclusion to the correct set of of initial assumptions about the basic moral principles, contrary to them, or undetermined based on them but still with a moral value of it's own.

I’m throwing in the towel on this one. There is a school of thought called moral realism that believes some moral judgements fall into the category of moral facts based on the idea that to inflict suffering is wrong. That is not a point of view that I subscribe to and believe it inevitably leads to pathologizing ideas (such as claiming speech is violence) and ultimately to zealotry.

The framework you’ve presented here isn’t traditional moral realism but is instead one in which morals, even contradicting morals, can be proved true based on the due diligence in forming the non-opinion moral value. If that works for you then it is what it is but it isn’t a framework that I can make workable. I’ll stick with the more traditional definitions of facts and opinions, and that moral values are a matter of opinion.

 

[One Brow]

No what you should do is gtfo my thread you were not invited here and thread is not titled attn one brow.

No, the thread is titled with a lie, and responding to lies is one of the pleasures in my life.

If you don't want me in your thread, appeal to Jason. If you just don't want to read my posts, put me on ignore. I'm not going to let you spread lies without challenge in here.

You need to do something that matters like getting 20 karl malone flying elbows to the eye like isiah thomas or 20 porkchop elbows to the throat that stockton delivered. now thats a real crack-cine.

Your hate is like ice cream for dessert.

 

[Avery]

No what you should do is gtfo my thread you were not invited here and thread is not titled attn one brow. You need to do something that matters like getting 20 karl malone flying elbows to the eye like isiah thomas or 20 porkchop elbows to the throat that stockton delivered. now thats a real crack-cine. u and al-o-meter need to start your own thread

Doing the math, that’s 800 stitches total for Thomas so that’d be satisfactory.

 

[One Brow]

There is a school of thought called moral realism that believes some moral judgements fall into the category of moral facts based on the idea that to inflict suffering is wrong.

That's one version of moral realism, but 'avoiding suffering' and realism are on separate axes of moral categorization. In fact, a moral-realistic version of utilitarianism might require you to inflict suffering directly.

That is not a point of view that I subscribe to and believe it inevitably leads to pathologizing ideas (such as claiming speech is violence) and ultimately to zealotry.

It's quite simple to create a realist framework where free speech is an absolute, or one where zealotry is an evil.

The framework you’ve presented here isn’t traditional moral realism but is instead one in which morals, even contradicting morals, can be proved true based on the due diligence in forming the non-opinion moral value. If that works for you then it is what it is but it isn’t a framework that I can make workable.

It takes a certain king of youthful arrogance to take the bare-bones description I've offered so far and presume I think there is something as concrete as provably true morals.

I’ll stick with the more traditional definitions of facts and opinions,

Sure, you stick with the level of complexity you can understand, and I'll stick the more nuanced and correct notions I have developed, since we're being passive-aggressive about it.

and that moral values are a matter of opinion.

So, there is no objective reason to think murdering a child because their crying irritates you is wrong? It's just our opinion?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

So, there is no objective reason to think murdering a child because their crying irritates you is wrong? It's just our opinion?

That is what I believe. I think murdering a child is morally horrific because our morals are subject to both behavioral norms and biological drives, both of which reinforce that moral value. If it were objectively wrong then animals wouldn’t have developed strategies to protect their young because there wouldn’t be a need. If you think it is somehow more morally wrong for a human to do that to another human as compared to an ant colony finding some larva to snack on then it isn’t objective. It is subjective and as such it is a widely held and fiercely defended opinion.