Analytic Truth-Value

I am unable to contact you in PM, let me know how best to message you here or elsewhere and I’ll send you a few things.

In brief sum, analytic philosophy is empty, groundless, positivistic word-games with no relation to anything meaningful or significant. Analytic philosophy treats words as things in themselves and believes that mathematical operations constitute a sufficient and legitimate means of arriving at truths. Analytic philosophy is a willing apology to scientific positivism and to neoliberal capitalism, precisely because analytic philosophy deliberately evades real issues and real questions. It is for scientists who fail at philosophy, and “philosophers” who fail at science.

For an easy example consider the so called problem of analysis. The implicit assumption is that conceptual meaningfulness is always already strict definitional, and that definitions cannot give new information. Analytic philosophy is totally ignorant of what concepts are, why they exist, how the exist, from where they get or fail to get justification, as well as the fact that we already know far more than we know we know. Analytic philosophy tries to reduce thought, language and meaning to a barest standard of universal sufficiency, which is ironic since such a standard isn’t even possible because if it were possible that would necessarily violate what “thought, language and meaning” are to begin with, as well as why/how they are and why/how they are used and useful at all.

Analytic philosophy is basically the ideal of turning human minds into computers. It is deeply nihilistic and trends into the garbage of transhumanist/scientific positivism (i.e. religion).

Wyld is right, and it’s speaks well of our world of double talk, that crap is called analytic, and grounded is called synthetic

Haha, fair point.

Since analytic philosophy is mostly what you are personally doing, I suspect that you misunderstand to what the term is referring.

Analytic philosophy give us:

People only wear shorts when it is hot
John is wearing shirts
Therefor it is hot

Synthetic philosophy is:

Is it hot when john is wearing shorts?

James prides himself on being the resident logitician, but failed miserably with this post.

Analytic is the comparison of propositions, synthetic is matching a proposition to the world out there.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction

Link doesn’t work… Just type analytic synthetic into google

Analytic is not the opposite of synthetic, they are merely different.

Analytics are provable, necessarily true or false. Synthetics tend to be presumptuous, a thoughtless guess.

James doesn’t know what he is talking about. Well actually he does, he is just being deliberately misleading.

The philosophy that I engage in would be most associated to the continental tradition. That is where real philosophy resides. The problem is that much of continental philosophy also sucks, it just sucks for a different reason than the reason why analytic philosophy sucks.

Continental philosophy sucks because it is still quite nascent and hasn’t pushed far and honestly enough into its own method and conclusions. It “sucks” often enough because it actually has the potential to be great, and in rare cases reaches that potential.

Analytic philosophy sucks because it isn’t philosophy.

If you doubt me, check out this nonsense for an example: academia.edu/20883864/Causat … Your_Enemy

Or this, www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/20 … nstein.pdf

Well, you guys can invent your own personal definitions and idealized concepts of what “real philosophy” is if you like, but the “real world” of philosophers, seriously famous ones, say otherwise (e.g. Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, G. E. Moore and Ludwig Wittgenstein.).

You are each proposing that “real philosophy” is the bantering about subjects without even knowing what the subject is (common mindless thrashing … and accusing without examining). And your last few posts are in fact a reflection of such presumptuousness.

Ah, but what pompously sumptuous presumptuousness!

How sublimely hateful. But then they need new members for their lil hate fest, despite the help provided.

James is a believer in theoretical constructs. He thinks that forces are farces because they are clearly theoretical constructs that never were anything more than theoretical constructs, whereas affectance is a theoretical construct that is reality itself simply because it’s a part of an all-encompassing theory (which is a pretentious, practically useless, theory with a ridiculously high input/output ratio.) And QM is a fantasy even though it works because it doesn’t describe reality “as it is”. As if theories can ever be anything more than theories – procedures that can generate predictions based on given parameters.

So you tend to attempt to school the other rather than debate the other?

I was the one on topic.
How about actually read threads before you do your judging.

Sounds like a damn good reason.

You have absolutely no clue because you know nothing about it at all.
Yet here you are trying to derate it.
And why?
Certainly not because of your intellect.

RM:AO proves that theories can be “more than just theories”. But you wouldn’t know anything about that.

Theory is a description of a procedure that can be used to generate predictions using given parameters.

Theories can be created any way you want, but if they are to be of practical value, they must be grounded in prior observations – they must be able to predict past events. The greater the number of past events it can predict, the more grounded the theory.

The truth value of a theory is expressed as a set of its predictions that were tested (verified or falsified.)

You can simplify this expression by reducing it to a true/false ratio by dividing the number of verified predictions by the number of falsified predictions.

You can go further and reduce the expression to binary true/false using whatever method you want (one would be using “true” for >=0.5 t/f ratio and “false” for any other ratio.)

Because theories have a universal application, the number of predictions they can generate is infinite. This means that theories have no ultimate truth value. Instead, as its set of tested predictions changes, so does its truth value.

Theories are differentiated not only by their scope – by the range of predictions they can make – but also by the kind of input they take and by the speed with which output is generated.

All-encompassing theories are clumsy because they take too much input and because they take too much time to generate output. They are, for the most part, recreation.

Every instrument has advantages and disadvantages. There is no instrument without disadvantages. Whenever you switch from one instrument to another you are accepting certain trade-off. There is no ultimate instrument.

You can prove that theories are “more than just theories” lol. You totally solved Hume’s problem of induction, didn’t you?

That is called a “hypothesis”.

As we have discussed before … try to get your words right and perhaps others won’t seem as moronic as you acuse. And perhaps you will appear less so to them as well.

You have no idea of what is required of theories.

You are paying way too much of your attention to superficial, irrelevant, distinctions. Wyld was correct. You do not see beyond words. You are a herd animal. Language is everything there is for you.

What is required is determined by need. And there is no universal need.

But being a dumb herd animal that you are, with your longing for belonging, you cannot not believe in universal need.

On the contrary, you do not pay enough attention to relevant distinctions and thus mislead yourself and others. And Wyld will disagree with anything that I say regardless (arrested adolescents are like that).

Nah… It’s just the part of thinking that you are missing most.