No need

Ahhh, >NOW< you're beginning to understand.

It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with that.

That's right, you're the one who thinks talking about anything except the point you claim to be refuting is a reasonable rhetorical device.

That's right, ANOTHER data point about how your limitations will convince you that you're approximating "The Truth" when you're just assembling random "facts".

No. I've just collected another data point that you will spew intentionally random pronouncements in an effort to derail someone's position. I believe this leads nearer to certainty that you don't care about being reasonable.

Well, that just doesn't seem to match with the discussion in Politics that started this.

I didn't read that discussion or reply to anything in it. I replied to the one in here.

Skip back 2000 years and tell me about viruses. Then tell me that we NOW can perceive EVERYTHING that exists.

Do people get sick? Yes they do. Some people supposed this was the act of some malicious god. Some supposed that there might be some other mechanism at work. They developed ways to test for it. Sounds to me like they "perceived' something.

[2] With the senses. Your supposed refutatin of the traffic story depends on refuting the evidence of the senses.
How so? If I am deaf and see a car coming at me, is there any reason to think that, just because I do not hear it, it doesn't exist?

You don't count seeing it as "perceiving" it? Well, if you don't know what "perceive" means either I guess that explains why you don't get it.

You >THINK< you're getting closer to "The Truth" but all you're doing is gathering "facts" that support your current opinions.

For about the fifth time, neither Morlowe nor I have suggested (in this thread) that we expect to approach "The Truth," but that we expect to approach certainty. And that this certainty is useful.

Then tell me that we NOW can perceive EVERYTHING that exists ... I do not believe I can perceive EVERYTHING does NOT mean that nothing exists.

Challenge me to assert an absolute position, then disclaim an absolute position for yourself. Nice.

See, I'm arguing from a premise that ackowledges there may be some things that can not be perceived. That is not the same as the set of things that currently are perceived. And I am concluding that if there are things that can not be perceived, then those things are not worth arguing about.

That's right, you're the one who thinks talking about anything except the point you claim to be refuting is a reasonable rhetorical device.

Nope. I just don't have any problem with quoting the ORIGINAL statements in the discussion. Which you seem to have a problem accepting. Why? If the discussion threads from the ORIGINAL statement, then why do you have a problem bringing the discussion BACK to that statement? Presumably AFTER all the definitions and clarifications have been worked out?

I believe this leads nearer to certainty that you don't care about being reasonable.

And, as has been pointed out in these threads "certainty" has NOTHING to do with "facts". You can be as "certain" as you like. I'll wait for the facts to present themselves.

I didn't read that discussion or reply to anything in it. I replied to the one in here.

Well, I guess that makes you just a little bit un-informed, doesn't it?

You see, Marlowe used those terms in the Political threads. To say something COMPLETELY different than what he is claiming now.

That is why I quoted his post from Politics.

Which is something you had a problem with.

"Certainty" again. You >KNOW< you're right and no facts to the contrary will convince you otherwise.

And the FACT is that Marlowe used "truth" in that thread which led to this thread.

Do people get sick?

Yep. Germs. There. Problem solved. No need to dig further. It doesn't have any real world application.

They developed ways to test for it.

Yep. Because they weren't satisfied with "no real world" applications.

You don't count seeing it as "perceiving" it?

Well, since I gave an example of a deaf person SEEING a car, what would >YOU< think? Again, simply because I cannot "perceive" EVERYTHING does NOT mean that NOTHING exists. The classical refutation to your example (usually covered in phil101).

Well, if you don't know what "perceive" means either I guess that explains why you don't get it.

Again, you display your inability to understand NEW CONCEPTS. Instead, you'll just attempt to fit it to your pre-existing opinion.

Read back through these posts and you'll see that the ONLY things I've said DO NOT EXIST are:
1. The tooth fairey (and her house and the paint on her house)
2. "The Truth".

>YOU< are the one going on and on and on about how being hit by a car. Yes, it was >YOU< that posted it the FIRST time. I refuted it then (and also pointed out that it had NOTHING to do with my position) BUT YOU KEEP BRINGING IT BACK.

Why? I never said that TRAFFIC didn't exist.

I NEVER said that cars and trucks don't exist.

>YOU< are the one that went on about your "example".

>YOU< are the one who is intellectually incapable of evaluating new concepts (#1. I didn't say that traffic didn't exist).

Which is ANOTHER data point in how >YOU< are incapable of determining what is "Reality" or "Truth" or even "fact".

Keep going on about it. You're just generating more data points.

For about the fifth time, neither Morlowe nor I have suggested (in this thread) that we expect to approach "The Truth," but that we expect to approach certainty.

Great! But do you understand that this thread is borne from the previous thread?

And that this certainty is useful.

FOR WHAT?!?

We've ALREADY established that such "certainty" is NOT based upon facts or evidence or ANYTHING! Elvis is ALIVE is a "certainty".

Challenge me to assert an absolute position, then disclaim an absolute position for yourself. Nice.

No. I'm challenging >YOU< to explain your current position IN RESPECT TO MARLOWE'S ORIGINAL POST.

I'm saying there IS NO "TRUTH". ("Truth" used as in "The Truth).

Never has been, never will be.

Now, how is it possible for you to think that is anything other than an absolute?

How?

See, I'm arguing from a premise that ackowledges there may be some things that can not be perceived.

And that is the FIRST intelligent thing you've posted in this thread.

That is not the same as the set of things that currently are perceived.

I hope that makes sense to you. It means nothing to me.

And I am concluding that if there are things that can not be perceived, then those things are not worth arguing about.

And my answer to that is....................

200 years ago

xrays

Welcome to IWETHEY!