Are All Problems Solveable and obstacles surmountable?

Post Reply New Topic

I was responding to Btnyyr so I'm not sure what you're asking, but the world is both red and green and I don't trust a supposedly objective reality that says it's one or the other. And whether there is such a thing as objective reality is the subject of many books and dissertations by people with a lot more knowledge about the issue than I have so I can't begin to go there other than to say I think each of our realities is somewhat, but not wholly, subjective. And most certainly I agree with you if what you're saying is that sometimes one individual is right and the vast majority are wrong. The earth is round and goes around the sun, but once upon a time that was one person's opinion and the majority "knew" the earth to be flat and believed the sun revolved around the earth.

I wrote we should be open to others perspectives. I don't believe we should necessarily adopt them. Just consider them.

Did you find what Momsparky or I wrote at all helpful?

Everyone

I apologize for hurting everyone's feelings. I may have misunderstood things so please forgive my transgressions and my trespasses. Can we let bygones be bygones?

In the meantime, let's meet in cyberspace and have this nice delicious pizza? Is that fine?

Seriously, though things got out of hand and I'm dealing with personal issues with my ailing mother so I've been touchy about things moreso than ever. So is it good?

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 28 Jan 2015, 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

People can challenge what the majority thinks and prove the majority wrong and themselves correct by providing evidence to support their ideas, reinterpreting eggsisting information in new ways supported by evidence, making correct predictions, etc.

On most of the issues discussed in this thread, there is no objective reality or correct answer to be proved.
Personally, the approach that I take is to keep trying at what I want to do in many different ways despite difficulties, lack of ideal conditions, or lack of information, and this generally leads to increasing progress for me.
The approach that I have argued against taking is to analyze oneself out of initiating actions or building mental obstacles against doing things.

Actually, I agree with you here. If the majority claims All Swans are white, I have to disprove it by proving a black or a different colored swan exists figuratively. I never thought of doing this. What you're saying is to prove the counter-claim to someone else's claim and if the counter-claim is proven true through actual empirical evidence then I have disproven the original claim. This is a wonderful idea. Btbnnyr, you are most definitely a genius.

If I'm not able to prove the counter claim or the counter-claim is proven false then the original claim must be true by default, correct? In mathematics if non-A implies (B and non-B) then proof by contradiction proves that it must be A, right?

LOL...it's funny that a philosophy tread has maintained itself so long in the Parents Forum.

Only a bunch of Aspies can accomplish this

Ya, you're right my friend.

This is actually what some people do in debates. They will post links to studies and statistics to back up their claims or post a url to an article that supports their claim. I think some people go through all the trouble searching the net for a specific thing they saw a while back while I don't have any patience for it so I never do it. I expect them to do their own research if they are skeptical what I say. Nothing wrong with trying to look something up after a person makes a claim about something.

Most definitely and I have to make sure they're reputable as well. If it was a study done from your ex bf who claimed he could get free gas and other things then or a governmental institution I have to consider the source.

Proving or disproving things in science is not as simple as many people think it is.
Usually, a broad theory is still super useful even if there are identified cases that go against the theory and theoretically disprove it.
Mostly, things as shown as "probably true" or "probably false", but not absolutely as some people argue in theory or philosophy of science, but the practice of science is far from the theory, fortunately.
It is just preponderance of evidence that matters in science, also evidence showing similar things from different approaches is particularly supportive of a theory.
In social studies, it is likely impossible to prove theories to the levels of probably true that are reached in science.
In the topics of this thread, eberrything is highly subjective, so I suggest that it is impossible to prove anything.

I think people can almost prove anything to back up their claims. If I believed Obama was a pro terrorist, I am sure I can find a claim to back that up.

That would not be proving something to a high level of certainty required for proof. It would just be providing some information to support some argument. Anyone can do that, but that doesn't mean they have proved anything.

What would be the high level of certainty required exactly?

There is no eggsacly, but the level that we are certain about those scientific theories that are generally considered close to truth.

The kind of thing where someone makes an argument, then posts a link or two to support it is not what I am talking about when I say prove or get close to truth.

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03 ... arl-sagan/

Things can be scientifically proven, but you have to account for all the variables first: that is extremely difficult to do when considering issues of human behavior that has so many factors, including genetics, parental behavior, economics, social status, mood on that particular day...

See also http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

I think everyone on this thread, if you look very carefully, is essentially saying the same thing, but the words they choose to use to describe their experience are different. One needs to remember that words are not like binary code, but are malleable and can mean different things to different people.

Interesting. So, you think the issue might be semantics and pragmatics? It would make sense.

If it is then we need to agree upon definitions for our terms, IMHO. What do you think?