UFO's and extra-terrestrial life

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Hatch

Actually your reasoning is quite unscientific.
A priori excluding, even to you, irrational explanations is opposite to sound scientific practice.

Can someone translate this into English please.

[Mr Logic]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Can someone translate this into English please.

As I have previously emphasised, all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof.

Were truth to be incontestably established, any passionate rhetoric and/or dialectic would ipso facto be rendered superfluous.

As truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems, all belief systems render themselves self perpetuating due to both their protagonist's and antagonist's continual and often passionate reaffirmation of the unknowable.

However; Sentient life and/or existence would not be possible were it not for belief systems in themselves, as proposed by Immanuel Kant in his 'Critique of Pure Reason' wherein it is mooted that the a priori continuum of a particle from second to second is essential for survival of cognizance, often described by the ludicrously simplistic 'tree in a forest' analogy.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Mr Logic

As I have previously emphasised, all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof.

Were truth to be incontestably established, any passionate rhetoric and/or dialectic would ipso facto render itself superfluous.

As truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems, all belief systems render themselves self perpetuating due to both their protagonist's and antagonist's continual and often passionate reaffirmation of the unknowable.

However, sentient life and/or existence would not be possible were it not for belief systems in themselves, as proposed by Immanuel Kant in his 'Critique of Pure Reason' wherein it is mooted that the a priori continuum of a particle from second to second is essential for survival of cognizance, often described by the ludicrously simplistic 'tree in a forest' analogy.

Wow you must have had to do a lot of acid to come up with that.

[CharveL]

Or a sound understanding of critical reasoning.

[Mr Logic]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Wow you must have had to do a lot of acid to come up with that.

Your statement is is erroneous on a number of counts.

I was not forced or obliged to emit low pH number solutions from any orifice.

Nor would such emanations lead to thought provoking circumstances.

I would suggest you consult the 'world wide web' on the philosophical works of the aformentioned Mr. Kant.

[Wolf_Rider]

Life (whatever its base) will exist wherever conditions are right for it to do so

[Mr Logic]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Life (whatever its base) will exist wherever conditions are right for it to do so

I fail to see how you would back up this hypothesis with sound empirical data, given that the number of locations at which you would conduct research is one.

Therefore your statement is one of belief. See above.

[Wolf_Rider]

Fact... check the depth of the ocean for fish, which live there under great pressure, for one, and life which exists under the Antarctic ice shelves in extremely cold conditions, for two. Creatures which exist under the sands of the hotest deserts, three, and geothermic ocean vent critters, four.

rather extreme conditions, yet life exists.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Mr Logic

As I have previously emphasised, all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof.

Were truth to be incontestably established, any passionate rhetoric and/or dialectic would ipso facto be rendered superfluous.

As truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems, all belief systems render themselves self perpetuating due to both their protagonist's and antagonist's continual and often passionate reaffirmation of the unknowable.

These are odd statements, especially coming from someone who calls himself Mr Logic.

"all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof" - what about the "belief systems" of mathematics and propositional logic? These have incontestable proofs, since they have axioms.

Inside these systems truths can indeed be ascertained, since the steps by which the axioms can be used to prove other propositions are clear.

Furthermore, your statements are self defeating. If indeed the proposition "truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems" is true, then it cannot be ascertained within the belief system that contains this proposition.

So does this make your expression of the proposition an exercise in "rhetoric", or does it simply mean that your understanding of logic is a lot less impressive that you appear to believe? Or perhaps a more charitable explanation is that you have been unable to communicate clearly?

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by unreasonable

These are odd statements, especially coming from someone who calls himself Mr Logic.

"all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof" - what about the "belief systems" of mathematics and propositional logic? These have incontestable proofs, since they have axioms.

Inside these systems truths can indeed be ascertained, since the steps by which the axioms can be used to prove other propositions are clear.

Furthermore, your statements are self defeating. If indeed the proposition "truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems" is true, then it cannot be ascertained within the belief system that contains this proposition.

So does this make your expression of the proposition an exercise in "rhetoric", or does it simply mean that your understanding of logic is a lot less impressive that you appear to believe? Or perhaps a more charitable explanation is that you have been unable to communicate clearly?

Math isnt a belief system.