Nice try, smartass.
Is "scientification" of fantasy pretensious?
Kayden Sanchez
Ethan Williams
No, he's referring to an academic discussion that's actually a thing.
Henry Adams
He's not a smartass, you Sith-ass busta.
Luke Foster
If you want off the merry-go-round, the law of causality is also a principle of deductive logic.
It's also non-falsifiable.
Yet still rational. More rational in fact, than induction, where there is always doubt.
Logan Cook
Still a valid question. Your absolutist spin on your initial statement was called to the carpet. Then your dismissal and failure to "deal with it," makes it all the worse for you.
If absolutes do not exist absolutely, then that's a logical contradiction begging the question. If that's true, then you're either an existentialist, lying, or insane. A reasonably sane existentialist (absurdist) wouldn't dare make an absolute statement, unless they were stupid or willfully ignorant.
Seeing that "there are no absolutes" is absurd, we can rationally conclude there is at least one absolute. Even a dilettante like Ayn Rand understood this.
Brayden Gonzalez
>a pseudo-intellectual tries to argue philosophy with someone on an anonymous imageboard
Pray tell then: is there an absolute evil in our world? Because everyone has a different idea of what is right and wrong. Just look at politics.
Isaiah Jackson
>using human moral positions as the basis for determining absolute morality
theresyourproblem.jpg
damn you Veeky Forums, my sausages are going to burn
Joshua James
If human moral positions can't determine absolute morality, then it is impossible for it to exist in our reality as we know it.
Jaxon Bell
No, he's not. "Scientism" refers to people putting too much stock in anything perceived as scientific even if real science doesn't pretend to cover it, like claiming science proves/disproves the existence of god when deities, by their very nature, exist outside the laws that govern the observable universe. We're not talking about epistemology here, we're talking about fiction writing.
This whole thread reeks of "I got a C+ in Intro to Philosophy and that means I know EVERYTHING"
Henry Sanchez
Deductive reasoning does not utilize cause and effect.
Besides, it's mostly the uniformity principle that you have issue with.
Deductive reasoning doesn't utilize the uniformity principle, while inductive reasoning requires it.
To illustrate, given I expect hardly anyone to actually understand the situation given you're philosophical laymen:
"All bachelors are unmarried" is an a priori true deductive statement. It doesn't not require the uniformity principle. It does not require causality.
"I am a bachelor" is an inductive claim - it needs to be tested against experience in order to confirm its truth or falsity. This *does* require that the world and our experience be consistent, because if they weren't then we would be incapable of saying whether or not I am, in fact, a bachelor.