How do you test the validity of your assertions?

Seems a simple question… one that most of you will avoid. or just assert that you do do this. . but not supply us with any operational information which we could use and test ourselves… if you have never tested your assertions… you sure cant tell us how too…

So. .let’s see if any of you are here to really learn or really practice philo or if this is just another group of fools who are here to attempt to get people to agree with thier borrowed pack of assumptions?

So. . there is. I say a way to test ones assertions. and i have seen none of it in this forum. but am ready to find out that one of you has some clue. some interest… some life in you. . to pursue this. . seemingly. very important question.

we will see.

Posts like this one. which ask people to enter into a conversation where they do not have borrowed knowledge… usually get ignored and for good reason. they expose the lack of intelligence of those who participate… . and. . well. I observe that most people want to protect themselves from being found out wrong/ignorant/unsure…lol… so they continue avoiding seeing where they are ignorant/lacking in information… and call this ignornace of the fact that they do not know something. . intelligence. .

let play.

:laughing:

depends on your assertion;

but the general means to test validity is through experiments/conscious action.

why ask such a boring question? like watching paint dry.

I’m [size=200]notsure[/size] about this question.

Trevor_W

depends on your assertion;

but the general means to test validity is through experiments/conscious action.

why ask such a boring question? like watching paint dry.

You must be bored… or boring. i mean. .

Why answer such a question that brings out your bordem or makes you feel bored?

What is that for?

Now. . in gerneral you have not PROVIDED me with any USABLE information. .

How do I TEST if what you say is correct. .that was the question and you have not only ignored it but seemingly assumed you have answered it.

again

Seems a simple question… one that most of you will avoid. or just assert that you do do this. . but not supply us with any operational information which we could use and test ourselves… if you have never tested your assertions… you sure cant tell us how too…

You must not understand what I mean. .how I use the word OPERATIONAL… when it comes to information. because yours is completely USELESS in an operational sense.

how do you understand the use of that word. . operational information?

I do not rely on dictionaries to tell me how to think and what to think. .as i watch most people do. . if you cannot tell me waht you are talking about then I observe that you are simply a parrot of other peoples ideas. and… only a little more intersting than a book. . boring as you put it. . yes. . you are boring. . lol

or. . maybe i am wrong. .

let’s see,

OK COMP. .

Apparently you wish to remain that way as well…

10101010101010101010101010

0101010101010

010101010

=P~

Validity is measured in two ways via propositional logic, namely deduction and induction. Trevor is a scientist and this is why he mentions ‘testing’, which is the mainstay of inductive validity.

Philosophers tend to prefer deductive validity and to test an assertion for deductive validity one has a variety of tools at ones disposal, including truth tables, symbolic logic and old fashioned expositions, for example:

P1) If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal.
P2) Socrates is a man

C1) Socrates is mortal.

This argument has the deductively valid conclusion that Socrates is mortal, which in this case would be our “assertion” to be “tested”. The argument is modus ponens, one of the most common forms of a decutively valid argument form.

P → Q,    P
       Q 

It necessarily follows from the propositions than the conclusion is to be accepted.

A deductively valid argument, therefore, is one in which it would be impossible to accept the premises without also accepting the conclusion.

The OP is right to suggest this is a very important question and while I dont enjoy the tone of his post, I do agree that anyone even slightly confused as to the relevance of this thread cannot hope to call themselves a philosopher until such time as they fully understand the importance of it.

Obw - this is all fine and well.

you have repeated what someone else has told you… so you are a slave to thier method of finding out if what you sy is correct or not… according to how they say so… cause it appears you have not practiced this… . not asked any questions yourself… because the way to ask and the questions are all supplied for you… . “Socrates is a man”… LMFAO

that is what you consider the important assertions you make.

to call yourself a philosopher when you talk about foolish things like socrates being a man is hilarious

And what with this Antithiesm?

You are against something which is not real?

And what makes you think that your doctrine. dogma is any more valid?

What are the limits of that system of Logic… I asked you how you test yoru assertions and you gave me a method of logic… you did not tell me anything I could not read in a book. and it is useless as well.

You dont see that you use WORDS to find out if your WORDS are correct. .what foolish nonsense and NOOTHING close to validating.

So… YOU are the one who needs to be warned aginst the dangers of using Logic and passing THAT pack of lies on to children. and there are you warning us about them. when it is you who are the danger.

lol

notsure - a couple of points:

We do not test the validity of our assertions at all. In philosophy, validity pertains to arguments, and not assertions. You may be talking about verification, or you may be talking nonsense. Validity speaks to the formal characteristics of an argument, and not to any assertion it may make.

If a question is too general, it cannot be answered. If it is too specific, it has no philosophical import by itself. If it is just vague, it’s a bad question by any measure.

If it’s just nonsense, like “How many antlers does a zebra have?”, or “How do we test the validity of our assertions?”, then it is just not worth answering.

Your question would probably get more response if it made sense. You might do well to tone down the arrogance, at least until you demonstrate that you have the vaguest idea what you are talking about.

Just a friendly tip.

Faust is completely right of course- the original post didn’t make any sense. I was a little too generous, in hindsight, in my interpretation of his intent.

I noticed that, Obw - you gave our friend here the benefit of the doubt. No good deed goes unpunished.

Allow me to state the words of an old country song–
“If it will, it will.
If it won’t, it won’t.
If it does, it does.
If it don’t. it don’t.”

notsure

I make it all up as I go and hope in the wake of my subterfuge that really smart special people like yourself won’t notice.

Show me the operational purpose of your smugness and attitude and I will stand quieted.

Notsure,

Scientifically, philosophical validity is called logical consistency. Scientific validity is concensual acceptance of an assertion by the majority of scientists of a particular specialty, based on the mass of observations or experiments pertinent to the assertion.

Operationally, one asks an expert to validate a scientific assertion.

Notsure,

with a question as vague as yours i can’t help but give a vague response. If you ask me how I test the validity of a particular assertion i can provide you with my grounds for belief or admittance of my own ignorance in the subject in question, otherwise we are beating a dead horse(aka acting in a useless mannor)

If I assert that humans are sentiant, my grounds for believing so is the responsive action which involintarily arises when i stub my toe(sensation or pain), or burn my hand(sensation of pain), or eat an apple(sensation of taste).

If i assert that humans are mortal, my grounds are the unresponsiveness of these people who were conscious and now cannot be woke up. Also, they’re body will start to decompose and thier body will cease to exist along with they’re consciousness.

Some things are just assumed to be the case based on our prior experiance and assumptions which were proved to be factual by means of scientific study or the analysis of our environment and its contents and reactions.

The problem with this discussion is your question as many have pointed out.

I would love to show you my ignorance and supply you with an answer but am unalbe to come up with one as I do not understand the question. This, for me anyway, can not be blamed on having an education because I have none. I am simple and stupid to the bone all on my own.

assertions - assertion - the act of asserting.

How can I possibly validate my act of asserting.

asserting - to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively

I know, listen to the tone of my voice and you will see that I am positive and forceful. Yes, aggressive too. I am ready to learn.

thaks CDf. . finally a post that seems worth replying too ,

I would love to show you my ignorance and supply you with an answer but am unalbe to come up with one as I do not understand the question. This, for me anyway, can not be blamed on having an education because I have none. I am simple and stupid to the bone all on my own.

What a wonderful way to be… . simple and stupid. . I love it. . . :laughing:

assertions - assertion - the act of asserting.

How can I possibly validate my act of asserting.

You make an assertion… . state or declare something. . . like. “Unicorns have 6 toes.” now. . do you have a method to test the things you say…

do you just refer to a book. .an authority… . like the religious… or you use a mthod you have never questioned… like Logic. . and have such a strong belief in the validity of it. . that you take the words you tell yourself… about the words you tell yourself. . as something called. ‘truth’… true… or right?

You rely on WORDS about what you call reality… and have no manner in which to TEST if those words are not just noises in the wind.folks sounds . as I see most are in this group and most others. .

asserting - to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively

I know, listen to the tone of my voice and you will see that I am positive and forceful. Yes, aggressive too. I am ready to learn.

When you say Learn. how are you using that word?

Most of the people in this group can use words. . they use lots. but when you ask them how they are using a word. they refer you to thier authority/god/boss… . provider of THE ONE RIGHT WAY to think about things… THE DICTIONARY.

so. you use the word. learn. . well. how would you know if you learn?

what would be an operational definition of a person who is learning.

You asserted that you are ready to learn… do you. can you. have you tested that you are IN FACT ready to learn… or this is just something you say. hope/believe/make lots of noises about?

Notsure: Whether or not you are understood by anyone doesn’t matter. So far I have loved every word you say, but that does not matter either.

The only test I use for validating is whether it passes my beliefs of what I know to be true. I made the CDF without anyones help, education or dictionary, and it probably shows, but I don’t care about that. What I do care about is having you understand it, which has led me to find the best words to use. This is why I have turned to the dictionary. I have to speak your language so you can understand me.

I will know “if” a new belief has emereged or an old one modified.

For me it is either do or die as I already have one foot in the grave. I can only learn what I can understand and I won’t know that until I have listened.

learning - the aquisition of knowledge(attention children)

How do we aquire knowledge? by attaining experiance and forming beliefs about what we learned.

What gives us the capacity for belief forming? memory, consciousness, reasoning. you could also say the mind.

what gives me the capacity to communicate? my language, my mind uses the eyes and ears to apprehend language and the vocal cords and hands/pen to communicate language. Before this apprehension of language is possible i have to learn the language, its letters/syllable/words/rules ect.

If i want to learn how to weld, I go to a welding shop and practice.

If i want to learn how to drive a car, bike ect. i buy or borrow or rent a car or bike get behind the wheel and drive.

If i wan’t to learn math or law or accounting or business or physics or biology or computer programming, I go to school, take courses, develop a “knowledge base” and learn where and how my knowledge is applicable and usefull. During the learning process I learn certain skill and become aware of where its applicable.

If you ask me to validate any claim i make i will provide facts which i hold as the grounds for my conviction.

What was your motive for asking a question? is it to get an answer?

I once had two friends who were so into movies that they would converse in quotes and absurd physicalities. These quotes and such eventually became their own language, a language that I could see but not interpret. They were speaking english, but not my language and I couldn’t hope to commune.

I’m having one of those moments.

And the worst part about it, there is no dictionary for it.