DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

---

 

MATHSEX wrote:

---

goodness is the state of being good

science is good

therefore, goodness is science

QED

---

 You haven't defended anything.  What is good?  Science IS good, but why is science good?  Science isn't the standard of goodness and natural science cannot explain the standard of it.

 

---

note that the second premise of my "proof" is a normative statement.  these have no valid role in formal proofs.  much like attempting to define a man-made construct of goodness

Jason wrote:

---

 

MATHSEX wrote:

---

goodness is the state of being good

science is good

therefore, goodness is science

QED

---

Quod erat demonstrandum only if you have presented a sound argument.  You have not.  I agree that science is good.  However, science is not the state of being good.  Science is an instance of goodness; it is not goodness itself.  Likewise, your argument is an instance of an invalid argument form; it is not validity itself.

 

---

there wasn't an IFF biconditional linking goodness to science, but i still stand by my undistributed middle

Jason wrote:

---

In that case, you seem to be equivocating on the word "is". In the first sentence, you clearly use it to denote identity. However, by the conclusion you are using it differently, such that science is only part of goodness or something similar to that. This is a less natural reading of your statement, and it also does not provide a satisfactory answer to the initial question of what goodness is. If you were to ask me what the United States is, and I answer, "Virginia," then I have not answered your question even if my statement is true (Virginia is the United States -- if you are in Virginia, you are in the United States).

Also, it's obnoxious to use "QED" outside of mathematical proofs.

---

you're avoiding the blatant fact that "goodness" is a normative statement, and any attempted proof to define it is as invalid as mine. 

why is QED's use obnoxious outside of mathematical proofs?  if something which was to be demonstrated is demonstrated, "QED" is at worst as redundant as any axiom within the proof

all normative statements are claims that cannot be falsified
the properties of statements lacking truth and falsity are vague
if a statement is vague, it cannot be defined
normative statements are vague
ergo no normative statement can be defined

QED

Jason wrote:

---

...

"Tall" is a vague predicate. Are you saying "tall" cannot be defined?

Also, normative statements can be verified and falsified; that's exactly what objective ethics seeks to do. If normative statements cannot be verified, then ethics is relative, uninteresting, and meaningless.

The reason it is obnoxious to use "QED" outside of mathematics is that any non-mathematical argument is controversial. Someone can deny one of your premises, and thus not accept the conclusion. In mathematics (ideally) it would be inconceivable that someone deny one of your premises (it would be tantamount to denying that 2 + 2 = 4). In philosophy, however, there is always the chance that someone will find a problem with your argument, showing that one of your premises is likely not true. So, to use "QED" you are assuming that your argument is water-tight and undefeatable. In other words, you're being arrogant.

---

yes, tall cannot be defined, since it is relative to the observer's preconceived notion of an object of "normal" size.  theoretically, the smallest distance that may be measured is roughly 5*10^61 times smaller than the diameter of the visible universe.  not tall enough for you?  one can easily conceive of distances larger than that.

ethics is relative to the society for which it is derived.  cannibalism can be considered unethical in most circles, but to some, it is the way of life, especially in the animal kingdom.  are some animals and some humans unethical because they belong to a culture in which the act is not taboo?  no, they just don't share the same set of ethics as most humans do.

if i want to author a series of argument that will assist in the demonstration of a hypothesis, "QED" is no different than "ok, all done."  what's the point of demonstrating something if you cannot claim that you have shown that which was to be demonstrated? 

fyi:  2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2 and small values of 5

 

Jason wrote:

---

Ending an argument is more like saying "I am right."

Clearly you THINK you are right; otherwise you would not be arguing for your position. It's a dick move.


Also, how can you function in society and yet deny objective ethics? Do you only behave as you do because of your setting? Will your moral reasoning change when you change your surroundings? How do you justify praise and blame?

---

no, "i have demonstrated that which i have needed to demonstrate" is not a dick move.  it's defining the extent of your argument.  if you needn't argue any further, why should you let someone who disagrees bait you?  even though linguistics and unfalsifiable predicates will never let a proof (that doesn't involve mathematics or well-formed formulæ) satisfy an irrefutable conclusion, the use of QED is a claim made by the proof's author that is no less valid than any opinion-based claim laid out within the proof.

i have demonstrated my argument for the validity of the use of QED in that context.  i needn't argue any further because you reject my grounded arguments.

QED

 

and no, i do not behave as i do based on my settings.  my egos were developed as a child to meet expectations that were cast upon me during my development.  old habits die hard.  since it is useful to rely on these standards to instill the best well-being for those with whom i interact on a daily basis, i do not reject these societal expectations.  however, since these expectations will NOT provide the best well-being for all societies, it is ridiculous to assume that my set of ethics is a universal constant.

 

 

edit: cleaned up some punctuation, claims remain unchanged

-- Edited by MATHSEX at 00:49, 2008-12-04