Porteroso said:
90sBear said:
Come on, you are always so gracious in conversation when discussing ideas. Surely you can be helpful here in applying everything you have been talking about to a hypothetical scenario of your own.
He is largely correct, you are largely wrong, but you do have him on the peanuts. I doubt you will see eye to eye, because you are both unwilling to admit where you are wrong. Hypothetical ability is what is implied in the question, not practicality or what is likely. If the kid might be put into a spaceship and exchange tender for peanut with robotic arms, allergies would not play into it. In order to be reasonable and not go down an endlessly hypothetical road, we simply assume the intent of the question is to only consider the variables presented. It is the only reasonable thing to do.
So the background on the hypothetical scenario he presented was a discussion on logic and Absolute Truth and the difference between the two. Among the things I mentioned in the discussion was that 1) two people coming from two different positions could approach an issue, both use logic, and arrive at different ideas even though both used sound logic.
Another thing I mentioned was that logic is not always based on Absolute Truth. It sometimes is, but sometimes it is based on other things that aren't absolute.
I also noted that whether or not horses can fly is not technically Absolute Truth, it is agreed upon. Empirical Truth would probably be a better term, but Empirical Truth and Absolute Truth aren't the same thing.
At some point I believe I said something like, "If there were only absolutes, there would be only absolute answers." My meaning being that if every thing and every question in life was based on absolutes, there would always be an absolute solution to the situation.
He then presented:
Quote:
If two people start with the absolute premise that peanuts are $1 a pound and each of them have $10, how much is each able to buy? One can logically conclude that he can buy 10 pounds worth, while the other can logically conclude he can buy none, since he is deathly allergic to peanut dust and would die before he is able to take it to the register and buy it. Two different answers, both completely logical, both based on absolutes.
Therefore, your statement: "If there were only absolutes, there would be only absolute answers" is wrong.
The interesting thing about this scenario is that it actually supports two of the points I had made:
1) Two people can start from different positions, use logic, and arrive at different conclusions.
2) Logic isn't always based on Absolute Truth. While logical (reasonable) the peanut allergy person is technically incorrect. He could buy peanuts if he really wanted to (hazmat suit), but realizes it probably wouldn't be the best idea.
When he stated "absolute premise" and "based on absolutes" I took him to mean that the elements of the scenario were absolute truth - meaning the price was absolute truth and the kid couldn't buy peanuts was absolute truth. Both of which of course are not absolutely true, one can be changed, the other is factually incorrect, and of course a hypothetical scenario can be changed on a whim.
That's on me as I never really pointed out that his entire premise was wrong from the start - the people didn't start from the same place, even though he insisted they did. I instead focused on nothing within his scenario being "based on absolutes" as Absolute Truth and the difference between that and logic which had been heavily discussed.
That's when he went towards the direction of tautologies which I will freely admit I wasn't thinking about - I was thinking how his scenario didn't contain anything absolute at all and just did not prove any argument he had been trying to make up to that point.
So if he wants to make the point that tautologies are absolutely true, fine.
If BTD's hypothetical scenario contains a false premise and also supports one of 90sBear's observations, then it is absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains a false premise and also supports one of 90sBear's observations.
Maybe we both learned something.