I like the Moody Blues. Does that make me a heathen? 
No, but our knowledge of that truth value does; that’s what I’ve been mainly concerned with. The world is what it is and works as it works pretty much regardless of what we think up, but I’m interested in what we can find out about this world, how we can find that out, and what degree of certainty we can attribute to our thus-arrived knowledge.
I’d disagree here – the definition of sheep may very well be completely independent of its colours. If any given definition needs to encompass the full set of properties of whatever it is describing, then there are only unique objects, and there can’t be classes of objects; we thus lose the ability to reason in the abstract completely. So “all sheep are white” can, IMO, very well be a factual claim (that’s not to say that such claims cannot be descriptive, but that they can be doesn’t mean that they always are).
If you include colour into the definition, then yes, that’s true; but there’s no reason for doing so. You certainly wouldn’t include skin colour into the definition of ‘human’, f’r instance. 
Ah, I see. No, I merely meant that no matter how meticulously logic constructs an argument, doesn’t mean its conclusion is automatically true in the sense of being applicable to the real world. The workings of logic are removed from science, but in trying to come to a description of the real world, it is science that anchors logic in such a way that enables it to come to conclusions applicable to reality. (Though of course the epistemological status of the laws of logic is a topic in itself.)
I think what gets people riled up – or at least, what got me riled up (a little more than I like to be in discussions on a message board, I must confess) – is the implicit assertion that, in contrast to science, religion is able to discovering truth, without backing this up, or indeed even acknowledging that it needs backing up; there’s a similar frustration when debating conspiracy theorists, since the reality of the conspiracy is accepted axiomatically, obviously every other claim must conform to this.
I understand that, and I should not have used the word “identical.” I meant “equivalant.” My point is that the two statements do not have the same value.
Here are two statements that actually do have the same value:
*I am wearing a yellow shirt, blue jeans, and black sneakers.
I am dressed in blue jeans, black sneakers, and a yellow shirt.*
Though the verbs are different, and the order of the list is different, the statements convey the same meaning. Moreover, they are statements of fact which are capable of being verified (or falsified). (And they’re both false; I’m not wearing sneakers.)
In the sentences you use as an example, the prepositional phrase is adverbial. It’s used because terb “to be/are” has more than one possible meaning. To assert that “All sheep are white” is equivalent in meaning to “all sheep are white by definition” is to ignore that the verb in question has more than one meaning.* It’s deliberately obtuse of Wittgenstein to make the assertion you referred to upthread.
*Note for the record: I will bring the flying robot sharks out of retirement & sic 'em on the first person who references Bill Clinton.
The differences in “to be” are exactly what I (and Wittgenstein) am getting at. But I’ll drop the point, lest we drift into invoking Miller. Or worse, Kant. We’re just going to disagree. But that’s okay.
I am about to begin one of my insane rants. Sensitive readers may wish to skip to the next post.
:: pauses out of concern for the fainthearted ::
Immanuel Kant. Oh, how I despise you. You and your idiotic categorical imperative. I mean, seriously, WHAT THE HELL GOOD IS AN ETHICAL SYSTEM WHICH NO ONE COULD EVER POSSIBLY FOLLOW? WHY IN THE NAME OF GOD’S GREEN EARTH WOULD YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE EVEN REMOTELY HELPFUL IN DECISION MAKING? WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT IN AN ETHICAL SYSTEM YOU CAN NEVER ACTUALLY APPLY TO THE REAL WORLD? HUH? HUH? WHY DON’T YOU JUST MAKE UP RULES BASED ON WHAT IS BEST FOR LEPRECHAUNS!!!
:: inhales deeply, as the screaming portion of the rant is concluded though the rant itself has one paragraph to go ::
Gods of earth, air, wind, and cheese, I hate Kant. I am giving serious thought to inventing a time machine, going back in time to the day before he died, and killing him myself, and then going back to the previous day, killing him AGAIN, and keeping at it till I run out of dilithium crystals.
If that had been your OP, I would have been your lap dog.
Oh, don’t worry. I have an" Immanuel Kant was a jackass who needs to be slapped repeatedly until he begs for mercy so that the person slapping him can reply, sneeringly, ‘Oh, hell no, jackass, I got you for another hour, and there’s 29 people in line behind me’ " thread building. I just have to be angrier when I start it.
Just out of curiosity, would you be more satisfied by a somewhat more formalized statement, such as “for all x that have the property ‘x is a sheep’, it follows that x is white”, which, to me, is different from saying “x has the property ‘x is a sheep’ if and only if x is white” in place of my original wording (even though I still think that, from context, it was rather clear what I meant)?
Both of those are close minded. Religion has the task of separating everything into Black and White boxes. Gray areas are taboo and should be avoided at all costs. So, if the jury is still out on some grand question, the close-minded cannot have this, and force it into a black or white category, regardless if it’s the “truth” or not, so long as it fits within their dogma. Then they defend it with all their will, lest their entire house of cards come caving in. It’s an ugly trap.
Keeping an open mind is saying, “I don’t know what the answer is here, perhaps it could be [this], but it could also be 50 other different things that explain the phenomenon. We might never know the reality.” Then, healthy skepticism would kick in, and shave off those possibilities that are profoundly unlikely… but it all still ends up in the Gray Box, unless some new evidence comes to light.
So, what can we know? Philosophically speaking, nothing. But practically, only that which has been grounded in empirical evidence and crosschecked against all the other evidence in the world around us.
The only difference I see in those is that one is biconditional and the other isn’t, which really doesn’t matter where a tautology is concerned. I think the thing at issue is whether something is a fact or a definition. If X is a sheep, then there are two ways that it can follow that X is white: (1) X is white by definition, or (2) it can be infered that X is white. In the case of (1), there’s no proof that X is white because a definition is not an implication. It’s arbitrary, and can be changed at will. And that’s important because otherwise I could, for example, prove that pigs fly by defining “fly” to mean “wallow in mud”.
We really seem to think fundamentally differently on this – the biconditionality, to me, is precisely what makes the second one a definition; the first one doesn’t dictate that something cannot be a sheep if it isn’t white, but is a statement of fact that is proven false when something is found that is both a sheep and not white. If you don’t agree with this, what would be an appropriate way of phrasing this circumstance, to you?
No, I do agree with that.
It’s simply that there is no point in making a claim like “all sheep are white” unless (1) you define sheep that way, or (2) you have proved it is true. I mean, yes you could say it apagogically (e.g., as a reductio ad absurdum), but that only means you disagree with it anyway.
Yes.
Sorry for this, but I just can’t help it. I know nothing of Kant, other than he was a philosopher, but this popped into my head and I must write it hear to clear my head:
<Monty Python>Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable…</Monty Python>
If nothing else, I hope it gives you a grin and makes you feel a little less stressed!
It’s not. But then, that’s not what science, or skeptics of religion in general are is saying. “Prove it !” isn’t either of those things.
No, you haven’t. No one has EVER “observed God”. You say I’m wrong ? Well, come up with some evidence for it. Why should I take your claim any more seriously than a claim that you saw Bugs Bunny assassinate Kennedy ?
Not faith. Trust. We trust that the Sun will come up again because it has for billions of years. Believers have faith because they have no evidence at all that what they believe is true. So they deny reality, and clutch their delusion instead.
There’s also the assumption that science/skeptics are saying “no, that’s not the truth and all there is to know”. He’s trying to pretend that it’s science and/or skeptics that are being closed minded.
Well, he’s wrong. Since there’s no evidence that a God is even possible, for one. And since those very experiments show that such “transcendent” ( note the loaded word ) experiences can be falsely induced, Occam’s Razor slices away God as an explanation. A known form of disorder in the brain is a simpler assumption than the existence of a physics breaking superentity.
As for why such “revealed truth” is inferior to science; there’s the little problem that we have no evidence that it IS true. Quite the opposite; claims gained by religious revelation turn out to be false when investigated pretty much universally. You’d be better off making random guesses. The credibility of science is ultimately based on the fact that it works; that immediately puts it on a far higher level than religion.
No. All the evidence is that God is a myth. There’s exactly the same evidence for that as for any mythical creature. It’s your job as the one who’s claiming it exists to come up with some evidence that makes God more likely to exist than any other random physics-ignoring being.
Ah, thanks. Now I understand the Kanicbird thing.
By counter-example?
By example of the opposite extreme.
Is Der Tris wrong about you not having any evidence for God’s existence?
Stuff you pretend to feel to support your desires for magic invisible friends isn’t evidence.
Kanicbird is irrational like all theists. He’s just abrasive and loud about it.
Not fair. The opposite of kanicbird is the departed badchad, not Der Trihs, who has opinions worth hearing on many topics.
The opposite of Der Trihs is Polycarp, in case you’re wondering, and my opposite is Chuck Norris.