I don't know if you realize it or care, by the way, but every post you type to me comes across like you're a complete asshole who is only interested in arguing.

I'm saying it is the central characteristic of empirical claims that they should be testable.

Okay, so presumably you'd say that some ontological claims are not empirical claims, right? — Terrapin Station

It depends on what you mean by "ontological". Of course ontic claims can be interpreted to be within the epistemological domain in which case they are either testable or semantic (true or false by convention or definition; for example "Sydney is the capital of New South Wales").

I don't know if you realize it or care, by the way, but every post you type to me comes across like you're a complete asshole who is only interested in arguing. — Terrapin Station

Why would say that? I have been nothing but polite and am merely telling where and why I disagree with what you have said. Are you saying that I should not disagree with you or that you should be exempt form supporting claims that you make or that your arguments should not be subjected to fair criticism?

I am open to different ideas, but only if they are supported by convincing arguments.

It depends on what you mean by "ontological". — Janus

The standard definition. Ontology is theory/philosophy of existence or being.

So you'd say that all ontological claims are either testable or semantic (i,e, true or false by convention or definition)?

Why would say that? — Janus

Because it's the way you come across. It's an attitude that's projected.

The standard definition. Ontology is theory/philosophy of existence or being.

So you'd say that all ontological claims are either testable or semantic (i,e, true or false by convention or definition)? — Terrapin Station

I didn't sat that. Here it is again:

Of course ontic claims can be interpreted to be within the epistemological domain in which case they are either testable or semantic (true or false by convention or definition; for example "Sydney is the capital of New South Wales"). — Janus

Whenever you say what something is that can be interpreted as being an ontic claim. For example: 'water is H2O'.

Heidegger makes a distinction between 'ontic' and 'ontological' on just this kind of basis.

Because it's the way you come across. It's an attitude that's projected. — Terrapin Station

So, just a subjective impression then; perhaps driven by your dislike of having your ideas challenged?

I didn't sat that. — Janus

Sure. So then you'd agree that some ontological statements aren't either testable or semantic?

Of course, I said as much above:

Of course there is no problem with ontological speculation per se, but such speculations should not be interpreted as stances that can be defended, simply because they are untestable. — Janus

Okay, so why when I'm talking about ontological claims are you reading it as if I'm saying something about them being testable?

Not necessarily; I wasn't sure whether you thought they were testable or not. I'm saying that in order to count as a claim a proposition should be either testable or logically true. Otherwise it is just a imaginative speculation, which as I've said is no problem as long as it is not mistakenly thought to be asserting something determinable

I'm saying that in order to count as a claim a proposition should be either testable or logically true. — Janus

Why would you say that?

Is it just an idiosyncratic way you use the word "c!aim"?

(Also, so we're saying that conflating ontology and epistemology is the result of some sort of quibble over the word "claim"?)

Why would a proposition count as a claim, as opposed to merely an idea that one likes, if its truth is not determinable? Claims must be supported, no? If they are neither testable nor logically true, then I can't see how they could be thought to be supportable. Are you appealing to consensus or commonsense or something like that instead?

Why would a proposition count as a claim, as opposed to merely an idea that one likes, if its truth is not determinable? Claims must be supported, no? If they are neither testable nor logically true, then I can't see how they could be thought to be supportable. Are you appealing to consensus or commonsense or something like that instead? — Janus

So here's one common definition of the word "claim": "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof."

Can you find a definition of "claim" that says claims must be testable or semantic?

So here's one common definition of the word "claim": "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." — Terrapin Station

Where does that definition come from?

Oxford dictionary via Google.

OK, sure you can claim that something is the case without providing evidence or proof. You can claim that God is purple with pink polka dots if you want. But this is in the context of philosophical, not idiomatic, usage of the word. What about argument? Would you say that a claim counts as philosophical if you make it without providing either evidence, proof or argument?

Let's return to your original claim that objects have boundaries independently of all human thought and experience. How would you argue for that?

OK, sure you can claim that something is the case without providing evidence or proof. But this is in the context of philosophical, not idiomatic, usage of the word. What about argument? Would you say that a claim counts as philosophical if you make it without providing either evidence, proof or argument? — Janus

First, you didn't answer what I asked you: can you find a definition of "claim," in a philosophical context, that suggests that claims must be testable or semantic?

I haven't said that philosophical speculations must be testable or semantic.I am saying that to be counted as claims they must be at least able to be argued for. On what basis would you argue for any philosophical speculation if not in either a posteriori or a priori terms, or by an appeal to common intuitions?

I haven't said that philosophical speculations must be testable or semantic — Janus

The question was about the word "claim."

I used the word "speculation" because I don't think untestable, non-tautologous or non-a priori or unargued speculations or propositions really count as claims. In any case I'm not interested in arguing about definitions of the word "claim". That is a diversion from the original point of the discussion which was your statement that

The boundary of a particle is in no way dependent on us perceiving it. — Terrapin Station

You introduced the "particle"; originally the argument was about whether objects in general have boundaries independently of our perceptions of them. I want to know how you would argue for that.

(If you won't let this minor quibble over the word 'claim' go, then can you find a definition of "claim," in a philosophical context, that suggests that claims do not need to be testable, semantically true or argued for)?

And even when everybody agrees that there is a boundary, and the boundary is extremely visible (river, big fence) people can't / won't agree on what it means. Does it mean, "Stay on your side until a guard or customs agent says, "Welcome to the -----"? Does it mean that the boundary is irrelevant? "Borders? We don't need no stinking borders!" Does it mean that people who insist on the border not being crossed willy nilly are racist sexist xenophobic white supremacist nazi scum? (to some...)

These borders are well marked but it doesn't make all that much difference:



And thanks for going back to wherever you came from.

lol re adding "support" to your definition of claim now. Anyway, the only reason I was pressing this is because you were stressing it, but the definition you were proposing is idiosyncratic.

The reason you were stressing it was as a diversion from the point I was making.

You had asked:

"Are the boundaries (borders) of objects real, according to you?"

And then you asked:

"What is it about the boundaries of objects that is real according to you?"

I answered both of those questions, which are ontological questions, in some detail.

Then you wanted to switch to talking about epistemology. The epistemological question is a different issue than the ontological questions.

"Are the boundaries (borders) of objects real, according to you?" — Terrapin Station

[Sorry, the actual quote came from @Janus.]

Now that's an interesting question. I know of no reason to subdivide Life, the Universe and Everything, except that it's too much for a human mind to swallow in one bite, so we split it up. This, if accurate and useful, is a good reason to classify borders as an illusion; a human invention. :chin:

So would you say that there's no real edge of a cliff, say? We just invent that, so if we decided to think about it differently/invent it otherwise, we could walk 15 feet further out without falling to our deaths?

But surely there are also borders that exist because they lie between different things, like the sea-shore, which bounds the sea (or the land, depending which way you're oriented)? — Pattern-chaser

The sea shore, a river or a sea does exist physically just like a mountain range. That they are a border between two states is something totally else.

Yes ... which is also the answer to @Terrapin Station's post. :smile:

I thought maybe you were talking about borders more broadly, since for whatever reason that's the direction Janus started pursuing.

So would you say that there's no real edge of a cliff, say? We just invent that, so if we decided to think about it differently/invent it otherwise, we could walk 15 feet further out without falling to our deaths? — Terrapin Station

I don't understand why people sometimes respond like this. If you suggest the possibility that the world our senses show us pictures of ... might not be Objective Reality. That it might not exist in the way we think it does. Then people respond by saying "stand in front of a large lorry, then".

Such responses miss the point and ridicule the point, at the same time. I can only conclude such responders are scared of the idea(s) raised, and just want to run away. :chin:

Anyone care to offer clarification?