I think it's important to realize that there isn't universal agreement on the vast majority of claims about objective, factual matters.

"Objective" doesn't imply agreement, and "subjective" doesn't imply disagreement, even though that's a common misconception — Terrapin Station

Well, I think there is not literally unanimous agreement, but surely is virtually universal agreement about the vast majority of claims about factual natters-that's how something gets widely established as a "fact."

Anyway, I think the central issue in the difference between claims about religious experience vs. claims about temperatures, weights, cats on mats, etc. is a difference in whether or not the phenomena are publically observable such that independent observers are more or less agreed on the criteria, and can judge the truth of falsity of the claim for themselves. It's patently obvious that a claim such as "Water boils at 100 degrees C" and "The door is open" are readily confirmable by independent observers, whereas "The Blessed Mother appeared to me last night and told me to make a shrine here" and "My sister's cancer was healed because we prayed to Saint Jude" are not.

Well, I think there is not literally unanimous agreement, but surely is virtually universal agreement about the vast majority of claims about factual natters-that's how something gets widely established as a "fact." — Brainglitch

"Fact," in philosophy, and more generally in an academic context, doesn't refer to anything about agreement either, though. "Fact" is a word for "states of affairs (in the world)." And it's generally distinguished from opinion, where that's referring to someone's personal assessment of something, so that "fact" has a "mind-independent" connotation. (Although that's not a strict characteristic of it, because for example, we say, "It's a fact that Joe is of the opinion that Justin Bieber sucks" and so on.)

There are surely some facts about which there is near-universal agreement, though that's often limited to social milieus with tighter "controls"--such as academic disciplines and professional associations. There are probably more facts that we concern ourselves with about which there isn't near-universal agreement, which is why everyone is always debating about everything so much (including again within academic discplines, where these sorts of things are often carried out in journals and so on).

Re the other part, I agree with you for the most part, although I think it's quite a bit messier than you do, both because (a) I have a bit of a Feyerabendian bent, and (b) my thoroughgoing ontological relativism combined with my nominalism means that no objective phenomena are actually the same for any two observers (or for the "same" observer at two different times), which is one of the sources of disagreements about facts. It's not just the observers that differ on my view. The phenomena themselves are actually different at each reference point.

I also think that science is somewhat flawed foundationally, in that it must necessarily reject one-off, especially aberrant phenomena--objective or not, and of course it can't deal very well with phenomena strictly from a first-person perspective . . . this is part of my Feyerabendian bent though.

Actually, I think science, philosophy, language, concepts, life, and, of course, forum discussions ... are quite messy.

I disagree. I think it has been demonstrated and learnt, that water boils under similar conditions. These conditions are described as the same temperature at the same pressure. That temperature is designated as 100 degrees Celsius at average sea level pressure. We could designate something else as the temperature which water boils at, like 212 degrees. So the reason why we can say what temperature water boils at is because we have designated specific numbers to represent the temperature which water boils and freezes at, and built a scale around it. We could take something like alcohol, and determine what temperature it boils at, and this would be an act of comparing it to the temperature which water boils and freezes at, placing it within that scale. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can say what you like, but that won't change the fact that it is not impossible for water to boil at a different temperature. And because your position entails otherwise, it is therefore false.

Actually, it's yours, which is the bad argument. By the same principle that you can define "murder" in another way, which is according to some other convention, I can say that according to some other convention, water doesn't boil at a hundred degrees, it boils at two hundred and twelve. — Metaphysician Undercover

That would either be equivalent to 100°C or it would be demonstrably false. But you can't demonstrate that moral subjectivism is false in the same way. If I say that murder is, as it is taken to be by many, the killing of one or more person under certain circumstances, such as the intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm, then how can you demonstrate that that is objectively wrong? You haven't done so thus far, but have merely opted to point out that a definition that we need not accept, and have good reason not to accept, which includes a conclusion which you conveniently happen to agree with, unsurprisingly leads to that very conclusion. Well done, Metaphysician Undercover. Your debate skills are clearly superior to mine.

All you are doing is saying that I'm going to define "murder" according to another convention, in which murder is not necessarily wrong, then you provide your convention, your definition, just like I would say that according to the Fahrenheit convention, water does not boil; at one hundred degrees. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course I reject your definition. Otherwise there wouldn't even be any need for a debate. I've seen you use this tactic before, and you don't seem to realise how pointless it is.

And no, it isn't just like if you were to say that water doesn't boil at one hundred degrees according to the Fahrenheit scale, because degrees in Fahrenheit have an equivalent in Celsius. I accept that, and it is completely irrelevant, and not at all analogous to our disagreement.

So, to match your claim, that my defining murder as wrong, is trivial, I would likewise have to say that the fact you've chosen to say that water boils at 100 Celsius is just as trivial. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, it is indeed trivial, in both cases. But more so in the former, as it does nothing, other than beg the question and try to shut down the debate without having to argue your case - which would at least be understandable, because there is reason to believe that you don't have a strong case.

The latter is trivial, because my choice to express the temperature at which water boils under normal conditions in degrees Celsius, rather than, say, degrees Fahrenheit, was arbitrary. And because it is a difference which makes no difference.

One difference though, unlike you I don't believe these choices to be trivial. One might just as well define the boiling point of water in another way, like you would define murder in another way, but that doesn't mean that these choices are trivial. I think such choices have great consequences. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have made the point that they are trivial in a particular context. Arguing that they are not trivial in a different context would miss the point.

Yes, this is exactly the case, we learn the meaning of these words, "murder" and "theft", what it means to murder and to steal, and in doing so we learn that these are wrong. That's how we learn ethics. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's not at all how we learn about ethics. What world are you living in? Not this one it seems. We obviously learn, especially in relation to ethics, through empathy and experience, not just by learning the meaning of words, and this happens at a very young age. Your a priori argument would lead to the trivialisation of ethics, because it would render that redundant and nonsensical, and, like I said, it contradicts your earlier stance.

We must learn which behaviours are wrong, so we have words for them, and meanings for those words, which indicate not only what the behaviour is, but also that it is wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

We judge behaviours as right or wrong based on experience of those behaviours. That's a fact. If I was a moral realist, I might say instead that we discover which behaviours are right and wrong. But that doesn't change the way in which we do so, which isn't typically a priori, or, specifically, by learning the meaning of words.

The meaning of the moral word does two things for us, describes the action and tells us whether it is a virtue or a vice. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good for you and your so-called moral word. But here in reality, there are countless ethical issues on topics in which key words relating to where the disagreement arises obviously do not contain in their definition that they are moral or immoral, or a virtue or vice. If they did, then it would be pointless to even have those debates, but it isn't. The word "abortion", for example, does not contain in the definition that it is moral or immoral.

So we have other words like temperance, honesty, courage, etc., which refer to good character, and these are likely to lead to good actions. Many ethicists would argue that we should focus on the words which have meanings that are understood as good character, rather than the bad, as this will encourage good behaviour. — Metaphysician Undercover

None of that is relevant or supports your position, since how those terms are rightly applied is open to debate, and you haven't made a case for a means of rightly applying them in accordance with an objective standard, unless you are suggesting that your own judgement is objective, which wouldn't be a strong case at all.

Why does this lead me into contradiction, with respect to consequences? — Metaphysician Undercover

That is taking my comment out of context. I never said that it was that that lead you into contradiction, with respect to consequences. It is your a priori argument about X being moral/immoral by definition, in combination with your earlier comments about consequences, which results in contradiction. Any form of consequentialism is logically incompatible with your current position, since it entails that whether X is moral/immoral is determined by its consequences, and not irrespective of them, as your current position entails.

The consequence of learning these words is that we avoid doing the things which are defined as being bad and move toward doing things which are defined as being good. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think that that doesn't give people enough credit. If we learnt, by some realisation that had been hitherto unrealised, that by virtue of the meaning of the word, murder was in fact good, then there would be a whole load of people that would reject it nevertheless, and certainly not go out and murder people. Would you? I want you to answer that question, because it is very important. And bear in mind that it is a thought experiment.

In my assessment, you are in effect nothing other than a moral subjectivist yourself. You merely add "moral" or "immoral" to the definition of a word relating to something with which you judge, in accordance with your own subjective sensibilities, to be good or bad. What distinguishes us is that you end up wishfully thinking that this is objective, whereas I acknowledge that this is a poor reason for thinking that.

Q.E.D.

(Your arguments, if they can be called that, frequently contain fallacies, Metaphysician Undercover: whether it be straw men, contradictions, missing the point, quoting out of context, false analogies, begging the question, wishful thinking, non sequiturs...)

Logically, God cannot exist if they are Real. To exist is to be an illusion, only a finite state. It would take away what makes God God.

For us to suggest God exists is like arguing the transcendent is worldly. The point of God is they are the infinte beyond the finite world. For God to exist, to be of the finite flux, is to reduce God to man. God becomes not the Real beyond the world, but just another material actor.

Is there any difference between God being the "Real beyond the world" and God not being the "Real beyond the world"? Or perhaps I should have asked whether there is any difference between the "Real beyond the world" being God, or not being God. Or even whether there is any difference between there being a "Real beyond the world" or there not being a "Real beyond the world".

The lack of worldly difference and so anything "to know about" in that sense is the point. The Real is the infinite. God which is the same regardless of what happens in the world.

This is the difference/distinction of Real and the only thing to know about God.

You can say what you like, but that won't change the fact that it is not impossible for water to boil at a different temperature. And because your position entails otherwise, it is therefore false. — Sapientia

Didn't I tell you that the boiling temperature of water is dependent on the pressure? Where do you get these strange ideas of what my position entails?

Well done, Metaphysician Undercover. Your debate skills are clearly superior to mine. — Sapientia

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment, though it really doesn't say much.

(Your arguments, if they can be called that, frequently contain fallacies, Metaphysician Undercover: whether it be straw men, contradictions, missing the point, quoting out of context, false analogies, begging the question, wishful thinking, non sequiturs...) — Sapientia

Wow! What's with the inconsistency?

We obviously learn, especially in relation to ethics, through empathy and experience, not just by learning the meaning of words, and this happens at a very young age. — Sapientia

We learn about ethics through empathy?

We judge behaviours as right or wrong based on experience of those behaviours. — Sapientia

Are you saying that I have to experience murder before I can judge it as wrong? No one that I have ever been close to has been murdered, yet I still judge murder as wrong. Why do you think that is?

think that that doesn't give people enough credit. If we learnt, by some realisation that had been hitherto unrealised, that by virtue of the meaning of the word, murder was in fact good, then there would be a whole load of people that would reject it nevertheless, and certainly not go out and murder people. Would you? I want you to answer that question, because it is very important. And bear in mind that it is a thought experiment. — Sapientia

Since murder is defined as wrong, how could one ever learn that murder is good by learning the meaning of the word? You have just proposed a contradiction. So if the meaning of "murder" was such that it is defined as a good action, of course I would murder, but this action would be something very different from what that word refers to now. Maybe it would mean the same thing as "generous" means right now, so I would attempt to be murderous as much as possible.

Logically, God cannot exist if they are Real. To exist is to be an illusion, only a finite state. It would take away what makes God God.

Yes, I know the rationale, I just don't buy it. Logic is a human invention. It works in reference to the world and the known and the known unknown, but not in reference to beyond the world and the unknown unknown. We just can't presume to say anything about that.

For us to suggest God exists is like arguing the transcendent is worldly. The point of God is they are the infinte beyond the finite world. For God to exist, to be of the finite flux, is to reduce God to man. God becomes not the Real beyond the world, but just another material actor.

Yes, I understand your point and it is rational, but I have considered this at a deeper level of complexity. Namely, one can consider god to be outside the world, but also in it in the being of the beings in the world, imminent, the transcendence of being and the transcendence outside the world.So is both outside the world and inside the world.

I would also say the "infinite" is also a human invention, and can not be applied to the beyond the world, or the unknown unknown. So this so called infinite transcendence, might not be infinite at all, just eternal( relatively transcendent). I don't see why eternity cannot be in the world, even if infinity cannot.

I disagree with you because I believe some differences that are not 'worldly' can be known intuitively. This is what enables the knowing of aesthetic, ethical and religious differences. You have to free yourself from the demand that such things be matters of precise science, though.

You say the Real is the infinite. I could agree with you, but it depends on what you mean by 'real'. If the infinite cannot ever be anything for us, then why think about it? On the other hand, if it can be something for us, then how? Not through demonstrable rational/empirical thought, that's for sure.

No worries. Actually I am not going to create that thread, I'm taking a timeout for a while.

OK keep cool

Didn't I tell you that the boiling temperature of water is dependent on the pressure? — Metaphysician Undercover

Explain why you think that that is relevant to my criticism.

Where do you get these strange ideas of what my position entails? — Metaphysician Undercover

You find it strange that I take what you have said and draw logical conclusions? You said that it is true by definition that water boils at 100°C. If so, then it logically follows that water cannot boil at any other temperature. Just like how it is impossible for a right angle to have any other angle than 90°. But it is possible for water to boil at a different temperature. Therefore, what you said must be false.

These are two fundamentally different things here. Your attempt to argue that what is evidently the result of applying a scientific method - that what is synthetic a posteriori - is actually true by definition - just like an analytic a priori truth - is comical.

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment, though it really doesn't say much. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not the first time that you have taken something I said in a way in which it wasn't intended, and I doubt it'll be the last.

We learn about ethics through empathy? — Metaphysician Undercover

We obviously learn, especially in relation to ethics, through empathy and experience. That's what I said, isn't it? Do you have a sensible question?

Are you saying that I have to experience murder before I can judge it as wrong? No one that I have ever been close to has been murdered, yet I still judge murder as wrong. Why do you think that is? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that's not what I'm saying. You've taken what I said out of context. Again! Obviously I mentioned empathy as well as experience. But it is more complex than that, and I'm not here to present a dissertation.

What I said is true, it's just that you have uncharitably interpreted it. I didn't mean it in an absolute sense. It was more of a generalisation. We judge behaviours as right or wrong based on experience of those behaviours. That's still a fact.

Since murder is defined as wrong, how could one ever learn that murder is good by learning the meaning of the word? — Metaphysician Undercover

"Since murder is defined as wrong"...?! Begging the question. Again!

And a loaded question.

And missing the point as well. Again!

You have just proposed a contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, you have. And it doesn't apply to my position, or my thought experiment, because it is based on your premise, which I have rejected, as you should know.

You're just wasting time, which could be better spent on learning ways to improve your debate skills. I recommend learning about logical fallacies. That way, you might not commit them as much.

Your reply to my thought experiment is tedious, misguided, and predicable. You simply don't seem to understand how these things work, or don't want to. Obviously, it is pointless to bring your own definition into the thought experiment.

So if the meaning of "murder" was such that it is defined as a good action, of course I would murder, but this action would be something very different from what that word refers to now. Maybe it would mean the same thing as "generous" means right now, so I would attempt to be murderous as much as possible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aaaaaaand you're back to missing the point. No, in this thought experiment, the meaning of "murder" can't be anything you want it to be. It means, as it means today, in our world, something along the lines of one person killing another person in an attempt to kill or cause harm. And without the assumption that this act is necessarily immoral! Which would obviously defeat the purpose of the thought experiment.

The question relating to the thought experiment is whether or not you would kill another person, under the same conditions which would count as murder in a court of law in our world, if that was good by definition. The only addition to the meaning of murder, as it is defined in the thought experiment, is that it is good.

Let's say that the hypothetical scenario is, all else being equal, that you're armed, and within distance of a young girl, and the question is whether or not you would approach this young girl out of the blue and fatally shoot her. Bearing in mind that, as part of the thought experiment, murder is good by definition. (And also bearing in mind the use of the phrase "all else being equal", which is intended to bar exceptions which would miss the point, such as, "ah, but what if the young girl posed a threat, or deserved to die because she had killed your entire family, or carries a highly infectious virus which will wipe out humanity unless you kill her?").

You said that it is true by definition that water boils at 100°C. If so, then it logically follows that water cannot boil at any other temperature. — Sapientia

I think it has been demonstrated and learnt, that water boils under similar conditions. These conditions are described as the same temperature at the same pressure. That temperature is designated as 100 degrees Celsius at average sea level pressure. — Metaphysician Undercover

We obviously learn, especially in relation to ethics, through empathy and experience. That's what I said, isn't it? Do you have a sensible question? — Sapientia

Do you really believe that we learn ethics through empathy?

You're just wasting time, which could be better spent on learning ways to improve your debate skills. — Sapientia

I'm not interested in debating, it's not something I would enjoy, so I think that learning debating skills would be a waste of my time.

Aaaaaaand you're back to missing the point. No, in this thought experiment, the meaning of "murder" can't be anything you want it to be. It means, as it means today, in our world, something along the lines of one person killing another person in an attempt to kill or cause harm. And without the assumption that this act is necessarily immoral! Which would obviously defeat the purpose of the thought experiment. — Sapientia

As I said, this proposition is contradictory. You propose that the meaning of "murder" is the same, but different. That renders your thought experiment nonsensical.

I think it has been demonstrated and learnt, that water boils under similar conditions. These conditions are described as the same temperature at the same pressure. That temperature is designated as 100 degrees Celsius at average sea level pressure. — Metaphysician Undercover

Just quoting yourself again isn't helpful. You need to explain why you think that that is relevant to my criticism.

I'm saying that under those same conditions, it is possible for water to boil at a different temperature on the same scale, say, 30°C, for example. So, for example, if the room temperature was 21°C, and heat was applied to the water, then it is possible that it boils when it reaches 30°C, rather than the usual 100°C.

This would mean that under those same conditions, an extremely unusual result was produced. But your claim entails that that is impossible. I have taken your claim, and shown that this logically follows. You can't reasonably argue against a valid logical argument just by expressing bewilderment, as you have done thus far. Quit stalling and produce a reasonable and substantive response, assuming you are capable of doing so.

And you can't just claim that whatever temperature water boils at under those conditions will, by definition, be 100 degrees Celsius, because that would be equivocation, which is a logical fallacy. (If you've done your homework, you'll know what that means).

Do you really believe that we learn ethics through empathy? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm still waiting for a sensible question. How long are you going to make me wait?

I'm not interested in debating, it's not something I would enjoy, so I think that learning debating skills would be a waste of my time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then what the hell are you doing here? You do realise that you're currently engaged in a debate, and that debate is a big part of what we do here, don't you? You've been here long enough to have realised that by now.

As I said, this proposition is contradictory. You propose that the meaning of "murder" is the same, but different. That renders your thought experiment nonsensical. — Metaphysician Undercover

As you said. But I have explained why what you said is erroneous. And yet, you have chosen not to address that, but to pointlessly repeat yourself instead.

I have proposed that the meaning of "murder" would be the same as a meaning commonly used and understood today, in our world, which is amoral - except that in the thought experiment, it isn't amoral, but moral by definition. The definition, as I've already explained, would be something along the lines of one person killing another person with intent to kill or cause harm, and which is moral. There is no contradiction in that, and it isn't nonsensical.

You mistakenly posit a contradiction because you break the rules of the thought experiment by misinterpreting the meaning of "murder" in the thought experiment to include "and is immoral".

And lastly, I think it is telling that you've avoided addressing parts of my posts, and avoided properly engaging with the thought experiment, and avoided asking sensible questions, and avoided explaining yourself, and so on.

I'm not interested in debating — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O >:O >:O

I'm saying that under those same conditions, it is possible for water to boil at a different temperature on the same scale, say, 30°C, for example. So, for example, if the room temperature was 21°C, and heat was applied to the water, then it is possible that it boils when it reaches 30°C, rather than the usual 100°C. — Sapientia

Really? I didn't think it was possible to get water to boil at a temperature other than 100, other than by changing the pressure. Actually I don't really believe you, have you ever tried, and had success at this before?

This would mean that under those same conditions, an extremely unusual result was produced. But your claim entails that that is impossible. I have taken your claim, and shown that this logically follows. You can't reasonably argue against a valid logical argument just by expressing bewilderment, as you have done thus far. Quit stalling and produce a reasonable and substantive response, assuming you are capable of doing so. — Sapientia

Well, good luck then. Until you actually prove to me that you can make water boil at 30 degrees without lowering the pressure, I'll continue to express bewilderment. You can claim whatever you want is possible, that it's possible for you to jump over the moon, or that you're omnipotent, if you like. I'll just express bewilderment, without bothering to make any logical argument against this. Evidence speaks for itself.

And lastly, I think it is telling that you've avoided addressing parts of my posts, and avoided properly engaging with the thought experiment, and avoided asking sensible questions, and avoided explaining yourself, and so on. — Sapientia

Well, it should be obvious that the things you say leave me totally bewildered, including your thought experiment, which has contradictory premises, and that's why I don't bother to reply to much of your posts. The bewilderment leaves me unable to explain myself.

Sapientia doesn't seem to get the point.

Really? I didn't think it was possible to get water to boil at a temperature other than 100, other than by changing the pressure. Actually I don't really believe you, have you ever tried, and had success at this before? — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course I haven't had success. Jesus Christ. Do I have to explain possibility to you now as well? I have said that it would be extremely unlikely if that happened. But extremely unlikely is not the same as impossible. Why do you think that it's impossible? Even if it has never happened before, and never will happen, that still wouldn't make it impossible. Possibility is about what can happen.

You should read Hume on this topic, by the way.

Well, good luck then. Until you actually prove to me that you can make water boil at 30 degrees without lowering the pressure, I'll continue to express bewilderment. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't have to do that. You have to show that it is impossible. It is possible unless there's a contradiction. Show me where you think there is a contradiction or concede. Anything else from you is unreasonable clap trap.

You can claim whatever you want is possible, that it's possible for you to jump over the moon, or that you're omnipotent, if you like. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's possible unless there is a contradiction.

I'll just express bewilderment, without bothering to make any logical argument against this. Evidence speaks for itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you just express bewilderment, then you're being unreasonable. You should look up the fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. Yes, the evidence speaks for itself. I agree. And the evidence doesn't show that it is impossible. It shows that it is extremely unlikely.

Well, it should be obvious that the things you say leave me totally bewildered, including your thought experiment, which has contradictory premises, and that's why I don't bother to reply to much of your posts. The bewilderment leaves me unable to explain myself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your bewilderment suggests something other than that to me, actually. It think it says more about you than me or anything that I have said.

You haven't shown that my thought experiment has contradictory premises, nor have you even bothered to address my correction of your misunderstanding, but you have instead just repeated your mistaken bare assertion. That is unreasonable.

In fact, I think that our discussion could serve as a useful lesson to others, given the fallacies and misunderstandings contained in your part of it, and given my adeptness in recognising them and pointing them out.

And, in fact, I think I might just end my involvement in our discussion here. I can think of better ways to spend my time.

Why do you think that it's impossible? — Sapientia

It's quite obvious, and I'm amazed that you still haven't caught on. One hundred degrees Celsius is, by definition the temperature which water boils at, at seal level pressure. To say that water could boil at another temperature, at sea level pressure, contradicts this. Therefore it's impossible. If what you have, boils at a different temperature, then either it's not water, or you're not assigning the temperature
number right, or it's not the right pressure, or something like that. It is impossible. Try this, blue is the colour of the clear sky, by definition. Therefore it is impossible that the clear sky could be a colour other than blue, that would be contradictory. If it's not blue, then it's not a clear sky, or you are assigning the name "blue" wrong or something like that.

It's possible unless there is a contradiction. — Sapientia

There is contradiction! That's what I've been trying to tell you. What do you believe, words are not defined, so that you can use words however you please without contradicting yourself? Would you say that it's possible that black could be white, or that a circle could be square, because you happen to enjoy using words in a way that's free from the confines of conventions?

And the evidence doesn't show that it is impossible. It shows that it is extremely unlikely. — Sapientia

And I suppose the evidence shows that it's extremely unlikely that a circle might be square?

You haven't shown that my thought experiment has contradictory premises.. — Sapientia

You asked me to consider the word "murder" with the same definition which it currently has, but with a different definition. If that's not contradictory, I don't know what is.



?

It's quite obvious, and I'm amazed that you still haven't caught on. One hundred degrees Celsius is, by definition the temperature which water boils at, at seal level pressure. To say that water could boil at another temperature, at sea level pressure, contradicts this. Therefore it's impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, but that's a daft way to define it, and amounts to the fallacy of equivocation. You then can't have water boiling at 30 degrees Celsuis, even though you actually can. It's as daft as arguing that it's impossible to turn right, by ruling it out by definition. Right turns become "left turns".

It seemed like we were making some progress, but perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part.

If what you have, boils at a different temperature, then either it's not water, or you're not assigning the temperature
number right, or it's not the right pressure, or something like that. It is impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I was talking about the boiling point of water under normal conditions, as I have been from the start. So, no, it can't be a different substance, and it can't have boiled under different conditions, by, for example, altering the pressure.

But it can be a different temperature, because it isn't necessarily the case that water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius. All your argument shows is that if water necessarily boils at 100 degrees Celsius, and we boil water, then it will boil at 100 degrees Celsius. But water doesn't necessarily boil at 100 degrees Celsius.

That you define it that way doesn't make it so, except in a trivial, superficial semantic way for anyone foolish enough to adopt that use of language. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and water boiling at 30 degrees Celsius, or 40 degrees Celsius, or 50 degrees Celsius, or 60 degrees Celsius, or 70 degrees Celsius, under normal conditions, would, in each case, be nonidentical to water boiling at 100 degrees Celsius, even if you call each one of those events "water boiling at 100 degrees Celsius".

For example, one could have heated a volume of water for 3 minutes, until it reached 100 degrees Celsius, at which point it boiled. But the second time around, the same volume of water, heated under the same conditions as before, might take 30 seconds to reach 30 degrees Celsius, and boil at that point instead.

Now, that is extremely unlikely, as I have said from the start, but it is indeed possible, and your argument is merely sophistry which attempts to use word play to reach a different conclusion.

Try this, blue is the colour of the clear sky, by definition. Therefore it is impossible that the clear sky could be a colour other than blue, that would be contradictory. If it's not blue, then it's not a clear sky, or you are assigning the name "blue" wrong or something like that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, I will try that now.

I have tried it, and I have concluded that that too is a good reason to reject the premise that blue is the colour of the clear sky, by definition, since it erroneously rules out the possibility of a clear sky which is not blue. It is erroneous because, however unlikely, it is possible that tomorrow we will discover that the clear sky is not blue.

Association is one thing, definitions are another. We associate the two, but it is a mistake to define the one as the other - thereby ruling out certain possibilities without warrant.

Is that all?

There is contradiction! — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the contradiction only arises if I were to accept your premise, which would also mean committing the fallacy of equivocation by inappropriately defining any temperature at which water boils to be 100 degrees Celsius.

But I haven't done so! The bait that you've laid remains untouched, yet you have preemptively pulled the leaver, the cage has dropped down as a result, and - lo and behold! - the cage is empty (besides the bait)! You haven't caught anything.

You need to take off your blinkers, and then you might see clearly. I have not restricted myself in the same manner as you have done, for good reason, and I don't intend to.

What do you believe, words are not defined, so that you can use words however you please without contradicting yourself? — Metaphysician Undercover

Don't be silly. I am arguing in favour of a more sensible use of language, and it isn't idiosyncratic or unconventional. People associate 100 degrees Celsius with the temperature at which water boils, because, that has been found to be the temperature at which water boils in innumerable cases, under the same conditions. But - and if you've read Hume, then you might already be aware of his insights on this subject - there is nothing to prove that the next time, it will certainly be 100 degrees Celsius. That is only probable at best, leaving open the possibility that it will not, however improbable that may be. And that is why it's misguided to define it as such, so as to render impossible what is in fact possible.

I feel like I'm teaching you some basic shizzle, here. Have you read about Hume in relation to this subject? How much do you know about the scientific method?

Would you say that it's possible that black could be white, or that a circle could be square, because you happen to enjoy using words in a way that's free from the confines of conventions? — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, don't be silly. Those are false analogies. I myself gave an example of that kind earlier, and contrasted it with what we are discussing: a right angle triangle is 90 degrees by definition. It can't be 110 degrees. But you are muddling up two fundamentally different things. The results of scientific experiments are not like analytic a priori truths.

And I suppose the evidence shows that it's extremely unlikely that a circle might be square? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. That would be to muddle up two fundamentally different things. They aren't analogous. I recognise that it is a fallacy to make false analogies like that.

You asked me to consider the word "murder" with the same definition which it currently has, but with a different definition. If that's not contradictory, I don't know what is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Talk about selective reading! That is beyond uncharitable. Look again at the details of what I said. Try harder. Get back to me when you can show me some improvement.

I feel like I have gone to great lengths to explain this - as well as other things - to you. God knows why...

Guys, what're you even debating about now?

Guys, what're you even debating about now? — Heister Eggcart

I think it went from God in relation to science, to science in relation to ethics, and then there was an analogy about temperature, which lead to this discussion about Metaphysician Undercover's sophistry vs. my well-reasoned rebuttal.

Basically, is it possible for water to boil at any other temperature than 100 degrees Celsius? I say yes, he says no. I could be wrong, but I find his argument poor and unconvincing.

Care to add your two cents?

Water boils at room temperature in a vacuum.

Water boils at room temperature in a vacuum. — Wosret

I meant the boiling point of water under normal conditions: at sea level, and any other such factors.

Well, a watched pot never boils... so I think that if you just keep staring at it, it will feel too awkward and creeped out, and not be able to perform.

Well, a watched pot never boils... so I think that if you just keep staring at it, it will feel too awkward and creeped out, and not be able to perform. — Wosret

:D

Ah, why didn't I think of that?

Were you watching me?

Wait, I'm not a pot.

Unless I call you black.

...And you're a kettle.

You mean can it boil at temperatures higher than 100? >:O

You mean can it boil at temperatures higher than 100? >:O — Heister Eggcart

I mean, is it possible for the boiling point of water under normal conditions (at sea level, under normal atmospheric pressure, and all that jazz) to vary from 100 degrees Celsius? Yes or no?

What is so funny?

Wouldn't it be unscientific to answer no? This is nothing more than an inference based on past repeated experimentation, is it not? It isn't a proof. Metaphysician Undercover's answer doesn't really count, as it is merely wordplay - sophistry.

Boiling point varies with the pressure of the air. Most people would assume you meant normal atmospheric pressure.