2 ms·

The distinction between "abstract" and "measurable" is not ambiguous. "Real" in this context (and most others) means "empirically observable", as in, you and I

The distinction between "abstract" and "measurable" is not ambiguous. "Real" in this context (and most others) means "empirically observable", as in, you and I are able to make an observation or measurement and arrive at similar values. Abstract concepts are by definition not empirically observable. Semantic arguments are a complete and utter waste of time.

burke 8y ago
There is no one true definition of “real” until you bring in your accessory definition of “empirically obserble”. Semantic arguments are typically a waste of time, and by not being clear about your definition and berating everyone for not being in your head already, you are creating one. Also, there are plenty of “abstract concepts” which are not empirically observable but which most people would agree should be considered “real” in some measure. If you require empirical observability for something to be real, you end up like Descartes, believing only in your own consciousness (and God for some reason). While there’s some wisdom in this viewpoint, there are more practically useful definitions of reality. Also also, it’s worth pointing out that the position you’re arguing for is called empiricism, and it is one of many theories of what comprises reality. You are participating in an argument by stating that your position is obviously correct and beyond reproach.
- canhascodez 8y ago
  It's still a semantic argument if you repeat it.
  - burke 8y ago
    You can’t just shut down a semantic argument by taking a position, asserting its correctness, and refusing to acknowledge other views, as a premise of your broader argument. The normal way out of a semantic argument is to just acknowledge the different definitions people are bringing and moving on with that in mind, but you’re not willing to do that. You are the one instigating the semantic argument here.
    - canhascodez 8y ago
      Bullshit. I said exactly what I intended to say; the distinction between empirical observation and other forms of truth was pretty much the entire point. I mean, you did actually read what I wrote, right?

burke 8y ago

There is no one true definition of “real” until you bring in your accessory definition of “empirically obserble”. Semantic arguments are typically a waste of time, and by not being clear about your definition and berating everyone for not being in your head already, you are creating one. Also, there are plenty of “abstract concepts” which are not empirically observable but which most people would agree should be considered “real” in some measure. If you require empirical observability for something to be real, you end up like Descartes, believing only in your own consciousness (and God for some reason). While there’s some wisdom in this viewpoint, there are more practically useful definitions of reality. Also also, it’s worth pointing out that the position you’re arguing for is called empiricism, and it is one of many theories of what comprises reality. You are participating in an argument by stating that your position is obviously correct and beyond reproach.

canhascodez 8y ago
It's still a semantic argument if you repeat it.
- burke 8y ago
  You can’t just shut down a semantic argument by taking a position, asserting its correctness, and refusing to acknowledge other views, as a premise of your broader argument. The normal way out of a semantic argument is to just acknowledge the different definitions people are bringing and moving on with that in mind, but you’re not willing to do that. You are the one instigating the semantic argument here.
  - canhascodez 8y ago
    Bullshit. I said exactly what I intended to say; the distinction between empirical observation and other forms of truth was pretty much the entire point. I mean, you did actually read what I wrote, right?