4 ms·

> Click bait headline. Nothing was proven about open source as the future. Well sure but generally speaking proofs about reality are an oxymoron, so who on ear

> Click bait headline. Nothing was proven about open source as the future. Well sure but generally speaking proofs about reality are an oxymoron, so who on earth was taking the headline at face value to begin with? This is a rhetorical technique referred to as "hyperbole".

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> generally speaking proofs about reality are an oxymoron Proofs about reality are not self contradicting. Something not being entirely correct doesn't an oxymoron make.
- taurknaut 2y ago
  > Proofs about reality are not self contradicting. Absolutely they are! Proofs are a deductive concept with no basis in reality. This is basic Hume. All we can work with is inductive and abductive reasoning, neither of which is sufficient for a proof.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Proofs are a deductive concept with no basis in reality. This is basic Hume. One, it's not. Two, you're trying to use Hume to prove a statement that refutes itself. The claim that your can prove proofs oxymoronic is itself an oxymoron. Hume's critique of causation, moreover, has been amply supplanted since the 18th century. (Similar to Newton. In parts, it's been buttressed. In others, surpassed.) > All we can work with is inductive and abductive reasoning, neither of which is sufficient for a proof Mathematically false [1]. (And related to famous Gedankenexperiments, which prompted real science.) Of course, this whole thread is a farce: you're purposefully confusing mathematial proofs with the colloquial "proof." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
    - taurknaut 2y ago
      > Mathematically false [1]. Ok, this has no bearing on our empirical reality.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        You’re rejecting mathematics, empiricism and reality as a foundation for defining proofs and thus truth. At that point, we’re in a Cartesian universe of 1 = 1.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> generally speaking proofs about reality are an oxymoron Proofs about reality are not self contradicting. Something not being entirely correct doesn't an oxymoron make.

taurknaut 2y ago
> Proofs about reality are not self contradicting. Absolutely they are! Proofs are a deductive concept with no basis in reality. This is basic Hume. All we can work with is inductive and abductive reasoning, neither of which is sufficient for a proof.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Proofs are a deductive concept with no basis in reality. This is basic Hume. One, it's not. Two, you're trying to use Hume to prove a statement that refutes itself. The claim that your can prove proofs oxymoronic is itself an oxymoron. Hume's critique of causation, moreover, has been amply supplanted since the 18th century. (Similar to Newton. In parts, it's been buttressed. In others, surpassed.) > All we can work with is inductive and abductive reasoning, neither of which is sufficient for a proof Mathematically false [1]. (And related to famous Gedankenexperiments, which prompted real science.) Of course, this whole thread is a farce: you're purposefully confusing mathematial proofs with the colloquial "proof." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
  - taurknaut 2y ago
    > Mathematically false [1]. Ok, this has no bearing on our empirical reality.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      You’re rejecting mathematics, empiricism and reality as a foundation for defining proofs and thus truth. At that point, we’re in a Cartesian universe of 1 = 1.