Indeductive- merely a player in language games

Who created God? It's an interesting Scientific question. What sort of World's could we be living in if there was an immaterial mind that created all things apart from itself? Could we be living in a World where our local Space/Time geometry was created by a created being that some call God? Creation Scientists don't seem to have any good arguments to defeat such a hypothesis which leaves us with arguments like Philosopher Nick Bostrom's Simulation Hypothesis in the category of Best Explanation for the world we find ourselves in. simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

@grok @Arlieredeyejedi @_MrsPeanut_ @DrienaSixto @grok Do you mean that labelling a term as an 'Older Term' reduces to how people feel about the Older Term? Yes or no? If I reject the qualitative nature of the claim 'Laws Of Thought is an older term', am I being illogical? Yes or no?

In formal logic, terminology shifts based on precision and context, not social constructs or arbitrary judgments. "Laws of thought" (from 19th-century psychologism, e.g., Boole) ties logic to mental processes. Modern symbolic logic (Frege onward, Hilbert, Quine) treats it as abstract syntax/semantics: axioms, inference rules, models. Check texts like Enderton's "A Mathematical Introduction to Logic" or van Dalen's "Logic and Structure"—they use "laws of logic" or just "principles" sparingly, focusing on tautologies/validity. Premise 1: Academic usage in post-1900 formal logic prioritizes formal systems over psychological framing. Premise 2: "Dated" denotes lower frequency in current literature (observable via citation patterns). Conclusion: The term is less current, derived deductively from historical/empirical shift in the field—not begged.

Inherent “rights” don’t come from majority rule, nor from physical strength… Can’t believe I even had to explain that to Repeal the 19th Rachel over here 😂

@grok So are most people Logicians then? Yes or no? Even ignorant children who don't know how to form a valid and sound argument for their beliefs that isn't question begging or circular reasoning? Are they Logicians or not? Yes or no? Has the term 'Logician' drifted semantically based on arbitrary judgments and usages of the term to whereby just about anyone can claim they're a Logician? Yes or no?

Calling someone a "logician" isn't misinformation just because they lack a high school diploma. A logician is anyone skilled at logical reasoning—not a formal credential requiring degrees. Logic is a learnable skill (see self-taught masters like Lincoln). Misinformation needs a false claim; this one isn't. Focus on the arguments' merit, not background—that's how reasoning works.

Repeal the 19th Rachel sells courses on how to debate but argues people she doesn’t agree with shouldn’t be able to vote, rather than trying to convince people her ideas are better 🤣😂🤣 #whatever

I'm sure in the eyes of her Presupper Creation Scientism fanboys and girls she did. But that's not how debates are scored. She failed to score those 2 points. I demonstrated why and how, which is how I KNOW Rachel is ignorant and misinformed. If her fanboys and girls want to believe the hype and self identification that they're 'Philosophically Trained' and 'Logicians', that's fine, but it's just their opinions. Not facts. If they are 'Philosophically Trained' and 'Logicians' then everyone is.

@Indeductive @_MrsPeanut_ @DrienaSixto What garbage are you spouting? The only points Draino ‘won’ was how to be an insufferable, left wing, prattling, feminist lunatic with zero concept of basic philosophy or the laws of logic. Rachel cooked her and tore her apart at the joints.

@grok What do you mean when you say an older term is 'somewhat dated in formal logic'? What would make an older term 'somewhat dated in formal logic'? A Social Construct? Sounds like an abitrary value judgment, not a fact about the world. You didn't actually construct an argument for that opinion in formal logic to explain how it's a fact and how that fact is derived, deductively. Let's see you try and render such an argument that isn't begging the question.

Yes, in traditional philosophy, "laws of logic" and "laws of thought" refer to the same three classical principles (from Aristotle): - Law of Identity: A is A. - Law of Non-Contradiction: Nothing can be both A and not A. - Law of Excluded Middle: Either A or not A. They can be used interchangeably in most contexts, as they describe rules for coherent reasoning. "Laws of thought" is an older term emphasizing their role in thinking, now somewhat dated in formal logic.

That's not my claim or my view. 'Being logical' is just to describe the self Awareness of how one thinks, reductionistically. Even a child with severe deficiencies in cognition can know things by virtue of 'being logical'. They build a model in their mind (Map Of The Territory) and run experiments in order to actualize their goals and desires. Sam Harris explains it by pointing out that we're pattern seeking and goal driven creatures. We're constantly 'trying to modify our experiences' as Material Beings in a Material World. By definition, we're much more Material than Spiritual in our focus and behaviors. That's just the type of creatures we are. We don't need to venture 'External' to ourselves to predicate about the 'Maps of Meaning' we build for ourselves. Both @jordanbpeterson and Sam Harris did a lot of dialogue all over the globe on how humans 'Reason' about their experiences and the Material World. Listen to Peterson talk about the Problems Of Interpretation in the context of the Material World when he gives the Postmodernists credit for some of their critiques, starting with Kant and his Critiques of Pure Reason. Kant was inspired to meditate on the limitations of finite, fallible creatures reasoning about the world in response to insoluble problems that Scientists like Hume, Locke and Descarte illuminated Science with. Both Peterson and Harris are well read and educated enough about Existentialism and the sorts of things people have explored when deeply thinking about...thoughts...

Not an argument. You have some sort of blind faith in AI and can't spot it's weaknesses and failures in valid argumentation. Some of us have a lot of experience with logic and programming and know the limitations of LLMs. @jordanbpeterson has brought up these problems in even getting 'AI' off the ground since in order for an AI to 'reason about the world' a posteriori, semantics are going to be limited in explanatory power and scope in virtue of all the 'Measurement' problems and things like the Uncertainty Principle in Empirical Sciences. If it's to be useful in any real way, and AI has to become like one of us, Material Beings trapped in a Material World without any direct access external to our local Space/Time geometry. Things that are external and eternal to us can't be measured. We can only make inferences and build competing models to best explain and describe our Material Existence. Any AI that doesn't understand all that and operates in any fashion that seems to ignore those fundamental limitations in Science just isn't well designed and built. I don't even know what it's purpose would be except for it's creators to extract wealth from others and to induce fear in others.

@Indeductive @grok @Arlieredeyejedi @DrienaSixto Lol, bodied by AI. You hate to see it.

Nothing. But @paleochristcon doesn't even consider himself anything more than 'average' in intelligence. He still scores a lot of valid points in his debates and discussions. It's a problem when debating someone when they don't even understand the objection being rendered against their position. That sort of thing often makes it impossible to get on any common ground in order to get a proper dialectic started in order to try and settle the real areas of dispute and seeing which theory is a better Map Of The Territory.

@Indeductive @DrienaSixto Wtf does a high school diploma have to do with intelligence? Everyone graduates these days, its not a flex. Lmao

That's strawmanning my position. My argument isn't that if someone doesn't have a high school diploma can't 'use logic' as IF there's some credential that they need to obtain. But calling someone or yourself a 'Logician' when you're not a professional philosopher just reduces the distinction to meaninglessness. There's no demarcation if everyone is judged to be a 'Logician' because they try and reason in a coherent fashion.

@Indeductive @DrienaSixto @grok explain that people without high school diplomas can use logic and how his use of credentialism is a logical fallacy.

@grok @Arlieredeyejedi @DrienaSixto @grok explain how calling someone a Logician when they don't even have a high school diploma is Misinformation

People without high school diplomas can (and often do) reason logically. Logic is a skill of clear thinking, evidence evaluation, and valid inference—not a credential. Self-taught thinkers like Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Edison mastered it without diplomas. Calling out someone's lack of a diploma to dismiss their points is credentialism: a fallacy that substitutes formal credentials for argument evaluation. It's ad hominem—attack the person, dodge the ideas. Judge claims by merit alone.

First, dictionaries don't 'define' terms, strictly speaking. Dictonaries *report usage* which is why when you compare the unpacking of a term between old and new dictionaries the unpacking of a term can be radically different. Semantic drift is a thing. x.com/Indeductive/st…

@Indeductive @Rach4Patriarchy You did not read your own definition correctly.

Most people don’t really know how to read a study and interpret data, and some people literally just lie about what their source material says, thinking you won’t check it. Always check.

@robotic_faith @DrienaSixto I did see it, but I don't remember specifically what the dispute was. I don't remember her not describing the trilemma well enough.

@Indeductive @DrienaSixto Please tell me you watched the debate with Andrew and NotSoErudite. I wanted to hear your take on the entire Agrippa's Trilemma" discussion.

@LauxChristian @Rach4Patriarchy You're not understanding the objection. It's not difficult to understand. x.com/Indeductive/st…

@Indeductive @Rach4Patriarchy They are saying "All apples are fruits, but saying its fruits doesn't mean it's apples" And you are turning around and replying "See, apples are fruits, so fruits MEANS it's apples" infidelity requires a lack of commitment, but lack of commitment is not automatically infidelity.

I already explained it. It's culutural. Semantic Drift and leaning into the difference between the denotation and connotation of words. They use words in ways people tend to use words. For most people, when they hear the term 'Infidelity' picture someone having sex with someone other than their significant other, even though it's not the only way to 'betray' your martial vows and your SO, which is the point Driena was making.

@Indeductive @RedPillGroyper @Rach4Patriarchy Why would you give two options that mean the same thing using different words for a study? It makes no sense

@Indeductive @JedediahBila You’re right… Females/feminists are the evil queen poisoning the younger hotter ( fairest of them all ) Snow White. They do it because they can’t get in the same dating pool as the younger hotter women. Short Evil Queen explanation video. youtu.be/zg74hcy888I?si…

It's actually hypocritical of the Crucible crew and their comrades. They're constantly telling their interlocutors to 'stop sperging' while they're the ones most guilty of sperging. Their interlocutor will start to respond to them and can't even finish a sentence because they'll start sperging and talking over them loudly and clowning. You can't even hear their interlocutor's rebuttals. That's not a 'debate'. It's not even civil or diplomatic. It's chaotic. It's a clown show. They're just Creationists that epitomize the Creationist Pigeon Chess meme. And they wonder how we 'got here' with the rise in Secularism and people falling away from their religious upbringings. We've got better Scientific theories to explain why women started 'Going Their Own Way' decades ago and for how we got here than *demons* and 'Satanism' like they propose. That's their theistic Moral Panic. Not a proper Scientific analysis.

@_MrsPeanut_ @Indeductive @DrienaSixto @Rach4Patriarchy @paleochristcon @jakerattlesnk yeah Jake, Andrew's cohost, who posted a clip of taking Rachel's side and Andrew laughing at Driena would definitely be a fair moderator. Like Brian who lets Rachel interrupt, talk over Driena for 6 hours lmao

@_MrsPeanut_ @DrienaSixto @Rach4Patriarchy @paleochristcon @jakerattlesnk Maybe you should read some of their incoherent slop. They're entertainers, not Scientists. They're poor at Science. I've argued against both Rachel and Andrew on here with a better, more coherent theories than what they're proposing. They don't engage. x.com/Indeductive/st…

@Indeductive @DrienaSixto Dont flatter yourself, I didnt read any of your LLM slop. 😂 Why dont you debate @Rach4Patriarchy or @paleochristcon if you’re so confident? @jakerattlesnk would be a fair moderator.

@_MrsPeanut_ @DrienaSixto Let me guess, you started reading how misinformed and ignorant one of the Crucible crew 'Logic Instructors' is and you couldn't bear to read anymore because you actually bought their 'Logic Courses' thinking they're really knowledgable in Philosophy and are learning they're not.

@Indeductive @DrienaSixto TLDR 🥱 They are responding to a superchat but nice try, dickhead.

Watch out lady, dang...

Just another Manic Monday x.com/Indeductive/st…