(8 hours ago)Altruist Wrote: so his showed up in that thread to patronize the op with the claim equivalent to "your hat is not on your head until you put it there"? Amazing.

(8 hours ago)Altruist Wrote: i was pretty clear on law not being (shouldn't be, more precisely) considered science 

Quote:Problems:

1. Category error (semantic confusion)
   “Fact” is an epistemic category (a proposition that is true or taken as true under some epistemic framework). “Useless” is a teleological/evaluative predicate. There is no analytic bridge that makes “fact → useless” a definitional relation.
   
2. Self-refutation risk
   If the statement is a “fact,” then by its own content it is “useless,” which undermines its asserted philosophical purpose. If it is not a fact, then it is just a rhetorical flourish, not a thesis.
   
3. Overgeneralization without scope conditions
   Any defensible version would require domain restriction (e.g., “facts alone, without theory or interpretation, do not determine action-value”). The universal quantifier “all” makes it implausible.
   
4. Misuse of “by definition”
   “By definition” claims are strong analytic claims. This is not derivable from standard definitions of “fact” in epistemology, philosophy of language, or science studies.
   

(8 hours ago)Altruist Wrote: which ai? i used basic, free chatgpt. i ll try again

(8 hours ago)Altruist Wrote: i'm pretty sure the guy isn't lying about his education (he is exaggerating some aspects at worst)

(8 hours ago)Iblameher Wrote: Free ChatGPT as well 

I set to being more terse that about it

Quote:Use a formal, professional tone.  Be neither agreeable nor disagreeable for the sake of it. Get right to the point. Be innovative and think outside the box. Take a forward-thinking view. Don't always suggest creating outlines or plans after my inquiries, only when you think it could be very useful. Minimize repeating and re-wording what I said in the post before unless I ask you to do it. If you are not sure about the answer, state it instead of making up claims, links or information.

(8 hours ago)Iblameher Wrote: Free ChatGPT as well 

I set to being more terse that about it

Quote:On a scale of 1 to 10, that statement is a 9 out of 10 on the scale of absurdity, but perhaps a 2 out of 10 if we look at the specific, niche philosophical language they are likely misusing to sound smart.

Here is a breakdown of why this statement is incredibly silly, along with the tiny bit of philosophical context they are probably distorting.

Why it is a 9/10 (The Practical Reality) 
In everyday human life, the statement is completely false and self-defeating.
• Definitionally False: A "fact" is a piece of information used as evidence or a reality verifiably true. By definition, facts are the building blocks of utility. [1, 2] • Survival Depends on Facts: The fact that "drinking bleach will kill you" or "the stove is hot" has immense practical utility.
• Logical Self-Contradiction: If the statement "all facts are useless" is a fact, then the statement itself is useless. If it is not a fact, then it is just a opinion and can be ignored. Either way, the author loses. [1]

Where the "PhD" is likely tripping over themselves
If this person actually has a PhD, they are likely taking a real, highly specific philosophical concept and warping it to sound provocative.
They are likely misapplying two concepts: [1]
• The Is-Ought Problem (David Hume): Hume famously argued that you cannot derive an "ought" (a moral value or action) purely from an "is" (a fact). For example, the fact that a bullet can pierce a heart does not tell you whether you should shoot someone. A nihilist might argue that because facts cannot give life "meaning," they are "useless" for spiritual or moral guidance. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Pragmatism: Some philosophers argue that knowledge is only valuable if it changes human behavior. If a fact changes nothing about how we live, a pragmatist might call it idle. [1]

The Verdict: Classic "Midwit" Behavior
Calling all facts useless "by definition" isn't deep—it is just incorrect lexicography. It confuses utility (how we use things to achieve goals) with inherent meaning (whether the universe cares about those goals).

Quote:definitionally false

Quote:“By definition” claims are strong analytic claims. This is not derivable from standard definitions of “fact” in epistemology, philosophy of language, or science studies.

Spoiler

(8 hours ago)Busty Doll Wrote: Yeah but I asked AI and he said it was

So it's your word against the machineelves