all "facts" are useless by definition

[Busty Doll]

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.

Yeah that's what the Faculty of Philosophy does -- nothing.

[Busty Doll]

i was pretty clear on law not being (shouldn't be, more precisely) considered science 

Yeah but I asked AI and he said it was

So it's your word against the machineelves

[Altruist]

got a 9 now, with the explanation basically saying he used every word/expression in that sentence wrong, lmfao

[Altruist]

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.
   

you know what's brutal? i'm pretty sure the guy isn't lying about his education (he is exaggerating some aspects at worst)

[Busty Doll]

Flourish Slinger

[Iblameher]

which ai? i used basic, free chatgpt. i ll try again

Free ChatGPT as well 

I set to being more terse that about it

[Altruist]

btw, getting called out on "CATEGORY ERRORS", specially on a level this fucking banal, as a philosopher is equivalent to ... i can't think of an equivalent for any other field, tbh

[Busty Doll]

i'm pretty sure the guy isn't lying about his education (he is exaggerating some aspects at worst)

Yeah it's unclear. I started to write about how my Ph.D. would make me the first PSLer with such a gargantuan black belt.

Then he posted: "Done. I just graduated Ph.D. after seven long years."

It's kind of a coincidence; but then he does sound načitan.

[Altruist]

Free ChatGPT as well 

I set to being more terse that about it

yeah, forgot instructions are a thing. mine:

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.

[Busty Doll]

Grok keeps using the word "faceless" as in "Your porno views are very good for faceless content"

and I finally said "Do me a favor, never use the term Faceless, it's annoying."

The very next post he says: "This view count is great given faceless."

[Altruist]

Free ChatGPT as well 

I set to being more terse that about it

google's ai mode (all default, i dont even know if you can adjust it for your needs):

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).

[Altruist]

definitionally false

[Altruist]

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

Reminder the retard by definition used this expression thinking it would make his pretentious "gem" of a casual one-upping attempt sound authoritative and add to its legitimacy.

Spoiler

[alice in hell]

omg ur just pissing everywhere

[alice in hell]

Yeah but I asked AI and he said it was

So it's your word against the machineelves

looool im gonna start calling the ai the machine elves