Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → "There is no truth."

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:31 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: "There is no truth."

 (Read 32221 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #120 - April 06, 2015, 08:33 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 08:27 PM
    Iua, here's another try:

    Question: How do you judge whether the scientific method is useful?

    You might answer: Because it works!

    And the thing is that "because it works!" is a philosophical position not a scientific one. Do you agree?


    No, I do not. When I say it works, it is shorthand for all of the evidence that you and I can drown in that conducting experiments without this method gives conflicting and unreliable results.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #121 - April 06, 2015, 08:36 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 08:30 PM
    Iua, here's another try:

    Question: How did mathematics find its way into the scientific method?

    Mathematics by its nature, can't be empirically tested. How can one judge whether the usage of mathematics in science is useful?


    You know what, I hate to do this, but at this point I'm going to have to ask you to give me your definition for "empirical evidence," if you don't mind. Just so we can be clear. And also explain to me how mathematics is "in" the scientific method.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #122 - April 06, 2015, 08:39 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:33 PM
    No, I do not. When I say it works, it is shorthand for all of the evidence that you and I can drown in that conducting experiments without this method gives conflicting and unreliable results.

    Consider the claim that you just made: "all of the evidence that you and I can drown in that conducting experiments without this method gives conflicting and unreliable results."

    Is that a scientific claim or a philosophical one?

    In order to determine that, we can test it against the Line of Demarcation: A theory is scientific if it can, in principle, be ruled out by empirical evidence.

    So, can your claim be ruled out by empirical evidence? If so, please explain what empirical evidence could rule out your claim.

    If not, then your claim is philosophical, not scientific.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #123 - April 06, 2015, 08:42 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:36 PM
    You know what, I hate to do this, but at this point I'm going to have to ask you to give me your definition for "empirical evidence," if you don't mind. Just so we can be clear.

    Empirical evidence is evidence from the senses (including data we get from our machines). I'm using this term the same way as in the dictionary.
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:36 PM
    And also explain to me how mathematics is "in" the scientific method.

    When we do tests, often we use statistics, right?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #124 - April 06, 2015, 08:42 PM
    Okay, so...in the end, you really are asking me to show you that the scientific method works. So how would you like your poison, Rami? Are you willing to read scientific journals if I give them to you?

    Qtian has recently informed me that this is his fault. Thanks, habibi. >: (
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #125 - April 06, 2015, 08:45 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:32 PM
    I think something you're kind of overlooking here is that you can use the scientific method perfectly, absolutely perfectly, and still get your failed experiments.

    By "failed experiments" I think you mean an experiment that didn't produce any result. If that's what you mean, I agree. Though I don't see how this relates to our discussion.
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:32 PM
    You still get the wrong answer. And the right answer comes about when you've discovered it and tested it using the same theory but a different approach, and what you compare or analyze is the data from whatever you've done.

    The order to interpret your data is not an interpretation. The scientific method is not an interpretation. It is not evidence, either. It's a method.

    I'm not following what you're saying. Are you saying that interpreting the data isn't an interpretation? I wonder if I'm just not reading your sentence right.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #126 - April 06, 2015, 08:45 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 08:42 PM
    Empirical evidence is evidence from the senses (including data we get from our machines). I'm using this term the same way as in the dictionary.


    So explain to me exactly why mathematics can't be verified using evidence from the senses or data from our machines?

    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 08:42 PM
    When we do tests, often we use statistics, right?


    Yes, sometimes? It depends on the experiment that you used the scientific method for? So...because some data sets use statistics, and statistics is part of mathematics, and data is part of the scientific method, the scientific method has mathematics in it?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #127 - April 06, 2015, 08:46 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:42 PM
    Okay, so...in the end, you really are asking me to show you that the scientific method works.

    No I'm not. I already know it works great. Did you think I didn't think it works great?

    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:42 PM
    So how would you like your poison, Rami? Are you willing to read scientific journals if I give them to you?

    If it was relevant to our discussion, I would.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #128 - April 06, 2015, 08:48 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:45 PM
    So explain to me exactly why mathematics can't be verified using evidence from the senses or data from our machines?

    I'll pose the question back to you:

    Consider the math claim: 1+1=2

    What empirical evidence could rule this out? None.

    Do you agree? If not, please tell me what empirical evidence could rule out this claim.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #129 - April 06, 2015, 08:51 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 08:45 PM
    By "failed experiments" I think you mean an experiment that didn't produce any result. If that's what you mean, I agree. Though I don't see how this relates to our discussion.


    Probably could have worded that a bit better. But no, you'll get a result, but while it ostensibly supports or refutes your thesis, it winds up (as shown by future experiments) not being the case.


    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 08:45 PM
    I'm not following what you're saying. Are you saying that interpreting the data isn't an interpretation? I wonder if I'm just not reading your sentence right.


    No, I'm saying that the scientific method isn't an interpretation even if it contains a step instructing you to interpret your results.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #130 - April 06, 2015, 08:52 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 08:48 PM
    I'll pose the question back to you:

    Consider the math claim: 1+1=2

    What empirical evidence could rule this out? None.

    Do you agree? If not, please tell me what empirical evidence could rule out this claim.


    So you're saying if I put one apple next to another apple I cannot observe with my senses that there aren't a fucktillion apples on the table now and that there are actually two?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #131 - April 06, 2015, 08:55 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 08:46 PM
    No I'm not. I already know it works great. Did you think I didn't think it works great?


    When you started telling me that that was a philosophical position and not a scientific one, yes.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #132 - April 06, 2015, 08:58 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:45 PM
    Probably could have worded that a bit better. But no, you'll get a result, but while it ostensibly supports or refutes your thesis, it winds up (as shown by future experiments) not being the case.

    Oh I see.  Ya people could have

    1. made errors while doing the experiment.

    2. or the experimental design was itself flawed such that it can't actually test the prediction of the scientific theory.

    3. or there was a flaw that the scientist made in his prediction from the scientific theory, such that the experiment doesn't actually test the theory.

    So, what would it take to find these mistakes?

    Could #3 be found by testing it against empirical evidence? No. #3 is an interpretation that a scientist made about what predictions a scientific theory makes. And the only way to correct a wrong prediction is by philosophical criticism.

  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #133 - April 06, 2015, 09:07 PM
    Oh, Rami. You're a blast, but work calls. I'll respond tonight. Grin

    In the meantime I beg of you to try to think of some way to explain this that isn't just rewording this and trying to get me to treat it like a theory. I get what you're saying and rephrasing it and giving these examples isn't changing anything. I get it. I just disagree with the premise.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #134 - April 06, 2015, 09:23 PM
    Quote from: Rami
    No I'm not. I already know it works great. Did you think I didn't think it works great?


    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:55 PM
    When you started telling me that that was a philosophical position and not a scientific one, yes.


    I don't follow what you're saying.

    I said that the scientific method is a philosophical theory. This does not imply that the scientific method doesn't work.

    Do you think that if a theory is philosophical then it's false (doesn't work)? If not, then how did you come up with your idea (that I think the scientific method doesn't work)?



    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:55 PM
    In the meantime I beg of you to try to think of some way to explain this that isn't just rewording this and trying to get me to treat it like a theory. I get what you're saying and rephrasing it and giving these examples isn't changing anything. I get it. I just disagree with the premise.

    I wonder if your disagreement stems from misunderstanding my position. Somehow you think that I think that the scientific method doesn't work. And I don't get how you came to that conclusion.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #135 - April 06, 2015, 09:42 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 01:28 PM
    Ok I'll clarify. At one point, we had created and used the scientific method, let's call it SM34.

    Then comes Karl Popper who figures out that there is a mistake that lots of scientists are committing, and he figures out the solution to it. This solution refutes SM34 and creates a new scientific method SM35.

    SM35 is SM34 with one extra component, the Line of Demarcation.

    The Line of Demarcation explains that:

    A scientific theory is a theory which can, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence.

    This implies that any theory which cannot, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence, is non-scientific.

    So, anybody who claims to be doing science, and if his supposed "scientific" theory cannot, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence, then he's not doing science.

    Do you agree with Popper's Line of Demarcation?

    If you do, my next point is this: What did it take to refute SM34? Was it the case that SM34 made empirical predictions and we found that it's predictions contradicted empirical evidence? No that's not what happened. SM34 doesn't make any empirical predictions and so we can't test it against empirical evidence. What we did was use philosophical criticism to refute SM34.


    Good example  Afro Popper did make a splash I agree with. The last of your comment is part of the philosophy of science which I also agree with.

    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 01:31 PM
    No. Here's an example.

    TheoryA: "The truth is, there is no truth."

    Is it possible to refute TheoryA by empirical evidence?


    Contradictory theory. It can be refuted by examples of truth statements. Life exists, this is true. Although it is not required given my former point.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #136 - April 06, 2015, 10:05 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:51 PM
    No, I'm saying that the scientific method isn't an interpretation even if it contains a step instructing you to interpret your results.

    Who are you arguing against? As far as I can tell, nobody here said that the scientific method is an interpretation.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #137 - April 06, 2015, 10:20 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 06, 2015, 08:52 PM
    So you're saying if I put one apple next to another apple I cannot observe with my senses that there aren't a fucktillion apples on the table now and that there are actually two?

    That's not the same claim. The claim you're talking about is:

    - Take 1 apple and put it on an empty table and put another 1 apple next to it and that results in 2 apples being on the table.

    Yes you can test this claim with empirical evidence. You can do it and if you see 1 apple, or 3 or more apples, then you’ve refuted the claim.

    But you can't use your concrete claim to create an abstract claim (like 1+1=2) without a bunch of philosophical claims to go with it.

    To clarify my point, consider another similar concrete claim:

    - Take 1 body of water and another 1 body of water put (poured) next to it and that results in 1 body of water.

    If you just try to take this concrete claim and create an abstract claim from it, without any extra philosophical claims, you'd get 1+1=1, which is false.

    Do you see what I mean by that you can't do this stuff without philosophical claims?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #138 - April 06, 2015, 10:46 PM
    For those having issues with Rami's statements maybe I can help. Empiricism was a shift in natural philosophy away from rationalism toward evidence based ideas as the primary source of knowledge. Both use information from personal sense, observation/perception, as the starting point. From this point rationalist will use reasoning to "warrant" belief in an idea as true, empiricists use evidence foremost to warrant belief. This divide is largely a facade as view use an either or view. The divide is based on which has priority, evidence or reason.

    For example look at some cosmological arguments; first cause, contingency, etc. These arguments use both evidence and reason for the ground work of the idea but can create different conclusions, or lack one. For the first cause one can merely observe themselves. For example witnessing the birth of one's child and grandchildren can be uses as the basis for a cause and contingency. The child's cause are their parent, the grandchild's cause is their parent and their grandparent. For the empiricist this is also evidence. So both methods of thought use the same data as a starting point. The rationalist can use this point to create the idea of causality by using more data then I have provided above toward a conclusion of "Everything that begins to exist has a cause", Kalem. The empiricist would not make this conclusion due to a lack of data. Unknown objects have no evidence, per being unknown, so one should not conclude what is true for X is true for unknown Y.  The empiricist would point of we can identify a cause linked to an effect thus This is a strict divide between views really does not exist for the majority of scientists and philosophers. Which method warrants belief in an idea as true thus is true knowledge. William Lane Craig is an example of rationalist as evidence only provides support to reason. A physicist would be the closest to a empiricist view since evidence has a priority and is require for any conclusion.

    An issue today is empiricism is largely confined to the sciences. This has left philosophy as an interesting and relevant career path but an unprofitable one. The opportunities for advancement are confined largely to teaching where as the sciences are not. This has caused philosophy to become dependent on the sciences for it's personal sense experiences. For science it has become divorced from the philosophy of science and it's hard questions. How much evidence is required to support a theory? Should the amount of evidence increase as the theory becomes increasingly complex? Is verification more reliable than falsification, read Popper regarding this point. Sciences often only teach the method but not the philosophy behind it.

    It seems like I am the only one that agrees with Rami.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #139 - April 06, 2015, 10:55 PM
    Quote from: Bogart
    A physicist would be the closest to a empiricist view since evidence has a priority and is require for any conclusion.

    I'm not clear on what you mean here, but I'm guessing you're saying that empirical evidence has a priority over philosophical theories/criticism. If that's what you mean, that's not right.

    In _The Beginning of Infinity_, David Deutsch (who is a physicist) says: "The overwhelming majority of theories are rejected because they contain bad explanations, not because they fail experimental tests."

    So he's identifying philosophy as the thing that refutes more scientific theories than compared to empirical evidence.


    Quote from: Bogart
    How much evidence is required to support a theory?

    Bad question. Evidence doesn't work by supporting theories. Instead it works by refuting theories. Let me know if you'd like to discuss this (we should start a new thread).
    Quote from: Bogart
    Should the amount of evidence increase as the theory becomes increasingly complex?

    What do you mean by amount of evidence? Why would amount matter? I think this question is bad for the same reason as the previous question.
    Quote from: Bogart
    Is verification more reliable than falsification, read Popper regarding this point.

    (this question is connected to the 1st one above)

    Verification is impossible. (I'm saying this in the tradition of Karl Popper, David Deutsch, Elliot Temple.)
    Quote from: Bogart
    Sciences often only teach the method but not the philosophy behind it.

    Ya there's so many "scientists" claiming to be doing science and their theories don't even pass the test of the Line of Demarcation.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #140 - April 06, 2015, 11:04 PM
    Quote from: bogart on April 06, 2015, 10:46 PM
    It seems like I am the only one that agrees with Rami.

    suki agreed with me too.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #141 - April 06, 2015, 11:10 PM
    My examples were to point of established divide between those that favour empiricism or rationalism as extremes. It was not part of philosophical theories but the filter which an individual uses. For Craig the conclusion no matter the evidence provided by physicists ultimately rests on a cause which he defines as God. One could attack his argument in a number of ways such as the negative definition of God; timeless, formless, etc. One could also press for details. How does a timeless entity act without time? How can one identify the cause and the effect without time and spatial references?

    Quote
    Bad question. Evidence doesn't work by supporting theories. Instead it works by refuting theories. Let me know if you'd like to discuss this (we should start a new thread).


    I know it was a bad question, that was the point. I have read Popper and agree with him. One can produce verification for any number of ideas but all it take is one piece of evidence or faulty think it rendering all the verification moot

    Quote
    Should the amount of evidence increase as the theory becomes increasingly complex?


    It was a play on Hitchen's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Look at the conflict between ID and Evolution. There is a myriad of different requirements proposed by supports of each group. Again an example of people taking passed each other. It is the fascination with evidence that is still dominate, the outdated SM if you will.

    Quote
    (this question is connected to the 1st one above)

    Verification is impossible. (I'm saying this in the tradition of Karl Popper, David Deutsch, Elliot Temple.)


    Yes it is connected, it was to show the previous dominate verification view being questioned by falsification. It was not a mistake but to make a point.

    Like I said earlier I have read Popper. I have interacted with Temple on his website. All the flawed questions were for a purpose covered by their work just put forward on the thread.

    Quote
    Ya there's so many "scientists" claiming to be doing science and their theories don't even pass the test of the Line of Demarcation.


    This is due to the requirement of many to produce results. Look at pharmaceuticals in which results net more funding and profite. Science is becoming industrialized by corporations wanting to sell you something.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #142 - April 06, 2015, 11:41 PM
    The post in the OP is excellent.

    As for the ongoing debate, I'm no Philosophy major, but I think I understand a bit of the points on all sides and maybe where the differences of opinion are too.

    What we call "Science" is itself a Philosophical assertion, not least because the Scientific Method relies on "Logic" which is a philosophical concept. Now, there are times when this Scientific Method results in correct interpretations of reality (finding cures for diseases, fine tuning a renewable energy extraction method, etc.), but the method itself is rooted in philosophical concepts (Logic being 1 of them) going back to pre-Hellenic times. And even now, science is basically applied philosophy. There's nothing degrading to science for us to admit that. I see the antagonism between 'science' and 'philosophy' but I don't think it's necessary. I think it's a matter of team science thinking that team philosophy is wasting time overthinking things, while team philosophy thinks that team science is not thinking about the underlying assumptions of science (and hence its possible blind spots).

    I like both TBH. I like it when they inform each other.

    **slinks away quietly from thread**
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #143 - April 07, 2015, 12:10 AM
    Qtian just can't stay away from the debate:

    You are the Universe, Expressing itself as a Human for a little while- Eckhart Tolle
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #144 - April 07, 2015, 12:18 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 11:04 PM
    suki agreed with me too.


    Ha ha yep i did.. but i'm not able to elaborate, slow thinker here lol ...
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #145 - April 07, 2015, 12:22 AM
    Quote from: Ishtar90 on April 07, 2015, 12:10 AM
    Qtian just can't stay away from the debate:

    (Clicky for piccy!)


     Afro From what I've read of Pigluicci, he's excellent.
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #146 - April 07, 2015, 01:22 AM
    Quote from: bogart on April 06, 2015, 10:46 PM
    For those having issues with Rami's statements maybe I can help.


    Oh, thank everything that is holy. Yes, Bogart, whom I love dearly, please explain. I read the rest of your post and that's all fine and good, but this is the part that's still getting me. Scientific method a theory: how? TL;DR me, please.

    Quote from: allat on April 06, 2015, 11:41 PM
    The post in the OP is excellent.

    As for the ongoing debate, I'm no Philosophy major, but I think I understand a bit of the points on all sides and maybe where the differences of opinion are too.

    What we call "Science" is itself a Philosophical assertion, not least because the Scientific Method relies on "Logic" which is a philosophical concept. Now, there are times when this Scientific Method results in correct interpretations of reality (finding cures for diseases, fine tuning a renewable energy extraction method, etc.), but the method itself is rooted in philosophical concepts (Logic being 1 of them) going back to pre-Hellenic times. And even now, science is basically applied philosophy. There's nothing degrading to science for us to admit that. I see the antagonism between 'science' and 'philosophy' but I don't think it's necessary. I think it's a matter of team science thinking that team philosophy is wasting time overthinking things, while team philosophy thinks that team science is not thinking about the underlying assumptions of science (and hence its possible blind spots).

    I like both TBH. I like it when they inform each other.

    **slinks away quietly from thread**


    No, please don't slink away, because this is exactly the answer I was asking for with my first post and you would've saved me like three pages of going in circles about theories if you had responded back then. Rami, if this is what you were really trying to say when you said the scientific method is a philosophy, because it's based on logic which is a philosophical ordeal and all that, then fine, I can get behind that. Or at least I can see where you're coming from. Getting behind it might still be a bit strong. Because:

    Quote
    I think it's a matter of team science thinking that team philosophy is wasting time overthinking things


    I'm a million percent guilty as charged here, anyway. Grin Our Qtian has been trying to get me to learn more about philosophy, and...inshallah. I'm sure in the end you're right. And, like forcing myself to consume vegetables, I know I should learn more about philosophy, but...
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #147 - April 07, 2015, 01:25 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 10:05 PM
    Who are you arguing against? As far as I can tell, nobody here said that the scientific method is an interpretation.


    It was my best guess at what you were trying to get me to see in the post that you wrote to Jedi that you asked me to read. I'd ask you to clarify what you meant there but...let's take a break for a minute pending bogart or someone explaining this, because, like I've said before, I'm really not getting behind your explanations. So let's hang on a minute. Grin

    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 06, 2015, 10:20 PM
    That's not the same claim. The claim you're talking about is:

    - Take 1 apple and put it on an empty table and put another 1 apple next to it and that results in 2 apples being on the table.

    Yes you can test this claim with empirical evidence. You can do it and if you see 1 apple, or 3 or more apples, then you’ve refuted the claim.

    But you can't use your concrete claim to create an abstract claim (like 1+1=2) without a bunch of philosophical claims to go with it.

    To clarify my point, consider another similar concrete claim:

    - Take 1 body of water and another 1 body of water put (poured) next to it and that results in 1 body of water.

    If you just try to take this concrete claim and create an abstract claim from it, without any extra philosophical claims, you'd get 1+1=1, which is false.

    Do you see what I mean by that you can't do this stuff without philosophical claims?


    ...Well, in this case I'd say what you have on your hands is a unit problem. Cheesy You have a gallon of water on the ground and you pour another gallon of water near it and it joins, you have one body of water, sure, but that shit's 2 gallons now. Grin
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #148 - April 07, 2015, 01:26 AM
    Quote from: Ishtar90 on April 07, 2015, 12:10 AM
    Qtian just can't stay away from the debate:

    (Clicky for piccy!)


    No, Qtian has been in my ear and in Rami's ear and just behind the scenes this whole time wringing his hands and cackling as we amuse him.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #149 - April 07, 2015, 01:26 AM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 01:22 AM
    I'm a million percent guilty as charged here, anyway. Grin Our Qtian has been trying to get me to learn more about philosophy, and...inshallah. I'm sure in the end you're right. And, like forcing myself to consume vegetables, I know I should learn more about philosophy, but...

    Philosophy is rather like psychology in the sense that the more you learn, the more your mind adapts to this way of thinking, the more you see things in ways you never did before. It's a worthwhile pursuit in my opinion.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »