For literal centuries we have known absolute epistemological relativism is childishly easy to self refute.

Maybe (spot the computational/monadic joke).

In what objective system for evaluating proofs will you be presenting this “refutation”?

This whole “we have known” smells of a bandwagon fallacy already. Who do you represent?

I find it mildly ironic that I have to explain evaluation (and it’s dependency on a meta theory) on a forum full of computer scientists…

Let’s think in nano baby steps:

A. In what system are you presenting your argument here in your comment? Is that system objective or subjective.

B. If subjective, then I declare your argument to be false for me. End of story.

C. If objective, then congrats, you refuted yourself.

I find it wildly ironic that you condescend and resort to veiled ad hominem on top of a Logic/Philo 101 fallacy known for literal centuries.

Also, the statement “there is an objective system X” doesn’t imply “we fully know the system X”

I represent scientists and logicians and philosophers that have known this for, once again, centuries. People call X background or classical logic.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/

A. I am not presenting arguments. Only observations and inferences based on my understanding on the evidence.

B. If you declare my “argument” subjective (and therefore false for you, but true for me) you agree with my overall claim Q.E.D

C. Is it this one then? How would you prove this?

D. It is mighty presumptuous of you to assume that I subscribe to classical logic; or even a consistent logic for that matter. Or that I subscribe to the same logic at different times of day.

E. I am not impressed neither by your religion; nor by the writings of your prophets. Nullius in verba

> I am not presenting arguments. Only observations and inferences based on my understanding on the evidence.

That is what counts as an argument! An argument is a technical term from logic and includes inferences and observations (observations are single step inferences). My bad on using logic jargon, but yes, inferences/arguments/proofs all apply here. So what system are you presenting this inference in? Is that objective or subjective?

> B. If you declare my “argument” subjective (and therefore false for you, but true for me) you agree with my overall claim Q.E.D.

No, the real beauty of subjectivity is that it allows me to disagree at any level. And I disagree with you on your point above, invoking the full power of subjectivity.

In fact, let me do 100% subjectivity on the whole set of comments here, and declare all your statements false for me.

(Also, the above is proof by cases. And step B/C's conclusions alone don't go out to the outer level alone as you seem to assume. You have to combine them both).

Now, I should be getting paid for doing a logic 101 in the comments ;)

You can’t tell if my inferences are objective or subjective? Why does the distinction even matter then?

The more of my comments you declare false - the more evidence you are providing in support of relativism. It is a peculiar way to agree to my point (via disagreement).

Is that what you call “logic”?

It looked like you were making up the interpretation as you go along…