Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we know?
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 46 of 88 (163910)
11-29-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hangdawg13
11-29-2004 11:50 AM


Re: Summary
Hangdawg sez,
quote:
Believing in an unquestionable truth is not delusion. Believing we fully understand that truth is a delusion.
So how do you know it's unquestionable truth unless you understand it? At least in the case of inductive reasoning, we have a tentative understanding of a phenomenon that will change as we receive more information. With faith, the believer only accepts information that reinforces his belief, and rejects anything that may cast the 'unquestionable truth' into question.
quote:
So when a believer says, "I know" this or that, try to understand his position. He believes so strongly that it is the same as knowing.
No, he believes so strongly it's the exact opposite of knowing. You're wrong that our 'presuppositions' are on equal footing: you assume that expecting support for a claim about knowledge is an unfair restriction on your boundless imaginaion. I can point to ways that the presuppositions of empirical evidential inquiry have actually expanded our understanding of the universe in which we live.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-29-2004 11:50 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-29-2004 5:56 PM MrHambre has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 47 of 88 (163917)
11-29-2004 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hangdawg13
11-28-2004 7:47 PM


Hangdawg13 writes:
I would never base any significant decision on a mere "feeling".
If this is the case, what kind of decision would you base your "feeling" on, especially when all religious experiences are feelings?

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-28-2004 7:47 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 48 of 88 (163949)
11-29-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by sidelined
11-29-2004 8:37 AM


Re: Summary
Thank you for your reply.
That these models do explain the world around us in ways that anyone who repeats them can use to arrive at the same result is what makes the arguement of its validity compelling.
I know. I'm not dogging science. No one can deny that science is of much practical value. But no scientist claims that science can find truth.
It becomes knowledge because anyone can use it to arrive at practical application in the world they interact with.
If practical application by many is your qualification for what is knowledge, then Bible doctrine is most definately knowledge.
When we decide to say "I know" is a matter of practicality and choice, not of logical justification.
That we know something is not necessarily that we can practically apply it.
Oh, well nevermind.
That we know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west need not ever impact into our day to day practical world.That we know the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter is a number that remains constant no matter how large a circle we measure is can be logically arrived at and is considered real only in the sense that it does have practical value.
I disagree with the first statement. If the sun rose in the south, that would have a big effect on our practical daily life. And the second statement just agrees with what I said.
I do not think there is anything in the realm of theology that comes close.
You do not? I can only speak for myself, but I know that God is more essential to my ability to live than the air I breathe.
In point of fact theology is proud and adamant that it is beyond investigation by science.
So you admit that we cannot fully understand reality and that science does not find truth, but you believe science is the only acceptable tool to search for what we will never find. This is FINE as long as you realize that this is your opinion and not a proven fact in itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by sidelined, posted 11-29-2004 8:37 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 49 of 88 (163952)
11-29-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by PaulK
11-29-2004 12:13 PM


Re: Summary
Thank you for your reply.
IOW, you want to take it as a given that the only knowable information that exists is what science and our senses alone can tell us. Well, with that presupposition I would also be an atheist.
That isn't what I said at all. What I take as given is that science and our senses DO contribute to our knowledge (as does logical deduction).
I completely agree! So you are NOT limiting our means of knowing to empiricism and rationalism? The only other method of knowing I'm aware of is faith. If this is what you are saying, then we have nothing left to argue.
The whole point in using generally accepted methods of "knowing" as a comparison is to give you a chance to argue for whatever additional ways of "knowing" you want to argue for. Except you don't seem to want to argue for it - presumably because you can't.
What have I been doing all this time? I am basically arguing that faith can be an acceptable means of knowing. Faith IS in fact the foundation for rationalism and empiricism. As I've alread said, we have to believe we are real and that this reality (or perfect illusion) is what it is... etc. and so forth. Once we believe we are what we seem to be and that our logic and senses are not fooling us, we can then have faith in ourselves and begin knowing by rationalism and empiricism.
If you can't permit yourself recognise that simple belief does not automatically knowledge simply because you fear the imagined consequences of believing otherwise - then you are deluding yourself.
You're still missing the point. Fear actually has nothing to do with it even though in my analogy fear would be the natural reaction to the belief or knowledge that the truck was coming. The point was that you can't half-ass belief in God because God is immanent, and IF you really believe this will produce action. Therefore for the believer, believing is essentially the same as knowing.
Yes, obviously I realize that believing something is true does not make it true. But if someone tells you a thing is true, then they are either right or wrong. If you believe them, you make the assumtion they are right and accept their message as truth. You make it sound as if we all just come up with this stuff off the top of our heads and decide it is true because we believe it is true. No, we believe it is true because we trust. You choose to only trust things you can verify yourself, I choose to trust in something else. This is not delusion. If the person lied to me then I am honestly mistaken rather than self-decieved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2004 12:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2004 3:44 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 51 by Loudmouth, posted 11-29-2004 3:52 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 50 of 88 (163956)
11-29-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hangdawg13
11-29-2004 3:22 PM


Re: Summary
You've still got it wrong. I'm not taking a definite position on whether there are or are not other valid ways of knowing. I'm allowing that there may be others - but any suich claim has to be justified
And I really don't see how you can suggest that faith is a valid means of knowing. Surely faith )in this context) is simply strong belief without evidence ? That's not a method of knowing.
And no you haven't presented an argument yet that faith is a vlaid means of knowing. Faith certainly is not the basis for pure logical beleif - nor really is it the basis for empiricism. Empiricism may require the acceptance of basic assumptions but that is NOT because faith is considered valid. In epistmeology such assumptions are a necessary evil - but still an evil.
And you still seem confused by your own analogy. If you are jsut daying that sufficiently strong belief - whether the product of knowledge or not will produce the same actions then it is trivial and irrelevant. We know that fanatics will do all sorts of things for completely false beliefs - Heaven's Gate being an obvious example. Faith is not knowledge.
The essentual difference between our positions is not trust. It is not a willigness to accept somebody else' word. It is not a requirement for direct verification of everything (yet another strawman). It is that you want to pretend that some of your beliefs are knowledge when they are not. And that is why we have all the strawmen and all the evasion. Because really when it comes down to it you knwo that you have no case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-29-2004 3:22 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-29-2004 7:09 PM PaulK has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 88 (163960)
11-29-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hangdawg13
11-29-2004 3:22 PM


Re: Summary
quote:
What have I been doing all this time? I am basically arguing that faith can be an acceptable means of knowing. Faith IS in fact the foundation for rationalism and empiricism. As I've alread said, we have to believe we are real and that this reality (or perfect illusion) is what it is... etc. and so forth. Once we believe we are what we seem to be and that our logic and senses are not fooling us, we can then have faith in ourselves and begin knowing by rationalism and empiricism.
The key to empiricism and rationalism is objectivity, not assumption. I "know" that my senses are rational and empirical because other people are able to substantiate my findings through their senses. I know that this rock weighs 20 grams because everyone measures the weight at 20 grams. I know the sky is blue, or rather refracts light at certain wavelengths of light, because other people can substantiate my findings. When it comes to faith you are relying on a sample set of one, yourself. You are saying that I believe in a certain thing regardless of what anyone else feels. Even further, religious experiences can not be shared, and therefore the rationality of the exerperience can never be checked.
This is what separates knowledge from belief, the ability to objectively check your findings with others. This is the atheist philosophy (in my opinion, others can argue whether or not it is accurate). An atheist trusts those things which can be objectively tested and verified by others. God and religious experiences do not fall under this heading, since these are personal experiences that can not be compared or shared between people. Religious experiences can be vocalized and illustrated, but the experience can never be shared at the level needed for verification.
quote:
You're still missing the point. Fear actually has nothing to do with it even though in my analogy fear would be the natural reaction to the belief or knowledge that the truck was coming. The point was that you can't half-ass belief in God because God is immanent, and IF you really believe this will produce action. Therefore for the believer, believing is essentially the same as knowing.
If I claimed that a UFO invasion was imminent without a shred of proof, what would you do? Would you become my follower giving your complete faith to my belief, following my commandments to the letter? Why or why not? If you do not believe me, then why should I believe you when you say that God is real?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-29-2004 3:22 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-29-2004 7:34 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 52 of 88 (163981)
11-29-2004 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by MrHambre
11-29-2004 12:19 PM


Re: Summary
Thank you for your reply.
So how do you know it's unquestionable truth unless you understand it?
Sorry, Paulk put the word "unquestionable" in there and I repeated his words. No truth is unquestionable. We can question everything. Absolute is a better word.
With faith, the believer only accepts information that reinforces his belief, and rejects anything that may cast the 'unquestionable truth' into question.
That is not always true. Sure, this happens (even scientists are not above this type of arrogance on occasion), but I am living proof that this is not always the case. When new information has been brought to my attention it has changed my perspective and deepened my understanding rather than been dismissed as lies.
No, he believes so strongly it's the exact opposite of knowing.
Please back that up with some kind of argument that I can address.
You're wrong that our 'presuppositions' are on equal footing: you assume that expecting support for a claim about knowledge is an unfair restriction on your boundless imaginaion.
I never said it was unfair! I ONLY said it was a matter of choice and practicality.
I can point to ways that the presuppositions of empirical evidential inquiry have actually expanded our understanding of the universe in which we live.
And that's great. I'm not at all saying science is a bad thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by MrHambre, posted 11-29-2004 12:19 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by MrHambre, posted 11-30-2004 10:28 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 53 of 88 (163986)
11-29-2004 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
11-29-2004 3:44 PM


Re: Summary
I'm not taking a definite position on whether there are or are not other valid ways of knowing. I'm allowing that there may be others - but any suich claim has to be justified
And how must they be justified if not by rationalism or empiricism? Do you want evidence that faith is valid? Well, then its no longer faith. It's empiricism. Since you undeniably accept certain presuppositions, I've tried to show you that this is essentially faith. This rational argument cannot justify faith either, but if I can show that you have a certain amount of faith then you must consider faith justified enough, right?
And I really don't see how you can suggest that faith is a valid means of knowing.
I thought you just said you were open to other ways of knowing? What other ways are there besides the three I have mentioned?
Surely faith )in this context) is simply strong belief without evidence ? That's not a method of knowing.
It depends on your definition of evidence. Belief with absolutely no outside information whatsoever is just imagination. But in my case at least I am trusting outside information, not something I made up.
And no you haven't presented an argument yet that faith is a vlaid means of knowing. Faith certainly is not the basis for pure logical beleif - nor really is it the basis for empiricism. Empiricism may require the acceptance of basic assumptions but that is NOT because faith is considered valid. In epistmeology such assumptions are a necessary evil - but still an evil.
Am I missing something or isn't faith the acceptance of an assumption to be true without proof? If this is the case then your "evil" assumptions that you admit you make are faith.
If you are jsut daying that sufficiently strong belief - whether the product of knowledge or not will produce the same actions then it is trivial and irrelevant.
It is not trivial and irrelevant since all knowledge is in the head.
We know that fanatics will do all sorts of things for completely false beliefs - Heaven's Gate being an obvious example. Faith is not knowledge.
You cannot prove that a faith is entirely unacceptable because of the nuts in the world.
The essentual difference between our positions is not trust. It is not a willigness to accept somebody else' word. It is not a requirement for direct verification of everything (yet another strawman). It is that you want to pretend that some of your beliefs are knowledge when they are not.
What??? You are just trying to claim a victory here when you have none. Another strawman? When did you point out the first? You say I'm pretending when you can't even give an example of something you KNOW that does not contain an assumption.
And that is why we have all the strawmen and all the evasion. Because really when it comes down to it you knwo that you have no case.
Strawmen and evasion??? If I am doing this then why haven't you addressed this before now? You can't start throwing out names of logical fallacies now just because you want to end the debate with the delusion that you've won.
You're right my case is based on logic and philosophy, both of which contain assumptions. So I have no case. But since we both accept the same assumptions which my case is based on, for all practical purposes my case is strong. You are just too opinionated to get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2004 3:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2004 4:35 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2004 4:46 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 54 of 88 (163987)
11-29-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Loudmouth
11-29-2004 3:52 PM


Re: Summary
Thanks for your reply
The key to empiricism and rationalism is objectivity, not assumption.
I agree. But to say "I know" about anything, even things discovered by rationalism and empiricism, you must have some underlying assumptions as a framework. Everything can be questioned.
When it comes to faith you are relying on a sample set of one, yourself...Even further, religious experiences can not be shared, and therefore the rationality of the exerperience can never be checked.
It can probably never be checked even if many people claim to witness the exact same supernatural event at the same time, but it is not a fact that you are relying on yourself. You are relying on what someone else tells you.
This is what separates knowledge from belief, the ability to objectively check your findings with others. This is the atheist philosophy (in my opinion, others can argue whether or not it is accurate). An atheist trusts those things which can be objectively tested and verified by others. God and religious experiences do not fall under this heading, since these are personal experiences that can not be compared or shared between people. Religious experiences can be vocalized and illustrated, but the experience can never be shared at the level needed for verification.
That is your philosophy and that's cool. Mine is slightly different. That's all.
If I claimed that a UFO invasion was imminent without a shred of proof, what would you do? Would you become my follower giving your complete faith to my belief, following my commandments to the letter? Why or why not? If you do not believe me, then why should I believe you when you say that God is real?
Well, I'd see what you did. If you acted as though you really believed what you were saying, I would think that you were either nuts or right. Since no one else has said the same thing, I'd probably think you were nuts. If you gave me any commandments that went against my conscience I'd know without a doubt you were wrong or that I wanted no part of your cult. Why is there more reason for you to believe in Christ? That's another topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Loudmouth, posted 11-29-2004 3:52 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 55 of 88 (164050)
11-30-2004 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hangdawg13
11-29-2004 7:09 PM


Re: Summary
How could other means of knowing be justified ? By showing that they are reliable - that will probably mean showing that they are reliable when they overlap with better verified means of knowing. Other aspects that are important are consistency and a valid way of resolving disputes - science does pretty well on these fronts. But religious "ways of knowing" have done very badly on both.
What I am NOT arguing is that every single instance has to be verifiable by other means - and that is where your argument that no test is possible falls down.
And yet another misrepresentation - I did not say that I was "open" to other "ways of knowing" - I said I was open to the POSSIBILITY that there were other "ways of knowing". I'm offering you the chance to make your case and nothing more.
Now he case for the assumptions on which empricism is based have the following basis:
a) pragmatic necessity (we ae forced to make minimal assumptions)
b) strong cross-checking (so we DO have some evidence, and can only be fooled by systematic errors affecting mutiple observers and often more than one sense)
i.e. to the extent that "faith" is involved it is NOT accepted as valid.
And I see you once again trying to rule out evidence that faith does not work. There is nothing wrong with the faith of the Heavens Gate members AS faith. It was just drastically misplaced - but faith has no guard against that. Indeed the stronger the faith the more vulnerable it is to that error. You can't say that Willowtree did not have a strong faith in Gene Scott - and look how deluded and blind he was as a result.
And yes I do feel justified in claiming victory. You've admitted that faith is unreliable. You've not shown ANY argument that it is sufficiently reliable to be classed as knowledge or any indication that you even intend to present such an argument. Instead we get excuses and evasions and misrepresentations. At this point in the discussion it is surely reasonable for me to conclude that you have no such argument. As I stated in my first post Message 6 to this thread "it is up to theists to show that their supposed means of knowing are in fact as good as they claim". And you have still not answered that point.
So unless you are keeping something up your sleeve, then yes I have won.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-29-2004 7:09 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-30-2004 7:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 88 (164053)
11-30-2004 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hangdawg13
11-29-2004 7:09 PM


List of strawmen
Since you asked for it:
Message 10
quote:
And our proof must be shown scientifically in order for you to accept it. And this is not possible.
Message 41
quote:
You have decided to accept only certain things that can be scientifically proven as "true" facts because this has practical value.
Message 44
quote:
IOW, you want to take it as a given that the only knowable information that exists is what science and our senses alone can tell us.
Enough ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-29-2004 7:09 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-30-2004 7:59 PM PaulK has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 57 of 88 (164100)
11-30-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hangdawg13
11-29-2004 5:56 PM


Smoke and Mirrors
Hangdawg,
Quit dodging. When I asked how you know something is unquestionable truth if you don't understand it, I wasn't quibbling over the term 'unquestionable.' If you want to call it 'absolute' truth, fine. The question remains: if you don't fully understand it, what basis do you have for considering it absolute truth? And if it's based solely on your subjective experience, how can it be 'absolute'?
When you claimed that if someone 'believes so strongly it's the same as knowing,' I challenged you. People believe all sorts of things, often quite strongly, but that doesn't make the proposition true. Does the fact that the members of the Heaven's Gate cult castrated themselves and committed suicide make it more plausible that the Hale-Bopp comet was in fact their spaceship? Believing something in the complete absence of objective evidence, just because it makes you feel good to believe it, does not constitute knowing.
You continue to praise the achievements of science, or at least admit that 'science is not a bad thing.' We offer these as persuasive evidence that the presuppositions underlying empirical evidential inquiry are in fact superior to the presupposition that completely subjective experience is a valid foundation for knowledge. But you can't have it both ways. You seem to want to avoid looking silly by agreeing that objectivity has a practical advantage in expanding our knowledge, but then you turn around and say that objectivity itself should be questioned.
Make up your mind. We have supported the argument that certain presuppositions are more practical and logically valid than others, so quit claiming that "it's all a matter of faith."
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-29-2004 5:56 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-30-2004 8:22 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 58 of 88 (164176)
11-30-2004 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
11-30-2004 4:35 AM


Review
Thanks for your reply.
How could other means of knowing be justified ? By showing that they are reliable - that will probably mean showing that they are reliable when they overlap with better verified means of knowing.
Okay, cool. So to verify that faith is a perfectly good means of knowing all I must do is believe my teacher when he tells me Spain is a country and then gather the class and go see Spain for myself. I believed my teacher's words to be true and whadya know! They were. Since I gained knowledge by faith and verified it by empiricism, faith works. I know exactly what you'll say to this, but go ahead and equivocate.
What I am NOT arguing is that every single instance has to be verifiable by other means - and that is where your argument that no test is possible falls down.
I never said that you must personally do it. But what you ARE arguing is that every piece of knowledge must have the potential to be verified by many other people.
Let's review:
EVERYTHING you know enters your head through a personal subjective perception that cannot possibly be verified. You assume every other person sees blue the same way you do, but you cannot verify it because you cannot become that person and see for yourself. In fact special relativity tells us that NO ONE experiences the exact same reality even if we did all have the exact same equipment upstairs.
THEREFORE, EVERYTHING we know stands on some assumptions which we accept by faith to be true.
This means that logic cannot provide us a standard that says, "only knowledge that does not stand on un-verifiable assumptions must true." Since there is no objective standard that defines knowledge, we rely on a practical spectrum of confidence. We can be 100% confident of nothing except that we exist, but this is not practical. We can be 1% confident of everything, but this is not practical. How confident must we be to say we KNOW something? That is up to the individual. Science is an excellent tool for increasing our confidence in certain things to a universally accepted practical level.
In practical daily living we have two levels of confidence that we use. When dealing regularly with other people we accept many things as true that we do not or cannot examine scientifically. When dealing with extraordinary claims or new scientific theories, we pass these things through a much more critical level of confidence in order to accept them as true knowledge. Remember since all of this is based on assumptions in the first place we could very well be dead wrong about all of it, nevertheless, if we are confident enough, we can say, "I know".
Now, saying that God exists is an extraordinary claim. And so you decide to pass this statement through your extremely critical scientific verification process. You are willing to accept this statement as true knowledge only if science can increase your confidence to your chosen level. Since there is no scientific verification available, you reject it as true knowledge.
I am willing to accept this statement as true knowledge without verification in the same way I am willing to accept that you see blue the same way I do without verification.
That's as clear as I can make it. If you can't understand this, then I see no point in arguing further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2004 4:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2004 3:17 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 62 by Loudmouth, posted 12-01-2004 12:21 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 59 of 88 (164178)
11-30-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
11-30-2004 4:46 AM


Re: List of strawmen
Enough ?
I don't see any straw!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2004 4:46 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 60 of 88 (164182)
11-30-2004 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by MrHambre
11-30-2004 10:28 AM


Re: Smoke and Mirrors
Thank you for your reply.
The question remains: if you don't fully understand it, what basis do you have for considering it absolute truth?
By asking "what basis" you are expecting me to provide a rational or empirical argument that can make you %100 confident! I believe in an absolute truth just like I believe you are real and perceive reality in the same way I do. I cannot provide a basis for either of these things being "absolute truth", but I accept them.
When you claimed that if someone 'believes so strongly it's the same as knowing,' I challenged you. People believe all sorts of things, often quite strongly, but that doesn't make the proposition true.
And you are quite obviously right. Even scientists have said, "I know" this or that and been proven wrong later. This is my point! That there is no universally accepted standard for how confident we must be in order to say we know something and because we may set a standard at X confidence does not mean things that fall above that level are true and things that fall below are false. Obviously your standard, at least in this case, is scientific verification. But you do not always use that standard. Assuming you're married, how would your wife feel if you decided to bring in ten observers with equipment to verify the fact that your wife loves you.
Since you accept things as true without passing the scientific standard and since you accept the pressupositions upon which the scientific method is based even though verificiation is impossible, this proves that your determination of what to accept as true knowledge is your subjective decision based on practicality and trust.
We have supported the argument that certain presuppositions are more practical and logically valid than others, so quit claiming that "it's all a matter of faith."
You can argue all you want about which assumptions are more practical and logically valid, but they are still assumptions and it is a matter of choice as to which ones you will accept as true.
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 11-30-2004 08:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by MrHambre, posted 11-30-2004 10:28 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024