Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ground Rules
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 46 of 68 (513982)
07-03-2009 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by onifre
07-02-2009 8:56 PM


Re: seek and destroy
Onifre,
I know this means little on a forum, but i got you back on this.
This guy is out of line. He never addressed anything on the other thread.
I am only be a half-breed hispanic and I have no idea how a full anglo or even a full hispanic would respond to an attack like this, but in my mind it is time to kick some ass.
Since I can't do that. Give him hell and I will follow upo with another salvo behind you.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 07-02-2009 8:56 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by onifre, posted 07-03-2009 3:15 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 47 of 68 (513983)
07-03-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by InGodITrust
07-01-2009 3:27 AM


InGodITrust responds to Phage0070:
quote:
Phage, I hold steadfast to my faith. I have had doubts from time to time, but keep returning to the belief that God exists.
That isn't an answer. You were asked if it were possible that you were wrong.
Scientists clearly think that our current models are accurate, though they can give you dozens of reasons how they might be proven wrong. While they can show you all the ways which justify why we think we know what we know, that doesn't stop them from considering the possibility that they're wrong.
Is it possible that you're wrong about your beliefs?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by InGodITrust, posted 07-01-2009 3:27 AM InGodITrust has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 48 of 68 (513984)
07-03-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by InGodITrust
07-01-2009 3:47 AM


InGodITrust writes:
quote:
How about the origin of life? Isn't that an area with a lot of scientist trying to find how life occurred "naturally", through chemical reactions, rather than being created by a god?
How does that equate to atheism? Are you saying that the only possible way for god to exist is to have god be the creator of life?
Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by InGodITrust, posted 07-01-2009 3:47 AM InGodITrust has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 49 of 68 (513986)
07-03-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phage0070
07-01-2009 8:08 AM


Phage0070 writes:
quote:
God is not part of their hypotheses because they do not observe anything that particularly indicates a god was involved.
Sorta. Science also seeks to remove people from the equation. Clearly, people exist, but the point of science is to find out how things happen on their own. If I take two moles of hydrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas and mix them at STP, it does me no good to leave it unobserved while I go to lunch and then come back astounded to find that the canister now has water in it, never bothering to ask my assistant, "Did you do something to the canister?"
The denial of other people isn't a claim that they don't exist. It's that other people are capricious and fickle and we cannot rely upon their actions. The idea is not to find out what happens to the gases when we let somebody we can't control play with them. The idea is to find out what happens to the gases when they are left to their own devices.
As you say, "There is no malice involved, scientists look only in the natural world because it is the only place they can objectively look." It isn't a question of "no evidence." It's that they are deliberately avoiding actions beyond thost that happen on their own.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phage0070, posted 07-01-2009 8:08 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Phage0070, posted 07-03-2009 9:59 AM Rrhain has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 50 of 68 (513987)
07-03-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
07-03-2009 2:38 AM


Re: seek and destroy
Hi Theodoric,
I know this means little on a forum, but i got you back on this.
Gracias, bro.
I am only be a half-breed hispanic and I have no idea how a full anglo or even a full hispanic would respond to an attack like this, but in my mind it is time to kick some ass.
Since I can't do that. Give him hell and I will follow up with another salvo behind you.
The reason he mouths off like that is because he can hide behind his computer...where I figure he's sitting there, in the nude, alternating between posting on this forum and masturbating to beastiality porn - like the closet freak that I'm sure he is.
Like I said in the other thread, face to face, punks like these don't speak up. But thanks for the back up, it's much appreciated.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2009 2:38 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 51 of 68 (514008)
07-03-2009 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Theodoric
07-03-2009 2:27 AM


Re: Come to Jesus, Garlic Breath
So if there is no evidence against it I should therefore believe in everything and anything?
No, no, of course not. That's the point.
The religious think that their beliefs should be respected, even though they cannot back them up with evidence. They would object as you sensibly did if one suggested that they believe in other unevidenced things. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of that behaviour and that they are unjustifiably demanding special status for their beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 07-03-2009 2:27 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2009 7:51 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
gdhfsdgsd 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5383 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 07-02-2009


Message 52 of 68 (514009)
07-03-2009 7:27 AM


Edited by Admin, : Hide spam.

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 68 (514046)
07-03-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rrhain
07-03-2009 3:06 AM


Rrhain writes:
Science also seeks to remove people from the equation. Clearly, people exist, but the point of science is to find out how things happen on their own.
I don't agree, at least not in the specific manner you stated that science wants to avoid people in particular. When scientists seek to understand a specific process it is important that unknown and *known* factors are eliminated to the best of their ability. In the same way that your assistant is prevented from messing with the container, you also prevent squirrels from peeing in it, or it simply being rained on.
Note that rain would be something that happens on its own; the key is isolation of a particular process, not some bias against intent. After all, experimentation involves a fair bit of intent!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2009 3:06 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 07-04-2009 9:46 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 68 (514215)
07-04-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phage0070
07-03-2009 9:59 AM


Phage0070 responds to me:
quote:
I don't agree, at least not in the specific manner you stated that science wants to avoid people in particular.
Well, no. Not, "in particular." Science wants to remove uncontrolled capriciousness in order to examine what happens when things happen on their own.
quote:
In the same way that your assistant is prevented from messing with the container, you also prevent squirrels from peeing in it, or it simply being rained on.
Exactly. The reason that I mention people specifically is that it personalizes the point. The claim is that science wants to "remove god" as if science has some sort of vendetta against god. Well, no. Science also wants to remove you from the equation, too, and it isn't out of some sort of malice against you or claim that you don't exist. It's that if the reason why something happened is because you did it, that doesn't really tell us anything.
Suppose we want to examine how small, short cylindrical, metal tokens interact with various surfaces or, in more colloquial terms, what happens when you toss a handful of coins on the floor. So, I'll want to actually release them and let them interact with the floor on their own, no interference from me. It doesn't teach us anything if I come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously place the coins on the floor. I need to remove myself from the equation in order to learn about how the objects behave on their own.
And of course, as you point out, you put in other controls. If I have a giant fan blowing that tosses the coins up against the wall, that complicates things.
My point is in response to the argument that science's refusal to consider the work of god on something is taken as some sort of attack upon god and a claim that god doesn't exist. Well, science also does the same thing to you and me. Surely that isn't an indication that science thinks you and I don't exist. It's simply that science wants to find out what happens when you and I aren't forcing things.
That, of course, leads to the question that nobody ever answers:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
When I toss the coins on the floor, do they wind up in their final positions all on their own or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously place them?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phage0070, posted 07-03-2009 9:59 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4733 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 55 of 68 (514345)
07-06-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by petrophysics1
07-02-2009 3:12 PM


Re: Come to Jesus, Garlic Breath
My question went over his head, and he got pissed. He never did figure out atheists like himself and you BELIEVE many things you have no evidence for. Never notice it in yourselves, but you sure do like to point it out in people who have religious beliefs,and belittle them.
You are talking about evidence for a world view, versus evidence of things in ordinary life. We don't go round examining the evidence for things in everyday life in the same way as we need to critically examine evidence for a world view. Nobody does that, nor should we expect people to. What has your point got to do with the world view question? Nothing at all.
Your behaviour in respect of Onifre is highly offensive and this weakens your credibility even further. Be ashamed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by petrophysics1, posted 07-02-2009 3:12 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 56 of 68 (514346)
07-06-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by petrophysics1
07-02-2009 3:12 PM


Re: Come to Jesus, Garlic Breath
He never did figure out atheists like himself and you BELIEVE many things you have no evidence for.
Such as. What do I believe in that has no evidence?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by petrophysics1, posted 07-02-2009 3:12 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 68 (514352)
07-06-2009 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phage0070
06-28-2009 2:21 AM


the skeptical open-mind
Hi Phage0070
I keep meaning to come back to this, and I thought this might be a good opportunity to get back to the topic:
Actually I was asking that if {A} is believed by someone who does not believe themselves to be infallible, is this sufficient cause to consider belief in {B} (which is mutually exclusive to {A}) a valid viewpoint?
It took me a while to parse this out, hence the delay in response: {A} is tentatively believed, according to your ground rules, and {A} contradicts {B}, can one that believes {A} then consider {B} a valid viewpoint?
I'd have to say yes - the tentativity would demand an open mind to contradictory possibilities.
In any case the overall point is that fallibility is, or should be, already part of our thought processes.
This too is logical, as there are no self-evident truths, no a priori knowledge, thus at some point we are dependent on agreed assumptions. We agree that what we live in is called reality, and yet it all could be illusion.
This means that our ability to make absolute conclusions is not compromised because of the possibility of being wrong.
I'm fairly sure that I like green and that 2+2=4 in an integer number system with a base ≥ 4, and would be rather surprised to wake up one morning to find I like pink and 2+2=3.
For instance, a Gnostic ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I though gnostic was still a religious\spiritual belief system:
quote:
noun
4. (initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.
Who were persecuted by other christians and had their texts burned by those christians.
Hence agnostic is a-gnostic is not-gnostic.
... might conclude that because we lack complete information we cannot make a decision regarding the existence or non-existence of gods. However, the Gnostic will necessarily admit that they are fallible and thus it is possible that their logical process to reach Gnosticism was flawed, and thus they cannot be sure that they cannot make such a decision.
Except saying that there is not enough information to make a decision (with certainty), is the same as saying there is not enough information to make a decision (with certainty) that there is not enough information to make a decision (with certainty).
The entire thought process leads to a non-functional loop because uncertainty is already a part of the thought process and does *not* prevent conclusions being made, and so applying it in specific circumstances is special pleading.
I don't see how you get there. We can certainly make decisions, based on the information we have, with the caveat of your ground rules that we must recognize that there is tentativity in any conclusion reached.
If you say you are an atheist, having reached the decision that there is no logical or evidential cause to believe in the possibility of god/s, then according to your ground rules you must be agnostic, as the necessary tentativity demands that you consider that the contrary point of view can be valid.
Likewise, if I say I am a deist, having reached the conclusion that there is no logical or evidential cause to not believe in the possibility of god/s, then according to your ground rules I must be agnostic, as the necessary tentativity demands that I consider that the contrary point of view can be valid.
In other words, you recognize that agnostic is the logical conclusion,...
And I am back where we started.
Perhaps a better word would be skeptical, rather than agnostic, as agnostic is still referential to religious thought, and we are talking about the approach to any topic, such as gravity etc, and skeptical would cover the same necessary tentativity of any conclusion reached, no matter how solid the evidence and experience.
Thus we end up with a skeptical open-minded approach to any topic. We can make decisions based on how we think things work, but we cannot eliminate the possibility that we could be wrong.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phage0070, posted 06-28-2009 2:21 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 07-06-2009 8:12 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 68 (514354)
07-06-2009 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rahvin
07-02-2009 10:41 PM


Re: more bad logic ... and two bads don't make a good ...
Hi Rahvin,
Here we go again.
Sorry Woodsy, but this is a fallacy:
What fallacy, specifically, RAZD?
And we will keep going at it until you guys realize it.
True, a person who holds one arbitrary unsupported belief is not compelled to hold all other arbitrary beliefs, ...
Exactly: you knew what the fallacy was. Thus a person who believes in {A} does not need to believe in all of {B}.
... but holding one and not others despite equivalent levels of evidence (ie, none) is inconsistent. It's special pleading - which is a logical fallacy.
Which is irrelevant and does not keep the other from being a logical fallacy. Faith is illogical, by definition, ergo pointing out that it is illogical is just stating the definition.
Too bad you equivocated there, plus tried begging the question by referring only to "arbitrary unsupported belief" when in fact belief is not arbitrary, nor is belief entirely unsupported - it just doesn't have sufficient support to meet your personal criteria. Let's look at some examples from just this thread (apologies to InGodITrust if this liberty is unwarranted):
Message 21
quote:
Phage, I hold steadfast to my faith. I have had doubts from time to time, but keep returning to the belief that God exists. My faith did not come from weighing the Bible against other religions and science, and then selecting the Bible as the rational choice. My faith came through prayer.
and Message 26
quote:
Phage, when I was 17, I was at the Rose Parade in Pasadena, Calif., when a Jesus freak came and started preaching to me. He was annoying, but for some reason I didn't want to be rude and tell him to get lost. He rambled on and on about Christ, and finally he said he was going to pray that I would feel God's love. I was thinking, good, he'll leave after this. I don't remember the words, but he prayed for about 1 minute that God would show me His love. And then I was overcome with an indescribable feeling of love. This rapture blindsided me, and lasted a few minutes, and it was a defining event in my life.
I have read the Bible, and do not understand much of it. There are many interpretations and many denominations. But there are number of points that most denominations have in common. And the prayer that showed me the light also makes me accept the Bible.
This faith is not arbitrary, it is not unsupported, and you can tap any person who believes and get similar responses. It is belief.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 07-02-2009 10:41 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 68 (514355)
07-06-2009 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Woodsy
07-03-2009 7:24 AM


hypocrisy who?
Hi again Woodsy.
The religious think that their beliefs should be respected, even though they cannot back them up with evidence. They would object as you sensibly did if one suggested that they believe in other unevidenced things. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of that behaviour and that they are unjustifiably demanding special status for their beliefs.
So it's okay for you to state what you believe, and to rail against all religious people with a broad brush, but hypocrisy for me to just state what I believe?
And here I thought that the "ground rules" in this thread did not allow for absolute decrees ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Woodsy, posted 07-03-2009 7:24 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 60 of 68 (514356)
07-06-2009 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
07-06-2009 7:06 PM


Re: the skeptical open-mind
It took me a while to parse this out, hence the delay in response: {A} is tentatively believed, according to your ground rules, and {A} contradicts {B}, can one that believes {A} then consider {B} a valid viewpoint?
I'd have to say yes - the tentativity would demand an open mind to contradictory possibilities.
Doesn't this force us to view all viewpoints to be equally valid? If we hold that all of our knowledge is tentative pending additional information, and that tentativity forces us to consider even those views that directly contradict our tentative knowledge as valid, then must we not consider any and all viewpoints to be valid?
Doesn't it make more sense to consider the validity of a viewpoint only by the amount of evidence supporting it? The Theory of Evolution, for example, has mountains of evidence supporting its accuracy. Despite the fact that this view is tentative pending evidence that contradicts evolution, would we not generally consider the viewpoint that all life was created three hours ago by a giant fish to be generally invalid, because there is no evidence supporting such a view and plenty of evidence against it?
I'd suggest that all viewpoints are equally invalid until they are supported by evidence, and that their validity resembles an asymptote where our certitude increases with the amount of supporting evidence, approaching but never actually reaching absolute certainty (and similarly our certitude that a viewpoint is completely false increases with the lack of positive evidence and the existence of contrary evidence, approaching but never quite actually reaching absolute certainty that the viewpoint is absolutely false).
In this way I would consider the theory of Evolution to have very high validity, supported by the weight of evidence, while Creationism is almost certainly false, because of the weight of contradictory evidence and the dearth of any evidence supporting such a viewpoint.
To parse it out as you did:
If {A} and {B} are contradictory, but neither {A} nor {B} are supported or contradicted by evidence, then neither {A} nor {B} is valid.
If {A} and {B} are contradictory, and {A} is based on objective evidence, then {A} is tentatively valid (with the tentativity decreasing as evidence increases) and {B} is tentatively invalid (with tentativity decreasing as evidence for {A} increases).
I'd also be pretty comfortable with saying that the theory of Evolution is a valid viewpoint, where Creationism is not.
By your standard above, I should tentatively side with Evolution while constantly acknowledging that Creationism is still a valid possibility.
Do you consider Last Thursdayism to be a valid possibility due to the tentativity of human knowledge? Ghosts? Fairies?
Your dreaded Intangible Pink Unicorn?
Are all of these viewpoints "valid" because our knowledge of their nonexistence is tentative, despite the fact that there is absolutely no objective evidence supporting any of them whatsoever?
Atheism, to use another example, would be the recognition that the existence of a deity {A} is invalid because there is no evidence supporting {A}. If one proposed contradictory deity (or deities) {B} without supporting evidence, there would be no validity to either {A} nor {B}. Belief in vaguely-defined deity {C} which could actually be deity {A} or {B} or any number of other deities, also without supporting evidence, would also have no validity. Belief in {A}, {B}, or {C} would be a matter of subjective personal preference (on the level with choosing a favorite color), with no objective validity whatsoever, and could logically be placed in the same category as all other unsupported beliefs that have no validity.
This too is logical, as there are no self-evident truths, no a priori knowledge, thus at some point we are dependent on agreed assumptions. We agree that what we live in is called reality, and yet it all could be illusion.
Depending, of course, on how one defines reality. Given that all of our sensory inputs (and therefore all of our information) seems to come from the physical world, I'd certainly consider the physical world "real" even if it actually turns out to be a computer simulation like the Matrix. It's certainly real for all practical purposes, and what else matters?
If you say you are an atheist, having reached the decision that there is no logical or evidential cause to believe in the possibility of god/s, then according to your ground rules you must be agnostic, as the necessary tentativity demands that you consider that the contrary point of view can be valid.
Likewise, if I say I am a deist, having reached the conclusion that there is no logical or evidential cause to not believe in the possibility of god/s, then according to your ground rules I must be agnostic, as the necessary tentativity demands that I consider that the contrary point of view can be valid.
This is true, except that tentativity need not be an absolute, binary consideration. I tentatively hold the Theory of Evolution to be an accurate representation of a real-world process. I tentatively hold that my computer will not randomly shut off in five minutes, but with much less certainty. I am far more tentative regarding the possibilities of a sudden random shutdown than I am in the Theory of Evolution being incorrect. From your words (and forgive me if this isn't what you actually mean) I should consider Creationism (contradictory to evolution) and the likelihood of a power outage in five minutes time to be equally valid viewpoints because of the absolute presence of tentativity in my beliefs.
I think that the degree of tentativity should also be included.
Perhaps a better word would be skeptical, rather than agnostic, as agnostic is still referential to religious thought, and we are talking about the approach to any topic, such as gravity etc, and skeptical would cover the same necessary tentativity of any conclusion reached, no matter how solid the evidence and experience.
Thus we end up with a skeptical open-minded approach to any topic. We can make decisions based on how we think things work, but we cannot eliminate the possibility that we could be wrong.
I think that one can include degrees of tentativity without losing open-mindedness. I agree, however, that absolutism is a poor basis for thought, and that tentativity, even when that tentativity is extremely minor, confidence is high and evidence is strong, should still be acknowledged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2009 7:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2009 10:24 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024