|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Omphalism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't think so. We mostly agree about a contemporary year, though I'm not sure even that holds for advocates of LastThursdayism. Where on earth are you getting that from? Last Thursdayists and I can agree on how much time has past since last Thursday. And we can agree that the world appears to be like 9 orders of magnitude older than that time period. So where is the disagreement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
You don't agree on what events happened one year ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You don't agree on what events happened one year ago. No. And in September 2002 there were many people that didn't agree on what happened in September 2001. That doesn't mean they are using different word meanings when they say 'a year ago'. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
You are probably having trouble understanding my point of view because you are something of an essentialist yourself. Most people are, and they tend to look askance at my conventionalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You are probably having trouble understanding my point of view because you are something of an essentialist yourself. Most people are, and they tend to look askance at my conventionalism. Emperor's new clothes? If you can't explain your position without obfuscation and obscurantism, then your point is clearly worth as much as it sounds like. So come on, try me, I've tackled difficult philosophical positions before. It sounds like you haven't really got a solid footing about what you are talking about and are hiding behind the 'you don't understand because you are of position x' motif we see so very often around here. Man up, explain what you are talking about OR talk about the same thing we are: People that use the words 'year', 'age', 'earth' etc consistently and state that they believe with a high confidence that the earth is billions of years in age but aren't willing to say with equal confidence that it isn't 10,000 years old with the appearance of age.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Modulous writes:
That is precisely what I have explained. Man up, explain what you are talking about OR talk about the same thing we are: People that use the words 'year', 'age', 'earth' etc consistently and state that they believe with a high confidence that the earth is billions of years in age but aren't willing to say with equal confidence that it isn't 10,000 years old with the appearance of age. You have chosen to not accept my explanation. That leaves you with a problem of something for which you do not have an explanation acceptable to you. It does not leave me with a problem, nor with any further obligation to solve your problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
That is precisely what I have explained. You have chosen to not accept my explanation. That leaves you with a problem of something for which you do not have an explanation acceptable to you. It does not leave me with a problem, nor with any further obligation to solve your problem. I'm not going to get into a meta-debate about who said what, and so on. I am asking for you to explain how your explanation does no lead to the absurd conclusion it seems to do. If you want to simply say 'I've explained it as best as it can be, you either don't understand or refuse to accept it' then I will continue to believe that you are engaging in wankery. If you feel at all like supporting your position in a sort of debate like format, I'd be perfectly happy given that's what we're supposed to be doing here. So - can you support the assertion that Last Thursdayists don't agree with me about what the time period of 'a year' means?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
When the Omphalist declares that the age of the Earth is something very different, something completely out of context, then I can only conclude that the Omphalist means by "age of the Earth" is very different from what I mean by "age of the Earth." And if the meaning is NOT different? Then what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: Do you believe in the validity of empirical evidence? As a conventionalist, I believe that the meaning of "age of the earth" is determined by our empirical practices Whilst the omphalists believe something that is mutually exclusive to that. Namely that the age of the Earth is NOT determined by our empirical experiences.
But we cannot appeal to anything beyond evidence, since our empirical practices define what we mean. Except that the biblical omphalist disagrees with you as to what is evidence and what is not. They consider the age of the Earth as determined by biblical chronology to be reliable and the age of the Earth as determined by empirical results to be essentially worthless. So I ask you - How can you claim confidence in one conclusion whilst simultaneously claiming to be entirely agnostic about the mutually exclusive alternative? This is like saying that you are confident that there is a computer on your desk whilst simultaneously saying you are wholly agnostic about the absence of a computer on your desk. It doesn't add up. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Modulous writes:
Under which theory of meaning?
So - can you support the assertion that Last Thursdayists don't agree with me about what the time period of 'a year' means? quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Under which theory of meaning? Why don't you explain how that is relevant? You really do seem to be intentionally obfuscating your point. Do you think it is a serious point to raise that when a person makes the proposition "The world appears to be 4 billion years old" and another person agrees with this but says it is actually 10,000 years old that somewhere in the middle of all that they have decided to change what they were referring to when they said 'year'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Straggler writes:
I was directing my comments toward the "Last Thurdsdayism" versions of omphalism. Except that the biblical omphalist disagrees with you as to what is evidence and what is not. I am not agnostic about biblical literalist versions - I reject those.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Under which theory of meaning? Your entire position here is founded on the false assumption that omphalist claims about time and physical reality mean something other than what they are actually saying. Something metaphysical. Yet the those who actually advocate omphalism blatantly disagree with you on this. The very term omphalos comes from the book Omphalos — An Attempt to Untie The Geological Knot. The clue is in the title. But even a cursory look at this will confirm that the entire premise of the book is that there is a contradiction between the conclusions of empiricism and the conclusions of biblical literalism with regard to the age of the Earth. A contradiction that the author reconciles by essentially declaring empirical evidence as illusory. And here is a more modern take on omphalism. Again the conflict with empiricism is the entire point of the thesis.
Second Link writes: In essence the Omphalos crisis comes down to the fact we have apparently contradictory information coming from two very different sources of knowledge. The conflict with a theory of a billions-years-old Earth comes from the arts and humanities, not the natural sciences. There are two competing sources of knowledge about the past: 1) Human religious, philosophical and historical traditions, and 2) Modern science. The first we tend to think is more reliable the older the primary sources are. The second, due to its reliance on technology and the refinement of scientific methods, is the opposite. When we look to the primary sources of creation histories to try and determine when God may have created the Earth, most evidence tends to point to c4000 BC. Sure, it is fair enough to say Genesis 1-11 reads like a myth. But in reality the genealogy from Adam to Abraham really ties the whole thing into history in quite a profound way — certainly unmatched by Greek and Norse mythology. Sure, if you consign it as myth, you can do away with the conflict. But before you do the hermeneutics the conflict is definitely there — that we can’t deny. You have redefined omphalism to meet your own arguments. But nobody including the omphalists agrees with your definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
I am not agnostic about biblical literalist versions - I reject those. Oh so you are not agnostic to all forms of omphalism? Only some. Despite them all being identical in terms of empirical evidence and falsifiability. Why? What is the evidential difference?
I was directing my comments toward the "Last Thurdsdayism" versions of omphalism. Well the Last Thursdayist denies the validity of empirical evidence in exactly the same way that the biblical omphalist does. But instead of biblical chronology he relies on "subjective evidence" as the basis of his Thursdayist conclusion. So what is the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
I enter this discussion with much hesitance. I will try to contain mt all too often overly fervent and belligenernt self.
I felt it important to add one thing to the discussion: the omphalist believes that the empirical evidence tells a coherent, internally consistent story, because the evidence is planted deliberately with the intent of telling that specific story. However, that story is wrong. Yep. That is my undestanding too.
Omphalism isn’t just the notion that the empirical evidence will always tell the wrong story: it’s that the empirical evidence will always tell the same wrong story. Yes. Which is why theists often condemn the hypothesis on the basis that it requires a deliberately deceitful God. So I understand anyways.
Since the story is internally consistent, it’s still useful for an omphalist in solving practical problems that are part of that microcosm. So, there is no contradiction in an omphalist advocating empiricism. As a useful tool. No. I agree. But I still don't see how it is anything but contradictory for a proponent of empirical conclusions regarding the age of the Earth to claim to be wholly agnostic with regard to omphalistic claims regarding that same matter. One is advocating the empirical evidence as deceptive and unreliable whilst the other is advocating it as reliable. These two things are mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024