|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: One's Own Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The problem is with the statement of: In order for something to be true it must have empirical evidence to support it.
There is a problem with that statement. We know that Einstein's Theory of relativity is true (in a tentative scientific way). We now know that Einstein's theories have always been true even when we had no evidence that they were true. Paraphrasing Stephen Jay Gould, apples did not suspend themselves in mid air waiting for experiments to determine whether Newton or Einstein were right. The question is how we KNOW that something is true? How do we determine whether something is true or not? How do we go from belief to knowledge? Do we use our own subjective preferences to judge what is true or not? Or should we use objective evidence and reasoning? Can you think of any bit of knowledge that is based on belief alone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, first you'd have to define knowledge. For me there's personal knowledge from experience as well as book knowledge or education. But the thing is sometimes personal knowledge can be just a belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
Well, psychological studies show that that probably isn't a good thing. That's the evidence that it shouldn't be done right there.
Yes this one is a tough one because it contains both cultural beliefs and moral beliefs at the same time. Not all cultures believes this way. In contrast, some Muslim countries marry their girls off at the age of fifteen through arranged marriages and see nothing wrong with it and don't see it as abuse while child advocates (in America at least) would more than likely call it child abuse and want to take the child away. Then wouldn't it be impossible to determine that some people are very loyal to their country?
I wouldn't see how. There are people, some of them are loyal to their country, everyone can see that. Where's the problem here?
And if it's impossible to determine it, then wouldn't that mean it can not be true?
No, but it would become indistinguishable from a non-truth. Which makes the knowledge useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
That's empirical.
Well, first you'd have to define knowledge. For me there's personal knowledge from experience as well as book knowledge or education.
That too.
But the thing is sometimes personal knowledge can be just a belief.
I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to give me another example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Well, first you'd have to define knowledge. Certainty gained through verification.
For me there's personal knowledge from experience as well as book knowledge or education. Both experience and books are not the same as belief.
But the thing is sometimes personal knowledge can be just a belief. Can you give an example? If I believe that the Earth is a cube does it become knowledge because I believe it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
There are people, some of them are loyal to their country, everyone can see that. We could make this more empirical. We could set up a test where someone was offered one of two choices. They could have 100 dollars or denounce their country. Only the interviewer would be privy to each individual's choice and their identity would be kept private so there are no social ramifications. People who forgo personal gain in order to not disparage their country would be considered loyal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tsq writes:
I don't know about that test, for 100 dollars, I'd denounce anything, certainly for this kind of test. Like that really means anything.
We could make this more empirical. We could set up a test where someone was offered one of two choices. They could have 100 dollars or denounce their country. Only the interviewer would be privy to each individual's choice and their identity would be kept private so there are no social ramifications. People who forgo personal gain in order to not disparage their country would be considered loyal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
quote: A theist who can't understand that an atheist has a lack of belief in God so he calls them all agnostic because that's what he or she knows. Does that work?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
quote: I'm not sure that would be empirical, because when there are no ramification to an action many people will choose to do what is convenient. For example, because internet discussion forums offer anonymity, many posters will not have manners and not treat other posters with respect. When you're talking to somebody face to face, you risk a ramification of if you have a dissenting opinion somebody might take it personally and use physical violence against that person. There was also a famous test that bore this out. I can't remember the proper name of it, but it had people who would apply electrical shock to people if they were told to do so. However, it wasn't real electricity and the person hooked up to the machine receiving the "shock" was acting in a lot of pain. The people were told that there wouldn't repercussions if they used this device to discipline somebody for giving a wrong answer. The object of the test was to determine why people follow a tyrannical government and allow things like genocide to happen. The result was that when the people were told they would not receive any repercussions, they were more willing to apply the electricity at very high and almost fatal levels. Edited by Tram law, : added a quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
Yes, and in that case, the belief is wrong, because the knowledge of the person is insufficient. I would hope that when explained, he will see the error of his ways and change his belief.
A theist who can't understand that an atheist has a lack of belief in God so he calls them all agnostic because that's what he or she knows. Does that work?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
And were even willing to "kill" the person if told to. These are the famous Milgram Experiments, and many like that since. Most recently a French documentary showed that people were willing to kill other people under these circumstances.
There was also a famous test that bore this out. I can't remember the proper name of it, but it had people who would apply electrical shock to people if they were told to do so. However, it wasn't real electricity and the person hooked up to the machine receiving the "shock" was acting in a lot of pain. The people were told that there wouldn't repercussions if they used this device to discipline somebody for giving a wrong answer. The object of the test was to determine why people follow a tyrannical government and allow things like genocide to happen. The result was that when the people were told they would not receive any repercussions, they were more willing to apply the electricity at very high and almost fatal levels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm not sure that would be empirical, because when there are no ramification to an action many people will choose to do what is convenient. We would have to agree beforehand that those who did not take the money were loyal. We would predict that if there were loyal people that some of the people tested would not take the money. We then test the hypothesis, and the results of the experiment would be independent of either of our beliefs.
There was also a famous test that bore this out. I can't remember the proper name of it, but it had people who would apply electrical shock to people if they were told to do so. However, it wasn't real electricity and the person hooked up to the machine receiving the "shock" was acting in a lot of pain. The people were told that there wouldn't repercussions if they used this device to discipline somebody for giving a wrong answer. This experiment demonstrated, empirically, that people will ignore their own judgement if someone in authority tells them to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I don't know about that test, for 100 dollars, I'd denounce anything, certainly for this kind of test. Like that really means anything.
It means that you are not a loyal person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Taq writes:
Or that I know that loyalty is shown through actions, not by saying a sentence.
It means that you are not a loyal person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
So it is only actions that define a person?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024