Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
108 online now:
Dredge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 105 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,114 Year: 6,226/6,534 Month: 419/650 Week: 189/278 Day: 29/28 Hour: 3/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality v3
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 28 of 40 (726773)
05-12-2014 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
05-10-2014 2:15 PM


Perceptions and Reality
I'm not sure I understand the diagram.

I also liked the concept of what you said in Message 14:

RAZD writes:

Perhaps what I should do is discard the labels and use just the definitions proposed

Inner core: is what we know about reality from objective evidence and the scientific method.

middle layer: is what we think about reality based on logic that is internally consistent

outer layer: is what we believe about reality without objectivity or logic.

But... using the Science/Philosophy/Faith labels does make things easier, so I'm just going to use the labels and assume we're talking about the definitions you've specified here.

So... getting back to my non-understanding... what are we actually trying to show with this diagram?
Perceptions of Reality... but what does that mean?

I think the diagram would be more complete with an actual shaded region showing "Matches Reality" and "Does Not Match Reality."
I think this could be shown with a diagonal line. Going from top left to bottom right on about a 45 degree angle...
I also don't think such a line should go through the middle of the diagram, but at least through the centre of the "science" circle (but on the same 45 degree angle or so). And maybe even closer towards the lower-left area where all the circles kind of bunch up.

Anything on the left of the line would be "Matches Reality" and anything to the right would be "Does Not Match Reality."

I mean... the whole point is that we never actually get to know when something matches reality or not. Simply because we can always be wrong/mistaken just because we're human.
But, we do know that our science-perceptions are closer/better than our philosophy-perceptions which are closer/better than our faith perceptions (although all 3 have "a chance" of being real).

I think that would relay some actual information with the diagram.

Without something like that... it's nice to see "perceptions"... but what is the diagram actually telling us? Is it telling us anything significant if we can't relay it back to reality?

If it is just telling us "perceptions" then I would be pressed to push the point that there are some strange people with some strange perceptions... and perhaps it's possible that some person's perceptions just don't align well to any neat, clean venn diagram.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2014 2:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2014 11:41 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 34 of 40 (726848)
05-13-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
05-13-2014 11:41 AM


Re: validity, consistency, conscilience
RAZD writes:

How we as humans, with all our cognitive mechanisms, see and understand reality. Everyone would have slightly different circles like the YEC example.

I see.
I think I understand a bit better now. You intend for the Faith/Philosophy/Science circles to act as a base to help indicate where certain viewpoints may lie for individuals (like you did with the YEC example).

Different people can place their own "YEC circle" (or any other particular concept) where they think it's best to represent themselves... and then you can compare data and discuss differences and reasoning and such.

Do I have that right or am I still missing something?

That make a lot of sense, and I think your chart is good for that... if you can get other folks to agree to use your chart
For this discussion forum, I think your biggest hurdle would simply be technological: other people saving/editing/rehosting pictures.

A secondary problem is that it's very easy for the general public to conflate "science" with "truth about reality."
If someone with such an every-day-normal-issue saw your chart... they might get confused without understanding that the chart isn't actually representing "truth vs. untruth" so much as it shows "more confidence vs. less confidence." That too would have to be made clear to each chart-user in order to properly compare apples-to-apples.

Just had a thought... maybe you don't plan to use such a tool here on the webpages (I just assume that because that's where I see you and we all know that you don't actually exist anywhere else... ).
If you were planning some sort of in-person teaching tool away from EvC... then I would put a bit more emphasis on removing the "Faith" "Philosophy" and "Science" labels... they tend to carry a lot of baggage, and that baggage isn't always the same for each person. I think it's just asking for trouble... if you plan on getting "unbiased ideas" from multiple people.

Edited by Stile, : 'Cause I wanted to say something more.

Edited by Stile, : Just another awesome edit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2014 11:41 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022