Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
21 online now:
CosmicChimp, frako, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 16 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,946 Year: 21,982/19,786 Month: 545/1,834 Week: 45/500 Day: 3/42 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Open-minded Skepticism
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 19 of 85 (756792)
04-27-2015 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
04-07-2015 4:54 PM


Re: Glad you agree now
Straggler writes:

What happens if we put the question of whether your model is itself valid, through your little model?


Knowledge isn't a house of cards with an identifiable foundation. It's a geodesic sphere: every piece of validated objective empirical evidence depends on another piece of validated objective empirical evidence. The overall system is only "valid" because it's internally self-consistent. It doesn't rest on anything external.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 04-07-2015 4:54 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 04-27-2015 6:18 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 21 of 85 (756827)
04-28-2015 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
04-27-2015 6:18 PM


Re: Glad you agree now
Straggler writes:

All sorts of things are internally self consistent but still largely worthless.


The point is that they're not internally worthless - and sometimes internal is all we have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 04-27-2015 6:18 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 38 of 85 (759316)
06-10-2015 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
06-10-2015 3:51 PM


subbie writes:

I had thought that part of the definition of "skeptic" is the idea that the skeptic is looking for evidence and will rationally weigh and consider evidence offered.


To True Believers - e.g. the folks over at Evolution Fairy Tale - "skeptic" apparently refers to people who accept evidence over the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 06-10-2015 3:51 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 56 of 85 (759434)
06-11-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by mikechell
06-11-2015 6:42 AM


Re: Okay ... I'll give up.
mikechell writes:

Off I go into my own world, you can keep this one.


That is the bottom line: we are each in a world of our own. We can only communicate about the areas where our perceptions happen to coincide.

Observation is only worth what we can agree on.

Facts mean only what we agree they mean. Nothing indeed is "definite fact", only agreed fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mikechell, posted 06-11-2015 6:42 AM mikechell has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 79 of 85 (759604)
06-13-2015 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by mikechell
06-13-2015 11:38 AM


Re: bicker, bicker, bicker ...
mikechell writes:

Green is in the electro-magnetic spectrum.


It is a fact that there are photons with a wavelength between 495 and 570 nanometers but "green" is not a fact. It's subjective.

When a tree falls in the forest there are vibrations - but are they "sound" before they strike an eardrum? The answer is subjective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by mikechell, posted 06-13-2015 11:38 AM mikechell has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 84 of 85 (759701)
06-14-2015 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by mikechell
06-13-2015 2:17 PM


Re: Once again ... I'll give up.
mikechell writes:

You all can question the validity of a true fact.


If you need to qualify "fact" with "true", you're just making the "truth" of your "facts" less certain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by mikechell, posted 06-13-2015 2:17 PM mikechell has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019