|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: John could I talk to you? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: hey!! i've already admitted to circularity... but john, hume or no hume we can't toss out our whole packet of experiences... it comes back to what exactly can one consider evidential and how one approaches epistemology... besides, i see a healthy doss of circular logic in hume also take his 'on miracles' argument as an example... he seems to beg the very question when he says something like (and if i've misstated this premise, please correct me) "a miracle is a violation of natural law"... this may or may not be the case, and it may or may not be the case in *every* case, but regardless it should be discounted imo... why? because of the premise preceding "natural laws are inviolable" (again, my paraphrase)... he seems to rely on probabilities based on observance and experience while refusing to acknowledge that probabilities alone can't speak to what has (or will) occur does that not seem to beg the question? but more troubling to me is his reason for affirming natural law as inviolable while elsewhere attempting to show the illusionary nature of materiality... but i could have this all wrong where but in the philosophical realm would probability evidence be allowed a priori? iow, if we were putting hume's philosophy on trial, with judge and jury, what would be the verdict?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: As I said in the beginning, the intellect revolts at the thoughts Hume thought. Hume didn't say we should toss out our whole packet of experience. What he said is that we've made way too much of our experience. Hume re-analized the inferences we've made from experience and concluded that most of those inferences are invalid.
quote: Ok. But care to elaborate?
quote: Is this in Treatise? If so, can you tell me what chapter?
quote: It is hard to comment without having the context. He could be merely making a definition, or using a common definition of the time.
quote: Again, I need the context. It would be very Hume-like to pick on a particular metaphysic.
quote: What? I don't recall Hume ever relying on probabilities. And probabilities can't account for anything unltimately. The probability of rolling a one on a die doesn't ACCOUNT FOR the result.
quote: Like I said, I don't recall Hume ever relying on probability.
quote: Two hundred fifty years and he is still ahead. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: yes but what vehicle did he use to arrive at this conclusion? it just seems to me that he argues against the same things needed to form the arguments... dunno if that makes sense
quote: quote: i touch on this below, but "evidence" in the sense of what would be acceptable in a courtroom.. it seems that his very view of what constitutes 'knowledge' is on trial, eh?... the 'probabilities' thing below touches on this, i'll try to elaborate there
quote: quote:i'm going on memory, years-old memory lol quote: sorry, i wish i could help here but it's been a long time and i don't have his book here... plan on reading it again when i make it to the library
quote: doesn't he (again speaking of miracles) say something like (as way of example only) "Jesus rising from the dead would be a miracle... miracles are a violation of natural law... natural laws can't be violated... a dead man rising would violate a natural law, ergo Jesus did not rise from the dead".. this is based on observance and probability only (hence my use of that word) and also begs the question in a big way
quote: my 'probability' statements were based on the above, maybe its usage was ill-advised but i hope you see what i meant
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
quote: John would you do me a favor and give some examples to support this assertion that the old testament is just a massive race war. I may have an idea of the sorts of things you're talking about, but then I still don't see your argument. So I would apreciate some examples of what drew you to this conclusion. thanks ------------------saved by grace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Perception.
quote: I assume that what you refer to here is the logic, or reason the Hume used. If logic is said to be derived from perceived causality, as I think it is, BTW, then Hume may have a problem. But it doesn't help the metaphysical state of affairs.
quote: The rules of evidence used in a courtroom don't apply to most other area. The rules of evidence are strongly weighted for the defendant in order to prevent the imprisonment of the innocent.
quote: Well, keep me posted. If you find the argument, or feel you can make one you wish to discuss, let me know.
quote: This doesn't make sense as something Hume would have argued for the simple reason that Hume ended up denying that natural law exists. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i looked and the only references i could find deals with hume's Enquiry where he argues against miracles on the basis of them being incredible (in principal and in fact)... you can correct me, but the argument goes something like:
(i) the certainty of our belief and/or knowledge, since both are founded upon experiences, is directly proportional to the uniformity of those experiences (ii) the affirmation of natural laws (and here i guess is where you and i have different memories, but yours is probably more correct), being established by these uniform experiences (read, observances etc), is the greatest knowledge or belief we can have (iii) therefore proof of natural laws (as described above) is the greatest (maybe the only) proof of *anything* from (iii) we get: a) a miracle is a violation of natural lawb) evidence (as argued above) favoring a natural law outweighs any evidence of a miracle, since natural law is premiere c) one measure of intelligence is ones ability to adapt beliefs to evidence d) therefore, the more intelligent one is the more likely one is to deny the existence of miracles now i could be all wet but that's my understanding... if he did make an argument against miracles based on natural law, while at the same time denying their existence, maybe he was just doodling out loud
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I think this is tied into moral philosophy. Hume concluded that we could know nothing physical with certainty. He had, however, what I consider a peculiar opinion of morals. My hastily constructed nutshell synopsis is that morals aren't really a problem because, well, they are all our opinion anyway. They are all made up. Our consensus is all that is required. I found a copy of Enquiry online, but haven't had a chance to read it-- don't remember if I've read it before or not. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
I don't know if you saw my other post asking you to elaborate on a point or not but I (or rather my wife) just thought of something interesting.
What is the average IQ rate for most people, lets try and think globally? I would venture to guess most of the population (again my scope is limited I don't live everywhere in every culture) is really not all that brilliant. Would you agree with that? ------------------saved by grace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: If certain objections are vald i.e,
quote: I`d say that most of the global population would do rather poorly.... The whole question assumes that IQ can be measured by tests that are completely objective, I personally don`t think they are..... [This message has been edited by joz, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
True maybe I should not have used IQ as the measurement system. How intelligent do you percieve the population globally?
------------------Saved by an incredible Grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yup. Most people are average... duh!!! I do agree with joz though, that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
I think the IQ scale was defined (1950s?) s.t. the average would be 100. But then, I agree with John and Joz as regards their validity, as the tests are not culturally independent (at least not the ones I've seen), and no-one quite knows what exactly its supposed to measure.
PE ------------------Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It seems to me that they measure one's exposure to facts and ideas, and the quality of one's memory. I'm sure both are factors in intelligence but the two are not sufficient as a measure of intelligence. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i have a theory... well i actually have *tons* of 'em, but one that pertains to this... the higher a person's iq (however it's measured, whatever it means), the more grace it takes to believe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graedek Inactive Member |
quote: this reminds me of being 16, having just moved to the city and seeing an ad in the paper for 'free IQ testing'Of course my buddy and i decided to check it out for fun, and scored above average. She got 135 and i 130. We soon realized (amidst all the boasting) that it was an 'outreach' of the local scientology group and wondered at the 'accuracy' of our test results. They tried to set up 'orientation' meetings for us as we were leaving, but we were annoyed at having been lied to from the minute we walked in about their real intentions for us. If i was to take the same test now having not been in school for some time, i would probably score 90 or 100 (my memory isn't so tip top) despite the learning i have done in other areas. I was thinking that your own intelligence is defined in relation to your experiences, and changes every time you are faced with a decision.. (first and third def's below) from prescience... Main Entry: intelligence Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)sFunction: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent Date: 14th century 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS 2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind 3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION 4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information 5 : the ability to perform computer functions ------------------
[This message has been edited by graedek, 12-16-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024