|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Modulous writes: She's a unicorn, she's intangible and she's pink. That one. There are no other properties she universally has. Some people have expanded the concept to include 'special revelation', but that isn't necessarily part of the concept. Sometimes the purple oyster (essentially a Satanic being) is brought up. It really depends on the satirical point being made at the time. You made me hoot and snort beer. Thank you. Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Those hoof beats probably aren't zebras.
Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
xongsmith writes: Can arachnophilia make even a little lightbulb go off in Dawn's head? Place your bets, ladies & gentlemen. No. Already Dawn is resorting to personal attacks due to an inability to refute his arguments. In the philosophical dictionary entry for bad faith, it says Dawn Bertot. Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? -Shakespeare Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
True--but the most you've done is note that he doesn't seem to have read the Bible.
But you haven't offered personal criticism in the complete absence of critical thought about the text. I appreciate your spirit of fairness, though. Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? -Shakespeare Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
spidey writes: yes, well, i'm going to try to not get banned for 3 years because of it. Me too! Take Dawn Bertot's name off my words, and we'll call that fair. Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? -Shakespeare Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Hi, RAZD.
RAZD writes: Modulous writes: This is resolved by understanding knowledge in the context of the principle of fallibilism. OR this is resolved by not creating a false impression of certain knowledge in the first place, by saying that we have a high degree of confidence that the current data, testing methodology and information available indicate that the earth is 4.54 billion years old 1%.(1)
Without it, there is nothing we possess that can be called knowledge about the physical world, which is accessed through a biased and imperfect filter (our percetion/sensory system). Since we want to say some things are knowledge, we either adopt a weaker definition of knowledge than being 'a justified true thing which is believed' or we use an alternative, more pragmatic, definition of truth (such as with the imperfect criteria for truth) Either way, there is a giving way to tentativity that can be expressed when we say we know something. If you feel you must redefine knowledge to mean "almost knowledge" to fit your lax usage, then you are the one twisting the words, not me. Especially when what you really mean is having high confidence. So to use the term "knowledge" is to abuse it. What certain "knowledge" do we have, and how did we acquire it?"The brakes are good, the tires are fair."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
RAZD writes: Hi Omnivorous, I hope you are well. Surprisingly well, thank you: A thorough convalescence after long illness may be the closest we get to a fountain of youth. Getting older and feeling younger is a tasty paradox. I'm glad to see you looking fit, trim and pugnacious.
RAZD writes: So to use the term "knowledge" is to abuse it. To misuse the term is to abuse it. It seems to me that your criteria for proper use rule out any unqualified use; by your lights, I see no justification for ever saying "certain knowledge."
RAZD writes: What certain "knowledge" do we have, and how did we acquire it? As I said in Message 1666 "... we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old." Do we? How many unevidenced certainties must we put in the phenomenologists' brackets to say so? [Matrix/Descartes' Evil Daemon][the integrity of each scientist and instrument maker involved] [the X factor which makes nonsense of all our measures] [a current sane state] [etcetera] The appropriate brackets for the word 'knowledge' come prepackaged with the context of its use. I see no reason for a long string of qualifiers, even for scientists: in that context, the qualifiers are understood; outside that context, they aren't necessary and, far from misleading anyone, may even undermine the popular understanding and acceptance of scientific findings."The brakes are good, the tires are fair."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024