Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,376 Year: 4,633/9,624 Month: 408/1,096 Week: 3/110 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 438 of 1725 (585783)
10-09-2010 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Modulous
10-09-2010 5:26 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Modulous, posted 10-09-2010 5:26 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 560 of 1725 (593307)
11-25-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by Modulous
11-25-2010 8:53 PM


Re: Feynman responds, 46 years ago.
Those hoof beats probably aren't zebras.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Modulous, posted 11-25-2010 8:53 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 677 of 1725 (598161)
12-28-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by xongsmith
12-28-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by xongsmith, posted 12-28-2010 4:56 AM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 8:40 PM Omnivorous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 679 of 1725 (598164)
12-28-2010 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 678 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 8:40 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 8:40 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 680 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 9:26 PM Omnivorous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 681 of 1725 (598172)
12-28-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 680 by arachnophilia
12-28-2010 9:26 PM


Re: Dawn Bertot/arachnophilia on deconversion
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 9:26 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2010 10:40 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 1667 of 1725 (632994)
09-11-2011 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1666 by RAZD
09-11-2011 9:28 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1666 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 9:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1668 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 10:18 PM Omnivorous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 1697 of 1725 (633575)
09-14-2011 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1668 by RAZD
09-11-2011 10:18 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1668 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 10:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1713 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2011 12:04 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024