Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 1:31 AM
30 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
110111
112
113114115Next
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 1666 of 1725 (632991)
09-11-2011 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1662 by Modulous
09-11-2011 4:16 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
Hi Modulus,

We know that the world is over 4 billion years old.

Indeed, we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.

We do NOT know with certainty how much older it actually is.

We know we can be wrong sometimes, even about things which we have high confidence in. Therefore we could be wrong about the age of the world.

We are likely to be wrong about how much older than 4 billion years it is, based on the evidence, test methods and information we currently have, and the fact that new information can change this.

We almost know how old the earth is (according to the evidence, test methods and information that we currently have).

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.

Enjoy.

(1) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

quote:
The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 10^9 years 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

The +/-1% indicates the variation possible from the dating methods, so even if this is the final answer we still almost know the age of the earth, but we certainly can unquestioningly have high confidence in this value.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1662 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2011 4:16 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1667 by Omnivorous, posted 09-11-2011 9:36 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 1671 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 4:36 AM RAZD has responded

Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1132 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(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 responded

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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 1668 of 1725 (632998)
09-11-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1667 by Omnivorous
09-11-2011 9:36 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
Hi Omnivorous, I hope you are well.

So to use the term "knowledge" is to abuse it.

To misuse the term is to abuse it.

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."

We acquire it by being careful about the limits of what we do know with certainty, and by being careful with the terminology to qualify what we know, so that false impressions are not created. Clarity of language is very important in this regard.

For example, taking the age of the earth from the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

quote:
The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 10^9 years 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

What we know about the age of the earth is qualified by how we know it and the limits of that knowledge.

If we subtract the 1% we get a minimum age of the earth of 4.39 10^9 years(1), based on the evidence, testing methodology and information currently available, and we can honestly say:

We know that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4.39 billion years old.

I can have 100% certainty in that statement as qualified, I cannot have 100% certainty in an unqualified statement that we know the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

If the actual age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old, this last (orange) statement is false, but my (pink) statement above is still true.

Enjoy

(1) - This is similar to the minimum ages I generated in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1667 by Omnivorous, posted 09-11-2011 9:36 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1669 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2011 11:32 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 1670 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2011 1:29 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 1697 by Omnivorous, posted 09-14-2011 8:43 PM RAZD has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1669 of 1725 (633006)
09-11-2011 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1668 by RAZD
09-11-2011 10:18 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
I can have 100% certainty in that statement as qualified

"100% confidence" in a qualified statement is, by definition, a contradiction in terms. "100% certainty", by definition, means unqualified certainty in a proposition.

It's like saying "I'm absolutely almost sure."


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 1676 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2011 7:56 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15037
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 1670 of 1725 (633019)
09-12-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1668 by RAZD
09-11-2011 10:18 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
quote:

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."

And you DON'T know that with 100% certainty. You haven't dealt with, for instance, Descartes demon or the similar "brain-in-the-box" scenarios. In other words, you dismiss unfalsifiable, yet (apparently) possible scenarios to claim to have knowledge. And unless you do so, you cannot even "know" that the tests have even been performed, let alone their outcomes.

So, is it acceptable to dismiss unfalsifiable and implausible scenarios that - for all we know - could be true ? Or do we need to give them serious consideration ? This is one of the central considerations of this discussion, and it appears that you are taking both sides.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 1677 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2011 8:00 AM PaulK has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1671 of 1725 (633026)
09-12-2011 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1666 by RAZD
09-11-2011 9:28 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
Indeed, we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.

But not with 100% certainty. The conclusion is still tentative. Therefore, by your stated standards we do not know it. Indeed - we don't know anything about the world by your stated standards.

If you feel you must redefine knowledge to mean "almost knowledge" to fit your lax usage

Its not redefining it, it is defining it. And it isn't 'almost knowledge' it is actual knowledge, tentatively concluded given the imperfection of our measuring equipment and our minds.

If you want to suggest it is impossible to know anything since we can never be 100% certain, that's fine. But don't balk when others argue that all knowledge is tentative, but is still knowledge.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 1678 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2011 8:13 AM Modulous has responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1672 of 1725 (633029)
09-12-2011 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1659 by bluegenes
09-11-2011 11:09 AM


Re: Lesson for children and slow adults and bluegenes
bluegenes writes:

Currently, it is a very strong theory that the chimps are our closest living relatives.

It understand.

Someone could make the suggestion that there could be a branch species which diverged from our lineage since the chimps that is still surviving deep in some forest somewhere; perhaps Erectus or another earlier hominid. Hypothetically, that's not impossible.

I follow.

However, the suggestion (or a stronger claim by someone that they firmly believed or knew such a species to be extant) would not in itself weaken the "chimp" theory in any way.

I follow.

It would be necessary to find good supporting evidence of the existence of such a creature to weaken the theory, and it would be necessary to actually establish its existence to falsify the "chimp" theory.

Im with you.

RAZD has been making "suggestions" that would contradict my theory.

I think RAZD is waiting for the Theory to be supported just as the chimp theory is supported. With evidence.

You have claimed to know of the existence of a specific supernatural being (rather like someone claiming to know that the mysterious hominids in the example above exist).

Yes, me and you are in the same boat, I get that. RAZD is the one thinking logically, not you or me.

What neither of you can do is establish your alternative "hypotheses" or claims with good empirical evidence.

You mispoke. What you mean to say is this:

What neither you or me can do is establish our alternative "hypotheses" or claims with good empirical evidence

There, I corrected it for you

RAZD has been making "suggestions" that would contradict my theory.

As far as I can tell, RAZD is waiting for you to present your theory:

bluegenes writes:

"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.

It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist".

If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.

-Bold mine-

bluegenes writes:

I can't find any supportive empirical evidence for them either. Neither can any other participant on this thread.

The question here bluegenes, is not wheather anyone on this thread can find any emperical evidence for SN beings including RAZD (which he in fact never claimed he could).

The question is can you find any to disprove that SN beings in fact do not exist?

Are you aware of even your own comments? See above.

What I'm pointing out here is that contradicting claims can be made against any scientific laws and theories.

I follow.

They are of no use as a basis for criticizing a theory or law unless they have proper empirical support.

Yes, of course I agree with you, but what does this have to do with your claim?

bluegenes writes:

Human invention remains the only source of the ideas and descriptions that we have in our heads of supernatural beings knowable to all of us and known to science. While that remains the case, I have a very strong theory

I follow, as well as all other rational thinking people, mainly RAZD, who is simply waiting anxiously for you to do this.

bluegenes writes:

and support the theory with plenty of evidence.

When are you going to attempt to do this? You havn't and therfore lost the debate. Why it is still going on is strickly for entertainment value. As far as victory goes, RAZD had supported his poistion in maintaining that you cannot support yours. If you could, the debate would have been over your very first post.

bluegenes writes:

The very fact that both you and RAZD have made numerous posts expressing strong personal desires to criticize the theory, but have completely failed to offer any empirical evidence of the existence of SBs outside human minds makes my point for me.

As far as I know, you and I so far, have failed to offer any empirical evidence of the existance or non existance of SN beings.

The difference being, im not asking RAZD for a great debate where I will in fact:

support the theory with plenty of evidence

You are the one on the stand. Not me, and certainly not RAZD. You are misrepresenting his position because you know you lost and putting the burden off of you and on to him which he does not deserve.

RAZD is simply waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting...eternity infinity...

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1659 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2011 11:09 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1673 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2011 6:08 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 1674 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2011 7:31 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 1673 of 1725 (633035)
09-12-2011 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1672 by Chuck77
09-12-2011 5:30 AM


Re: Lesson for children and slow adults and bluegenes
The question here bluegenes, is not wheather anyone on this thread can find any emperical evidence for SN beings including RAZD (which he in fact never claimed he could).

The question is can you find any to disprove that SN beings in fact do not exist?

But you're just trying to shift the burden of proof, again.

I've explained this to you in this post. Feel free to answer it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1672 by Chuck77, posted 09-12-2011 5:30 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 1674 of 1725 (633039)
09-12-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1672 by Chuck77
09-12-2011 5:30 AM


Another lesson for children and slow adults.
Chuck77 writes:

I think RAZD is waiting for the Theory to be supported just as the chimp theory is supported. With evidence.

A theory that attributes something to its only known source certainly is supported by the evidence, and is very strong. Suggesting that magicians might occasionally produce rabbits ex nihilo from hats does not weaken the theory that all rabbits are born from other rabbits unless evidence can be provided to support the suggestion. Asking someone to prove that every single rabbit in the world today wasn't produced out of a hat would just be demonstrating your ignorance of how science works. (See also Adequate's flying pig link above).

It's no good attempting to criticize my theory unless you can make a good evidence based case for a source of supernatural beings other than human invention.

Chuck77 writes:

Yes, me and you are in the same boat, I get that. RAZD is the one thinking logically, not you or me.

Absolutely wrong. I am theorizing, and I can demonstrate that humans can and do invent supernatural beings, and that that's their only currently known source. You are claiming to know something as a fact, and you cannot demonstrate the existence of a single SB that has an actual existence outside our minds. As for RAZD, he doesn't understand inductive theories, and anyone who does understand them can tell that from his posts on the GD thread.

Chuck77 writes:

You mispoke. What you mean to say is this:

I meant exactly what I said. And in addition, if you want to criticize something presented as an inductive theory, you need to learn what those are before you do it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1672 by Chuck77, posted 09-12-2011 5:30 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1675 of 1725 (633040)
09-12-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1661 by RAZD
09-11-2011 3:40 PM


"Very Improbable"
Given your stance on "knowledge" the phrase 'scientific knowledge' becomes an oxymoron. And you still seem utterly bewildered as to why statements such as "very improbable" are necessary in the absence of certainty. So consider this:

I consider it "very improbable" that my soon-to-be dropped pen will do anything other than fall to the ground in the manner predicted by science. What do you say RAZ?

RAZD writes:

How do you determine "very improbable" without some basis where you have actually tested the possibilities rather than just assume your opinion/s are correct?

On the basis that objectively evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than evidentially baseless propositions. Do you dispute this?

RAZD writes:

ALL evidence based conclusions are tentative Straggles. As long as you deny this you will continue to foolishly describe belief that god/s don't exist as equivalent to things like the certainty of what a pen will do if dropped.

Yes all evidence based conclusions are tentative. Which is exactly why all scientific knowledge is tentative. But we can only have any scientific knowledge at all by rejecting (albeit tentatively) untestable propositions.

For example you can only draw any scientific conclusion at all regarding the predicted motion of a dropped pen by first rejecting the untested proposition that all of the evidence on which our scientific conclusions are based is the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created fully formed 1 second ago.

Hence I would say it is "very improbable" that my dropped pen will do anything other than fall to the ground as science predicts. What would you say RAZ?

RAZD writes:

Straggler writes:

Where do you place yourself on your own scale of belief above with regard to the untestable notion that all of the evidence on which our scientific conclusions are based is the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created 1 second ago?

I place myself as a 5, as you would understand if you actually read my positions. Obviously we cannot know for sure, we cannot test, but we can have opinions, and my personal opinion is that it is false.

Then ALL scientific conclusions are mere subjective opinions by the terms of your own argument. ALL scientific conclusions regarding the past depend on rejecting things like the 1 second universe proposition and all scientific conclusions regarding the future depend on the inductively derived conclusion that the laws of nature will continue into the future as they have demonstrated themselves to be up to now. Neither of these things have been tested in the way that you perennially insist upon.

RAZD writes:

The difference between a 5 and a 6 is that 5's don't delude themselves that they know something they do not know.

The difference between a 6 and a 5 is the difference between being able to draw scientific conclusions and being paralysed into uncertainty by an inability to reject the multiplicity of evidentially baseless alternatives.

RAZD writes:

Do you have a test methodology that you have tested and confirmed as much as the test methodologies for gravity, such that you have empirical confidence in being able to record a positive detection, as the test methodologies for gravity provide?

If before I let go of my soon-to-be dropped pen you accept the tested results of gravity then you are necessarily rejecting the untested notion that the universe was created 1 second ago with different physical laws (esp with regard to falling pens) than the ones you think are in place. You are also rejecting the untested notion that the laws of gravity are about to change.

On what basis do you reject these evidentially baseless alternatives before the pen is dropped?

Why do I ask?

Because I suspect that I reject your evidentially baseless notions regarding god(s) on the same basis.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1661 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 3:40 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 1676 of 1725 (633041)
09-12-2011 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1669 by crashfrog
09-11-2011 11:32 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
No crashfrog

"100% confidence" in a qualified statement is, by definition, a contradiction in terms. "100% certainty", by definition, means unqualified certainty in a proposition.

Is the statement true?

It's like saying "I'm absolutely almost sure."

The qualifications define the conditions and limits of the knowledge

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1669 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2011 11:32 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 1677 of 1725 (633042)
09-12-2011 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1670 by PaulK
09-12-2011 1:29 AM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
Hi PaulK

And you DON'T know that with 100% certainty. You haven't dealt with, for instance, Descartes demon or the similar "brain-in-the-box" scenarios. In other words, you dismiss unfalsifiable, yet (apparently) possible scenarios to claim to have knowledge. And unless you do so, you cannot even "know" that the tests have even been performed, let alone their outcomes.

So, is it acceptable to dismiss unfalsifiable and implausible scenarios that - for all we know - could be true ? Or do we need to give them serious consideration ? This is one of the central considerations of this discussion, and it appears that you are taking both sides.

But I haven't dismissed them. The evidence could be an illusion and the statement is still true, that "we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1670 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2011 1:29 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1679 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2011 8:17 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1681 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2011 9:39 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1682 by Panda, posted 09-12-2011 10:03 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 1678 of 1725 (633044)
09-12-2011 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1671 by Modulous
09-12-2011 4:36 AM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
Hi Modulus,

But not with 100% certainty.

Again, is my statement true or false?

Its not redefining it, it is defining it. And it isn't 'almost knowledge' it is actual knowledge, tentatively concluded given the imperfection of our measuring equipment and our minds.

So you almost know ...

If you want to suggest it is impossible to know anything since we can never be 100% certain, that's fine. But don't balk when others argue that all knowledge is tentative, but is still knowledge.

Curiously, I'm not the one that needs to redefine the word so that I can pretend that I know more than I know. You know, like redefining science to include astrology ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1671 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 4:36 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1680 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 9:08 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15037
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1679 of 1725 (633045)
09-12-2011 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1677 by RAZD
09-12-2011 8:00 AM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
Let's look at your statement again:


"... we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."

How can it be true if all you have is false reports of evidence and if the test methods would show a different date if they were applied (or worse, HAVE been applied and shown different date) ? You are implicitly assuming access to an external reality where the evidence exists and where the tests have been carried out with the results you claim. And therefore you are implicitly dismissing those non-falsifiable possibilities where that is not the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1677 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2011 8:00 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1680 of 1725 (633055)
09-12-2011 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1678 by RAZD
09-12-2011 8:13 AM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
Again, is my statement true or false?

It is tentatively true. True enough for my book to be called knowledge. But there is not 100% certainty about the truthhood of the statement, so by your standards you cannot say that you know that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old.

Curiously, I'm not the one that needs to redefine the word so that I can pretend that I know more than I know.

I'm not redefining it, I'm using a more complete understanding of what knowledge is based on centuries of discussion, controversy and debate - rather than relying on an online dictionary as the canonical definition which you are using to dismiss said debate.

If you want knowledge to be about 100% certainty you have to deal with the fact that this means we cannot have knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1678 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2011 8:13 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RewPrev1
...
110111
112
113114115Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019