Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2012, 09:58 AM
Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
Here's my answer to that question:


When they [Sye and Eric] ask "Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?"
their goal is to get the atheist to make that concession they
ultimately know absolutely nothing but such a question is fallacious.
They are trying to trivialize the veracity of the comprehensive models
of reality by applying Boolean operators like "true", "false", "right",
and "wrong" to their validity. What they don't realize is that
absolutes don't exist in science. The veracity of the models that we
construct is measured with degrees of accuracy. Our models, though
imperfect, are grounded in the fact that only accurate information can
have practical application.The accuracy of our models is measured in
their predictivity, applicability, and utility. The fact that our
comprehensive models of reality are imperfect to a degree does not
nullify their macrocosmic utility. Absolutes, or certainty, can exist
in normal mundane discourse or in the abstract sense. For example, one
can be absolutely certain that our scientific models are imperfect
because the proposition describes the abstract nature of our scientific
models but not the reality that the models describe. Logic and math are
different models because they are based solely on the nature of our
perceptions and perceptions are by their very nature undeniable. Our
inability to imagine 2 + 2 = 57 or a rock being a rock and a statue
simultaneously is what grounds logic and mathematics because we all have
the same brain. Don't be afraid to say that logic is absolute within
our frame of reference because it is impossible for us to imagine a
truck be a truck and not be a truck at the same time and in the same
sense; just be sure to preface that with the phrase, “within the
confines of this reality...”. They are trying to be reductionist with
our inter-subjective perceptions of reality but their argument is
fallacious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ThePolymath's post
16-07-2012, 10:02 AM
RE: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
Nope! Next question?

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 10:14 AM
RE: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
herp derp... herp... herp derp.

I mean, these motherfuckers, don't even listen to the words coming out of their own mouths.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
16-07-2012, 10:17 AM
RE: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
Easily, but I'm not the only one =p

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 10:20 AM
RE: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
(16-07-2012 09:58 AM)ThePolymath Wrote:  Here's my answer to that question:


When they [Sye and Eric] ask "Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?"
their goal is to get the atheist to make that concession they
ultimately know absolutely nothing but such a question is fallacious.
They are trying to trivialize the veracity of the comprehensive models
of reality by applying Boolean operators like "true", "false", "right",
and "wrong" to their validity. What they don't realize is that
absolutes don't exist in science. The veracity of the models that we
construct is measured with degrees of accuracy. Our models, though
imperfect, are grounded in the fact that only accurate information can
have practical application.The accuracy of our models is measured in
their predictivity, applicability, and utility. The fact that our
comprehensive models of reality are imperfect to a degree does not
nullify their macrocosmic utility. Absolutes, or certainty, can exist
in normal mundane discourse or in the abstract sense. For example, one
can be absolutely certain that our scientific models are imperfect
because the proposition describes the abstract nature of our scientific
models but not the reality that the models describe. Logic and math are
different models because they are based solely on the nature of our
perceptions and perceptions are by their very nature undeniable. Our
inability to imagine 2 + 2 = 57 or a rock being a rock and a statue
simultaneously is what grounds logic and mathematics because we all have
the same brain. Don't be afraid to say that logic is absolute within
our frame of reference because it is impossible for us to imagine a
truck be a truck and not be a truck at the same time and in the same
sense; just be sure to preface that with the phrase, “within the
confines of this reality...”. They are trying to be reductionist with
our inter-subjective perceptions of reality but their argument is
fallacious.


If I were Sye DimBulbDerBrugenMeister (or whatever his name is) or Eric (daddy wasn't happy enough with the regular religion tax dodge so he went a little further) Hovind, then yes it would be possible. Since I'm neither I'll go with no! Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 10:59 AM
RE: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
- The accuracy of our models is measured in their predictivity, applicability, and utility. -

I like that sentence

I like to think of the things we know as an arrow hitting an extremely large target, a target that we can miss on rare occasions but it's our accuracy to reality that should be judged.
Just because all of our knowledge doesn't hit or may never hit dead center on the target, doesn't mean that we missed the target.

Our knowledge has predictability, just as one arrow hits, we now have more information about how to get closer to our target.
Was our previous information wrong ? No it wasn't wrong, it just wasn't as accurate as we would like it to be.
The information we have has utility. It's useful in solving the problems we face. If everything we knew about something was wrong, then it would be useless.

If it was possible to be wrong about everything we knew, then it's also possible that everything that works, doesn't and never has.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
16-07-2012, 12:28 PM
RE: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
All models are wrong, but some are useful.
-George EP Box

We ARE wrong about everything we know. Plato figured that out a few thousand years ago. It just so happens that the reality we construct for ourselves and in community can be useful.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
16-07-2012, 01:25 PM
RE: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
"I don't know the true nature of the gods, but I do know that you don't either."
Socrates
The main problem with modeling human behavoir, for example economics, is that they are intended as descriptive.
Then we try and make them perscriptive.
We have taken so much out to simplify the model and make it understandable that it's predictive value is lost.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2012, 09:52 PM
RE: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
(16-07-2012 09:58 AM)ThePolymath Wrote:  Here's my answer to that question:


When they [Sye and Eric] ask "Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?"
their goal is to get the atheist to make that concession they
ultimately know absolutely nothing but such a question is fallacious.
They are trying to trivialize the veracity of the comprehensive models
of reality by applying Boolean operators like "true", "false", "right",
and "wrong" to their validity. What they don't realize is that
absolutes don't exist in science. The veracity of the models that we
construct is measured with degrees of accuracy. Our models, though
imperfect, are grounded in the fact that only accurate information can
have practical application.The accuracy of our models is measured in
their predictivity, applicability, and utility. The fact that our
comprehensive models of reality are imperfect to a degree does not
nullify their macrocosmic utility. Absolutes, or certainty, can exist
in normal mundane discourse or in the abstract sense. For example, one
can be absolutely certain that our scientific models are imperfect
because the proposition describes the abstract nature of our scientific
models but not the reality that the models describe. Logic and math are
different models because they are based solely on the nature of our
perceptions and perceptions are by their very nature undeniable. Our
inability to imagine 2 + 2 = 57 or a rock being a rock and a statue
simultaneously is what grounds logic and mathematics because we all have
the same brain. Don't be afraid to say that logic is absolute within
our frame of reference because it is impossible for us to imagine a
truck be a truck and not be a truck at the same time and in the same
sense; just be sure to preface that with the phrase, “within the
confines of this reality...”. They are trying to be reductionist with
our inter-subjective perceptions of reality but their argument is
fallacious.
The question isn't fallacious. You agree that we can't have absolute certainty and that our models are imperfect. I don't like the idea of someone questioning epistemology while simultaneously believing in their own absolutes, but I certainly approve of skepticism. Assumptions have to be made no matter what you believe (in logic they are the axioms), and since I like to use logic I've obviously accepted these assumptions. But it's perfectly reasonable for a person to argue that nothing is knowable. They're just not allowed to apply a double-standard or make a case of special pleading for their own "way of knowing".

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
16-07-2012, 10:37 PM
RE: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
Another Socrates:

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: