Denying Physical Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2012, 07:10 PM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
Hey, Starcrash.

I said nothing of the sort. What I wrote was clear. Read it. Don't read into it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 07:16 PM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
This was definitely painful to read. I wouldn't even bother debating about such a topic with someone who has yet to obtain a basic understanding of logic and scientific evidence.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2012, 08:41 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2012 08:45 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(28-05-2012 07:10 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Starcrash.

I said nothing of the sort. What I wrote was clear. Read it. Don't read into it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Why is it, when challenged, you dodge it? You did this when I argued with you about the value of definitions and how one goes about finding them.

Just because what you wrote was "clear" doesn't mean it was "right". I obviously disagree with you, and if you think that my differing opinion was wrong, then I'd expect an argument for why it's wrong.

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
29-05-2012, 05:04 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(28-05-2012 01:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  What was her arguments?

First thing first….
She is the one presented with an argument…. What is his argument?

(28-05-2012 01:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  The problem with her logic is that she assumed....

Why it is a problem…. I thought assumption is accepted in the rules of logic.
In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.

(28-05-2012 01:05 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Some might see it as bad to assume the existence of a mind-independent reality to substantiate some scientific claims as being intrinsic or inherently true. I, however, find it reasonable to believe that reality does exists outside of my own mind. But that is the difference between reason and logic. I can't logically conclude that reality exists as more than just perceptions in my mind, but I have good reason to believe that I should not doubt its existence.

I agree as well.... this discussion made it more clear to me the difference on reason and logic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 05:11 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(28-05-2012 04:25 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Don't you understand what an obvious double-standard that is?

Kindly take note of the bold and underline… these are ideologies… see more of my explanation in the next post.

"critical thinking is commonly understood to involve commitment to the social and political practice of participatory democracy, willingness to imagine or remain open to considering alternative perspectives, willingness to integrate new or revised perspectives into our ways of thinking and acting, and willingness to foster criticality in others.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_th...efinitions

(28-05-2012 04:25 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Faith is not objective (and it's clear from your earlier posts that an objective truth is something that you value). A Muslim can have faith in his beliefs about Allah (and from our point of view, that's his only reason). To reject his faith means that you don't value his conviction, which is why the weight you put in your own conviction is a double-standard.

That maybe the source of our misunderstanding… you do not even know my faith:

I believe I should not judge other people’s belief or non-belief…

And for that matter: am reminding you not to call people reasoning same like that of a dead person.
A reminder I would say…. that is: I am assuming that you yourself think you should not and just simply forgot.

BUT if you believe you should say like that: ok… I understand… you do and I will not be judging that you should not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 05:18 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(28-05-2012 04:48 PM)Ghost Wrote:  POINT: The idea that either side uses only one exclusively is false; it is ideological, not factual.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Thanks, Point well taken.

Love, Peace and Empathy: these can be ideologies… it can be argued otherwise…but these can be ideologies.

People can commit atrocities of war in the name of “Love, Peace, and Empathy”
If that happens: is these Ideologies bad? No!.. it only show how bad people can be.

Righteousness, this can also be an ideology.

The good old book, the bible, supposedly to promote ideology of righteousness is damn well telling stories of atrocities of war, infanticide, genocide … in the name of righteousness!

Is then the book promotes unrighteousness?

No!, my conclusion is that it only shows how bad people can be: will justify unrighteousness in the name of righteousness.


Contemporary similar story: Vietnam War crimes in the name of democratic ideology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 08:08 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
Starcrash.

I made a simple statement. Instead of reading what I wrote and understanding it, you went off on a tangent that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. So I told you to read what I said, not pay attention to what you had imagined in your head. And that is me dodging? That's ridiculous.

I don't have to explain why you were wrong any more than I would if I said, "I like pomegranates," and you responded, "so you worship the devil?"

You went off about empirical truth being better than faith to divine truth. That has sum zero to do with what I said.

Then you asked me to give an example of how faith could prove something that empiricism can't. This is a clear indication that you were projecting something onto me because there is no logical explanation of how you could leap from what I said to this question. It baffles the mind.

The only thing you said that had any merit and anything to do with what I said was that you use empiricism exclusively. Aside from that being ludicrous, there's no point arguing that with you. That's your position. Fine. If you can believe something that demonstrably false, then no logical argument will sway you. You win. Your shit don't stink.

I didn't even get to that last part because I shut off after I read this: "Or are you arguing that truth isn't something that you value?"

That's third grade you're either with us or you're against us bullshit. How in the fuck do you even question that having read what I wrote? There is no logical connection between the two. I could go on about how peurile that is, but I don't give a fuck.

You come after ME for not explaining things? I made two factual statements. No one seems to disagree with them. Then I made a point, that a position was ideological rather than factual. Your response was nuh-uh followed by a rant about utterly unassociated things. So get off your high horse and shove your dodge BS somewhere un-sunny.


Hey, Ahoy.

Please don't feel that my derision of Starcrash's post carries over to you Cool

You are most welcome and thank you as well.

I have to say though, empathy cannot be ideological. It's a thing. It's like saying hearing or memory or heart rate is ideological.

But I suppose the point you're driving at is that ideology can be good.

There's no question that there can be "good" ideologies and "bad" ideologies (I don't particularly subscribe to the notion of good and evil, but hey). What's important to note is that ideological notions are not always based on fact. Eugenics for example. Utter bullshit. But if you spoke to a eugenicist, they'd be utterly convinced that they were right because they had accepted those ideological assertions. That's all I'm pointing to here. The basis of the notion that either side uses either faith or empiricism exclusively is not based in fact, it's based in an accepted ideology.

For example, for it to be true that no Theist ever uses empiricism, there would be no medicine amongst Theists. No users of medicine, no doctors, nothing. Neither would there be Theists flying, or using internal combustion engines, or using math, or doing physics, or, well, the list goes on. Even the Amish rely on science. When one thinks about the assertion that I am challenging for more than half a second, it becomes clear that it's cockamamie. As for people using empricism exclusively, no one would ever believe that their sick mother was going to pull through, or that their dream might come true, or that they were going to roll sevens, or trust their spouse's fidelity, or trust that their spouse loves them. All humans must frequently make leaps of faith. A human that has to scientifically test everything before they can act is a non-functioning human being just as a human that ignores empiricism in it's entirety will likely die of an infection lol.

Since this is a thread about denying proof, I figured it was germane to point out an accepted position that was unsupported by the evidence.

I hope I haven't glossed over a major point of yours. I must admit that I found some of your post confusing. Please let me know if I missed something.

Peace and Love and Empathy, Ahoy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 08:38 AM
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(29-05-2012 08:08 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I must admit that I found some of your post confusing. Please let me know if I missed something.


If you are referring to my last post above…yes, it can be confusing since I wrote it quoting your post….
It was intended primarily to answer Starcrash’s inquiry on how I equated faith with critical thinking:
Critical thinking commits itself to an ideology… same with faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 09:31 AM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2012 09:37 AM by Ghost.)
RE: Denying Physical Proof
Hey, Ahoy.

Cool. I'm glad I didn't miss something Cool

ON EDIT: I found a great video of Lieutenant Commander Data (that's right, I like Star Trek, wannafightabaddit?), the master of empiricism, discussing faith. Dang but that Gene Roddenberry was a genius.





Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2012 03:02 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Denying Physical Proof
(29-05-2012 05:04 AM)ahoy Wrote:  Why it is a problem…. I thought assumption is accepted in the rules of logic.
In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.


I agree as well.... this discussion made it more clear to me the difference on reason and logic.
You can assume and start your argument from there and still come out with a logically valid (valid as in if the premises are true the conclusion must be true) like in circular logic.

I'll just copy and paste from Wikipedia:

"A circular argument will always be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion it doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted."

When you do question the self-evidence of the claim it will be begging the question, which is not accepted logically.

"The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it. Thus, insofar as petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, this fallacy consists of "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken."

"Begging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself"

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: