Hey, look. New meat.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2012, 07:32 AM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(17-07-2012 07:13 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Oops.

It's all your fault for making me derail the topic! Angry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2012, 08:40 AM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(17-07-2012 07:32 AM)Magoo Wrote:  
(17-07-2012 07:13 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Oops.

It's all your fault for making me derail the topic! Angry

I know I know.

But really "convinced" =/= "know".

It's disingenuous to say that they are equal. People were convinced that the world was flat. Did they know that the world was flat? No, they were convinced because they used the evidence at their disposal to come to a conclusion.

Only omniscience can know, since no human has this, we can only be convinced based on tangible evidence and personal evidence.

Girly is arguing from a point of semantics and approximations. Is 1.9999999999999999999999999999999999 = 2? Under a logical application, yes, because the fraction is so small that it is nil; however, technically, it can never be 2 because it's missing a key piece that completes its wholeness.

This is the same for being convinced and knowing. What you're convinced of could have such a minute piece of not being convinced it seems nil; however, it is dishonest to say that you actually "know". Without complete knowledge, the wholeness of "know" can never be obtained; therefore, you are stuck with being convinced. They are, though, not one in the same.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2012, 09:34 AM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
Quote:But really "convinced" =/= "know"
I agree.

One can know, and by default, be convinced, but one can be convinced, and not "Know"

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2012, 10:03 AM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
(16-07-2012 08:04 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  
(16-07-2012 07:10 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Praise the Lord for sending us a prophet.
I have been looking for Gwynnie my whole existence on this message board... My slow computer and mingling internetz has kept me from finding the source (story) that began it all. Weeping ALAS! I'm still looking...
Here ya go, n00b. Tongue





This will help you with some Forum history...
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...alisations

Smile

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
17-07-2012, 10:04 AM
RE: Hey, look. New meat.
Semantics shemantics.

Here are some definitions:
Knowledge (management) is typically displayed within the Data-to-Information-to-Knowledge-to-Wisdom (DIKW) structure. The use of these terms is set out below.
Data is a set of discrete facts.

Information comes from providing context to data.

Knowledge is composed of the tacit experiences, ideas, insights, values and judgements of individuals. People gain knowledge both from their own and from their peers’ expertise, as well as from the analysis of information (and data). Through the synthesis of these elements, new knowledge is created.
Knowledge is dynamic and context-based. Knowledge puts information into an ‘ease of use’ form, which can facilitate decision-making.

Wisdom makes use of knowledge to create value through correct and well-informed decisions. Wisdom involves having the application and contextual awareness to provide strong common-sense judgement.

So in this case, if the above definition is acceptable, I think "knowing" does not have to have 100% certainty.

Please post any objections to PO BOX whogivesafuck.

Cheers

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: