Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2016, 07:26 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 07:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 07:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  This happens all the time. Many people are color blind, to one degree or other.
They can recognize they don't see what others do. It doesn't change reality.
The wavelengths can STILL be measured by instruments.
What these instruments label as blue isn't based on an objective definition of blue but rather the average human perception of the color blue.
If the average human eye 10000 years from today evolved to see these same wavelengths on the same object as red, the instruments would be subjectively wrong as far as average human perception is concerned.
Are you going to tell everyone what they are seeing isn't red because it used to be blue?
What if 20000 years before that it used to be yellow?

Color has no place in objective reality. It is a subjective thing.
All the same I still believe blue exists, but that is a purely subjective claim.
Would you think I am irational simply because I believe in something that I cannot objectively prove exists?

That is utterly incoherent. You are confusing the thing with the name of the thing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
21-03-2016, 07:28 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Wrong again, AG.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 07:29 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 07:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 07:17 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What these instruments label as blue isn't based on an objective definition of blue but rather the average human perception of the color blue.
If the average human eye 10000 years from today evolved to see these same wavelengths on the same object as red, the instruments would be subjectively wrong as far as average human perception is concerned.
Are you going to tell everyone what they are seeing isn't red because it used to be blue?
What if 20000 years before that it used to be yellow?

Color has no place in objective reality. It is a subjective thing.
All the same I still believe blue exists, but that is a purely subjective claim.
Would you think I am irational simply because I believe in something that I cannot objectively prove exists?

That is utterly incoherent. You are confusing the thing with the name of the thing.

He has some odd obsession with labels. Which I've asked him about to indulge in or explain but to no avail.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
21-03-2016, 07:36 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 07:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What happens to your claim when two different people see the exact same object with the exact same wavelength but one sees purple and the other one sees blue? It happens to a lot of people. It's called tetrachromacy.

That is not what tetrachromacy does. It provides greater color differentiation ability; it does not mean that one will see different colors when exposed to the same wavelength of light. Again, that is a nonsense proposition, as a color is what you see when exposed to light of a certain wavelength. Being more easily capable of differentiating between small wavelength differences changes nothing.

Again, you do not understand even the most basic concepts in play. Your entire argument comes down to solipsism, and solipsism collapses the moment that you have coherent definitions. You seem to reject the idea of definition entirely, which is incredibly silly and leaves you looking like a rather foolish philosophy undergrad who's had one too many.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 07:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What happens to your claim when two different people see the exact same object with the exact same wavelength but one sees purple and the other one sees blue? It happens to a lot of people.

Nothing.
You get a statistically significant sample, measure the wavelengths, and TEST what the valid sample is seeing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 07:52 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 08:11 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 07:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 07:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is utterly incoherent. You are confusing the thing with the name of the thing.

He has some odd obsession with labels. Which I've asked him about to indulge in or explain but to no avail.
I thought I was speaking about the definition of the thing, which eventually led to the naming of the thing?
I then went on to show that using the same definition we could end up naming the exact same thing something else & it would not be wrong based on the definition.
I then asked which name is more appropriate for said thing in both instances.

Isn't the name something we get only after applying the definition? Where did I go wrong?
Are you saying that the result of applying the definition is not important when attempting to communicate the existence of something?

How am I supposed to explain the existence of the pyramids of Egypt without using the words "pyramids of Egypt"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 07:55 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 08:13 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 07:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 07:24 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What happens to your claim when two different people see the exact same object with the exact same wavelength but one sees purple and the other one sees blue? It happens to a lot of people.

Nothing.
You get a statistically significant sample, measure the wavelengths, and TEST what the valid sample is seeing.
If both samples are valid:
When they see two different colors belonging to the very same object, what do I do with the test results?

I would most likely:
Label them inconclusive.

What makes one sample more valid than the other between the two test subjects? Is it because one is more normal than the other when it comes to vision? Do you really think that is how the scientific method works? By being prejudice?

Bucky seeing that you belong to a minority group I would really like to know what you think about the validity of a test subject based on their abnormality.

When trying to objectively define if an object is blue, only use people that have the same ability to perceive colors. Scientific method at its finest. [Chas please don't misquote my sarcasm in my rep points again]. Just asking.

I rest my case (for now)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 08:11 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 07:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I then went on to show that using the same definition we could end up naming the exact same thing some else & it would not be wrong based on the definition.

Yes, you can pointlessly change names about without affecting the definitions, because there is no law of language that keeps you from abusing it pointlessly.

But, in a logical setting, that shit don't fly. It certainly doesn't prove anything, save that you are fond of wasting time.

This is why semantics - that is, the practice of establishing clear definitions and labels - is considered a fundamental building block of logic. If you don't take the time to nail down your definitions, you end up with people like Shane, who don't understand that swapping the labels on the boxes doesn't do a damn thing to what's actually inside, and-slash-or consider this some deep philosophical statement rather than the petty stupidity it actually is.

(21-03-2016 07:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If both samples are valid:
When they see two different colors belonging to the very same object, what do I do with the test results?

If both samples are valid, and both are exposed to light of a certain wavelength, you don't get two different colors. Hint: colorblindness, regular blindness, and tetrachromia exposed to more than one wavelength of light are not valid samples.

(21-03-2016 07:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When trying to objectively define if an object is blue, only use people that have the same ability to perceive colors.

No. Measure the wavelength of the light it reflects or emits and see if it falls into the range labeled as "blue".

(21-03-2016 07:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I rest my case (for now)

You haven't built one.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 08:17 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 07:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 07:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  He has some odd obsession with labels. Which I've asked him about to indulge in or explain but to no avail.
I thought I was speaking about the definition of the thing, which eventually led to the naming of the thing?
I then went on to show that using the same definition we could end up naming the exact same thing something else & it would not be wrong based on the definition.
I then asked which name is more appropriate for said thing in both instances.

Isn't the name something we get only after applying the definition? Where did I go wrong?
Are you saying that the result of applying the definition is not important when attempting to communicate the existence of something?

How am supposed to explain the existence of the pyramids of Egypt without using the words "pyramid of Egypt"

Well to get into that would involve getting into the philosophy of language. Whether you think words are significant, labels are significant, or meanings are just described by them. Whether or not there is something more than just agreed conceptions to words or they have an understanding more universal when spoken of.
One of the prominent 20th century philosophers on the subject of language just died a couple days ago. Hiliary Putnam.

How about famous three dimensional triangles in the northeast country of the continent of Africa? How about, the lasting structures of the ancient 7 wonders of the world? ...there are dozens of ways you can describe things. There is also more than one way to DEFINE things. A dictionary definition is just a consideration of how people talk about it, not a marker for what is the defining elements of it.

This goes to what you think the meaning of a thing is.. is it the thing or is it a "description" or "label" and you seem to defer to the "labels" constantly over the essences. In so much that you often wont even describe the label you use at all, such as mine and several others non-understanding of what you mean by cautious

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 08:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 07:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I then went on to show that using the same definition we could end up naming the exact same thing some else & it would not be wrong based on the definition.

Yes, you can pointlessly change names about without affecting the definitions, because there is no law of language that keeps you from abusing it pointlessly.

But, in a logical setting, that shit don't fly. It certainly doesn't prove anything, save that you are fond of wasting time.

This is why semantics - that is, the practice of establishing clear definitions and labels - is considered a fundamental building block of logic. If you don't take the time to nail down your definitions, you end up with people like Shane, who don't understand that swapping the labels on the boxes doesn't do a damn thing to what's actually inside, and-slash-or consider this some deep philosophical statement rather than the petty stupidity it actually is.

(21-03-2016 07:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If both samples are valid:
When they see two different colors belonging to the very same object, what do I do with the test results?

If both samples are valid, and both are exposed to light of a certain wavelength, you don't get two different colors. Hint: colorblindness, regular blindness, and tetrachromia exposed to more than one wavelength of light are not valid samples.

(21-03-2016 07:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When trying to objectively define if an object is blue, only use people that have the same ability to perceive colors.

No. Measure the wavelength of the light it reflects or emits and see if it falls into the range labeled as "blue".

(21-03-2016 07:55 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I rest my case (for now)

You haven't built one.
You have seemingly ignored my point about people with normal vision vs people with tetrachromacy seeing 2 different colors from the same object after applying the definition.
The definition can clearly be applied without prejudice in both cases and yield 2 different resultin colors.

The range labeled as blue is subjective. Why would I be interested in a subjective label when attempting to determine an objective reality?

I have lost interest in your logic for now as I am no longer impressed by it. I will return to our discussion when my interest is once again peaked.

Best of wishes Unbeliever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: