Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 08:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.


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.


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


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.

The perception of the color is not the color. The range labelled as 'blue' is definitional, not subjective.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-03-2016, 08:33 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

No, I didn't. I stated specifically that this does not happen.

People with tetrachromacy can differentiate between different wavelengths of light more easily, and can spot details of color that others may miss - minute amounts of red-wavelength light around the edges of a green leaf, for example. They may also be capable of seeing different wavelengths than those with normal vision. They do not see different colors when exposed to the same wavelength - and even if they did, it would establish nothing that supports your argument, any more than the existence of colorblindness does.

Read before responding.

(21-03-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The range labeled as blue is subjective.

No, it isn't.

(21-03-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

I am crushed by your loss of faith in me. Truly I shall never recover from this blow.

"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
[+] 6 users Like Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 08:38 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 08:51 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 08:17 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 07:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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
I am making an observation between the accuracy of objective reality vs subjective reality.
I am making a distinction between them.
Essences would fall under objective reality and it would appear they are not subject to change.
Labels fall under subjective reality and it would appear they are subject to change.

Wave lengths resulting from an object can be scientifically tested and the results do not vary based on perception amongst other things. Hence it belongs to objective reality.
The color blue resulting from an object can be scientifically tested but the results vary based on perception. Hence It belongs to subjective reality.

The pyramids of Egypt can be objectively defined but the color blue cannot.

I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 09:49 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

The perception of the color is not the color. The range labelled as 'blue' is definitional, not subjective.
Links?
Any supporting evidence?
Where is the logic behind your claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 09:55 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 08:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The color blue resulting from an object can be scientifically tested but the results vary based on perception. Hence It belongs to subjective reality.

Nope. The "color blue" is not emitted. Radiation is.
The emitted radiation can be tested with (non-subjective) instruments.
If the tested radiation is within the defined range, it's defined as "blue".

You really never studied Physics did you ?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-03-2016, 10:02 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 09:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 08:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The color blue resulting from an object can be scientifically tested but the results vary based on perception. Hence It belongs to subjective reality.

Nope. The "color blue" is not emitted. Radiation is.
The emitted radiation can be tested with (non-subjective) instruments.
If the tested radiation is within the defined range, it's defined as "blue".

You really never studied Physics did you ?
I would love to argue with you but I don't understand how emit shares the exact same meaning as result.
Can you replace the words or should I just stop trying to argue two different topics?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 10:07 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 09:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  The perception of the color is not the color. The range labelled as 'blue' is definitional, not subjective.
Links?
Any supporting evidence?
Where is the logic behind your claim?

Basic physics.

Color is the brain's perception of certain wavelengths of light. Blue, for example, is light of a wavelength of around 470nm, if I remember correctly. Any light of that approximate wavelength is blue, or a shade of it. An object which emits or reflects light of that wavelength is said to be blue.

Again, five seconds on Google would have answered this question. Learn the terms before you attempt to use them in a discussion.

"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, 10:09 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 10:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 09:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Links?
Any supporting evidence?
Where is the logic behind your claim?

Basic physics.

Color is the brain's perception of certain wavelengths of light. Blue, for example, is light of a wavelength of around 470nm, if I remember correctly. Any light of that approximate wavelength is blue, or a shade of it. An object which emits or reflects light of that wavelength is said to be blue.

Again, five seconds on Google would have answered this question. Learn the terms before you attempt to use them in a discussion.
Hello
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 10:17 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
It's also strictly defined as electro-magnetic radiation within a specific range.
Some brains do not perceive it as "blue". That changes nothing.

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, 11:20 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 10:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's also strictly defined as electro-magnetic radiation within a specific range.
Some brains do not perceive it as "blue". That changes nothing.
What are we supposedly changing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: