Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2016, 12:30 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 09:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is belief in the unseen irrational?

What counts as "unseen"? Air is "unseen" in some sense. The tooth fairy is "unseen" in another sense. So, I'm going to assume you mean "unobserved". If you mean "unobserved", then air isn't, since we can observe it. But what about indirect observation? Someone else sees it and tells us. Is it rational to believe them? Some people are compulsive liars, so it would be stupid to believe that kind of person. Other people are very trustworthy and are telling the truth even when it sounds ridiculous so it's often beneficial to take them at their word. So, without knowing whether the person is trustworthy or not, it's best to think of what they tell you as a possibility and to determine for yourself if there's evidence to support their claim. That's the rational thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 12:49 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 09:14 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 07:07 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Nonsense. Imaginary numbers are a concept within mathematics. And this concept works perfectly within the given framework. Imaginary numbers are even necessary to describe certain aspects of technology in our modern world. They are far from being "irrational if believed".
Are you assuming irational belief has no usage?
Many have benefited via the use of irational belief, just not as a direct result or for it's intended purpose.

Imaginary numbers have as much to do with irrational belief as your inane ramblings with "purpose".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
25-03-2016, 12:57 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 01:01 AM by Banjo.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
17/16 has a deep meaning for me. It is the time signature Bill Bruford used on the track Dicipline, by King Crimson, while beneath he played in 4/4 with his feet. Meanwhile the guitars played in 5's as well as others. Smile




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
25-03-2016, 03:19 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 12:30 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 09:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is belief in the unseen irrational?

What counts as "unseen"? Air is "unseen" in some sense. The tooth fairy is "unseen" in another sense. So, I'm going to assume you mean "unobserved". If you mean "unobserved", then air isn't, since we can observe it. But what about indirect observation? Someone else sees it and tells us. Is it rational to believe them? Some people are compulsive liars, so it would be stupid to believe that kind of person. Other people are very trustworthy and are telling the truth even when it sounds ridiculous so it's often beneficial to take them at their word. So, without knowing whether the person is trustworthy or not, it's best to think of what they tell you as a possibility and to determine for yourself if there's evidence to support their claim. That's the rational thing.
In this case:
Sensory perception of a "reference to a popularly assumed thing" would count as unseen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 08:15 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(24-03-2016 09:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 09:44 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And we add "mathematics" to the list of things that Shane has no grasp of...

Oops I forgot to update my score board:

Unexplained answers:
20 points: Unbeliever
10 points: WhiskeyDebates
10 points: Chas

Considering that my answer was, in fact, explained ... Consider

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
25-03-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 09:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Oops I forgot to update my score board:

Unexplained answers:
20 points: Unbeliever
10 points: WhiskeyDebates
10 points: Chas

Considering that my answer was, in fact, explained ... Consider

Most of them are. Shane just believes that his personal lack of comprehension means that it must not have been sufficiently expounded upon.

Unfortunately, since Shane understands very little of anything, this results in him operating under the deluded belief that he is more intelligent than everyone else around him, since of course his failure to grasp even the barest basics of a given topic aren't his fault. It's everyone else's fault for failing to educate him properly - because, obviously, they're all stupid and arrogant and incapable of seeing the fact that none of their arguments are truly logical or effective.

Because it's obviously not the case that the arguments and explanations put forth are entirely sound, and he's just a bit stubborn, a bit dim, a bit prone to whining about a disability he doesn't have and doesn't understand, a bit troubled when it comes to reading basic English, and a lot arrogant asshole.

That would just be silly.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
25-03-2016, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 10:41 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 08:37 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 08:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  Considering that my answer was, in fact, explained ... Consider

Most of them are. Shane just believes that his personal lack of comprehension means that it must not have been sufficiently expounded upon.

Unfortunately, since Shane understands very little of anything, this results in him operating under the deluded belief that he is more intelligent than everyone else around him, since of course his failure to grasp even the barest basics of a given topic aren't his fault. It's everyone else's fault for failing to educate him properly - because, obviously, they're all stupid and arrogant and incapable of seeing the fact that none of their arguments are truly logical or effective.

Because it's obviously not the case that the arguments and explanations put forth are entirely sound, and he's just a bit stubborn, a bit dim, a bit prone to whining about a disability he doesn't have and doesn't understand, a bit troubled when it comes to reading basic English, and a lot arrogant asshole.

That would just be silly.
My assumption (not belief) is based on the wiki explanation of the word explanation.
Explanations are generally considered to be a set of statements. The answers which i claim are not explanations from you rarely have more than one or two distinct statements.
WITH REGARDS TO ONLY THOSE ANSWERS I CLAIM ARE NOT EXPLANATIONS FROM YOU:
You do not describe causes, context and consequences of the facts you state.
Your description of your answer rarely (if ever) describe or clarify any rules or laws in relation to the object or phenomena examined.
Your answers are arguments and not explanations because all you do is show that something is, will be or should be.
For it to be an explanation it has to show WHY or HOW something is, will be or should be.

An example of how you could make an explanation of your answer is this:
Shane: what is x?

Answer:
Unbeliever: x is 35

Explanation:
1. Unbeliever: x is 10b+5c
2. Unbeliever: b is 2 & c is 3
3. Unbeliever: Therefore 10(2) + 5(3) = 35 = x

These are a set of logical statements which show how and why x = 35
If you stopped at 1 it may not be a sufficient explanation because it assumes the listener knows the meaning of b & c.
If however the meaning of b & c is common knowledge and/or has not been misrespresented by either you or the listener then there is no need to explain further.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation
Explanation
For the Wallace Stevens poem, see Explanation (poem).
An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined. The components of an explanation can be implicit, and be interwoven with one another.

An explanation is often underpinned by an understanding that is represented by different media such as music, text, and graphics. Thus, an explanation is subjected to interpretation, and discussion.

In scientific research, explanation is one of several "purposes" for empirical research.[1][2] Explanation is a way to uncover new knowledge, and to report relationships among different aspects of studied phenomena. Explanation attempts to answer the "why" question. Explanations have varied explanatory power. The formal hypothesis is the theoretical tool used to verify explanation in empirical research.[3][4]

Arguments
Main article: Argument
While arguments attempt to show that something is, will be, or should be the case, explanations try to show why or how something is or will be. If Fred and Joe address the issue of whether or not Fred's cat has fleas, Joe may state: "Fred, your cat has fleas. Observe the cat is scratching right now." Joe has made an argument that the cat has fleas. However, if Fred and Joe agree on the fact that the cat has fleas, they may further question why this is so and put forth an explanation: "The reason the cat has fleas is that the weather has been damp." The difference is that the attempt is not to settle whether or not some claim is true, but to show why it is true.

In this sense, arguments aim to contribute knowledge, whereas explanations aim to contribute understanding.

Arguments and explanations largely resemble each other in rhetorical use. This is the cause of much difficulty in thinking critically about claims. There are several reasons for this difficulty.

People often are not themselves clear on whether they are arguing for or explaining something.
The same types of words and phrases are used in presenting explanations and arguments.
The terms 'explain' or 'explanation,' et cetera are frequently used in arguments.
Explanations are often used within arguments and presented so as to serve as arguments.
Justification
Main article: Theory of justification
Justification is the reason why someone properly holds a belief, the explanation as to why the belief is a true one, or an account of how one knows what one knows. In much the same way arguments and explanations may be confused with each other, so too may explanations and justifications. Statements which are justifications of some action take the form of arguments. For example, attempts to justify a theft usually explain the motives (e.g., to feed a starving family).

It is important to be aware when an explanation is not a justification. A criminal profiler may offer an explanation of a suspect's behavior (e.g.; the person lost their job, the person got evicted, etc.). Such statements may help us understand why the person committed the crime, however an uncritical listener may believe the speaker is trying to gain sympathy for the person and his or her actions. It does not follow that a person proposing an explanation has any sympathy for the views or actions being explained. This is an important distinction because we need to be able to understand and explain terrible events and behavior in attempting to discourage it.

Types
There are many and varied events, objects, and facts which require explanation. So too, there are many different types of explanation. Aristotle recognized at least four types of explanation. Other types of explanation are Deductive-nomological, Functional, Historical, Psychological, Reductive, Teleological, Methodological explanations.

Meta-explanation
The notion of meta-explanation is important in behavioral scenarios that involve conflicting agents. In these scenarios, implicit of or explicit conflict can be caused by contradictory agents' interests, as communicated in their explanations for why they behaved in a particular way, by a lack of knowledge of the situation, or by a mixture of explanations of multiple factors. In many cases to assess the plausibility of explanations, one must analyze two following components and their interrelations: (1) explanation at the actual object level (explanation itself) and (2) explanation at the higher level (meta-explanation). Comparative analysis of the roles of both is conducted to assess the plausibility of how agents explain the scenarios of their interactions.[5] Object-level explanation assesses the plausibility of individual claims by using a traditional approach to handle argumentative structure of a dialog. Meta-explanation links the structure of a current scenario with that of previously learned scenarios of multi-agent interaction. The scenario structure includes agents' communicative actions and argumentation defeat relations between the subjects of these actions. The data for both object-level and meta-explanation can be visually specified,and a plausibility of how agent behavior in a scenario can be visually explained. Meta-explanation in the form of machine learning of scenario structure can be augmented by conventional explanation by finding arguments in the form of defeasibility analysis of individual claims, to increase the accuracy of plausibility assessment.[6]

A ratio between object-level and meta-explanation can be defined as the relative accuracy of plausibility assessment based on the former and latter sources. The groups of scenarios can then be clustered based on this ratio; hence, such a ratio is an important parameter of human behavior associated with explaining something to other humans.

See also
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 10:36 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Did you really just copy and paste an entire Wikipedia article?

"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
25-03-2016, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 12:09 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 10:36 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Did you really just copy and paste an entire Wikipedia article?

Yes.
Along with my own explanation and an example of an explanation

In most instances you just give "an answer"
On the rare occasions that you attempt to give an explanation, they have either an inbuilt assumption that, the "how" & "why" parts are common knowledge, or have not been misrepresented (unintentionally of course) by yourself.
In the event that your assumption (of common knowledge or non misrepresentation) isn't the case it would render the explanation insufficient to facilitate understanding.

Repost:

An example of how you could make an explanation of your answer is this:
Shane: what is x?

Answer:
Unbeliever: x is 35 (unknown to listener)

Explanation:
1. Unbeliever: x is 10b+5c (not so common knowledge maybe)
2. Unbeliever: b is 2 & c is 3 (common knowledge maybe)
3. Unbeliever: Therefore 10(2) + 5(3) = 35 = x (conclusion)

These are a set of logical statements which show how and why x = 35
If you stopped at 1 it may not be a sufficient explanation because it assumes the listener knows the meaning of b & c.
If however the meaning of b & c is common knowledge and/or has not been misrespresented by either you or the listener then there is no need to explain further.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 11:56 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 12:26 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?




(24-03-2016 05:27 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 09:14 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't accept either of those statements at the end.

I'm really at a loss from where your focus or mental thought on this point is going on right now. Really there was only one statement in that whole post that I felt reflected on what I had been saying. I guess cause I'm not interested in "generally assumed" positions and would rather cut to beyond that. Not bothering with any general view questions.

I suppose I still see just as much possible/potential interference in labeling the giant pyramid you standing 20 feet from you seeing the actual thing in contrast to seeing a picture of it on your laptop... as far as when we are talking about in a high certainty range.
Then you are Agnostic same as me. It's really hard trying to explain something to someone that already shares your opinion about God. You will end up agreeing with me in the end even though we did not use the same logic to arrive at our opinion.
Still... if you see any flaws in my logic I would be very thankful for you to point them out for me please.

Yeah I know that, I'm an agnostic atheist if you want to use the labels and never really have been otherwise. I'm also partial to excessive skepticism like you but it doesn't mean it leads to the same types of conclusions vs some arguments.

My contrast is just that whether its based on presumed understanding of the contrast from people or not, the distinction lines of what is personally experienced vs gathered from data whatever you call it...) is actually a significant difference. It may be concluded as so. I don't however have a real acceptance that person experience is a more trustworthy element nor is it really ever "personal" to a tight degree.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: