Love sucks???????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 09:42 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(21-02-2017 09:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No scientism is the dogmatic appeal to science as a grounding for epistemology. It's an infallibilist system. This isn't unpopular in the scientific community.

And your source for this is, exactly...?

Other than your own ego, of course. We have already established that you think you know everyone else's positions better than they do. I am not interested in repeating this.

(21-02-2017 09:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  But you say the scientific method has been justified. I agree, but you can only justify it under certain epistemologies. So how do you justify the scientific method?

We went over this in one of your first threads. This is incredibly basic stuff.

Semantics is the process of creating coherent, useful definitions of terms. Because of semantics, we know that the universe exists and is external to us, because any definitions of those terms that do not apply to the universe are worthless. For the same reason, we can discard objections like "how do you know you're really sensing the universe" and the problem of induction as incoherent or irrelevant, depending on specific wording.

Logic is applied semantics. It is the process of defining relationships between terms. If your system of logic is coherent, you can create valid propositions that describe entities.

Rationality is applied logic. It is the acknowledgment of a difference between logically valid arguments and true ones. With rationality in place, we know that it is not enough to assert something. The assertion must be demonstrated to be sound as well as valid.

Skepticism is applied rationality (though, honestly, the two terms are so close as to be nearly interchangeable in practical usage). It is the position that only propositions which can be shown to be true should be accepted as true, a value judgment following immediately on the heels of rationality's statement of fact. Rejecting skepticism is possible, but since it leads immediately to accepting unsound arguments as true, you're better off just checking into the asylum immediately and having done with the whole thing.

Science is applied skepticism. It is simply a means of removing as much of the margin for error as possible in determining what arguments are sound.

It's really not complicated, and the answer isn't going to change no matter how many times you ignore it in these discussions.

"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
21-02-2017, 10:05 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(21-02-2017 09:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And your source for this is, exactly...?

Other than your own ego, of course. We have already established that you think you know everyone else's positions better than they do. I am not interested in repeating this.

Source: http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/11/28/the-...-dogmatic/

Quote:We went over this in one of your first threads. This is incredibly basic stuff.

No it isn't at all.

Quote:Semantics is the process of creating coherent, useful definitions of terms. Because of semantics, we know that the universe exists and is external to us, because any definitions of those terms that do not apply to the universe are worthless. For the same reason, we can discard objections like "how do you know you're really sensing the universe" and the problem of induction as incoherent or irrelevant, depending on specific wording.

Why are you the one who gets to dictate what definitions are of value? Also, the question isn't whether you know you're "really" sensing the universe. The question is how you know you're sensing anything external at all. You can't just define words to solve this problem. That's intellectual laziness and you know it. You have to justify that your perceptions are representing reality external to you. Then you have to justify that they can do this reliably. You can't just say "well we define senses as things that observe reality". By that standard, you should have no problem with anything a Christian says. The Bible is defined as the word of God. Wasn't that easy? You're making ad hoc assumptions and then trying to justify them by redefining words.

Quote:Skepticism is applied rationality (though, honestly, the two terms are so close as to be nearly interchangeable in practical usage). It is the position that only propositions which can be shown to be true should be accepted as true, a value judgment following immediately on the heels of rationality's statement of fact. Rejecting skepticism is possible, but since it leads immediately to accepting unsound arguments as true, you're better off just checking into the asylum immediately and having done with the whole thing.

Well are you talking about academic skepticism or Phyrronian skepticism?

"Another difference between Academic and Pyrrhonian Skepticism is closely related to the charge by the latter that the former is really a disguised type of dogmatism. The Academic Skeptic thinks that her view can be shown to be the correct one by an argument (or by arguments). The Pyrrhonian would point out that the Academic Skeptic maintains confidence in the ability of reason to settle matters—at least with regard to the extent of our knowledge of propositions in the EI-class. One way of understanding the so-called problem of the “Cartesian Circle” illustrates the Pyrrhonian point: Descartes is relying throughout the Meditations on his power of reasoning to remove the skeptical doubts that he raises, but to do so requires that he exempt at least some of the propositions obtained through reasoning from the doubts that he raised in the “First Meditation” about the epistemic reliability of our faculties. A possible Cartesian reply could be as simple as paraphrasing Luther: Here I stand, as a philosopher with confidence in reason, and as such I can do no other.[6] We will consider another way to respond to this objection later. But regardless of the adequacy of either of the responses, the point here is that the Pyrrhonians did not claim that they had a compelling argument whose conclusion was that withholding assent to non-evident propositions was the appropriate epistemic attitude to have."

"Descartes next seriously considers dreaming.[8] What if he were dreaming at that very moment? Would he still have some knowledge of the external world? Yes; because in dreams and in waking life there are some common general features. So, if he were dreaming, he would not know in particular what is going on about him at that moment, but that does not imply that he fails to have any knowledge of the external world at that moment. For example, he might not be certain that he has hands, nevertheless, even more simple things about nature “in general” are not thereby made doubtful. We have not found any reason for doubting that there are material objects in general or that they have a spatial location, or are in motion or at rest, or can exist for a long or short period of time. Again, no basis for Academic Skepticism has been established. For we can neutralize this apparent ground for doubting all of our beliefs about material objects because there are some truths about material objects and their properties that remain unchallenged in both our experiences while dreaming and our experiences while being awake. Thus, he sums up his reply to a skeptic's claim that for all we know, we might be dreaming now, as follows:

… although these general things, to wit, [a body], eyes, a head, hands, and such like, may be imaginary, we are bound at the same time to confess that there are at least some other objects yet more simple and more universal, which are real and true… (Meditations, 146)"

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skept...sForPhiSke

Either way, your definition of skepticism is false.

Quote:Science is applied skepticism. It is simply a means of removing as much of the margin for error as possible in determining what arguments are sound.

It's really not complicated, and the answer isn't going to change no matter how many times you ignore it in these discussions.

Science is not applied skepticism. Science is a method for acquiring knowledge about reality. This method is based on prior principles.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 10:16 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(21-02-2017 07:22 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It certainly is reasonable to work with material analysis at a material level. But I think there's more to be done before we can get there. Let's take idealists, for example. They don't necessarily believe in the material world outside of the mind. How do we argue for the material world. How do we justify the reliability of our senses? I think this is the first challenge.

The problem is of finding somewhere to "stand" when trying to make the justification. All we have to go on, really, is our perception and consciousness. If we believe that we cannot depend on them to accurately reflect our environment, how do we know our justifications will be any more dependable?

Quote:Then the next challenge is the problem of induction. How do we know the universe operates on physical laws instead of randomness?

To the extent that things behave in a similar fashion (e.g. rates of acceleration when dropping objects), that would suggest a fairly consistent process is at play.

Quote:So let's say we have only observed white geese. What reason do we have to say that there are only white geese? There's no reason to believe a small sample of reality will represent the whole of reality. In fact, to assume that it will is a fallacy of composition.

At a theoretical level that makes sense: It would take the appearance of a non-white goose to falsify that assertion. Until such a exception shows up, though, we can provisionally consider geese to be white (inasmuch as the colour of geese actually affects our dealings with them).

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 10:32 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(21-02-2017 10:16 AM)Astreja Wrote:  The problem is of finding somewhere to "stand" when trying to make the justification. All we have to go on, really, is our perception and consciousness. If we believe that we cannot depend on them to accurately reflect our environment, how do we know our justifications will be any more dependable?

But unlike perception, the existence of the consciousness is known infallibly by the mind. This is because the consciousness is acessable through introspection. Your own thoughts are known infallibly. You know, for example, that you think I am wrong on many things. The question is how we can work from our introspection and our consciousness to be able to make claims about the external world. You know that you think I am wrong, but how you know that I am wrong. How do you know I exist outside your mind? This can't just be assumed.

Quote:To the extent that things behave in a similar fashion (e.g. rates of acceleration when dropping objects), that would suggest a fairly consistent process is at play.

But that's the problem. There is no reason to believe that any number of observations of small sects of reality will represent all of reality.

Quote:At a theoretical level that makes sense: It would take the appearance of a non-white goose to falsify that assertion. Until such a exception shows up, though, we can provisionally consider geese to be white (inasmuch as the colour of geese actually affects our dealings with them).

But we can only say that all geese that we observed were white when we observed them. We haven't established that they stay white when we aren't observing and we haven't established that the next goose will be white. If science is your starting point for knowledge, this is a problem. But if science is merely a method for weeding out bad theories and doesn't claim any certainty, then the problem dissolves. Also, materialism has this problem. If all things are material, then why do they behave orderly?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 08:53 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 09:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And your source for this is, exactly...?

Source: http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/11/28/the-...-dogmatic/

Oh, come on. Now you're just taking the piss. Rupert Sheldrake? Are you kidding?

(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:We went over this in one of your first threads. This is incredibly basic stuff.

No it isn't at all.

Mmn... yes, it actually is. That you are personally new to it does not change this fact.

(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Why are you the one who gets to dictate what definitions are of value?

I'm not, any more so than I'm the one that gets to dictate that two plus two equals four. Semantics is not complicated. It has straightforward rules if you want what you say to mean anything at all.

(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Also, the question isn't whether you know you're "really" sensing the universe. The question is how you know you're sensing anything external at all.

By definition.

(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You can't just define words to solve this problem.

Yyyyes, you can. In fact, you have to. Because any definition of "external" that does not include what you are sensing is non-functional and semantically worthless. The things you sense still don't have any properties that could be meaningfully described as "internal"; all you're doing here is kicking the can another step down the road and saying that we can't use the word "external" to describe the way these things act because...

...well. Because, really.

And it changes exactly nothing about the behavior of our perceptions, so it's all just wasting time to begin with. That is what I have been trying to explain to you across multiple threads now. Solipsism and all of its variants and related positions are nothing but pointless semantic games.

(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Then you have to justify that they can do this reliably.

Unless you want to argue that our senses are literally random and have no correlation whatsoever to what we are perceiving, then they are reliable enough for logic, rationality, and science to operate.

I would go more into this, but I don't care right now.

(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You can't just say "well we define senses as things that observe reality".

It's a good thing that I didn't do that, then.

(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well are you talking about academic skepticism or Phyrronian skepticism?

No one cares about your obsession with hair-splitting and straw men. I told you quite clearly what I meant by skepticism. You chose to ignore it. I do not care to repeat myself.

Stop assuming that you know your opponent's positions better than they do. Attempting to name-drop various philosophers does not intimidate anyone.

(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Either way, your definition of skepticism is false.

It really, really isn't.

(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Science is not applied skepticism. Science is a method for acquiring knowledge about reality. This method is based on prior principles.

...Which are the principles of skepticism, yes.

You really don't seem to be getting the point here.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
22-02-2017, 02:47 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(21-02-2017 07:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 04:20 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  How is being decent to others "ignorant"?

I never said it was. Choosing to ignore philosophy is choosing ignorance.

You drew the equivalence. Defend it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 08:50 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(21-02-2017 10:05 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Why are you the one who gets to dictate what definitions are of value?

This has always been an interesting point to me, you spend time in places like this and you get variety of quirky definitions for terms, and posters unaware of their own personal meanings attached to it. They imagine that everyone else whose using the same terms differently, is doing so incorrectly, and that they alone are upholders of the true meaning.

What you start to understand, that for atheists, like literalist, there's a sort of possessive attitude when it comes to words, particularly ones whose very definitions are not physical descriptions.

Unbeliever is prime example of this, he uses a variety of terms like logic, null-hypothesis, evidence, is variety of ways outside of common usage, and often times against how others would use and understand these concept. But refuses to acknowledge his own subjective take on these meanings, and the fact that he's not the authority here, though it's never clear who is. According to him, is not grammarians or even philosophers, or teachers on the subject, which only leave him. Though he'll never admit that.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 09:06 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(21-02-2017 10:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 10:16 AM)Astreja Wrote:  The problem is of finding somewhere to "stand" when trying to make the justification. All we have to go on, really, is our perception and consciousness. If we believe that we cannot depend on them to accurately reflect our environment, how do we know our justifications will be any more dependable?

But unlike perception, the existence of the consciousness is known infallibly by the mind. This is because the consciousness is acessable through introspection. Your own thoughts are known infallibly. You know, for example, that you think I am wrong on many things. The question is how we can work from our introspection and our consciousness to be able to make claims about the external world. You know that you think I am wrong, but how you know that I am wrong.

That makes murky more than it explains. Consciousness is a very abstract concept which is not something one invariably apprehends.

Sure it is accessible through introspection but so what? What exactly is so fool proof about introspection? Once the concept is explained most people will realize that yes they are that. But no, that doesn't mean they know everything there is to their thoughts. You don't know how you generate a thought. You don't even know that you do generate them. For all you know, they just come down the pike and you spin a narrative of agency to give you a sense of identity and constancy over time.


(21-02-2017 10:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  How do you know I exist outside your mind? This can't just be assumed.

Just because the fact of consciousness can be apprehended through introspection doesn't mean that anything which cannot be understood in that way is somehow less certain. Just the opposite really. The mind exists to provide cognition for sensory input, to interpret it and make sense of the world around it. The mind is not primary. It is entirely secondary. First there is a world which impacts a creature. Then a creature develops the ability to sense what is going on and to respond in useful ways. Contemplating the possibility of being a brain in a vat is not a useful application of your cognitive powers.

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 09:08 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 08:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Unbeliever is prime example of this, he uses a variety of terms like logic, null-hypothesis, evidence, is variety of ways outside of common usage

No, Tom. I use these terms exactly how they are meant to be used.

You simply do not understand them, and do not like the implications of their correct usages, and therefore attempt to make up your own. What is especially hilarious about this is that you even directly quote sources that say things like "evidence is anything that supports a position", then try to mentally excise the phrase "that supports a position" because you don't want to have to go to all the trouble of showing that your conclusion actually follows from your premises.

And then you try to act as though everyone else is playing silly buggers with definitions.

(22-02-2017 08:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But refuses to acknowledge his own subjective take on these meanings

Because the definitions of "evidence", "logic", and "null hypothesis" are not subjective.

(22-02-2017 08:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  According to him, is not grammarians or even philosophers, or teachers on the subject

I have no idea where you got the first two, but the latter refers to an instance in which you tried to assert, without basis, that college professors who taught formal logic would disagree with atheism. Even ignoring all the problems with that statement, it had absolutely nothing to do with the meanings of any of the aforementioned terms.

The definitions of these terms are readily available, Tom. I did not make them up. No one is "the authority" on these matters, unless you count the dictionary. "Evidence" is anything that supports a given conclusion. "Logic" is the system used to create valid arguments. The "null hypothesis" is the hypothesis that posits the existence of no entities or properties of entities that is not in evidence.

I'm very sorry that you don't like these definitions, and that they cause such trouble for your pet theories like teleology, but they aren't going to change any time soon, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and call me a big meanie head for not letting you dodge them.

"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
22-02-2017, 09:46 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 09:08 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, Tom. I use these terms exactly how they are meant to be used.

You use the words how you think they're "meant" to be used, in contrast to how others, not just myself use them, like your view that logic dictates atheism is true, and that all God beliefs are illogical, a position you're unlikely to find accepted by philosophers, or those professors who teach on logic. And in the many cases where the terms are created, and defined by theists themselves, who clearly meant something different by them, then your application.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: