Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2015, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2015 04:57 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
I think there is an element of predictive and explanatory power in knowledge (even if it takes the form "I know that's impossible to predict") that beliefs don't necessarily have. Of course, some beliefs may evolve into knowledge if they become more and more predictable but beliefs are not the only source of knowledge (e.g. mathematics which progresses more along the line of hunches rather than beliefs). And some beliefs are just stipulations - I don't know that the lottery isn't rigged but I'll stipulate to it. Beliefs which don't enable us to predict phenomena or increase our understanding are the easiest to distinguish from knowledge. "I believe in God" has no explanatory power and does not enable us to make any predictions whatsoever.

I don't think there is a subset relationship between the two. There is a non-null intersection but that's it.

Anyway, that's all I could pull out of my ass.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
12-08-2015, 07:02 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2015 07:43 PM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
I reckon I differ in that I make an effort to discard all beliefs that don't meet my criteria of knowledge, and shift those into the category of hypotheses and guesses. If someone asked me if the lottery was rigged, I would say that I don't know. I have no reason to believe that it is, but I'm not involved in the process enough to know that it isn't. When I admit to myself that I don't have knowledge of something, I don't form a belief of it. I can still have a guess though, and if I had to guess I would say it isn't rigged, but I don't really have evidence to form a belief one way or the other.

In other words, I want all of my beliefs to be knowledge.

Matt Dillahunty speaks of this as well with his "I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible."

My question is, do you think it's possible through scientific skepticism to do away with what you guys call beliefs? Is it something that's even worth trying?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 04:55 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
I'll toss my two cents in. First definitions:
Hypothesis. I don't think you are using this word correctly. Hypothesis is used in philosophy as a statement for further reasoning without any indication of its truth. In science it is a statement to be tested. Neither of which seem to apply here.

Belief: a belief is anything that someone considers to be true.

Knowledge: knowledge is a subset of belief. I will go with Matt and say that it is a belief that is justified. Justified seems to be the problematic word here. We always leave room for some doubt, but we shall say that knowledge is a belief which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus: a Gnostic atheist is someone who states that they believe that God does not exist because they have proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
An Agnostic Atheist believes that God does not exist even though it has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Most atheists here fall into this category.
An Agnostic theist believes that God exists even though he can not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
And a Gnostic Theist believes God exists and has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Simply because something has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt does not make it not a belief. Some things can never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However we still believe it to be true. Many scientists believe in multiverse theory despite the fact that absolute proof is impossible, since if the universe's interact, they are one universe, if they do not then they are unobservable. However scientists still believe that the theory is true since all evidence seems to point that way. However they will never reach the evidence threshold.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 05:52 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
If we define agnostic atheist as someone who does not claim to know whether or not god exists, but believes that god does not exist, then here is the thought process. "I know that I don't have knowledge that god doesn't exist because it is not justified to believe that god doesn't exist. I know that it is not justified to believe that god does not exist, but I believe god does not exist."

That sounds like a whacky position to me and I could only describe it as abandonment of reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:10 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(12-08-2015 03:07 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  This is wandering into full retard territory.

Sentry reporting in? Angel

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:53 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 05:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If we define agnostic atheist as someone who does not claim to know whether or not god exists, but believes that god does not exist, then here is the thought process. "I know that I don't have knowledge that god doesn't exist because it is not justified to believe that god doesn't exist. I know that it is not justified to believe that god does not exist, but I believe god does not exist."

That sounds like a whacky position to me and I could only describe it as abandonment of reason.

But that isn't what people mean when they say it. They mean something more like
"I know that I don't know with certainty that god doesn't exist but I conclude that it is more probable than not that god does not exist."

You've mentioned Matt Dillahunty and his "believe as many true things and as few false things as possible" line and that doesn't contradict the usage that I have been trying to convey. I really don't understand why you don't use 'belief' for something you think is likely to be true but for which you are not certain. Many things fall into a category that are more than just a guess but for which there is still room for doubt.

If I reserved the use of belief only for things I am very highly sure of then I wouldn't need the word. I could just divide the world into things I know and things I don't. Belief is a light gray area covering things I don't know with certainty but would still be very surprised to see overturned.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
13-08-2015, 07:08 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 04:55 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Knowledge: knowledge is a subset of belief.

I don't agree. There are forms of knowledge which did not originate as belief. There is no room for belief in mathematics for example. Hunches and WAGs sure, belief no.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:21 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 07:08 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:55 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Knowledge: knowledge is a subset of belief.

I don't agree. There are forms of knowledge which did not originate as belief. There is no room for belief in mathematics for example. Hunches and WAGs sure, belief no.

Ah but can you prove that logic is absolute/same in any dimension/continuum/ect as ours. Tongue

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:27 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 07:08 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:55 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Knowledge: knowledge is a subset of belief.

I don't agree. There are forms of knowledge which did not originate as belief. There is no room for belief in mathematics for example. Hunches and WAGs sure, belief no.

Are you saying that you can know something and not believe it? Knowledge might not require starting as belief but the set of things you know is a subset of the things you believe.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:27 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 07:21 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 07:08 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I don't agree. There are forms of knowledge which did not originate as belief. There is no room for belief in mathematics for example. Hunches and WAGs sure, belief no.

Ah but can you prove that logic is absolute/same in any dimension/continuum/ect as ours. Tongue

Of course not. There is nothing absolute about logic or mathematics. They are relative to their axioms and operators.

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