Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 10:30 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 10:15 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Exactly, I have no use for the word. If I don't know it, it's a hypothesis.

Then I predict you are going to have a very hard time understanding anybody else or making yourself understood. I find belief to be a useful term.

Saying I believe something to be true does not mean that I am not cognizant of the fact that I could be wrong, only that I think the evidence for the belief is substantial enough to trust it. It is a working hypothesis and the strength of my belief is based on the confidence I have in the evidence supporting it. Saying "I believe X" is a lot simpler than saying "I have weighed the evidence for working hypothesis X against that for alternative possibilities and I find that X is most likely to be true so I will use that as the basis for decisions unless and until I encounter new evidence that changes my evaluation of the likelihood of X".

Then you have faith, which IMO is unreasonable.

"Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 10:32 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 10:22 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Knowledge is either justified or not justified, belief is either reasonable or unreasonable.

No. There is no such thing as knowledge that is not justified. All that we have are beliefs. If a belief is justified and true, then we (excluding girlyman and a few others) call it knowledge.

Unjustified knowledge is called being wrong. So yes you are correct in a way. It does not exist.

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, 11:01 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 10:35 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 10:33 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I think you are taking what is actually a hypothesis and labeling it a belief.

A hypothesis is a statement which can be tested. What happens of you hold something to be true that cannot be tested.

Then you should stop holding it to be true.

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, 11:04 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 10:36 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  "Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

As I've already noted, I do not accept that definition of faith.

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on evidence.

"Proof" is, in my opinion, a ridiculously high bar for belief.

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, 11:45 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 10:36 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 10:32 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  No. There is no such thing as knowledge that is not justified. All that we have are beliefs. If a belief is justified and true, then we (excluding girlyman and a few others) call it knowledge.

Unjustified knowledge is called being wrong. So yes you are correct in a way. It does not exist.

This would make more sense if you said "knowledge claim" rather than "knowledge". Knowledge, if it truly is knowledge, cannot be wrong or unjustified. But a knowledge claim can.

I think this may be part of the problem here. Matt Finney means knowledge in the absolute sense (can't be wrong) when he says knowledge. Some others are using it in the sense of "perceived knowledge" or a knowledge claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
13-08-2015, 12:06 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 09:39 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 08:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  etc.

Don't you have teenagers to yell "get of my lawn" to.

I feel it is my calling to educate the ignorant. Drinking Beverage

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
13-08-2015, 12:08 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 10:08 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 08:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not at all. I see no evidence for the existence of any gods (or pixies) and do not believe any exist. However, I do not have proof that they don't exist, so I can't make a knowledge claim.

It is not the abandonment of reason, it is the reasonable position.

Are you sure you understand the difference between these 2 positions?

1. I believe that god doesn't exist.

2. I don't believe that god does exist.

The only one required for atheism is number 2, and it's also compatible with agnosticism.

You're making it sound like you think that it is reasonable to believe something without proof.

Belief without proof = faith

When did faith become reasonable?

Please re-read what I wrote because I didn't say anything like that.

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
13-08-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 10:08 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Are you sure you understand the difference between these 2 positions?

1. I believe that god doesn't exist.

2. I don't believe that god does exist.

The only one required for atheism is number 2, and it's also compatible with agnosticism.

You're making it sound like you think that it is reasonable to believe something without proof.

Belief without proof = faith

When did faith become reasonable?

Please re-read what I wrote because I didn't say anything like that.

You said that it is reasonable to believe that god doesn't exist without proof.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 11:04 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 10:36 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  "Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

As I've already noted, I do not accept that definition of faith.

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on evidence.

"Proof" is, in my opinion, a ridiculously high bar for belief.

Belief with only suggestive (not conclusive) evidence is still faith. If one only has suggestive evidence, and one has an interest in gathering knowledge via scientific method, then one should form a hypothesis, not a belief. Jumping to a conclusion with inconclusive evidence is bad science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 12:57 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 01:10 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 07:27 AM)unfogged 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.

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.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I know that 2+2=4 in base 10, 2+2=10 in base 4, and 2+2=11 in base 3. These are all facts which follow from one definition of addition (there are others) in different radixes. A statement either follows from the axioms and operators or it doesn't. There is nothing to believe. Not even in the axioms or operators. They are stipulated. The Pythagorean Theorem is another example. I don't believe it, I know it follows in Euclidean geometry. I also know it does not follow in spherical geometry. What's to believe?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: