Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 10:24 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 10:13 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  All I'm really saying is JTB does not equal knowledge and knowledge is not a subset of belief because there is knowledge which does not require belief. I don't have a problem with the statement JTB entails knowledge. JTB is sufficient but not necessary for knowledge.

And I don't see how you can claim to know something if you don't also believe it.

Should I believe the Pythagorean Theorem or not?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 03:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 10:24 AM)unfogged Wrote:  And I don't see how you can claim to know something if you don't also believe it.

Should I believe the Pythagorean Theorem or not?

Yes, you have evidence that supports the claim by definition.

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
14-08-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 03:39 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 03:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If you believe that you have conclusive evidence that god's existence is impossible

I don't, for the same reason that I don't have conclusive evidence that Harry Potter's existence is impossible.

I still believe that there is no such thing. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the absence is where you would need to find evidence.

(14-08-2015 03:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Gnostic atheism seems consistent to me, but agnostic atheism (and agnostic theism), or in other words "I don't know, but I believe it anyways," sounds to me like craziness, and at a minimum, abandonment of scientific method.

Quite.

But, really, agnosticism is just a failure to understand what it means to exist. If you can never, under any circumstance, produce any sort of evidence in support of something whatsoever, it is, by definition, false.

I still say bad science.

How do we account for the 18,000 species that we discovered last year? Did they not exist before they were discovered? Would we have been justified in believing that they did not exist?

How can you be certain that you know where to look for evidence and what the evidence would look like?

Scientific discovery has shocked the piss out of us many times in the past. The notion of god is not something I take seriously, but I see no reason to rule out the possibility until I have evidence that shows it's impossible. I try to stay humble in recognition of what I don't know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
14-08-2015, 04:08 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 03:46 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 03:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Should I believe the Pythagorean Theorem or not?

Yes, you have evidence that supports the claim by definition.

I have just as much evidence that it doesn't hold in spherical geometry. I don't live on a plane but something much closer to a sphere. Should I believe the Pythagorean Theorem or not?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
14-08-2015, 04:12 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 03:58 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I still say bad science.

How do we account for the 18,000 species that we discovered last year? Did they not exist before they were discovered? Would we have been justified in believing that they did not exist?

Of course not.

The difference between the two is that there is no evidence that these species do not exist. Meanwhile, so far as gods are concerned, we have as much evidence against their existence as we do against magic. They simply aren't there when we look, ever, no matter how hard we stare or thoroughly we search, even - and especially - in the places where we would most expect to find them.

Are there species out there waiting to be discovered? Of course. Would someone be justified in believing that a specific species did not exist if he went and looked for it and found a lack of evidence in all the places where he should have found some? Certainly.

(14-08-2015 03:58 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  How can you be certain that you know where to look for evidence and what the evidence would look like?

A good question.

So far as gods are concerned, about the one thing that I would consider a possible candidate for the title is an entity that created the universe. As I mentioned elsewhere on the forum, there is currently no reason to believe that anything could have created the universe, since that would require a causal relationship between the two to exist, and causal relationships do not exist outside of time.

I don't consider anything less to be a god (and even that would have to really impress me to earn the description, as above), so I don't bother with them. Every piece of evidence we have regarding the universe (and I do mean every piece, since the existence of causal relationships requiring the existence of time is confirmed with literally everything that has ever happened, ever), however, points not only to the fact that there has been no deific influence on it since its creation, but that the idea of it being created by an external force is nonsensical.

"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
14-08-2015, 06:18 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 04:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 03:46 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Yes, you have evidence that supports the claim by definition.

I have just as much evidence that it doesn't hold in spherical geometry. I don't live on a plane but something much closer to a sphere. Should I believe the Pythagorean Theorem or not?

That is simply insulting. You know very well that that the conditions under which it holds true are part of the definition. You can't just cut it loose from the framework like that.

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
14-08-2015, 07:35 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 06:18 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 04:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I have just as much evidence that it doesn't hold in spherical geometry. I don't live on a plane but something much closer to a sphere. Should I believe the Pythagorean Theorem or not?

That is simply insulting.

Why you feel insulted? I certainly didn't intend it. I got nothing but respect for you.

(14-08-2015 06:18 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You know very well that that the conditions under which it holds true are part of the definition. You can't just cut it loose from the framework like that.

I think you are using "definition" wrong. They are not definitionally true, more like implicitly true waiting to be unveiled. My point is precisely that I can't cut it loose from it's framework and I don't see any particular reason for preferring one framework over another. It depends on the problem at hand.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 05:27 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 09:24 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 02:53 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I just want all of my beliefs to be true. Is this really that unique?

[Image: Belief_Venn_diagram.svg]

"A Venn/Euler diagram which grants that truth and belief may be distinguished and that their intersection is knowledge. Unsurprisingly, this is not an uncontroversial analysis."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
I don't think knowledge has to be something that is objectively true.

Of course the person claiming the knowledge must believe that their knowledge is true. In this way "knowledge" is subjective. But it is quite possible that a person's knowledge is false without them knowing and yet it is still considered to be knowledge.

You can't look at knowledge without first considering epistemology. Epistemology being the way (or method) that a person comes into knowledge.
For those people that use the scientific method (evidentiary based), science can't prove something to be true. It can prove things to be false though. So it demands scientific hypothesis (claims) to include falsifiable criteria. The more likely something is to be falsified then the higher degree of trust we have in that hypothesis/theory when we see that it isn't falsified.
Evolution, for example is an easy hypothesis/theory to falsify. If we had human bones in amongst the dinosaur bones then evolution would have been falsified. If we saw a random distribution of genes and proteins amongst animals rather than a close correlation between apes and then primates and then placenta mammals etc, If we couldn't map the progression of species and similar species across the globe in a manner consistent with continental shift then evolution would have been falsified.
But because all the ducks line up then there is a high likelihood of truth or a staggering amount of coincidences or a great deceit.

Just look at the lengths the scientists went to in order to prove the existence of a Higgs boson like particle. They needed a sigma 5
Quote:Because Higgs boson production in a particle collision is likely to be very rare (1 in 10 billion at the LHC),[Note 14] and many other possible collision events can have similar decay signatures, the data of hundreds of trillions of collisions needs to be analysed and must "show the same picture" before a conclusion about the existence of the Higgs boson can be reached. To conclude that a new particle has been found, particle physicists require that the statistical analysis of two independent particle detectors each indicate that there is lesser than a one-in-a-million chance that the observed decay signatures are due to just background random Standard Model events—i.e., that the observed number of events is more than 5 standard deviations (sigma) different from that expected if there was no new particle.
But even then, there is a one in a million chance that they are wrong. They claim scientific knowledge based on their high standard, but they could be wrong.

If you take the stance that "Knowledge" is something that must be 100% true, then the scientific method couldn't be used to find knowledge.

For people that use faith and belief as their epistemology then they claim knowledge on things they deem unvarifiable.
For those people that use the faith and belief method (holy scripture/religious organisation interpretation based), nothing can be proven to be true. It is seen as a personal virtue for a person to choose to believe what their religious organisation tells them is Truth . So it demands that interpretations and assertions (claims) are to be unverifiable. The more faith someone has then the higher degree of trust they have in the claims made by their religious leaders.
Of course these religious folk hold onto multiple epistemologies at the same time. Many also accept the scientific method but when the two clash, many consider their faith and belief to be True where they then reject the scientific method derived claim.

But what they hold as Truth can be qualified as "knowledge" even though us non religious folk consider their Truth to not be knowledge but instead belief. Hence knowledge is a subjective thing.
For them there is no difference between knowledge and belief because their epistemology (method they come by knowledge) is based on belief.

So coming back to that diagram which claims that knowledge is the intersection of truth and belief. We cannot know what truth is, so this diagram is invalid.
Perhaps instead of a set called "truth" we instead have a set or sets based upon the holder's epistemology/s (method of acquiring knowledge).
For a believer they would likely have two epistemologies (one based on Faith and Belief a.k.a. Religious Truths and another based on Scientific method a.k.a Scientific Claims).
Their diagram would look like the following.
[Image: 14w576c.jpg]

Notice the holes.
This is where their own personal beliefs override the religious or scientific claims.
Hole A is a hole in the "Religious Truths" in the area where the person's personal beliefs overlap their Religious Truths. For many people they don't accept 100% of their "Religious Truths" so here is a hole.
Hole B is a hole in the "Religious Truths" as well as a hole in the Scientific claims in an area where Personal beliefs, Religious Truths and Scientific claims overlap. This is where the "Religious Truths" and Scientific claims might agree on something, but the person rejects this in favor of their own belief.
Hole C is a hole in the Scientific claims in an area where Personal beliefs, Religious Truths and Scientific claims overlap. Here the Religious Truths and Personal beliefs agree on something, but the person rejects the conflicting Scientific claims.
Hole D is a hole in the Religious Truths where Personal beliefs, Religious Truths and Scientific claims overlap. This hole is where the personal beliefs and Scientific claims match but the Religious Truths conflict. Here the person either rejects the Religious Truths or decides to interpret the Religious Truths to make them consistent with Scientific claims. This is probably the most common thing that happens in the religious space. They reinterpret so that they don't have to consider that Religious Truths are faulty.
Hole E is a hole in the Scientific claims in an area where Personal beliefs and Scientific claims overlap. Here the person rejects the conflicting Scientific claim in favor of their personal beliefs.

If we pull these sets apart we can see that the Personal Beliefs set has no holes.
[Image: 28bqh3k.jpg]
The Religious Truths set has three holes and the Scientific Method set has three holes.
These are potential holes only, depending on the person.
A fundamental religious person may not have a hole A, or a hole B, and may have a large hole C, may not have a hole D. Hole E may or may not exist but is irrelevant to their religious beliefs.
A Calvanist like Kings Chosen my not have any overlap between the Religious Truths set and the Scientific claims set so he won't have holes B, C or D. Hole A will depend on how fundamental he is with regards to Calvanism. Hole E may or may not exist but is irrelevant to their religious beliefs.
For the theist their "knowledge" will be the overlap of Personal Beliefs with Religious Organisation's Truths as well as the overlap of Personal Beliefs with Scientific claims (taking into account the potential holes).

An Atheist won't have a Religious Organisation's Truths set. So they will only have an overlap of Personal Beliefs and Scientific claims. They may or may not have hole E.
For the atheist their knowledge will be the overlap of Personal Beliefs with Scientific claims (taking into account the potential hole).

EDIT: I have made some minor changes to the above.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
16-08-2015, 06:31 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(16-08-2015 05:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you take the stance that "Knowledge" is something that must be 100% true, then the scientific method couldn't be used to find knowledge.

In the essence of "absolute" knowledge that is the case. There is nothing to dislike or dismiss about that either. There are varied definitions of "truth." Though ideas like "justified true belief" have been established for a long time.

That's why there is the philosophical quandaries of the problem of induction and other questions of defining how or when someone actually knows something. A person might belief something is truth, think is it truth based on some type reasoning and be correct that it is true... but if their reasoning is not accurate, yet coincidentally their strongly held belief is true, are they firmly justified enough to where you would say they know it? I am not certain they do know it.

"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
16-08-2015, 06:51 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(16-08-2015 06:31 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A person might belief something is truth, think is it truth based on some type reasoning and be correct that it is true... but if their reasoning is not accurate, yet coincidentally their strongly held belief is true, are they firmly justified enough to where you would say they know it? I am not certain they do know it.
It's a personal assessment, right?

Based on their epistemology. Their epistemology determines if something is "justified".
You might not agree with their epistemology, so you might consider that their "knowledge" isn't justified because it doesn't qualify under your own epistemology, but they might consider that is justified because it is consistent with their epistemology.

So you think it is unjustified, they think it is justified, and you are both correct even though you contradict each other because both of your assessments are self centric.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: