Originally posted by KellyJayYou appear to have implied it. You said at your 12 Aug '08 17:18 :: 0 post:
"Explain why it is impossible for people to be objective? "
Where did I say people could not be objective?
Kelly
…You do understand that people are different, and everything they
bring to the table because they are different is a strenght and what
you just described is IMPOSSIBLE. . … (my emphasis)
Exactly what is it you are referring to that is “IMPOSSIBLE” in the above if it isn’t objectivity? Are you implying in the above that because everybody is different, if two people are given exactly the same data they would be incapable of having the predisposition to drawing the same conclusions from the data no matter how logically or rationally they are thinking? -if so, then that is implying it is “IMPOSSIBLE” for them to be objective. One thing “Objective” means allowing just logic and not your emotions and preferences determine your beliefs. Since just logic alone (I.e. excluding emotional influences) would generally make two different people draw the same conclusions from the same data, to say it is impossible for two different people draw the same conclusions from the same data implies they are incapable of using just logic and thus incapable of being objective.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…I'm saying that people CAN look at the same data and come up with
I'm saying that people can look at the same data and come up with
different views or opinions about it, just as people who do not see
each other at all can come up with the same views. My point being,
you have not, or anyone else here given a good reason why I should
look at science as being something apart from the human race.
Reality is the only th ...[text shortened]... or in error the
way we view reality doesn’t change reality only our perceptions of
it.
Kelly
DIFFERING views or opinions about it, just as people who do not see
each other at all can come up with the same views.. …. (my emphasis)
Agreed. But Just because they CAN come up with DIFFERING views doesn’t mean they inevitably MUST have a predisposition to do so. They CAN also come up with the SAME view especially if they are thinking objectively as this would give them predisposition to come up with the SAME views PROVIDING their brains are presented with the SAME data.
…Reality is the only thing that opinions do not mean anything too,
things are what they are, we can view them correctly or in error the
way we view reality doesn’t change reality only our perceptions of
it. . .…
Where did I say or imply reality depends on our perceptions? -obviously I do not believe that.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou really don't understand what I'm saying, people are different
You appear to have implied it. You said at your 12 Aug '08 17:18 :: 0 post:
[b]…You do understand that people are different, and everything they
bring to the table because they are different is a strenght and what
you just described is IMPOSSIBLE. . … (my emphasis)
Exactly what is it you are referring to that is “IMPOSSIBLE” in the abov ...[text shortened]... same data implies they are incapable of using just logic and thus incapable of being objective.[/b]
they come to the table with different views, different understandings,
different values, different ways of looking at things, none of those
have anything to do with not being able to be objective. You are
crying without being hurt here! At strong team of people will have all
of that, they will look at things a little differently and could possibly
come up with something different depending on the subject matter
at hand and the data being presented, as the saying goes there is
more than one way to skin a cat. So to use people coming up with
the same answer is a good thing not denying that; however, it is
still possible to have a number of people in the same room looking
at the same thing and seeing it differently, that means that your
example of using people to refute science and people are not
linked is debunked, what you use as an example is not something
you see every time with people.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are implying I said, "it’s impossible for people to be objective",
You appear to have implied it. You said at your 12 Aug '08 17:18 :: 0 post:
[b]…You do understand that people are different, and everything they
bring to the table because they are different is a strenght and what
you just described is IMPOSSIBLE. . … (my emphasis)
Exactly what is it you are referring to that is “IMPOSSIBLE” in the abov ...[text shortened]... same data implies they are incapable of using just logic and thus incapable of being objective.[/b]
and go off on showing me I'm wrong about that, when in fact isn't
something I said. Please, just ask if that was what I meant before
you go off on another tangent misrepresenting my position on any
topic.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Where did I say or imply reality depends on our perceptions? -obviously I do not believe that."
[b]…I'm saying that people CAN look at the same data and come up with
DIFFERING views or opinions about it, just as people who do not see
each other at all can come up with the same views.. …. (my emphasis)
Agreed. But Just because they CAN come up with DIFFERING views doesn’t mean they inevitably MUST have a predisposition to do so. They ...[text shortened]...
Where did I say or imply reality depends on our perceptions? -obviously I do not believe that.[/b]
You did read my opening line? Where I started off saying the words,
"I'm saying that..." I'm giving you my point of view, did I quote you
on anything that made you think, you suggested, or you implied that
by using your name and those words? What made you think I was
doing that to you? Should we just call this a disagreement and move
on, because it does seem to me that I'm spending more time now with
you talking about things I did not say, implied, or suggest other than
those things I was talking about.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo when you said:
You are implying I said, "it’s impossible for people to be objective",
and go off on showing me I'm wrong about that, when in fact isn't
something I said. Please, just ask if that was what I meant before
you go off on another tangent misrepresenting my position on any
topic.
Kelly
…You do understand that people are different, and everything they
bring to the table because they are different is a strenght and what
you just described is IMPOSSIBLE. . … (my emphasis)
Exactly what is it you are referring to that is “IMPOSSIBLE” in the above?
KellyJay
I don’t really understand your position so I hope if you answer the following question it would give me a clue on your position:
Do you consider the following proposition to be true or false:
“The validity of scientific facts are independent of humans”
Note that I use the word “validity” and NOT “existence” in the above and also I use the word “facts” and NOT “knowledge” in the above.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo, I do not believe anything related to science is independent
KellyJay
I don’t really understand your position so I hope if you answer the following question it would give me a clue on your position:
Do you consider the following proposition to be true or false:
“The validity of scientific facts are independent of humans”
Note that I use the word “validity” and NOT “existence” in the above and also I use the word “facts” and NOT “knowledge” in the above.
of humanity what so ever. Science is a product of human design,
the rules within science are products of human design, the laws
rules and application of logic are products of human design,
the data points applied for each problem are a product of human
preference, how each piece of evidence is weighted is done so
by human design, conclusions are of human origin only, the
list of factors is all about the human race applying itself to the
quest of knowledge, so there is nothing about science that you
can say is independent from the human race.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"So this is what I think you have just said.
So when you said:
…You do understand that people are different, and everything they
bring to the table because they are different is a strenght and what
you just described is IMPOSSIBLE. . … (my emphasis)
Exactly what is it you are referring to that is “IMPOSSIBLE” in the above?
If two sets of people or two different people, act the same exact way
using flawless logic they will come up with the same answer each time. "
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay-PROVIDING they are given exactly the same data and don’t let their emotions determine their conclusions and JUST use flawless logic, generally that is true. Are you saying that is “IMPOSIBLE”?
"So this is what I think you have just said.
If two sets of people or two different people, act the same exact way
using flawless logic they will come up with the same answer each time. "
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…Science is a product of human design,...…
No, I do not believe anything related to science is independent
of humanity what so ever. Science is a product of human design,
the rules within science are products of human design, the laws
rules and application of logic are products of human design,
the data points applied for each problem are a product of human
preference, how each piece of evidenc ...[text shortened]... so there is nothing about science that you
can say is independent from the human race.
Kelly
Yes, of course. But that is not what I meant by that statement at all because, again, you are confusing the issue of the EXISTANCE of scientific with the VALIDITY of scientific. The rest of your post just stems from the same misunderstanding. I think you don’t understand what I mean by VALIDITY in this context -So I will rephrase this proposition so that there is no way (I think) you can make the same misunderstanding:
Do you consider the following proposition to be true or false:
“WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be true and WHICH theories scientific method can potentially be proven to be false is independent of humans”
I hope there is no way you can misinterpret this proposition but, just to make sure:
-some of the implications of this proposition are:
If there is a theory X that is in fact false in reality then it is not credible that some one can prove by scientific method that it is true -no matter WHO tries to prove it. If it IS possible to either prove or disprove theory X by scientific method, then it is only credible that it can only be proven to be false by scientific method.
If there is a theory Y that is in fact true in reality and If it IS possible to either prove or disprove theory Y then there is the potential for TWO DIFFERENT people who do not interact with each other to prove by scientific method that theory Y is true but, it is not credible that one can prove by scientific method that theory Y is true and for the other person to prove by scientific method that theory Y is false because such a contradiction is avoided by the fact that if the theory Y is in fact true in reality then it is not credible that anyone can prove by scientific method that it is false -no matter WHO tries to disprove it.
Note that a “scientific fact” is established when a theory is proven to be true by scientific method.
This discussion is much about "You said this!" "No, I didn't." "Yes perhaps I did, but what I meant was..."
So you are basically playing a game without agreeing of what the rules are...
Stick to one point and go through it. Don't go off-topic as soon you think you are going to lose the argument. Stick to the point!
I think the same kind of debate can be heard in every hen-house...
Originally posted by FabianFnas…I think the same kind of debate can be heard in every hen-house.…
This discussion is much about "You said this!" "No, I didn't." "Yes perhaps I did, but what I meant was..."
So you are basically playing a game without agreeing of what the rules are...
Stick to one point and go through it. Don't go off-topic as soon you think you are going to lose the argument. Stick to the point!
I think the same kind of debate can be heard in every hen-house...
You mean you think hens say things like: "You said this!" "No, I didn't." "Yes perhaps I did, but what I meant was..." ?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWell, no, sorry.
[b]…I think the same kind of debate can be heard in every hen-house.…
You mean you think hens say things like: "You said this!" "No, I didn't." "Yes perhaps I did, but what I meant was..." ?[/b]
But with this debating technique, you will never agree on anything. Read the postings, and you'll see much is about the "You said this!" "No, I didn't." "Yes perhaps I did, but what I meant was..." way of debating.
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasHey! Lighten-up; I was joking. Even I know what is meant by a ‘metaphor’.
Well, no, sorry.
But with this debating technique, you will never agree on anything. Read the postings, and you'll see much is about the "You said this!" "No, I didn't." "Yes perhaps I did, but what I meant was..." way of debating.