01 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloKnowledge the things we know or knowledge the things we believe, when I test
Right, I agree. So? I have never denied the possibility of being mistaken or in error in virtually any inquiry of this sort. Even if our abductive evidence toward some conclusion is very strong, there will still generally be some epistemic probability that the conclusion is actually false. As far as I can tell, that doesn't mean we cannot hold knowled ...[text shortened]... ration as what you touch on warrants your broad skepticism toward the possibility of knowledge.
a DUT (device under test) and get results I can only know my findings are correct
as long as I understand all the conditions of the test. If for example I apply some
patterns to a device and it gives me readings, if I'm unaware that there maybe
some thermo mechanical issues at play like my test is occurring 6 degrees hotter
than I thought my findings will be misleading. Everything could be done just as
I thought, my math will be accurate, but I’ll get it wrong. If my DUT is placed
into a socket for testing and the pressure applied to the DUT in the socket is
not what it should be I could get an open, if it is too much the test itself may damage
the DUT and I may think I have bad DUT instead of good ones I’m destroying.
The point being, the unknown or uncontrolled can greatly affect our understanding,
and the more out of our sight the greater the possibility we are not taking something
into account.
Kelly
02 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayBut, KJ, isn't this just a very general comment that applies to basically all scientific inquiries -- that the scientist generally has responsibility to control his testing conditions appropriately? What does any of this have to do, specifically, with the question of the age of the earth/universe? Also, do you always consider such device testing "just a matter of faith" too?
Knowledge the things we know or knowledge the things we believe, when I test
a DUT (device under test) and get results I can only know my findings are correct
as long as I understand all the conditions of the test. If for example I apply some
patterns to a device and it gives me readings, if I'm unaware that there maybe
some thermo mechanical issues at ...[text shortened]... out of our sight the greater the possibility we are not taking something
into account.
Kelly
04 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloWe are talking about billions of years, doesn't that to you suggest a lot is
But, KJ, isn't this just a very general comment that applies to basically all scientific inquiries -- that the scientist generally has responsibility to control his testing conditions appropriately? What does any of this have to do, specifically, with the question of the age of the earth/universe? Also, do you always consider such device testing "just a matter of faith" too?
being taken on faith?
Kelly
04 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySee, I am basically asking you for reasons why I should think all inquiry on this topic just somehow collapses to faith; whereas you are just basically responding back with questions like "doesn't it strike you that it all just collapses to faith"? No, it doesn't strike me as such, which is why I asked you in the first place what reasons you have for such a judgment. And round and round we go.
We are talking about billions of years, doesn't that to you suggest a lot is
being taken on faith?
Kelly
If a group of researchers conduct radiometric dating and concludes from this testing that the earth is billions of years old; no, nothing jumps out and suggests to me that this is a demonstration of faith on their part. So, you're obviously going to have to explain it to me.
04 May 10
1 edit
I've chatted about this sort of thing with Kelly before. I think what he's saying is that if there is any shred of philosophical possibility that you might be wrong, it's faith.
It's POSSIBLE that the Matrix is an accurate portrayal of reality. Therefore you have faith that it's not to Kelly. In his opinion, your faith that you are not a hallucinating octopus is equivalent to his faith in God.
05 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloThey have "faith" that carbon 14 testing works.
See, I am basically asking you for reasons why I should think all inquiry on this topic just somehow collapses to faith; whereas you are just basically responding back with questions like "doesn't it strike you that it all just collapses to faith"? No, it doesn't strike me as such, which is why I asked you in the first place what reasons you have for suc ...[text shortened]... onstration of faith on their part. So, you're obviously going to have to explain it to me.
05 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloI believe it is faith for the reasons I have given you over and over now, if you
See, I am basically asking you for reasons why I should think all inquiry on this topic just somehow collapses to faith; whereas you are just basically responding back with questions like "doesn't it strike you that it all just collapses to faith"? No, it doesn't strike me as such, which is why I asked you in the first place what reasons you have for suc ...[text shortened]... onstration of faith on their part. So, you're obviously going to have to explain it to me.
don't think its faith, if in your view people know what happened billions of
years ago and it isn't faith, it must be something more. So what is it, factual?
I'll entertain factual if you can make the case for it.
Kelly
05 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloI said we are creatures of faith, all of our activities have an element of faith
See, I am basically asking you for reasons why I should think all inquiry on this topic just somehow collapses to faith; whereas you are just basically responding back with questions like "doesn't it strike you that it all just collapses to faith"? No, it doesn't strike me as such, which is why I asked you in the first place what reasons you have for suc ...[text shortened]... onstration of faith on their part. So, you're obviously going to have to explain it to me.
in it not just inquiry.
Kelly
05 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat about a killer who is caught years after an actual murder using advances in DNA testing? Would that conviction be based on 'faith'?
I believe it is faith for the reasons I have given you over and over now, if you
don't think its faith, if in your view people know what happened billions of
years ago and it isn't faith, it must be something more. So what is it, factual?
I'll entertain factual if you can make the case for it.
Kelly
05 May 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobActually, yes.
What about a killer who is caught years after an actual murder using advances in DNA testing? Would that conviction be based on 'faith'?
Said conviction would be assisted by the assumption that our analysis (instrumentation, retrieval, consideration for degradation, etc.) is accurate.
What if some new scientific discovery comes around which reveals our current understanding of DNA assumptions are woefully inadequate?
05 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMethinks this is false. Since you admit that this conviction must be assisted by the assumption that the analysis is accurate, you accept thanks to concrete scientific facts and evidence that the method is always reliable solely when the analysis is conducted accurately; of course the accuracy of the analysis is not a matter of faith but a technicality.
Actually, yes.
Said conviction would be assisted by the assumption that our analysis (instrumentation, retrieval, consideration for degradation, etc.) is accurate.
What if some new scientific discovery comes around which reveals our current understanding of DNA assumptions are woefully inadequate?
Our current understanding of DNA assumptions is not inadequate at the level of performing accurate DNA testing, although in the future we will use even more advanced DNA testing methods that will provide even more pieces of information. All in all, the conviction on our current DNA testing is not based on "faith" 😵
05 May 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhat about it? Things you justify are still what they are, people who do
What about a killer who is caught years after an actual murder using advances in DNA testing? Would that conviction be based on 'faith'?
convict or overturn a crime murder, or whatever do not grasp all there is
to DNA testing yet they will act upon it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI am astounded that, after years of being corrected, you continue to muddle very basic and very important epistemological concepts. So, here is a basic primer on the meaning and function of those terms that are key to your ongoing debate with LJ:
I believe it is faith for the reasons I have given you over and over now, if you
don't think its faith, if in your view people know what happened billions of
years ago and it isn't faith, it must be something more. So what is it, factual?
I'll entertain factual if you can make the case for it.
Kelly
1) Belief: A mental representation that something is the case. An attitude individuals have towards a proposition, wherein they take that proposition to be true. So, if I believe that the earth is spherical, I have a mental representation that the earth is spherical; I have an attitude towards the proposition 'the earth is spherical' wherein I endorse that proposition or take that proposition to be true.
2) Proposition: An abstract description of a possible fact. The English sentence "The cat is white" and the Spanish sentence "El gato es blanco" both express the same proposition; they are identical in their description of how the world possibly is. We can talk of propositions as those abstractions that constitute the content of our various mental representations. So I can both believe that it will rain tomorrow, fear that it will rain tomorrow, desire that it will rain tomorrow, etc. That is, I can have different attitudes towards the proposition 'It will rain tomorrow'.
3) Fact: A way the world is. A state of affairs that obtains in the world. An actual arrangement of objects, events, properties, relations, etc. in the world.
4) Truth/Falsity: Properties that a proposition can have that depend upon the descriptive accuracy or correspondence between that proposition and the facts of the world. Beliefs can also possess truth or falsity, and they derive their truth or falsity from the propositions that are their respective contents.
Beliefs can be true or false. This is because propositions can be true or false. It is the truth or falsity of a proposition that renders a belief that takes that proposition as its content true or false. For instance, my belief that the earth is spherical is true because the proposition 'the earth is spherical' is true. Propositions are made true or false by the way the world is or is not; that is, by the facts. If it is a fact that the earth is spherical, then the proposition 'the earth is spherical' accurately describes the way the world is, and is thereby true. Facts are not themselves either true or false. Facts just are, and they are what makes descriptions or representations of the world, or, ultimately, beliefs about the world, true or false.
So, propositions are not beliefs, but they form the content of beliefs. Propositions are not facts, but they can be made true or false by facts. A belief is true or false depending on whether the proposition that is its content is true or false, which in turn depends on whether that proposition accurately describes the world; that is, whether that proposition picks out a fact.
4) Justification: Beliefs can be either justified or unjustified. This depends on whether there are sufficient reasons, available to an agent, to render the belief in question probable, or likely to be true. In other words, beliefs can be justified or unjustified depending on the evidence that an agent has at his disposal. Just because a belief is justified, it does not follow that that belief is true. Similarly, just because a belief is unjustified, it does not follow that that belief is false. Typically, however, we are able to acquire good evidence for a belief when that belief is true. Justification is neither necessary nor sufficient for the truth of a belief, but it does typically track the truth.
5) Knowledge: Sometimes we have knowledge. This happens when we have a belief, when that belief is justified, and when that belief is true. (NOTE: There is another condition, that the justification of a belief has to be, in some manner, non-accidentally related to its truth. This is called the 'anti-Gettier' condition, but we don't have to worry about that here).
6) Certainty: This term can be used in a couple different ways. Psychological certainty is just the state of being absolutely, incorrigibly convinced that some proposition is true. People can be psychologically certain about false beliefs. Epistemic certainty is different. This is the state wherein an agent has evidence that is sufficient to guarantee, as a matter of logical necessity, that some proposition is true. It is impossible to be epistemically certain of a false proposition.
Now, here is the kicker: We do not need to be epistemically certain that some proposition is true in order to believe it, or to be justified in believing it, or for that belief to be true. So, we can have knowledge without being epistemically certain.
Here is the question to you: Where does your notion of faith fit into all this?
06 May 10
Originally posted by bbarrWord.
I am astounded that, after years of being corrected, you continue to muddle very basic and very important epistemological concepts. So, here is a basic primer on the meaning and function of those terms that are key to your ongoing debate with LJ:
1) Belief: A mental representation that something is the case. An attitude individuals have towards a propos ...[text shortened]...
Here is the question to you: Where does your notion of faith fit into all this?