06 May 10
Originally posted by bbarrHere is the question to you: Where does your notion of faith fit into all this?
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 propositi ...[text shortened]...
Here is the question to you: Where does your notion of faith fit into all this?[/b]
That answer is relatively simple. From whom did you learn?
06 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs I have pointed out over and over, as long as you all the coditions 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.
are dealing covered you stand a better chance of understanding what it
is you are dealing with, the more out of your control the more there is that
can skew your results. Looking at something with the possible time laps of
~billion years there is a lot that is unknown. If you think it is always the
case that nothing will be over looked, or misunderstood than you have no
right to be upset if you ever discover you were wrong as if someone or
something conspired to trick you. You only have yourself to blame for being
so full of yourself and your testing methods as being flawless.
Kelly
06 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarr"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. "
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
Here is the question to you: Where does your notion of faith fit into all this?
There isn't anything here I dispute and NEVER have. I'm saying that when
you test something that shows a ~billion years, what you have is a test
that shows a billion years. Unlike the earth being a spherical that age test
is just that, an age test the results are what they are, do they reflect a
billion years? If you say so I'll tell you that your test and math may be
consistent, but does that mean the item being tested is a ~billion years old,
maybe or not, what it does mean is your test and math are consistent.
There is a leap of faith being taken here that says all that is required for
getting the age right is our tests and the results mean what we say they
do.
Kelly
06 May 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf we convict anyone it is because we believe our evidence proves the point,
What about a killer who is caught years after an actual murder using advances in DNA testing? Would that conviction be based on 'faith'?
we are acting on the faith that what we are being give shows us the truth
about whatever it is we are suggesting occures.
Kelly
06 May 10
Originally posted by bbarrDo you think science is an ever learning process, with the idea that we can
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?
learn something new that will change how we view things now?
If so it is like a method of shifting sand we are forever learning and never
really coming to knowledge, because we have to leave the door open for
changing our current views based upon something new that changes our
views.
Kelly
06 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism
Do you think science is an ever learning process, with the idea that we can
learn something new that will change how we view things now?
If so it is like a method of shifting sand we are forever learning and never
really coming to knowledge, because we have to leave the door open for
changing our current views based upon something new that changes our
views.
Kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada
06 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayI asked you a question. Where does your notion of faith fit into those set of terms I clarified in my post above? You seem to think that if it is possible that a belief of ours is wrong, that that belief cannot constitute knowledge. In short, you seem to think that we cannot know something unless we are epistemically certain of it. Further, you seem to think that if we are not epistemically certain of something, then our belief in it is based on faith. If you do think this, then you either you are woefully ignorant about how knowledge works, or you use terms like 'belief', 'knowledge', and 'faith' in nonstandard ways. The point here is simple, and here is an example. Right now I have the belief that I am typing at my computer. This belief is overwhelmingly justified; I can see my computer, my hands typing, etc. It is overwhelmingly likely, but not epistemically certain that my belief is also true, and thus that I know that I am typing at my computer. But you argue as though the fact that is possible that I am wrong (I could be dreaming, or in the Matrix, or whatever) means that I don't know I'm typing at my computer and that, further, my belief is actually based on faith. But that is either stupid or simply an instance of you using these terms in silly, nonstandard ways.
Do you think science is an ever learning process, with the idea that we can
learn something new that will change how we view things now?
If so it is like a method of shifting sand we are forever learning and never
really coming to knowledge, because we have to leave the door open for
changing our current views based upon something new that changes our
views.
Kelly
07 May 10
Give the impossibility of science ever showing anything to be absolutely true beyond any shadow of doubt, and always being open to future refutation, I think it is time to calculate the correct direction to Mecca and to kneel on a mat and pray in that direction five times daily. Maybe there is an iPhone app I could use. If there is, this was made possible by many developments, one being Bertrand Russel's Principia Mathematica. Of course he was an Atheist but then he might be wrong so is there as iPhone app to enable me to pray five times daily while facing to Mecca? After all, if I face the wrong way that would be a big problem for me.
07 May 10
Originally posted by bbarrYou were asked a question to which you didn't respond. From whom did you learn?
I asked you a question. Where does your notion of faith fit into those set of terms I clarified in my post above? You seem to think that if it is possible that a belief of ours is wrong, that that belief cannot constitute knowledge. In short, you seem to think that we cannot know something unless we are epistemically certain of it. Further, you seem to thi ...[text shortened]... either stupid or simply an instance of you using these terms in silly, nonstandard ways.
07 May 10
Originally posted by finneganIf it can calculate the correct direction from space, you've got a killer app on your hands.
Give the impossibility of science ever showing anything to be absolutely true beyond any shadow of doubt, and always being open to future refutation, I think it is time to calculate the correct direction to Mecca and to kneel on a mat and pray in that direction five times daily. Maybe there is an iPhone app I could use. If there is, this was made possible ...[text shortened]... y while facing to Mecca? After all, if I face the wrong way that would be a big problem for me.