Calling out KellyJay

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like “…a person acting rationally would.” a new low in insults from you!

I’m suggesting that if there are competing views, you do not know the
correct view each and every time. If it is possible that we miss read
something we thought we understood, or a new piece of information
arises that changes everything on how we view things, that means
that wha ...[text shortened]... when I’m in agreement with everyone else on the matter, because we
could still be wrong.
Kelly

Under your reasoning, are some beliefs more likely to be true than others...or are all beliefs equally likely?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Under your reasoning, are some beliefs more likely to be true than others...or are all beliefs equally likely?

No they are not all equally true, they are just not facts, though
some more than likely do reflect reality as it actually is. The limitation
is with our ablities and grasp of the subject not with the subjects.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No they are not all equally true, they are just not facts, though
some more than likely do reflect reality as it actually is. The limitation
is with our ablities and grasp of the subject not with the subjects.
Kelly

If you acknowledge that some beliefs are more likely to be true and
consequently hold the ones you believe are most likely true, then why
don't you find beliefs that are very, very improbable silly? That is,
I suppose there is an infinitesimal possibility that the sun will not rise
tomorrow. It's not a fact that it will rise (according to you), but a belief
in which most people have very, very, very high confidence.

Are you seriously suggesting that you wouldn't find a person silly who
believes fervently in the face of the evidence we have?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
If you acknowledge that some beliefs are more likely to be true and
consequently hold the ones you believe are most likely true, then why
don't you find beliefs that are very, very improbable silly? That is,
I suppose there is an infinitesimal possibility that the sun will not rise
tomorrow. It's not a fact that it will rise (according to you), but a b t find a person silly who
believes fervently in the face of the evidence we have?

Nemesio

I have never said I do not hold to some beliefs to be very
improbable, if you have gotten that you have read something into
my posts that was not there. I have a lot of confidence in things I
say I believe but cannot prove, I have confidence about events
I believe occured yet I cannot prove, saying something is not a fact
does not mean I'm suggesting that it isn't true, only that it is subject
to change upon more informaiton or a greater understanding.

With respect to 'calling someone a name..."silly"' I try to avoid that,
it isn't something avoided that often with me. I like you can have
every confidence upon a subject or a chess move yet still miss the
one move mate, or the loss of a piece even though all the pieces were
right n front of me the whole game and I watched the board develop
up to my error as well.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have never said I do not hold to some beliefs to be very
improbable, if you have gotten that you have read something into
my posts that was not there. I have a lot of confidence in things I
say I believe but cannot prove, I have confidence about events
I believe occured yet I cannot prove, saying something is not a fact
does not mean I'm suggesting t ...[text shortened]... ront of me the whole game and I watched the board develop
up to my error as well.
Kelly

You're sorta answering some question I didn't ask. Let me try to be clearer:
Let's say that someone had the belief that the sun wasn't going to rise tomorrow. Let's say this
person had the full knowledge of physics and the laws of nature governing mass bodies and still
believed that it wasn't coming up tomorrow. Let's say you explain it to him and he basically
says, 'Yes, I understand fully everything you're saying and I don't have any dispositive proof
for my position. I simply believe that the sun isn't going to rise.'

Now, I should hope that you would, at the very least, find such a view silly. If you didn't find it
silly, or at least sillier that your position, then you would adopt such a position, right?

My essential point is: Don't you adopt those beliefs that you think accord most accurately with
reality?

If you do so, then the beliefs you don't adopt are ones you think less likely accord with reality.
Of those you choose not to believe, some are silly, like whether the sun will rise tomorrow or
whether a ball will fall up rather than down when you drop it.

Are you in agreement with me so far?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You're sorta answering some question I didn't ask. Let me try to be clearer:
Let's say that someone had the belief that the sun wasn't going to rise tomorrow. Let's say this
person had the full knowledge of physics and the laws of nature governing mass bodies and still
believed that it wasn't coming up tomorrow. Let's say you explain it to him and he ba er than down when you drop it.

Are you in agreement with me so far?

Nemesio

agree
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
You're sorta answering some question I didn't ask. Let me try to be clearer:
Let's say that someone had the belief that the sun wasn't going to rise tomorrow. Let's say this
person had the full knowledge of physics and the laws of nature governing mass bodies and still
believed that it wasn't coming up tomorrow. Let's say you explain it to him and he ba er than down when you drop it.

Are you in agreement with me so far?

Nemesio

The beliefs I adopt are the ones I believe are true, that does not
mean my beliefs are factual in nature. By saying that, I am saying
I can be wrong, not that I know I am wrong. I also submit that your
beliefs about reality even based on how you are looking at it can
be wrong as well in that your beliefs may not reflect reality as is
or was too. The evidence is what it is, which does not mean that
it is what we believe it to be.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The beliefs I adopt are the ones I believe are true, that does not
mean my beliefs are factual in nature. By saying that, I am saying
I can be wrong, not that I know I am wrong. I also submit that your
beliefs about reality even based on how you are looking at it can
be wrong as well in that your beliefs may not reflect reality as is
or was too. The evidence is what it is, which does not mean that
it is what we believe it to be.
Kelly

Absolutely.

The beliefs that everyone has are the ones that they believe are true. We think that they are
the best representations of reality, knowing full well that reality is a sneaky bastard that sometimes
fools us.

Okay. So, would you content that the belief that the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow to be a
silly belief?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Absolutely.

The beliefs that everyone has are the ones that they believe are true. We think that they are
the best representations of reality, knowing full well that reality is a sneaky bastard that sometimes
fools us.

Okay. So, would you content that the belief that the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow to be a
silly belief?

Nemesio

I believe it is going to be doing the same thing tomorrow as it is today.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like “…a person acting rationally would.” a new low in insults from you!

I’m suggesting that if there are competing views, you do not know the
correct view each and every time. If it is possible that we miss read
something we thought we understood, or a new piece of information
arises that changes everything on how we view things, that means
that wha ...[text shortened]... when I’m in agreement with everyone else on the matter, because we
could still be wrong.
Kelly

I apologize, KJ, about that insult. My intention in starting this thread was not to open you up to fire, but rather to understand more about how you view the concepts of knowledge, truth, fact -- and also to explain how I think your position is inconsistent.

I think I'm failing to make my points clear to you. So I'd like to change gears for a second and return to something you mentioned way back in the beginning. You seem to indicate in your first major response on page 1 that you are open to the idea of revising your view if something sufficiently "convincing" were to come along. Could you explain more about what sort of evidence, were it to come to your attention, would compel you to revise your view?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I apologize, KJ, about that insult. My intention in starting this thread was not to open you up to fire, but rather to understand more about how you view the concepts of knowledge, truth, fact -- and also to explain how I think your position is inconsistent.

I think I'm failing to make my points clear to you. So I'd like to change gears for a second t sort of evidence, were it to come to your attention, would compel you to revise your view?

How could I tell you that without specific items of discussion? With
some things I believe it is beyond human abilities to know the facts
and with some things we can know the facts but will with our
limitations lose even that due to the passage of time. It is like
looking at fifty hour candle that is burning and half of it is gone, does
that mean that it was burning for twenty five hours since it was last
started, or can you just by looking at it ever know how long it was
burning? You really need to know when it was lit to know, the candle
burning and rate of burn does not give you how long it was burning
since the candle was last started, it never will by itself you need to
know when it started.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe it is going to be doing the same thing tomorrow as it is today.

That wasn't my question. I asked if you thought it would be silly to believe that the sun
wouldn't rise tomorrow.

At the very least, don't you think it's sillier to believe such a thing?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
That wasn't my question. I asked if you thought it would be silly to believe that the sun
wouldn't rise tomorrow.

At the very least, don't you think it's sillier to believe such a thing?

Nemesio

Well, since you are making this up as you go....

You have them believing it is going to end the next day every day
or just the next day after this posting?

If it is it is going to end each day and each day that belief is proven
wrong, yet they do not change their point of view, 'silly' would be
polite.

If it is the day after this posting, we will see. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If it is it is going to end each day and each day that belief is proven
wrong, yet they do not change their point of view, 'silly' would be
polite.

If he keeps changing the day, then their beliefs keep changing, with their previous belief proven wrong but not their current belief. They may be silly to continue to believe someone who has been proven wrong in the past but his current claim has not been proven wrong. It is merely unlikely to be right based on past experience.

Interestingly I have been told by various Christians throughout my life that the world is about to end.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I can accept with some things it does not enter into greater obscurity
but that is not the case across the board on all things.
Kelly

So, since you agree it is not a general rule or law, it cannot be applied indiscriminately. So before you can use it as an argument against dating techniques you must show that it does in fact apply to them. Your usual vague statements to the effect that "things enter into greater obscurity" over time show nothing whatsoever.