Originally posted by KellyJayI was not telling you what you think, merely pointing out the logical conclusion of your claims. The existence of stars is mere faith. You have said that my faith that the earth is older than a million years is no different from your faith that it isn't. I am asking whether you also believe that your faith that stars exist is also equivalent or whether belief in stars is a reasonable position for anyone to take and anyone who denies their existence can be reasonably described as silly (or worse).
There are a lot about the stars that are faith in my opinion, I believe
they are real as I do the sun with the limited conctact we have with it.
If you think that is enough to disqualify all the stars according to the
way I look at things fine by me, you it seems do not require me to
tell you what I think you seem to be able to make that up as you go.
Kelly[/b]
You seem to be admitting that some beliefs are more reasonable than others whilst simultaneously claiming that all beliefs are equal. I am merely trying to find out which of the two stances you actually hold. You hare consistently avoiding the issue which tells me that you do not want to admit to whichever stance you actually do hold.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is better if you couch what you think I'm trying to say in a question
I was not telling you what you think, merely pointing out the logical conclusion of your claims. The existence of stars is mere faith. You have said that my faith that the earth is older than a million years is no different from your faith that it isn't. I am asking whether you also believe that your faith that stars exist is also equivalent or whether be ...[text shortened]... he issue which tells me that you do not want to admit to whichever stance you actually do hold.
instead of telling me what it is I have said when I have not uttered
something. Faith is faith yes, as an opinion is an opinion, some
opinions are better than others, all can be right or wrong depending
on the subject matter.
Kelly
Originally posted by Nemesio"I'm going to assume that you think that are very confident that these beliefs are not fact,
and that you think B1-5 are silly beliefs. If S holds enough beliefs of this fashion, wouldn't
you say that he himself is silly for holding enough silly beliefs?"
No, I would think he is mistaken, the beliefs themselves would be
silly. You want me to call someone names, it does happen from time
to time, but I almost always end up regretting it when I do.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou refuse to answer my questions.
It is better if you couch what you think I'm trying to say in a question
instead of telling me what it is I have said when I have not uttered
something. Faith is faith yes, as an opinion is an opinion, some
opinions are better than others, all can be right or wrong depending
on the subject matter.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, I don't find it surprising that you fail to outline even cursory conditions under which you would feel obliged to amend your view. I don't want to belabor the following point. But, I think the frustration that your posts elicit within the forum community on these topics is quite sincere. In constructive debates, one intends to establish a certain entitlement to their particular position. And that has a lot to do with the social practice of providing/asking for reasons for/against. You on the other hand seem to offer no reasons for, no reasons against, no reasons otherwise. You just sort of state that X is just my opinion and Y is just your opinion (something made all the more curious by the strong degree to which you seem wed to your own opinion). It reminds me of the following passage from Simon Blackburn that I read recently (there he was addressing a slightly different subject, but the words are relevant here):
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 ...[text shortened]... e the candle was last started, it never will by itself you need to
know when it started.
Kelly
I can imagine somone shrugging, "Well, that's just your opinion." It is curious how popular this response is....For notice that it is a conversation-stopper rather than a move in the intended conversation. It is not a reason for or against the proffered opinion, nor is it an invitation for the speaker's reasons, nor any kind of persuasion that it is better to think something else.
Again, I don't want to belabor that point. I'm still just thoroughly mystified by your epistemology. I'm still interested to know what you view as conditions for knowledge. For instance, do you think certainty is necessary for knowledge?
Also, I'm still interested in something that seems criterial to your notion of 'faith': the (in)ability to "prove" the belief in question true. Personally, I try to avoid the word 'prove' unless we are talking about mathematics or formal logic or something like that. I'm not trying to be dense, but I wonder what you mean when you talk about "proving" some belief is true. What would one have to do in order to prove an empirical claim true? This certainly seems relevant to your notion of faith because in the past you have suggested that in the absence of one's ability to prove a claim, one's holding to that claim becomes a demonstration of faith.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've answwered you questions, maybe not to your liking. All you have
You refuse to answer my questions.
done with your last set is simply take the same question and ask it
again with a different subject. You have gone from a fossil to a star,
the questions are the same, there is what is in our universe, and what
we think about them, beyond that your questions are the same!
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt is a matter of hitting the bottom, if I have a fossil in my hand,
Well, I don't find it surprising that you fail to outline even cursory conditions under which you would feel obliged to amend your view. I don't want to belabor the following point. But, I think the frustration that your posts elicit within the forum community on these topics is quite sincere. In constructive debates, one intends to establish a certain rove a claim, one's holding to that claim becomes a demonstration of faith.
I can see it, handle it, and make judgments about it. The fossil in my
hand is real, it is the fact, unless you want to jump back into it is
a magic trick, it is not really there or something along those lines.
Getting back to the fossil my judgments could be an accurate
representation of what was true about it, did it eat meat, how long
ago did it live, where did it live, and so on, or I could be right
about two out of three, or one out of three, or completely wrong.
Some of my judgments could be made and have the likely hood
of being correct better than others it is a simple matter, yet it
does seem to bother people that I do not accept their opinions or
what they believe about things as facts.
What I find is that many take the fossil and assume many of the
things they think about them are facts that they cannot be wrong
their views are now simply the facts. They mix their views in
with the thing in hand and the blending of what they think is
true right or not is now the way it is in their minds. Going back
to the stars it is the same thing, they know a little and assume
a lot, it is because as it was pointed out, we do not handle the stars
like we can a fossil.
You think I have to amend my views that we can be right or wrong
about what we think is an accurate view of the universe? I’ve told
you, I like everyone else can be wrong about how I view something;
I attempt to look at things in a critically and attempt to be open to
being wrong. What I do find surprising that about this community is
that they don’t seem to be willing to accept that about many of their
foundational views! You seem to be under the impression that I cannot
and do not come to a conclusion, that isn’t true. We can settle on a
matter yet coming to an agreement about any subject, with our
agreement does not mean our beliefs are an accurate representation of
whatever the subject is! I don’t rank agreements among people high
enough on the reality check to make our beliefs facts if it didn’t really
happen the way we think?
In science do we at all ever think we have proved anything, do we
always try to leave open the door incase something new comes in
and changes how we are viewing things? If this is true, and you
do not think this is an error in doing, why is it that my views about
calling something a fact when we could be wrong some how misguided?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKnowledge is conventionally defined as a justified belief that happens also to be true. I only want to deal with that “justified belief” part. The scientists justify their beliefs based on the evidence that they find via observation, measurement, etc.; they reason to their beliefs from that evidence. You, I presume, justify your beliefs (at least those that run contrary to the findings of science—e.g., about the age of the world) on the basis of scripture, reasoning from that.
It is a matter of hitting the bottom, if I have a fossil in my hand,
I can see it, handle it, and make judgments about it. The fossil in my
hand is real, it is the fact, unless you want to jump back into it is
a magic trick, it is not really there or something along those lines.
Getting back to the fossil my judgments could be an accurate
representatio ...[text shortened]... that my views about
calling something a fact when we could be wrong some how misguided?
Kelly
It seems to me that your position has to reduce to one of the following:
(1) Both you and the scientists are simply accepting whatever you choose to see as evidence on faith, a faith that is exactly the same in both cases, that is, a faith that itself is subject to no justification; or
(2) You have reason to believe that whatever evidence you rely on to justify your beliefs is at least as strong as the evidence relied on by the scientists, and serves to justify your belief/faith in it.
Now, (1) seems to me to throw justification out of the game altogether, and so neither you nor the scientists can claim any justification for your beliefs at all. Someone simply believes because they choose to believe because they choose to believe. . . They believe because they want to, evidence either for or against notwithstanding. This is similar to Blackburn’s “conversation-stopper.”
And (1) also seems to me to be how you are using the word “assume.”
Under (2), one is claiming justification for their beliefs. Then it is proper to question what that justification entails; and how it leads to the belief derived therefrom; and in what way it is equal to, superior to, or inferior to any justification offered for a contrary belief.
I think one question LJ is asking (if I am reading him right, which I may not be) is: Is your fundamental position (1) or (2)?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayyet it does seem to bother people that I do not accept their opinions or
It is a matter of hitting the bottom, if I have a fossil in my hand,
I can see it, handle it, and make judgments about it. The fossil in my
hand is real, it is the fact, unless you want to jump back into it is
a magic trick, it is not really there or something along those lines.
Getting back to the fossil my judgments could be an accurate
representatio ...[text shortened]... that my views about
calling something a fact when we could be wrong some how misguided?
Kelly
what they believe about things as facts.
You have every right to question their judgments and to evaluate the merits of their underlying reasoning; actually, I think you have a noetic responsibility to do this, or something very much like it, before you arrive at conclusion on whether or not their judgments are correspondent with fact. No one has just cause to be bothered by this, and this is not what bothers people in this case. Again, what is bothersome is when you dismiss their judgments as "just opinion" while at the same time offering no real reasons as to why they should adopt some other position. I was recently reading an interesting essay by Alessandra Tanesini on the practices of justification. The author was highlighting the strong connection between justification and the practice of providing reasons for our views. I think it can be bothersome when this practice is subverted.
What I find is that many take the fossil and assume many of the
things they think about them are facts that they cannot be wrong
Certainly, there will be many people who are quite confident in their judgments. But, hey, sometimes a high degree of confidence is warranted by virtue of the judgment's according strongly with the evidence (along with, maybe, their coming to hold the judgment through cognitive processes that are reliable). At any rate, if you think such confidence is misplaced, then you ought to be able to provide reasons why you think this, no? Just saying something like "Well, you could be mistaken" doesn't really provide reasons.
coming to an agreement about any subject, with our
agreement does not mean our beliefs are an accurate representation of
whatever the subject is!
Right, I agree that we ought not view consensus itself as a direct indicator of correctness. But that's beside the point. I'm not saying that you have a responsibility to reach agreement with others in the discussion or to view agreement as a determining factor of one's confidence. Rather, I'm saying that it is reasonable to expect that one will offer considered reasons why he agrees or, yes, disagrees with others in the course of such discussion.
If this is true, and you
do not think this is an error in doing, why is it that my views about
calling something a fact when we could be wrong some how misguided?
Again, I do not think you are misguided when you point out that such empirical claims could be wrong. I agree with you, and I've stated many times as much. I stated explicitly before that I take such beliefs to be fallible (possibly mistaken) and such evidence to be defeasible (capable of being overturned). But I simply don't see how this in itself is relevant to the discussion, and I don't understand why you think it is relevant. The mere possibility of being mistaken is something everyone takes on when they engage in trying to draw inference to the best explanation.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdMost of the time, I am inclined to think his position reflects your number (1), or something like it.
Knowledge is conventionally defined as a justified belief that happens also to be true. I only want to deal with that “justified belief” part. The scientists justify their beliefs based on the evidence that they find via observation, measurement, etc.; they reason to their beliefs from that evidence. You, I presume, justify your beliefs (at least those t ...[text shortened]... ng (if I am reading him right, which I may not be) is: Is your fundamental position (1) or (2)?
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have not answered my questions. Pretending that my question is the same as a previous one then ignoring it is not an answer.
I've answwered you questions, maybe not to your liking.
All you have done with your last set is simply take the same question and ask it again with a different subject. You have gone from a fossil to a star, the questions are the same, there is what is in our universe, and what we think about them, beyond that your questions are the same!
Kelly
So in your mind, all questions are the same, so you need only answer one in you life? If the question was so similar to one you think you have already answered then why not simply answer again instead of avoiding it?
The truth is you do not answer my questions, instead you spout some vague nonsense and pretend that you have given an answer, but when challenged either way on your answer you claim that you never said anything.
I realize that your entire strategy is to attempt to shed doubt on science without actually making any claims or arguments whatsoever.
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello“Again, I don't want to belabor that point. I'm still just thoroughly mystified by your epistemology. I'm still interested to know what you view as conditions for knowledge. For instance, do you think certainty is necessary for knowledge?”
Well, I don't find it surprising that you fail to outline even cursory conditions under which you would feel obliged to amend your view. I don't want to belabor the following point. But, I think the frustration that your posts elicit within the forum community on these topics is quite sincere. In constructive debates, one intends to establish a certain rove a claim, one's holding to that claim becomes a demonstration of faith.
I recall reading something years ago before I was a Christian about
knowledge by I believe Asimov I forget which book, he was writing about
a caveman’s point of view at the start of one of his books. I have to
paraphrase it now it was a very long time ago that I read this, he was
speaking about human knowledge and the cave man, how the
caveman’s universe was limited to space he encountered during his
life time, roughly a circle of few miles in his estimation. The sum total
of what the caveman knew or thought he knew was compiled within
that limited circle of his existence.
I recall pondering that about Asimov’s caveman, if the caveman lived
in arctic conditions he would know nothing of tropical weather; if it
were tropic, arctic conditions would be completely unknown. The stars
would be thought of as either the sun or just some dots in the sky,
reasoning would be there yet the base to draw on would be limited
and passing down knowledge wasn’t done efficiently either, word of
mouth or pictures. In the Foundation Trilogy by Asimov the human
race turned technology into a mystic belief the guys who could repair
the equipment were thought of as something special, though the
ability to create what they worked on had left them if I recall the story
correctly.
In our life time I remember being surprised to hear someone
ask ‘Paul McCartney was in another group besides Wings?” and now
many never heard of him out side of some references to the person
he married and divorced in the news. People forget lessons learned
all the time, the experiences of world wars, and so on. We have
knowledge yes, and we know a great deal more than Asimov’s
caveman, but our limitations and our abilities do not set us to far
above Asimov’s caveman in that we are still have the same physical
limitations he painted his caveman with, we just have better ways to
keep some of what we know and our mobility has improved a great
deal.
When thinking about creation and the human race if God did it, than
all the connecting of the dots about the universe from the Big Bang till
now are simply a man made fairy tale without the fairies. I have
heard people say that if God did it, God is a liar because God made
them think the universe was X years old by the design of it. Which I
thought and still do think is ludicrous, their inability to acknowledge
they built up a belief system around assumptions does not constitute
a lie on God’s part, but it also brought back to me what is a fact, since
they were telling me that they ‘knew’ X, Y, meant Z is true. How basic
does it really go from where we can settle on what is factual and what
is a belief or an assumption?
Look at TV debates about the Clintons of late, do they flip flop on
stances or not? People spend I don’t know how much time looking at
ways to defend them or attack them for the things they have done
and said in front of TV cameras, let alone things not done in front of
a camera but recorded by other means.
Seeing what is real or factual, is a sticky thing in my opinion, and I
think when we really look at what is and try to look at what is really just
there, I think we will see we do paint a great deal more about the
universe into things than we'd like to think, we might be getting it
right, but we might not, and mixing errors and correct assessments
makes seeing the real even harder. Much like the pieces of a chess
set right in front of you, do you really see the dangers or not?
With your question about "certainty" being certain does not say it is
real it is only a state of mind, a fact is real and does not require us
to believe anything about, it is what it is, or it occured in reality
human beliefs not needed. You can be certain about anthing and
use that certainty to build up your views on any given subject.
Kelly
Sorry for the book.
Originally posted by twhiteheadGoing back to an earlier conversation we have had, this is covered
I am trying to find out what your stance is and you are making it extremely difficult by refusing to answer questions.
I am trying to establish whether or not you find particular types of "faith" or "belief" reasonable or stupid or "stupid" is too polite.
For example:
We know that a star has never been visited, cannot be visited, and the light we obser ...[text shortened]... aith". Would you say the same thing whenever someone talks about stars? If not, why not?
ground. You have stated that what we hold in our hands can be
false with your card trick, so we can go from something we hold in
our hands to something we just see every day as a star or something
else we just get pictures of providing you have eyes to see. Each
example will provide its own limitations such as distance or time or
simple just the word of others in print and so on. There are beliefs
that I do believe I would call silly, if you want to just start coming up
with items till you find a couple you may.
Kelly
Originally posted by vistesdYou do not believe not only I but everyone does both?
Knowledge is conventionally defined as a justified belief that happens also to be true. I only want to deal with that “justified belief” part. The scientists justify their beliefs based on the evidence that they find via observation, measurement, etc.; they reason to their beliefs from that evidence. You, I presume, justify your beliefs (at least those t ...[text shortened]... ng (if I am reading him right, which I may not be) is: Is your fundamental position (1) or (2)?
Kelly