2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdWith regard to parents some have been wrong about who they thought
I’m not sure I’m reading your answer to (3) right: “Yes” it is something that we can know with some certainty, or “Yes” it is matter of faith? (I may have worded the question badly.)
I see no qualitative difference between any of them. Let’s just take (2) and (4), for example: In one case, you rely on the physical evidence to come to a conclusion abou ...[text shortened]... about the actual race of their biological parents changing just prior to the child’s conception.
their parents were. In addition I have a friend that raised his sister’s kids,
they are blond blue eye, 50% American Indians, so you cannot just go
by features if you don’t have all the necessarily information that being
how it you ‘really’ fit into reality or the universe you could be mistaken.
The greater the unknowns that apply the greater the odds we have faulty
conclusions when looking each of these. I said yesterday I know where
I was for lunch, but ask me that same question about this day of this
month, but last year, I would not know the answer to that question I’m
not a hundred percent sure I did eat lunch anywhere I could have skipped
lunch for some reason as I have a habit of doing from time to time.
With your third question you asked if we could have “some certainty”
well yes, even if we are wrong about what we think, it doesn’t not negate
we could feel certain about anything does it? If you asked would we be
right in saying, “It is a fact all creatures with sharp teeth are meat eaters?”
That question I would have not answered, yes.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayLet's not call them facts. Let's call them assumptions.
Incase you did not read my other responses to this question I said
I agreed with you that odds are they were meat eaters, yet I will not
call my assumptions fact.
How confident are you in that assumption (remember, you know everything that I know about this
fossil)? As for me, I'm very, very confident that this animal ate meat.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI would go so far to say that if I ran into that animal I'd more than
Terrific!
Two last questions:
To what do you ascribe this confidence?
Would you say that it would be silly for one to believe that this animal didn't eat meat?
Nemesio
likely not want to test if I was wrong, but avoid it as quickly as I
could.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHeh. Let's assume that it's a long extinct animal.
I would go so far to say that if I ran into that animal I'd more than
likely not want to test if I was wrong, but avoid it as quickly as I
could.
Kelly
To what do you ascribe your confidence in your assumption? Why do you describe your position as
'very confident' (a position that I am in agreement with, mind you)?
If you were confronted with someone who held the assumption that it did not eat meat, how would
you treat this assumption?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSorry I didn't answer your questions directly.
Terrific!
Two last questions:
To what do you ascribe this confidence?
Would you say that it would be silly for one to believe that this animal didn't eat meat?
Nemesio
1. due to other creatures with sharp teeth I'm confident.
2. no I would not call someone silly that disagreed with me since
neither I nor anyone else has any direct experience to know it is true.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, whether or not you had lunch or not was not the big point: it was whether or not you can say if you were in Paris. 😉
With regard to parents some have been wrong about who they thought
their parents were. In addition I have a friend that raised his sister’s kids,
they are blond blue eye, 50% American Indians, so you cannot just go
by features if you don’t have all the necessarily information that being
how it you ‘really’ fit into reality or the universe you could be m ...[text shortened]... eatures with sharp teeth are meat eaters?”
That question I would have not answered, yes.
Kelly
This is where we seem to disagree: I do not think that the difference in relative time-frames justifies rejecting reliance on the physical evidence in the one case and not the other. In both cases, I rely on the observations in the present to determine the likelihood of the nature of past events; you argue that, in one case, the extended time-frame justifies calling such reliance on the evidence a “belief” equivalent to choosing to believe something in rejection of that evidence. This is not quite the same thing, it seems to me, as merely saying that the extended time-frame reduces the potential accuracy of the conclusions drawn from observation and measurement.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI have been in Paris, I was there this last summer! I was in Paris
Well, whether or not you had lunch or not was not the big point: it was whether or not you can say if you were in Paris. 😉
This is where we seem to disagree: I do not think that the difference in relative time-frames justifies rejecting reliance on the physical evidence in the one case and not the other. In both cases, I rely on the observations in t ...[text shortened]... -frame reduces the potential accuracy of the conclusions drawn from observation and measurement.
Illinois, not Paris France but I was there last summer. If you wanted
my location only that should have been the question, I could have
been in Paris and not eaten lunch. 🙂
With respect to time observations, the facts don't change even if I did
go to Paris and eat it would have remained factual that I was there if
I recalled it or not. My point about the past and present is it is easier
to study in the present, the past becomes more of guess work and
the more obscure the subject from us the greater the odds we could
miss something or not quite understand what we are looking at.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe purpose of my questions it to help me understand your stance. I still do not understand your stance and whenever I try to clarify various points you become evasive and refuse to answer questions (as you are doing now).
You can move on to other questions all you want, I bottom lined it out
for you already if you wish to dismiss the stance I have taken do so.
If you really cannot grasp what I have written, spell out your confusion
for me, I think we have gone over all of this before all you are doing
now is changing the objects of discussion.
Kelly
I do not grasp what your have written and my confusion is this:
1. You talk as if you take the existence of dinosaur at some time in the past to be a fact.
2. You refuse to actually make a definite statement on this matter and skirt around the subject like its the plague.
3. You claim that it cannot actually be known whether anything that happened or existed in the past did actually happen or exist and that such beliefs are mere assumptions equivalent to anything the ID folks may claim.
I notice that you are now contradicting 3. with your responses to vistesd in which you admit that you do assign a certain amount of probability to past events (something you had previously claimed was impossible due to the lack of complete facts). Yet despite you admitting that you are very certain of the exact location that you had dinner yesterday, you still treat it as nothing but faith and assumption no different from my belief that the earth is billions of years old.
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd it is my claim (and I have proved it with examples) that a longer time frame does not necessarily result in greater obscurity. In fact the reverse can and often is true. For example I know where I had dinner two years ago but do not know where George Bush had dinner yesterday. The age of the event does not automatically make it less likely for us to make accurate conclusions about it.
My point about the past and present is it is easier
to study in the present, the past becomes more of guess work and
the more obscure the subject from us the greater the odds we could
miss something or not quite understand what we are looking at.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe a lot of things are true; do I not with those beliefs call them
The purpose of my questions it to help me understand your stance. I still do not understand your stance and whenever I try to clarify various points you become evasive and refuse to answer questions (as you are doing now).
I do not grasp what your have written and my confusion is this:
1. You talk as if you take the existence of dinosaur at some time in ...[text shortened]... ng but faith and assumption no different from my belief that the earth is billions of years old.
facts! Since as I have stated over and over again, facts do not require
me to define them they are part of reality, they simply are what they
are, such as where I ate lunch yesterday, or a fossil we are looking at
it is part of reality, as the event of where and when I ate lunch
actually occurred. I can with the dinosaur fossils, form an
opinion/belief about them, which does not make my opinion/belief a
fact, what is the ‘fact’ is the fossil, and everything we assign to that is
our point of view about it. I have not been skirting around anything,
you have with others mischaracterized my position over and over and
half the time here I’m defending myself on things I have not said,
but attempt to alter what I have been saying to suit you. I am without
a doubt saying you are no different than the ID people! You speak as
if you know; you have no reason to doubt your assumptions or beliefs
about time or anything else, the only distinction between you and the
ID people are the subjects you both think your conclusions should be
taken as factual not mere beliefs, assumptions, or opinions so you
can use those ‘made up facts’ to build up your foundational views of
the universe and all that is in it.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI can accept with some things it does not enter into greater obscurity
And it is my claim (and I have proved it with examples) that a longer time frame does not necessarily result in greater obscurity. In fact the reverse can and often is true. For example I know where I had dinner two years ago but do not know where George Bush had dinner yesterday. The age of the event does not automatically make it less likely for us to make accurate conclusions about it.
but that is not the case across the board on all things.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayyour view could be right or not I do not see one wit a difference
It isn't a charade; the only thing we lack in our estimation today is
humility you can acknowledge you could be wrong, yet you say so
what! If you wish to make claims about things by all means do so,
your view could be right or not I do not see one wit a difference
between you and some ID person who claims it is obvious that life
was designed it is evident by all the things we see in its makeup.
Kelly
between you and some ID person who claims it is obvious that life
was designed
Right, you don't seem to discriminate between competing views on the basis of available evidence like, say, a person acting rationally would. You just make the simple (and completely irrelevant, in and of itself) observation that each view lacks certainty. Then, based merely on this, you assign them all the same level of credibility as though they are all epistemologically indistinguishable. I wonder, then, how you come to endorse your own particular view that also, as you freely admit, lacks certainty. I wonder how you come to endorse this one particular view that is, according to you yourself and according to your own standards, no more or less warranted than any other. So, you just single out one view that strikes you as uncommonly quaint or charming, is that it? That's just how you roll in these issues?
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloLike “…a person acting rationally would.” a new low in insults from you!
[b]your view could be right or not I do not see one wit a difference
between you and some ID person who claims it is obvious that life
was designed
Right, you don't seem to discriminate between competing views on the basis of available evidence like, say, a person acting rationally would. You just make the simple (and completely irrelevant, in a ...[text shortened]... s you as uncommonly quaint or charming, is that it? That's just how you roll in these issues?[/b]
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 what we once believed was not correct or true and did not reflect
reality. Facts reflect reality, you want to push opinion to that level, and
I don’t want to do that.
Is it your view that the if you get more people accepting a view or
opinion that is all that is required to make it ‘acceptable and true,’ so
that we can call it a fact, is that what it means to be acting rationally
in your world? If you can tell me with out a doubt, the majority of
people who hold a particular view over a minority are always right, that
is a quite a statement about humans and the power of the majority if
it is in true, but that truly has nothing to do with reality, since people
as you and others have pointed out can be wrong for one reason or
another.
I’m not assigning credibility or denouncing how certain we are about
anything, I’m saying that calling something a ‘fact’ in my opinion
means this is the truth and nothing can change it, it is reality! If we
are talking about things that are simply beliefs that can be changed
with a data point or a new piece of information and we were calling
them a facts, would we have been in error, or do we just ignore the
possibility we can be wrong and say any rationally acting person would
call something a fact and true because it suits them?
All I’ve suggested is that we call things what they are, based on this
or that we think this is true! It does not reduce credibility or calls it
wrong, it does mean that if we find and error in how we were looking
at them we have not lost credibility in our judgment. We refrain from
calling some theories law because they have not reached a specific
level of credulity this does not seem to insult you, but if I reject
opinion about various and sundry things as not rising the level I want
to go to for calling them a fact I’m some how in error?
I’m also a little sick and tired of you misrepresenting my stance that I
have only been complaining about those thing that I disagree with as
not being facts! That is not true over and over I have said that my
views on this are not ‘facts’ that word I reserve for reality and mine
and our ability to prove it not my opinion about anything, I do not
with my views call some things facts especially those that I believe are
true if I cannot prove them! I do not call God a fact even though I
believe in Him completely, because I cannot prove Him, only God can
do that, as I do not call my beliefs on what dinosaurs ate facts even
when I’m in agreement with everyone else on the matter, because we
could still be wrong.
Kelly