Some findings trawled when having a look on the other side

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Skeptics have always held the view that knowledge is impossible. They have always challenged the claims to knowledge, asking for justification for holding the particular belief as true. Skeptics have always tried to show that we may not know what we think we know.

You say skeptics like there is only one kind and that they all agree.

I am a skeptic and I disagree with the type of skeptics that say knowledge is impossible.

They use a definition of knowledge that I for one consider useless.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Since I am newly armed with some rather haphazardly read ( but not yet internalized ) stuff on the net on skepticism, here I go ! Plato's definition of ' knowledge ' is ' knowledge is justified true belief '. The crux of the matter is what is acceptable as justification. While justifying the belief we consider as true, we run into Agrippa's trilemma. We a ...[text shortened]... inite regress of who created God. Hinduism relies on an axiom of God being a self creator.

We recently had big long thread in which this very issue was argued about at length.

Plato's definition doesn't work, there is not a clear consensus on a replacement that does.


Also the things you are citing as 'axioms' of science are not axioms.

(also as a side note, I very much doubt that the speed of light got broken, although it
would be awesome if it has)

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I am talking about the Nature of Light.
Is it not an axiom on the part of Newton, to think that it is composed of particles ?
Newton had to assume that it was so, although he did not know about the particulate nature of Light. But he did believe it was composed of particles.
Only after he started with this belief, he could correctly explain the phenom ...[text shortened]... axiom that Light is particulate.
Similarly for Huygens and similarly for Modern Physics theory.

No it is not an axiom.

If I hypothesise that light is made of waves (or particles, or both), to explain certain observed properties of light,
and then use that hypothesis to make predictions and test them, then I am using observation and experimentation
to test and validate my hypothesis that they are waves/particles/both.

An axiom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom is something you can claim without needing to prove or derive it.

The properties of light are findings, things you discover, not things you postulate as axioms.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I was surfing the net recently and reading about Skepticism. Some findings there shocked me, some made me think that I must bring them to the notice of fellow theists for their comments. Of course, atheists are also welcome to comment and elucidate, but ,probably they already know this stuff by heart ! So, here goes !

i)" Religion is fundamentally o may require a separate thread. If you
think so, by all means form separate threads.

i)" Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration-courage,
clear thinking, honesty, fairness and above all, love of truth "

Probably a repressed childhood.

ii) " Knowledge is impossible "

Self-canceling statement.

iii) " No truth was quite true"

Nonsensical or poetic.

iv) " Truth is an ideal expression of the Universe; at once coherent and
comprehensive. It must not conflict with itself, and there must be no
suggestion which fails to fall inside it. Perfect truth in short must realize the
idea of a systematic whole."

Decent expression if 'ideal' means philosophical idealism. That is, a truth is an idea that corresponds to an aspect of reality, and contemplating the idea is as close as we can get to that aspect of reality.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Exactly. I've stated such before on this forum.

It all really depends on your definition.

It all goes back to language.

It may be of interest to you to know that the definition of the word knowledge, as given by Plato is not agreable to googlefudge. There is a problem with it, called Gettier's problem. This is the problem of instances of coincidental correctness of the belief. I am a theist and hence I believe that Knowledge is a subset of Belief. However the Skepticism theories are described here for information of all interested posters.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You say skeptics like there is only one kind and that they all agree.

I am a skeptic and I disagree with the type of skeptics that say knowledge is impossible.

They use a definition of knowledge that I for one consider useless.

I am presuming that you have not closed your mind like many atheists usually do. Actually a skeptic, by definition, must not believe anything, without seeing compelling evidence thereof. But I am not aware that there are many types of skeptics or that there are degrees of skepticism. It will be an oxymoron, to say that there are degrees of skepticism. So please let us know what type of a skeptic you are and what is your definition of knowledge.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I am presuming that you have not closed your mind like many atheists usually do. Actually a skeptic, by definition, must not believe anything, without seeing compelling evidence thereof. But I am not aware that there are many types of skeptics or that there are degrees of skepticism. It will be an oxymoron, to say that there are degrees of skepticism. So please let us know what type of a skeptic you are and what is your definition of knowledge.

I am presuming that you have not closed your mind like many atheists usually do.

An interesting statement there. Would you care to elaborate?

Originally posted by googlefudge
We recently had big long thread in which this very issue was argued about at length.

Plato's definition doesn't work, there is not a clear consensus on a replacement that does.


Also the things you are citing as 'axioms' of science are not axioms.

(also as a side note, I very much doubt that the speed of light got broken, although it
would be awesome if it has)

There have been some claims in the press recently that some neutrinos were clocked in some experiments and they were found to be faster than light. If true, there goes a very important axiom.The recent long thread you refer to was so full of epistemology and ' p 's and ' q ' s that it was beyond my understanding. I am now reading ' epistemology for dummies '. I do hope that it may be of some use to me.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I am presuming that you have not closed your mind like many atheists usually do.

An interesting statement there. Would you care to elaborate?[/b]

If presumptions can be elaborated, they will cease to be presumptions ! Nevertheless I hasten to clarify that while agnostic atheists do have an open mind, the plain vanilla atheists have closed their minds. An agnostic atheist says that he/she does not believe that there is any God but he/she does not KNOW that there is no God. Plain vanilla atheist says that he/she KNOWS that there is no God.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
If presumptions can be elaborated, they will cease to be presumptions ! Nevertheless I hasten to clarify that while agnostic atheists do have an open mind, the plain vanilla atheists have closed their minds. An agnostic atheist says that he/she does not believe that there is any God but he/she does not KNOW that there is no God. Plain vanilla atheist says that he/she KNOWS that there is no God.

I can't help but feel you don't really know what you're talking about. 'Plain vanilla atheist', what does that even mean exactly? Do you mean positive atheism?

I don't think you could find one atheist on this forum who would claim to know that God doesn't exist. Anyone who claims to know that God doesn't exist in my book is just as foolish as someone who claims to know God does exist.

You claim to know God exists right (correct me if i am mistaken)? Would you accept that you are 'closed minded'?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
There have been some claims in the press recently that some neutrinos were clocked in some experiments and they were found to be faster than light. If true, there goes a very important axiom.The recent long thread you refer to was so full of epistemology and ' p 's and ' q ' s that it was beyond my understanding. I am now reading ' epistemology for dummies '. I do hope that it may be of some use to me.

Again, that fact that you can't accelerate things past the speed of light is not an axiom.
It's a derived finding, making it by definition, not axiomatic.

And I am well aware of the experiment you are citing, However it is still highly unlikely that
the result is real, and not some kind of experimental error, the reporting of it has been
typically abysmal.
And even if it were true, the leading candidate explanations involve the neutrinos taking
a shortcut via another dimension which means they wouldn't have violates special relativity.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
If presumptions can be elaborated, they will cease to be presumptions ! Nevertheless I hasten to clarify that while agnostic atheists do have an open mind, the plain vanilla atheists have closed their minds. An agnostic atheist says that he/she does not believe that there is any God but he/she does not KNOW that there is no God. Plain vanilla atheist says that he/she KNOWS that there is no God.

The "plain vanilla atheist" as you put it is the agnostic atheist.
Even such renowned 'strong atheists' as Richard Dawkins are agnostic atheists.

I know of no atheist who is or would claim to be a gnostic atheist.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I don't think you could find one atheist on this forum who would claim to know that God doesn't exist. Anyone who claims to know that God doesn't exist in my book is just as foolish as someone who claims to know God does exist.

I claim to know that every god that I have heard of that has been defined in a manner that is understandable to me, does not exist. My claim is based on different considerations for different definitions, my most popular one is the claim that the definition is internally inconsistent and therefore cannot describe an existent entity.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I am presuming that you have not closed your mind like many atheists usually do. Actually a skeptic, by definition, must not believe anything, without seeing compelling evidence thereof. But I am not aware that there are many types of skeptics or that there are degrees of skepticism. It will be an oxymoron, to say that there are degrees of skepticism. So please let us know what type of a skeptic you are and what is your definition of knowledge.

Again there are different kinds of skepticism, and it is not oxymoronic.
Have a look at this link for my favourite brand.

http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/scientificskepticism.html

The skepticism you talk about uses a definition of knowledge I can't agree with,
because it renders the concept meaningless.
And it is also guilty of solipsism, which I also find pointless.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Nevertheless I hasten to clarify that while agnostic atheists do have an open mind, the plain vanilla atheists have closed their minds.

Do you believe that invisible pink unicorns may exist in my fridge? If not, do you admit to having closed your mind? If not, why not?