Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But it is a lie, regardless of side, simply because it is based on the backwards thinking of mankind that focuses on self-interest, the self-serving reason for all wrongdoings. No reliability there.
For what it's worth, it appears to me that you're wanting to establish the objective meaning of "reliable" which connotes a positive meaning. And Bradski is applying a subjective meaning that is objectively going to appear as a negative. So, For what it's worth I'd say you're both right.
Did you ask them HOW Jesus, who submitted to torture and death, and forgave his crucifiers because they know not what they do, can possibly represent a tyrant image of God? Of course, I know God reveals His son, but it could be you or I who plants or waters.
People can believe whatever they want; a belief enacted upon is harmless.
No, I am just pointing to the meaning: the thing you will find in dictionaries. One can argue about whether a source is reliable, but both parties know what 'reliable' means.
I'm agreeing with you about the dictionary definition. The dictionary is going to give the objective meaning which carries a positive connotation. In other words, to be reliable is a 'good' thing.
Where's that sigh emoticon...
Yeah, pointed all that out to him; his "beef" was that he couldn't get out of his head that Christ did everything he did just so people would praise him. And because of God's "selfish need for praise"; the guy would not heed anything anyone said. And when I told him he was wrong about his assertion of God's motives; he admitted that he "possibly could be misunderstanding this" and then when I told him. "Well, then repent." He accused me of bullying him.
A dictionary definition is neither positive nor negative. It is just a definition. It expresses meaning.
So @Bradskii has here literally claimed that every single person who asks whether an unattributed quote comes from a reliable source is lying, is using "reliable source" falsely, and really means, "a source that agrees with me." Again, this is a crazy level of sophistry and conspiratorial thinking.
Wow, sounds like you were doing great till you pushed the rebellion button. I don't mean to criticize, I've done the same thing. We need to think of better ways to say things keeping in mind we're dealing with damaged minds. Probably could have mentioned that only one of these images is true and the other false and whichever image WE believe in, will live in OUR hearts. Hence, it comes off as we're all the same.Yeah, pointed all that out to him; his "beef" was that he couldn't get out of his head that Christ did everything he did just so people would praise him. And because of God's "selfish need for praise"; the guy would not heed anything anyone said. And when I told him he was wrong about his assertion of God's motives; he admitted that he "possibly could be misunderstanding this" and then when I told him. "Well, then repent." He accused me of bullying him.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, not my problem.
The issue between him and "the Eternal" is above my pay grade.
A guy is arguing against vaccines and says something stupid. I say he's wrong and I quote an epidemiologist who is recognised as one of the world's leading experts on viral infections. I quote him because A: he's a source that agrees with my position and B: he's what I consider to be a reliable source.
The dictionary gives the objective meaning of 'reliable' which denotes a 'good' thing (a positive). That's why when we look up the word 'unreliable' it denotes a 'bad' thing (a negative). This is a true dichotomy ---> reliable/unreliable.
Bradski may lean to the cynical side, but he's definitely on topic.
Yeah, that change seems to have been because your question missed the intent of the original question.
Axioms are held to be self-evident, or in the case of math taken as a foundational principle. Axioms can't be questioned, they can only be accepted or rejected because they're the basis for everything that comes after.
Circular justification isn't always incorrect, there are some things(such as inductive reasoning) that require circular justification to operate.
Who defined it as such? You're simply making an assertion, not an argument.
Motives don't change facts, or factual status.
No, I'm not saying we must question everything. I'm stating that the only way to avoid radical skepticism is by appealing to one of the insufficient prongs of the trilemma, you've made it clear which prong you prefer but seem to completely miss the issue with it.
Induction depends on circular justification(see Hume's fork), deduction on dogmatic. As for what you're saying here, it just seems like word salad rather than conveying nything meaningful.
Most of this is incomprehensible to me.
Definition 2 is the one that serves as one of the "solutions" to Munchaussen, with a little of definition 3. But the very concept of "self-evident truth" is debateable whether such things exist. Axioms are fine in math, but even ones that at first glance seem to be impossible to be false such as whether or not parallel lines intersect can be challenged and give interesting new areas to explore.
Read B. You consider the guy to be a reliable source. Yet earlier you literally said, "A 'reliable source' is simply one that agrees with you." If that were true then A and B would be identical. What's happening here is that you are maintaining a double standard via your scare quotes.
Lots of bad logic here. (2) does not follow from (1). (1) does not follow from (2). (3) does not follow.
This is an argument from authority, and it is a valid argument. "I believe that the Big Bang was a singularity because Stephen Hawking said so, not because I have independent evidence." This is not a culpable belief, or even a wrong belief. You don't seem to understand the validity of argument from authority.
Everyone has a tendency to accept opinions that agree with them and reject those that don't. That's also perfectly rational.
Nope, the dictionaries do not say anything about whether such words are "positive" or "negative." Show me a dictionary that does so.
He could say, "Propaganda doesn't work unless the propaganda is seen as reliable." But then we're back to the question of what this has to do with the OP.
The claim that all arguments from authority are made in bad faith is not only cynical, it is highly irrational.
Belief is a position that you hold on any given proposition which you consider or accept to be true. I'm using consider to imply some thought has gone into it and accept to imply that no investigation has been made.
It is astute of you to notice that it was probably my question to another poster that was the impetus to rephrase the original question into a simpler form. That part of your assessment, I am forced to agree with.
I understand that even though I'm not a mathematician. I study semantics particular to psycholinguistics. So, for me axioms exist in semantical frameworks constructed using true dichotomies that I can safely reason upon through both induction and deduction.
Sure. But any sound reasoning would establish an equilibrium. For example, I wouldn't trust in ignorance.
The sentiment 'Trustworthy' is contained in the term God. God = Eternal power = Has no beginning and no end = Everlasting = Source of the energy that formed all things = Real = Reality =Truth = Trustworthy.
But motives are a fact of reality and can be observed.
I don't know what issue you expect me to find with the trilemma. The term skepticism falls in line under the term 'distrust' which is the negative in this objectively true dichotomy Trust/distrust. Objectively skepticism/cynicism would point to the Eternal in its denial thereof. Subjectively, skepticism is necessary to not be fooled into believing something that isn't true.
True enough
This sounds like gobbledy gook.
Equilibrium? What does that mean in the context of the circular justification needed to engage with inductive reasoning?
So you're saying all of those things are tautological?
Ok?
Observed by who?
Sure, but our perception of that reality is skewed by our point of view. My earlier example of sight remains a good example, since our vision is corrected(inverted and details filled in) compared to the stimuli the eyes respond to.
I don't expect you to find any issue, I keep bringing it up in reference to your dogmatic approach to knowledge. Philosophical skepticism has nothing to do with trust/distrust, since it is a means to bring us to the end of ourselves; which is often required before we can see God.
