No thank-you. How about if you read up on those positions and use that information to challenge how I justify my understanding and beliefs about the world around me. Up for that?
Upvote
0
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.
No thank-you. How about if you read up on those positions and use that information to challenge how I justify my understanding and beliefs about the world around me. Up for that?Yeah. You might want to check it out since it'll help you better understand just how well you (and others) may or may not be justifying your own understanding and beliefs about the world around you.
No .. those other people may perceive it in similar ways as you do, because they possess the same brain/mind type as you do. But what about other people who don't (eg: drug addicts, babies, mental patients, etc)? Are they to be excluded from being people because of that? That would be denial of the obvious to me.If reasons X,Y, and Z are “because not only do I experience it’s existence, but everybody else (independent of me) have the exact same experience that I have concerning that tree” that reason would be independent of me.
So what do you mean by 'true' there? What is 'true' and why does that exist?Ken-1122 said:Objective means a lot more than “focus on the object” It also means based on unbiased fact, something that can be demonstrated as true.
...
Because “God did it” cannot be demonstrated as true.
That's what I meant by consistency between the senses (I think we agree).Ken-1122 said:A mirage only affect your vision; it does not affect your other 4 senses
Ok .. but my example wasn't really about emphasising that specific aspect.Ken-1122 said:From my experience, most evolution vs creation debates is based on ignorance. Creation is about how life began, evolution is about how an already existing life evolves from one state to another. Evolution does not address the beginning of life but creationist (at least the ones I’ve seen debate) believe it does.
That's right .. and that's because the scientists are thinking in different ways (and executing different kinds of tests) compared with the conspiracists .. and not because they have access to some knowledge about 'things' which 'physically exist', 'exteriorly' or independently from any human mind (whatsoever). I mean how could they have such knowledge .. when that's not even a testable concept to them?Ken-1122 said:Again; objective means based on something that can be demonstrated as true; IOW fact. The small group of scientists in your scenario are basing their findings on fact, the vast majority of people tricked into believing are not basing their views on fact but subjective opinions. The only difference between your scenario and todays reality is the percentage of people who believe the scientists, and the percentage who believe the conspiracy theorists.
You still haven't shown what scientists leverage in that discussion, other than whatever you mean by 'true' and 'fact', which gives them the edge. I say its the scientific method and scientific thinking.Ken-1122 said:No, in your scenario the majority have no clue about diseases, they know they have no objective proof to back up their beliefs so they know they are not being objective. Only the scientists claim to have proof, only the scientists can claim to be objective.
No thank-you. How about if you read up on those positions and use that information to challenge how I justify my understanding and beliefs about the world around me. Up for that?
I'm a Star Trek fan as well, and I was going to bring this to your attention. In fact, it provides a good metaphor for its meaning....................which is what I'm sure folks like Gene Rodenberry chose to call it, and not by some mere accident, Kylie. The Klingon moon, and its explosion in the movie screenplay, makes the perfect point.
No, try again. You're a smart girl, and I'm confident that if Gene Rodenberry knew what 'praxis' means, then you can too. And if I can put in the word 'praxis' into the Google search engine and find something substantive with the first search, then again, you can too.
Yes, and I'm glad you're educated. I've had both, however: a secular education, and also a religious one.
Moreover, what I'm asking you to do really has nothing to do with religion. It's all secular: epistemology is secular. Hermeneutics is also secular.
Oh, I'm sure I do. I've been recused of verbosity before. But then again, I'd like to suggest to other people that maybe they need to work on their listening and learning skills. On this note, I'm sure an intelligent person like yourself could do so without too much difficulty.
Which methods of science do you like to use? How does your own understanding about the Nature of Science (N.O.S.) play into your scientific and/or epistemological praxis, Kylie?
No, actually I did not 'imply' it. This is just how you're interpreting what you think I've said. You're making conceptual connections about what you think I mean that I never hooked up together. The truth of the matter is that she got her previous, more superstitious, 2-dimensional understanding about moonlight...............because she grew up in a former Soviet block country which didn't do much for her scientific understanding of the world around her. In fact, it's 'worldview' was such that it was stunted her overall praxis, kind of like those of the Klingons in Star Trek 6 (which in a direct way in that very movie, the Klingons represented the Soviets.....)
No, that's not exactly correct. Simply because some source gets something wrong on one account doesn't mean it'll necessarily be wrong on all accounts with everything else in life. We don't assume that just because one apple on top of the barrel is tainted with a worm doesn't automatically mean every other apple in the barrel is likewise tainted.
The actual answer is both 'Maybe/Maybe Not--it depends!!'
Whenever they rely on some kind of belief, I tend to agree. For example whenever definitions of knowledge involve a basis of 'justified true belief', we have the makings of a completely useless, circular definition.I think ALL episemological positions have a chink in their armor.
Atheism nor religion operates on the bases of exclusion of beliefs which differ from their own. There are lots of beliefs I do not have, and they have nothing to do with theism, nor do they have anything to do with atheismComing back onto Atheism, I recently encountered this gem in a conversation elsewhere, with an Athiest scientist, also a Humanist. (The 'belief' metioned in the first part, is the belief in deities):
'I respect the right to freedom of belief - but I don’t respect the belief itself. I think that’s general though - religious people are effectively atheists when confronted with all but their one particular choice of religion'.
So, taking that argument onboard, Atheism is religion also .. in they they all operate on the same basis of exclusion of beliefs which differ from their own(?)
What are you talking about? Tell you what; get me a baby, a drug addict, and a mental patient and I bet you they will each experience the tree the same way I do.No .. those other people may perceive it in similar ways as you do, because they possess the same brain/mind type as you do. But what about other people who don't (eg: drug addicts, babies, mental patients, etc)? Are they to be excluded from being people because of that?
The existence of the tree on my lawn is testable. I can demonstrate it’s existence using any of your 5 senses.would be denial of the obvious to me.
The mind independence (ie: the 'exterior-ness') of that tree, never gets tested because that's an untestable belief.
True (in this context) is that which is consistent with realitySo what do you mean by 'true' there? What is 'true' and why does that exist?
Perhaps the analogy creation vs evolution; to make your point, was a poor choice.Ok .. but my example wasn't really about emphasising that specific aspect.
What type of tests are scientists excluding?That's right .. and that's because the scientists are thinking in different ways (and executing different kinds of tests) compared with the conspiracists ..
Actually they do have such knowledgeand not because they have access to some knowledge about 'things' which 'physically exist', 'exteriorly' or independently from any human mind (whatsoever).
What type of knowledge are you talking about that is not testable?I mean how could they have such knowledge .. when that's not even a testable concept to them?
Science is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical world by observation, measurement, and experimenting, and developing theories to describe the results of these activities.You still haven't shown what scientists leverage in that discussion, other than whatever you mean by 'true' and 'fact', which gives them the edge.
Interesting .. what is your 'operating basis' then, if you don't mind my asking?Atheism nor religion operates on the bases of exclusion of beliefs which differ from their own. There are lots of beliefs I do not have, and they have nothing to do with theism, nor do they have anything to do with atheism
I thought I already told you; my beliefs are based on what makes sense to me. it's based on the best information I have at the momentOh, you can just tell me. It makes it easier that way because you see......I think ALL episemological positions have a chink in their armor. So, may I add your chink to my collection?
What do you mean when you say operating basis?Interesting .. what is your 'operating basis' then, if you don't mind my asking?
Different minds 'experience' things slightly differently. My evidence for that, are the conversations going on here, in this thread. People construct different 'models' from the same observations all the time.What are you talking about? Tell you what; get me a baby, a drug addict, and a mental patient and I bet you they will each experience the tree the same way I do.
The only thing you'll be testing there will be your description of, (or what you mean by), 'tree'. When you describe that meaning, you will be using your own mind. When you use your mind, you will not be demonstrating the mind independence, of a tree will you?Ken-1122 said:The existence of the tree on my lawn is testable. I can demonstrate it’s existence using any of your 5 senses.
Reality is a word, can you describe what you mean by that word and how you came by that meaning, (seeing as 'reality' is now your basis for establishing consistency with 'true')?Ken-1122 said:True (in this context) is that which is consistent with reality
No .. I just don't think you understand the point I was making about objectivity requiring agreement on consistency amongst like-thinking minds, yet.Ken-1122 said:Perhaps the analogy creation vs evolution; to make your point, was a poor choice.
Test descriptions come in two types: ones that can be tested and those which can't, using the scientific method (requiring operational definitions) and scientific thinking.Ken-1122 said:What type of tests are scientists excluding?
Really?Ken-1122 said:Actually they do have such knowledgeSelfSim said:.. and not because they have access to some knowledge about 'things' which 'physically exist', 'exteriorly' or independently from any human mind (whatsoever).
The miraculous example you just gave immediately above!Ken-1122 said:What type of knowledge are you talking about that is not testable?
Ahh .. you're choosing to hide behind dictionary definitions .. which are always couched in contextually generalised ways.Ken-1122 said:Science is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical world by observation, measurement, and experimenting, and developing theories to describe the results of these activities.
SCIENCE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Hopefully that answers your question.
You said:What do you mean when you say operating basis?
Ok .. so I ask: If Atheism doesn't operate on the bases of exclusion of beliefs (as you say above), then what does it operate on?Ken-1122 said:Atheism nor religion operates on the bases of exclusion of beliefs ..
Atheism does not operate on anything; it's the default position. It's the rejection of one thing; God/Gods.You said:
Ok .. so I ask: If Atheism doesn't operate on the bases of exclusion of beliefs (as you say above), then what does it operate on?
.. and yet that 'thing' is objectively untestable in science.Atheism .. It's the rejection of one thing; God/Gods.
.. and yet that 'thing' is objectively untestable in science.
So, specifically what test/data/results (or other) enable the rejection?
(.. or: What is the basis of rejection?)
Who knows?The same thing that enables the rejection of other religions. A lack of evidence. If there is no evidence for God that can withstand scrutiny, why believe in such a God?
Secondly, (sorry .. I know you're well aware of this .. so, this is more for any readers): 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.
There can always be reasons for why such 'negative evidence' isn't there .. and those reasons can legitimately be just a pile of more untestable beliefs.Of course, it can be counted as evidence of absence if that evidence should be there. If your neighbor claimed that teenagers were racing their cars outside of his house, the absence of teenagers, cars, and tire marks on the street would be negative evidence against his claim.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?