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 nonetheless is still unlikely to succeed, when the other suspects that idea is going to disagree with their beliefs ..
That’s where the conversation comes in at. They need to have a conversation with me to understand my position on issues.... the problem here is that epistemology has less to do with what makes sense to you alone and more to do with what can make sense to a larger number of people. In other words, how you 'justify' your statements and conclusions is something that needs to be demonstrated, explained and analyzed in order to be of worth to other people.
HomosexualityBut if you want an example, let's talk about something controversial like: homosexuality, pedophilia, communism, atheism, e.s.p, or human rights? Why should anyone care what you think and how you make sense of these things IF (let's say) you approve of any of these things?
How something is measured is different than if something has a physical existence or not.Read the link.
How? Please explain.. and the objective demonstrable point is that your notion of 'physical existence' is no more or less of a model than the coastline of England is.
IOW we all share the human perception of it, and the human perception is the only perception that matters.I'll give you a testable reason then. That reason is that everyone shares in the same type of sensory organs and a human brain and therefore we all perceive commonalities with some differences.
Do you know of a better definition of what is real?As I said: 'I have not yet seen an adequate definition of the concept of reality in a dictionary .. so, if that is the source of your working definition, there's a lot more (mental) work ahead.' .. and that reference hasn't changed anything about what I've been talking about.
Do you share my belief that people have knowledge concerning the physical world that is not subject to the human mind? If not, do you really believe something like gravity is actually subject to the human mind?Thank you for sharing your belief .. It now sits alongside a huge pile of the rest of 'em .. in this case, under the heading of: 'Miracles' and you have also provided evidence that your learning style is by way of beliefs. (Ie: the same as any other religious folk .. which also supports the idea that your version of Atheism is also based on belief).
You are not thinking scientifically, yourself, when you choose to believe that scientists have knowledge that is mind independent, but I respect your choice to believe that. That belief makes precisely zero difference to the science they perform .. ie: where either you, or they, choose to hold such beliefs ... because science isn't based on such untestable beliefs, and there is abundant objective evidence that scientific knowledge is in fact, the accumulated thinking of many hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of human minds.
Unless you have some way of discounting that huge amount of objectively sourced evidence, your belief is a very feeble one indeed.
Nope .. measurement is the process by which a given model's attributes acquire their empirical values. Those values give meaning to the overall model, be it a tree or the coastline of England.How something is measured is different than if something has a physical existence or not.
See Model Dependent Realism (for the background):Ken-1122 said:How? Please explain
So, a lot of what I'm saying in the physical existence and coastline example can be understood in a similar framework of the well-known truism 'the map is not the territory'. This truism is often used as a way of distinguishing maps of reality, from 'reality itself', so it could be viewed as a confirmation of some kind of mind independent reality. But that's not actually a scientifically correct interpretation because it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings. The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call a map is a different kind of concept (or model) than what we call a territory, but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, so they are actually just different kinds of maps.While not rejecting the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", model-dependent realism suggests that we cannot know "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", but only an approximation of it provided by the intermediary of models. The view of models in model-dependent realism also is related to the instrumentalist approach to modern science, that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality (a matter possibly impossible to establish).
We don't have direct access to anything other than our perceptions.Ken-1122 said:IOW we all share the human perception of it, and the human perception is the only perception that matters.
I don't need dictionary definitions. The two respective methods we use for establishing the meaning of 'reality' distinguish what we mean by that word, over any other (the two methods are: the scientific method and the belief method).Ken-1122 said:Do you know of a better definition of what is real?
What I might happen to believe, or not believe, is completely irrelevant to how science gives its gravity model its meaning in science's objective reality, (or your so-called 'physical world').Ken-1122 said:Do you share my belief that people have knowledge concerning the physical world that is not subject to the human mind? If not, do you really believe something like gravity is actually subject to the human mind?
umm... no, my friend, that's not what I said.You claim I previously said something that I now say goes against what I believe...
imo the answers to those questions would be found using the same kind of interior sensations we've been talking about.yet you are unable to provide evidence that I actually said it? I suspect you misunderstood me.
There are lots of questions I don’t have answers to; nobody knows everything. All I can tell you is what I believe to be true or not true. Perhaps we are done.
I’m not talking about acquiring empirical value, I’m talking about whether something exist or notNope .. measurement is the process by which a given model's attributes acquire their empirical values.
The reason your argument fails is because you are trying to compare the accuracy of a map of an actual plot of land, to a tree in my front lawn. Maps are approximate; they were never meant to be 100% accurate. When you experience the tree in my front lawn, what you are experiencing is 100% accurate.So, a lot of what I'm saying in the physical existence and coastline example can be understood in a similar framework of the well-known truism 'the map is not the territory'. This truism is often used as a way of distinguishing maps of reality, from 'reality itself', so it could be viewed as a confirmation of some kind of mind independent reality. But that's not actually a scientifically correct interpretation because it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings. The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call a map is a different kind of concept (or model) than what we call a territory, but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, so they are actually just different kinds of maps.
So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be 'what we call a territory is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test: whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of 'map' and 'territory' are suitably serving our needs.
It's as though some people think 'maps' (or coastlines) and 'territories' (or physical reality, or trees) are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!
Do you agree with the dictionary definition I provided? If so, for the sake of this conversation let’s stick with that. If you don’t agree, for the sake of the conversation provide a definition YOU will be willing to accept so we can understand each other.I don't need dictionary definitions. The two respective methods we use for establishing the meaning of 'reality' distinguish what we mean by that word, over any other (the two methods are: the scientific method and the belief method).
Distinctions are more useful ... especially in science. See, 'reality' is just a word. It has a meaning like all other words have meanings. We give it our meaning. A scientific thinker gives it meanings from conclusions based on objective test results. Those meanings are contextual and provisional. A believer gives it meanings based on beliefs. Both methods require a human mind and they produce different kinds of meanings for 'reality'.
The meanings we give to 'reality' aren't floating around in some ethereal space somewhere like some kind of 'thing' (or object which 'truly exists, exteriorly') waiting for us to grab it.
The notion that 'exterior physical reality' is something independent from our minds, is a pure belief.
All of what I say here isn't just some opinion of mine, its the conclusion formed from an abundance of test results produced from an objectively testable hypothesis called the Mind, (or Model), Dependent Reality Hypothesis.
Care to answer my question? In case you forgot, do YOU really believe the force of gravity is subject to the human mind?What I might happen to believe, or not believe, is completely irrelevant to how science gives its gravity model its meaning in science's objective reality, (or your so-called 'physical world').
I could believe in say, Druidism, and this would make precisely no difference whatsoever.
What if I know that other people (scholars more precisely) have already clearly communicated an idea? Do I need to re-invent and re-represent all of that? .... No, I dare say: I think not! This is why when I say people need to do their homework, it's because I know that there's more to the overall conversation (like this one here about 'praxis' than what other folks might presently understand), and I think they need to learn better how to research and re-evaluate their preconceived notions about various issues pertaining to epistemology, protocols, and the 'doing' of science.If you want to communicate and idea to others, then you bear the responsibility of making sure that idea is clearly communicated. If you don't make it easy to understand, then people will conclude you are wasting their time.
Then that person shouldn't come onto a website that is essentially antithetical to their whole way of thought, now should they? And no, in the 10+ years I've been here on CF, there have been plenty of times that I have "made myself clear" only to be summarily dismissed with a mere handwave of skeptical aplomb........ so, I don't quite agree with you that it benefits either me or anyone else to work hard to "make things clear," especially if there is a psycho-social dynamic of motivation on the part of the listener/reader at work in all of this.If you make it hard for the other person to comprehend an argument they suspect is going to disagree with them, they'll decide it's not worth their time and just ignore it. Making your arguments clear and easy to understand will only benefit you.
... I never said anything---like nada---about NOT TESTING anything. This is you construing what you think I mean. Sure, we should test ideas! However, one also needs to realize that not all ideas are equal, and thus not all ideas are testable or testable in the same way.But what's the point of it if the ideas are NOT tested? Then they remain nothing but ideas, and they can tell us nothing real about the world.
So, does this mean you're actually interested (motivated?) to dig deeper into questioning your own assumptions about your own epistemological framework along with your praxis when learning and testing ideas?I don't assume I have all the information. I fully expect that others have information that I don't have. But if you come in, tell me you have information that proves me wrong, but then make it difficult for me to get that information by being unclear, ambiguous, or otherwise hard to understand, then I'm going to say, "well then, forget about it."
Earlier, I wasn't referring to accuracy with my apple/barrel analogy, but now since you bring that up, I'll offer that when it comes to doing research and testing, then we need to do some extensive work, usually by repeating our protocols on one hand and triangulating our ongoing angles of understanding with some idea on the other hand.But it still applies to the idea of a source being accurate, which you tried to disprove with the apple/barrell analogy.
In time, you'll come to agree. In time and with a bit more education.I disagree with your disagreement.
I said nothing about forcing anyone to change. That's you who's bringing this topic up (and it's you who seems to try to be using it as an escape hatch so you don't have to do more research about the things of which I've alluded to above).One shouldn't try to force a change in another person's worldview, but there's nothing wrong with discussing different worldviews with people who willingly go into a forum where such discussions take place.
I wish!What if I know that other people (scholars more precisely) have already clearly communicated an idea? Do I need to re-invent and re-represent all of that? .... No, I dare say: I think not! This is why when I say people need to do their homework, it's because I know that there's more to the overall conversation (like this one here about 'praxis' than what other folks might presently understand), and I think they need to learn better how to research and re-evaluate their preconceived notions about various issues pertaining to epistemology, protocols, and the 'doing' of science.
.. and there is always such a component. The name of the game then, (IMO), is to at least distinguish, and be aware of, how that component influences one's default perceptions.2PhiloVoid said:And no, in the 10+ years I've been here on CF, there have been plenty of times that I have "made myself clear" only to be summarily dismissed with a mere handwave of skeptical aplomb........ so, I don't quite agree with you that it benefits either me or anyone else to work hard to "make things clear," especially if there is a psycho-social dynamic of motivation on the part of the listener/reader at work in all of this.
I think science's objective testing is the best we have when it comes to distinguishing what we mean whenever we invoke the concept of reality though ..2PhiloVoid said:... I never said anything---like nada---about NOT TESTING anything. This is you construing what you think I mean. Sure, we should test ideas! However, one also needs to realize that not all ideas are equal, and thus not all ideas are testable or testable in the same way.
Oh boy .. here comes another epic!2PhiloVoid said:So, does this mean you're actually interested (motivated?) to dig deeper into questioning your own assumptions about your own epistemological framework along with your praxis when learning and testing ideas?
Its evidently very difficult to encourage others to succeed in doing that(?)2PhiloVoid said:Earlier, I wasn't referring to accuracy with my apple/barrel analogy, but now since you bring that up, I'll offer that when it comes to doing research and testing, then we need to do some extensive work, usually by repeating our protocols on one hand and triangulating our ongoing angles of understanding with some idea on the other hand.
The point of the paradox is that there exists no true mind independent, (ie: your 'physically real'), length of a coastline. Agreement between (scientifically) like-thinking minds is required. The length of a coastline is a mind model (a concept) and not a 'thing'. Because the length of a coastline is also a key attribute of the model defining a coastline, 'physical' coastlines are also mind dependent models. A continent is a key part of the crust of our planet. Would you say the crust of our planet is a mind independent 'thing', (or object), or a mind dependent model? How about a planet, (of which a 'crust' is a key defining attribute for our particular planet)? Is that a mind independent object, or a mind dependent model?I’m not talking about acquiring empirical value, I’m talking about whether something exist or not
And I don’t understand why the measure of the coastline of England is such a paradox. The only reason they can’t agree on a measurement is because they allow for multiple ways of measurement. If they picked ONE system of measure and stuck with it, they would get the same measurement each time; problem solved!
No .. I'm saying that all of: 'map', 'actual plot of land' and 'tree', are all concepts or models our minds create. There is no evidence that they are 'things which exist' independently from our minds. But the good news is that you don't have to believe me (indeed, I'm specifically asking you to not do that). Conduct your own objective investigation and you should be able to agree with me, provided you follow the well published and widely taught objective scientific method.Ken-1122 said:The reason your argument fails is because you are trying to compare the accuracy of a map of an actual plot of land, to a tree in my front lawn.
Why? Just because you claim that?Ken-1122 said:When you experience the tree in my front lawn, what you are experiencing is 100% accurate.
Already answered in my prior post. If you haven't comprehended what I've been spelling out and linking references to you, all this while, then there's not much point in continuing this discussion.Ken-1122 said:Do you agree with the dictionary definition I provided? If so, for the sake of this conversation let’s stick with that. If you don’t agree, for the sake of the conversation provide a definition YOU will be willing to accept so we can understand each other.
Everything about the concepts of 'force' and 'gravity' are mind dependent, including how you experience them and how your mind describes them. There is exactly zip objective evidence for that they exist independently of our minds unless you can devise a test which excludes the influence of any human minds from such a test. Believing that such things exist independently from our human minds is as close to being a miraculous belief as I can conceive.Ken-1122 said:Care to answer my question? In case you forgot, do YOU really believe the force of gravity is subject to the human mind?
What if I know that other people (scholars more precisely) have already clearly communicated an idea? Do I need to re-invent and re-represent all of that? .... No, I dare say: I think not! This is why when I say people need to do their homework, it's because I know that there's more to the overall conversation (like this one here about 'praxis' than what other folks might presently understand), and I think they need to learn better how to research and re-evaluate their preconceived notions about various issues pertaining to epistemology, protocols, and the 'doing' of science.
So, no, I'm not just going to "hand over the cash and shut-up" ...
Then that person shouldn't come onto a website that is essentially antithetical to their whole way of thought, now should they? And no, in the 10+ years I've been here on CF, there have been plenty of times that I have "made myself clear" only to be summarily dismissed with a mere handwave of skeptical aplomb........ so, I don't quite agree with you that it benefits either me or anyone else to work hard to "make things clear," especially if there is a psycho-social dynamic of motivation on the part of the listener/reader at work in all of this.
... I never said anything---like nada---about NOT TESTING anything. This is you construing what you think I mean. Sure, we should test ideas! However, one also needs to realize that not all ideas are equal, and thus not all ideas are testable or testable in the same way.
<<SNIP>>
Earlier, I wasn't referring to accuracy with my apple/barrel analogy, but now since you bring that up, I'll offer that when it comes to doing research and testing, then we need to do some extensive work, usually by repeating our protocols on one hand and triangulating our ongoing angles of understanding with some idea on the other hand.
In time, you'll come to agree. In time and with a bit more education.
I said nothing about forcing anyone to change. That's you who's bringing this topic up (and it's you who seems to try to be using it as an escape hatch so you don't have to do more research about the things of which I've alluded to above).
Actually there is evidence that the tree in my front lawn exists independent of our minds. The tree is matter. Matter exists independent of the human mind.No .. I'm saying that all of: 'map', 'actual plot of land' and 'tree', are all concepts or models our minds create. There is no evidence that they are 'things which exist' independently from our minds.
If you come to my house, I can demonstrate the test to you.Why? Just because you claim that?
Where's your objective test and results which would allow me to verify that assertion? What is you standard for concluding '100% accurate'?
What do you base that on? Do you have an outside source to support your claim?Everything about the concepts of 'force' and 'gravity' are mind dependent, including how you experience them and how your mind describes them.
Matter is a model. Everyday 'matter' is composed of atoms. Take a look at the history of atoms. There is an absolutely epic history of how an 'atom' has changed .. dating back to ancient Greece. That change has human 'fingerprints' all over it, including individual human's names stamped all over it .. Democritis, Socrates, Boyle, Dalton, Newton, Bohr, Rutherford, Schrodinger, etc, etc.Actually there is evidence that the tree in my front lawn exists independent of our minds. The tree is matter. Matter exists independent of the human mind.
If you think that's going to demonstrate mind independence, you're having yourself on for the simple reason that, somewhat unfortunately, neither one of us can conveniently just separate ourselves from our minds by coming to your house!Ken-1122 said:If you come to my house, I can demonstrate the test to you.
For 'force', look up development of the concept here .. (even the title demonstrates its a model (or concept)! The opening phrase says: 'Philosophers in antiquity used the concept of force in the study of ..'Ken-1122 said:What do you base that on? Do you have an outside source to support your claim?
I didn't say human influenced. Those atoms you speak of would exist regardless of human thought.Matter is a model. Everyday 'matter' is composed of atoms. Take a look at the history of atoms. There is an absolutely epic history of how an 'atom' has changed .. dating back to ancient Greece. That change has human 'fingerprints' all over it, including individual human's names stamped all over it .. Democritis, Socrates, Boyle, Dalton, Newton, Bohr, Rutherford, Schrodinger, etc, etc.
How could atoms have changed so much if atoms, (or matter, which is composed of them), were totally independent of human influence, eh? Answer me that?
.. and that is a model you hold in your mind.Those atoms you speak of would exist regardless of human thought.
When I'm thinking scientifically, it doesn't really matter what I believe .. and I like thinking scientifically .. it produces consistency.Is it by your faith that you don’t believe in God?
The BB is envisaged as having happened everywhere .. (for logically consistent reasons).imisswarmth said:Those trying to tell me there is no God are demanding that I should believe in their theory that a Big Bang happened in a place they don’t know anything about.
When I'm thinking scientifically, it doesn't really matter what I believe .. and I like thinking scientifically .. it produces consistency.
The BB is envisaged as having happened everywhere .. (for logically consistent reasons).
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?