Dogmatism

[Zosimus]

If you are certain of something, then you should hold the truth of that thing regardless the evidence presented against it. To do so would be irrational.

Yet if you hold to a theory when the evidence disproves it, you are also irrational.

Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

QED

 

[JasonClark]

If you are certain of something, then you should hold the truth of that thing regardless the evidence presented against it. To do so would be irrational.

Yet if you hold to a theory when the evidence disproves it, you are also irrational.

Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

That does not make sense, everything you have written you have completely backwards, how can I be certain of something for which there is no evidence supporting it?
and how can anyone hold to a theory when there is evidence that disproves that theory?

Would you like to start again?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you are certain of something, then you should hold the truth of that thing regardless the evidence presented against it.

Fail. Being certain is not the same as being infallible.

 

[crjmurray]

 

[Zosimus]

Funny.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemic-paradoxes/#DogParPuzAboLosKno

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are certain of something, then you should hold the truth of that thing regardless the evidence presented against it. To do so would be irrational.

Yet if you hold to a theory when the evidence disproves it, you are also irrational.

Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

QED

You're assuming evidence dictates rationality.

And for the most part, that is correct.

But there is another world where rationality cannot go, yet it is not itself irrational.

That world is the spirit world.

In the spirit world, rational logical sense submits to the theological sense.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you are certain of something, then you should hold the truth of that thing regardless the evidence presented against it. To do so would be irrational.

Yet if you hold to a theory when the evidence disproves it, you are also irrational.

Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

QED

That's why it's called Dogma, because things laid down by those in charge does not mean it is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

 

[juvenissun]

If you are certain of something, then you should hold the truth of that thing regardless the evidence presented against it. To do so would be irrational.

Yet if you hold to a theory when the evidence disproves it, you are also irrational.

Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

The mistake is here.
Even you think something is true, you STILL NEED to consider all the negative evidences very carefully. You may not disprove the negative evidences. But at least you NEED to neutralize them in order to proceed with your belief.

QED

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The mistake is here.
Even you think something is true, you STILL NEED to consider all the negative evidences very carefully. You may not disprove the negative evidences. But at least you NEED to neutralize them in order to proceed with your belief.

But once repeated observations and tests show a theory to be wrong - to continue to hold to it in the face of the evidence would be what? Dogmatic?

 

[juvenissun]

But once repeated observations and tests show a theory to be wrong - to continue to hold to it in the face of the evidence would be what? Dogmatic?

If you can not argue any more, then yes, dogmatic.
If you still can argue, then it is not. It depends on your knowledge and faith.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you can not argue any more, then yes, dogmatic.
If you still can argue, then it is not. It depends on your knowledge and faith.

Or whether or not someone continues to ignore the evidence and argues anyways? Just because one can continue to argue does not mean one has any valid grounds on which to continue arguing. Some (wont say which group - not implying you - in this discussion of beliefs) argue simply so they do not have to abandon those dogmatic beliefs they hold and accept the evidence at hand.

But I agree, if one can continue to argue and it is valid and not from ignoring evidence, then it is not dogmatic.

 

[bhsmte]

If you are certain of something, then you should hold the truth of that thing regardless the evidence presented against it. To do so would be irrational.

Yet if you hold to a theory when the evidence disproves it, you are also irrational.

Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

QED

Depends how one defines "certain".

I am certain, the sun will come up tomorrow, the lights will come on when I flip the switch and that evolution is true.

Of course, I could be wrong and the sun does not come up tomorrow, but I am; 99.999999999999999 percent sure it will and would apply very high confidence levels to the lights coming on and evolution. Of course, if being certain requires 100% confidence with zero room for error, than I would agree, one can not be certain about anything. Not the way I choose to live my life though, but you can.

Lastly, I guess this would also mean, nothing you say on this board, is anything you are certain about and we should all keep that in mind when reading your posts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Depends how one defines "certain".

I am certain, the sun will come up tomorrow, the lights will come on when I flip the switch and that evolution is true.

Of course, I could be wrong and the sun does not come up tomorrow, but I am; 99.999999999999999 percent sure it will and would apply very high confidence levels to the lights coming on and evolution. Of course, if being certain requires 100% confidence with zero room for error, than I would agree, one can not be certain about anything. Not the way I choose to live my life though, but you can.

Lastly, I guess this would also mean, nothing you say on this board, is anything you are certain about and we should all keep that in mind when reading your posts.

I am certain the sun will come up tomorrow, the lights "may or may not" come on when I flip the switch, depending on circumstances but it is most likely, and evolution is false.

And I could also be wrong, the sun may go supernova tomorrow - unlikely, but I also am 99.99999999999999% sure it will rise and would apply very high confidence levels to the lights coming on and evolution be false. Except I am 100% sure evolution is false, since none of the evidence agrees with it.

 

[crjmurray]

I am certain the sun will come up tomorrow, the lights "may or may not" come on when I flip the switch, depending on circumstances but it is most likely, and evolution is false.

And I could also be wrong, the sun may go supernova tomorrow - unlikely, but I also am 99.99999999999999% sure it will rise and would apply very high confidence levels to the lights coming on and evolution be false. Except I am 100% sure evolution is false, since none of the evidence agrees with it.

If NONE of the evidence agrees with it then what motivation is there for 99% of scientists to agree with it? Why do the people on this board agree with it? Why do I agree with it?

 

[juvenissun]

Or whether or not someone continues to ignore the evidence and argues anyways? Just because one can continue to argue does not mean one has any valid grounds on which to continue arguing. Some (wont say which group - not implying you - in this discussion of beliefs) argue simply so they do not have to abandon those dogmatic beliefs they hold and accept the evidence at hand.

But I agree, if one can continue to argue and it is valid and not from ignoring evidence, then it is not dogmatic.

True. Many people give invalid argument without knowing it. In that case, it is dogmatics caused by stupidity. In God's term, they are "blind".
We should constantly pray that God has mercy to open our eyes.

 

[bhsmte]

I am certain the sun will come up tomorrow, the lights "may or may not" come on when I flip the switch, depending on circumstances but it is most likely, and evolution is false.

And I could also be wrong, the sun may go supernova tomorrow - unlikely, but I also am 99.99999999999999% sure it will rise and would apply very high confidence levels to the lights coming on and evolution be false. Except I am 100% sure evolution is false, since none of the evidence agrees with it.

Cool.

 

[SkyWriting]

Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

That's because anything can be rationalized. So you are correct.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If NONE of the evidence agrees with it then what motivation is there for 99% of scientists to agree with it? Why do the people on this board agree with it? Why do I agree with it?

Because you refuse to accept the truth - you don't want to be responsible for your actions or lack thereof.

You probably agree with it because you refuse to accept that all life is observed to propagate by breed mating with breed and producing a new breed. At no time do those species become separate species - at most they become infraspecific taxa.

Just as with the Tiger and Lion in which they named them separate species before they found out they could interbreed, yet refuse to correct their mistakes. Just as with Darwin's finches which were classified as separate species long before we observed them interbreeding amongst themselves, and again, they still refuse to correct their mistakes. So your belief is compounded upon mistake after mistake that was never corrected but left as it was. Or even the baby dinosaurs they incorrectly classified as separate species - in which evolutionist versus evolutionist is battling as we speak. Some wanting to correct the mistakes - the majority wanting things left as they are so the inconsistencies do not begin appearing in even greater number.

Scientists simply want their incorrect theory to be correct - so tend to jump to conclusions before all the facts are in. So if they ever get around to correcting the clear classification errors in Darwin's Finches, perhaps we'll discuss this again. Until then it's useless as they won't even list several interbreeding breeds as the same species - making any classification worthless.

 

[bhsmte]

That's because anything can be rationalized. So you are correct.

With the human mind, you would be correct, one can rationalize anything to themselves.

All you need, is an ample supply of psychological need and away we go.

 

[The Cadet]

If you are certain of something, then you should hold the truth of that thing regardless the evidence presented against it. To do so would be irrational.

Yet if you hold to a theory when the evidence disproves it, you are also irrational.

Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

QED

Well... yes. One of the fundamental axioms of science is that all "truth" is to be held tentatively. Matt Dillahunty, for one, rejects absolute certainty as unattainable and ultimately rather useless. Not really controversial, that. The problem is people who take the step from "nothing is absolutely certain" to "we cannot know anything". We're constantly forced to draw conclusions based on incomplete information. However, just because we're not completely certain doesn't mean it's a good idea to, say, inject oneself with a virus that all available information implies is lethal on the off chance that every single scientific source is lying.