How do we KNOW knowledge?

[essentialsaltes]

"axioms adopted by choice" sounds to this believer as being equivalent to faith.

I don't think so. When I want to do Euclidean geometry, I adopt those axioms. When I want to do non-Euclidean geometry, I adopt those axioms. I believe neither of them. There are no such things as lines and points.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't think so. When I want to do Euclidean geometry, I adopt those axioms. When I want to do non-Euclidean geometry, I adopt those axioms. I believe neither of them. There are no such things as lines and points.

Ah, but I'm doing life. Aren't you?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Ah, but I'm doing life. Aren't you?

Not me...just doing 15 to 20.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You made a claim and you believe it, so you must have evidence to support it since you have innate logic, right?

So, what is the evidence you use, to believe what you believe.

Everyone that has beliefs and everyone does, believes what they do because they are convinced by an accumulation of "evidences" that lead them to a conclusion. No one believes something is true without some form of confirmation and the weight and strength of that confirmation tends to strengthen the conclusion one holds.

With the experiences of the past from which to base my reluctance in providing evidence when asked I am asking those terms be spelled out before proceeding.

So again I ask, what constitutes evidence and how is it used to support the claims being made?

 

[Oncedeceived]

For instance, let's suppose we adopt the axiom of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Statements have to be either true or false. No other option is available.

Consider the statement: "If we remove one hair from the head of a woman with a full head of hair, then she still has a full head of hair."

It doesn't seem to be false. If you remove a hair, you likely wouldn't notice any difference. She has a full head of hair before and after.

So it must be true.

But if it's true, and she has a full head of hair afterwards, then you could remove another hair, and she'd still have a full head of hair afterwards.

And another, and another.

If you worked at it very hard, you will have removed all of the hair from her head. If the statement is true, then she must still have a full head of hair, even though she is bald!

That doesn't seem right. It appears this statement is neither true nor false. So perhaps our Axiom of the Excluded Middle has to be chucked out the window. Because it is not based on reality. Bald people do not have full heads of hair.

This would be a case where having a many-valued truth would probably be more helpful. After all, if you only plucked out the hairs from the left side of her head, you might well describe her as being "half bald" (or having half a full head of hair), which is like the truth value of her having a full head of hair being 0.5 (on a scale from 0 to 1).

If a woman had only one hair on her head before that one hair was pulled that statement would be proven false. If you remove only one hair on the head of a woman with a "full head of hair" and it leaves a full head of hair after pulling it it makes the statement true.

If you pull more than one hair, you are changing the original statement. The statement says you only pull one hair leaving the full head of hair. If you continue to pull more hair one by one you change the statement and to accurately state the process that is going on...pulling one hair and another and another, the statement is no longer the same or a valid reflection of the original statement. The statement now must take into account the fact that more than one hair is being removed.

To reflect the reality of the process going on...pulling more than one hair from the full head of hair one must recognize that it is illogical to understand the process as portrayed by the original sentence. We are not pulling only one hair, we are pulling multiple hairs to the point of leaving none.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Everyone that has beliefs and everyone does, believes what they do because they are convinced by an accumulation of "evidences" that lead them to a conclusion. No one believes something is true without some form of confirmation and the weight and strength of that confirmation tends to strengthen the conclusion one holds.

With the experiences of the past from which to base my reluctance in providing evidence when asked I am asking those terms be spelled out before proceeding.

So again I ask, what constitutes evidence and how is it used to support the claims being made?

(My bold)

I've heard that some have been dynamically influenced by the Holy Spirit -- while not even knowing such a thing existed, or even being able to understand the person sharing the gospel. Absolute language barrier, but when the person stopped explaining and began to pray in the Spirit -- persons who had been accustomed to surviving in an utterly hostile environment were touched by the power of God and began living as new people abandoning opium addiction, prostitution and were radically changed. All without so much as a reasoned argument. ( read: Chasing the Dragon)

 

[Oncedeceived]

(My bold)

I've heard that some have been dynamically influenced by the Holy Spirit -- while not even knowing such a thing existed, or even being able to understand the person sharing the gospel. Absolute language barrier, but when the person stopped explaining and began to pray in the Spirit -- persons who had been accustomed to surviving in an utterly hostile environment were touched by the power of God and began living as new people abandoning opium addiction, prostitution and were radically changed. All without so much as a reasoned argument. ( read: Chasing the Dragon)

Would you not agree that they had enough confirmation from the experience to form their conclusions?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Would you not agree that they had enough confirmation from the experience to form their conclusions?

It seemed to be enough for the apostle Paul, and those who he laid his hands on, taught and preached Jesus too, but some like King Agrippa needed a whole lot of convincing. Some for reasons, I cannot say -- simply will not to believe for though are they called they would not come because the price of denying themselves (abandoning selfishness) and following the Lord is too much.
Also some abide for awhile and the road gets hard to walk, they go back to what they were before.
Some draw close and get plenty of light, life and presence of Christ -- but some don't and they lose it.

 

[bhsmte]

Everyone that has beliefs and everyone does, believes what they do because they are convinced by an accumulation of "evidences" that lead them to a conclusion. No one believes something is true without some form of confirmation and the weight and strength of that confirmation tends to strengthen the conclusion one holds.

With the experiences of the past from which to base my reluctance in providing evidence when asked I am asking those terms be spelled out before proceeding.

So again I ask, what constitutes evidence and how is it used to support the claims being made?

Sorry, a whole bunch of people believe things without evidence that holds up to objective scrutiny. This site is a prime example of the same, when positions are challenged.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201104/the-two-kinds-belief

We all think differently and we all come to conclusions of what we believe differently. Some people require their beliefs to be reconcilable with well evidenced reality, some don't.

And since it is your claim, I will ask again, what is your evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

Would you not agree that they had enough confirmation from the experience to form their conclusions?

People are quite capable of internally reconciling certain beliefs for themselves.

Now, some of those beliefs, don't do well when an attempt is made to reconcile them with outside well evidenced reality.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If a woman had only one hair on her head before that one hair was pulled that statement would be proven false.

What? You would say that a woman with one hair on her head had a 'full head of hair'? I don't think so. That doesn't make it false.

If you remove only one hair on the head of a woman with a "full head of hair" and it leaves a full head of hair after pulling it it makes the statement true.

Yes, that's the point.

If you pull more than one hair, you are changing the original statement.

Wrong. When you pull a hair, according to the statement, if it is true, then she still has a full head of hair.

The statement says you only pull one hair leaving the full head of hair.

Exactly, after you pull a hair, then she still has a full head of hair. Thus you can use the statement again. "If we remove one hair from the head of a woman with a full head of hair [which she does, since we're assuming the statement was true], then she still has a full head of hair."

If you continue to pull more hair one by one you change the statement

Wrong. If the statement is true, it is always true. At the end of every hair plucking, she has a full head of hair, according to the statement (if it is true). And you can apply truth after truth as many times as you wish.

But if you do that, she winds up bald, and the statement is clearly not true.

The statement now must take into account the fact that more than one hair is being removed.

WRONG. The statement says that she's in the same state (having a full head of hair) after the removal of one hair. If you continue the process, each time you remove one hair, she's in the same state. According to the statement. And this leads to nonsense.

To reflect the reality of the process going on...pulling more than one hair from the full head of hair one must recognize that it is illogical to understand the process as portrayed by the original sentence. We are not pulling only one hair, we are pulling multiple hairs to the point of leaving none.

No, I'm sorry, you're not thinking about this clearly enough. The statement only refers to the removal of one hair, and that's all I'm using it for. You remove one hair, she's in the same state. You remove one hair, she's in the same state. You remove on hair, she's in the same state. All of that is based on the statement, which only refers to one hair removals.

But when you do that a few thousand times, she's bald, and it's clear that she no long has a full head of hair. Hence the paradox, and the determination that the statement is neither true nor false.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Not me...just doing 15 to 20.

(groan!)

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What? You would say that a woman with one hair on her head had a 'full head of hair'? I don't think so. That doesn't make it false.



Yes, that's the point.



Wrong. When you pull a hair, according to the statement, if it is true, then she still has a full head of hair.



Exactly, after you pull a hair, then she still has a full head of hair. Thus you can use the statement again. "If we remove one hair from the head of a woman with a full head of hair [which she does, since we're assuming the statement was true], then she still has a full head of hair."



Wrong. If the statement is true, it is always true. At the end of every hair plucking, she has a full head of hair, according to the statement (if it is true). And you can apply truth after truth as many times as you wish.

But if you do that, she winds up bald, and the statement is clearly not true.



WRONG. The statement says that she's in the same state (having a full head of hair) after the removal of one hair. If you continue the process, each time you remove one hair, she's in the same state. According to the statement. And this leads to nonsense.



No, I'm sorry, you're not thinking about this clearly enough. The statement only refers to the removal of one hair, and that's all I'm using it for. You remove one hair, she's in the same state. You remove one hair, she's in the same state. You remove on hair, she's in the same state. All of that is based on the statement, which only refers to one hair removals.

But when you do that a few thousand times, she's bald, and it's clear that she no long has a full head of hair. Hence the paradox, and the determination that the statement is neither true nor false.

Good example. In other words, not every condition can be said to be definately real or not real; there are marginal situations.

Example Two: A calf is born, and the farmer can pick up the calf. When the calf is grown into a cow, the farmer cannot pick up the full grown cow. So for every day between the birth and the growth, we can definately . . . or not . . assert the farmer can still pick up the cow. Yes or no?

Reality is, there were increasingly difficult days, and there were days when it was open to serious debate whether or not the growing calf was able to be picked up. (Does it count if the farmer gets the calf off the ground but has a hernia?)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

'....outside well evidenced reality.'

You seem to have a few phrases with which you do your bullying ( 'force' ) , the one quoted and the other blunt tool : 'evidence' You remind me of a girl with a sledge hammer trying to remove a tooth.

 

[bhsmte]

You seem to have a few phrases with which you do your bullying ( 'force' ) , the one quoted and the other blunt tool : 'evidence' You remind me of a girl with a sledge hammer trying to remove a tooth.

Well, I guess you can percieve that term as you like.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well, I guess you can percieve that term as you like.

On some forums, even beyond this some -- you might find your psyche banned or even charged for harassment. Better watch out here come Big Brother's thought police.

 

[bhsmte]

On some forums, even beyond this some -- you might find your psyche banned or even charged for harassment. Better watch out here come Big Brother's thought police.

Hey, if you claim using the term; "well evidenced reality" is bullying or harassment, that is up to your own perceptions.

Reality can indeed be inconvenient at times.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hey, if you claim using the term; "well evidenced reality" is bullying or harassment, that is up to your own perceptions.

Reality can indeed be inconvenient at times.

Repeated use soul man. is like a form of BRAIN WASHING!

 

[bhsmte]

Repeated use soul man. is like a form of BRAIN WASHING!

If people were critiqued based on repeating things on this board, no one would be left.

Brainwashing on an internet site? Hilarious!

 

[Oncedeceived]

You seem to have a few phrases with which you do your bullying ( 'force' ) , the one quoted and the other blunt tool : 'evidence' You remind me of a girl with a sledge hammer trying to remove a tooth.

You will find this poster is a wannabe Psychologist and has friends that are psychologists that like to give their "assessments" on the Christians here and pronounce their behavior as comfort seeking, evidence denying, fuzzy thinking humans which have a basic need to believe. This poster rarely produces dialog but rather comes in to make remarks about other posters.