Scrutinizing Street Epistemology and Street Evangelism

[Uber Genius]

You used my comments, which I unlike many others applaud the use of my output

Of course I haven't introduced the subject, so many, many, many authors that have dealt with these subjects. Carry on as you will.

Not much I can add, except that skeptics and in my opinion are limited by being skeptical. But, skeptical to what, I am not totally sure.

So here we finally get to the fundamental point of why I suggested the claims made by Peter Boghossian were incoherent, that is to say self-refuting.

And why I suggested that it is fruitless to argue against someone who claims street epistemology is possibly an epistemology at all.

It is like arguing with someone who believes bachelors can be single, or 2+2 is not = 4, or argues "Triangles can have 4 sides."

A waste of time until they avail themselves of some philosophical training (those arguing in favor of SE).

Your conversational items will spin off a near-infinite number of rebuttals from skeptics who will not get any closer to a baseline philosophical understanding.

They can produce comment after comment ad-nauseam that challenge definition, or claim that they don't "know" something misrepresenting their belief as knowledge.

But we all have our differing degrees of tolerance for such things out here. Best of luck.

 

[Non sequitur]

Depends on the circumstances and the need to know. It's possible if I tell someone my parents full name, some people will do this and others won't, I am the latter I won't tell people my parents full name. So it depends on what information the person wants to divulge. So we take 80 people and they have choice of telling their parents name to a strange, of those 80 how many would do it, and for what reason. This is why this is a vague question, you might tell your parents name to a strange and I won't, and so on and so on.

Well, I included it in the question, so that is a yes?

 

[Non sequitur]

It the double speak of equivocating atheism and agnostic. That is not just common but almost de riguer among internet skeptics and New Atheist alike.

"Since I was responding to Quatona and his claim of special status on defining Atheism, and not your comments per se."

apparently you missed this quote in my comment.

"My goal was to poison the wells to this doublespeak by skeptics. Not to suggest that you had introduced the subject."

Apparently you missed this quote as well.

So since Quatona was using a special pleading qua the definitions I was poisoning the wells to further logically fallacious tricks by skeptics generally.

Not complex.

No, I got that. I just didn't see text of him equivocating the two.

 

[ShamashUruk]

So here we finally get to the fundamental point of why I suggested the claims made by Peter Boghossian were incoherent, that is to say self-refuting.

And why I suggested that it is fruitless to argue against someone who claims street epistemology is possibly an epistemology at all.

It is like arguing with someone who believes bachelors can be single, or 2+2 is not = 4, or argues "Triangles can have 4 sides."

A waste of time until they avail themselves of some philosophical training (those arguing in favor of SE).

Your conversational items will spin off a near-infinite number of rebuttals from skeptics who will not get any closer to a baseline philosophical understanding.

They can produce comment after comment ad-nauseam that challenge definition, or claim that they don't "know" something misrepresenting their belief as knowledge.

But we all have our differing degrees of tolerance for such things out here. Best of luck.

From the epistemology videos I have seen, and even the street preaching videos I have seen. It seems that there is no cohesive debates. Questions are one sided and give no room for opinion.

Ray comfort is a street preacher and he oft fails. In this aspect these atheists do the same thing.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Well, I included it in the question, so that is a yes?

It can be a yes or no, I'm not likely to tell you something or divulge information unless there is a need to know.

 

[Non sequitur]

If I said how they did, then that would be a different question and could have a different response.

However, I did not ask that.

But I will rewrite it, anyway.

Is it possible for someone to know the names of your parents?

Keep in mind, possible means "able to be done", not probable ("likely to be the case or happen"), nor how it can be done.

 

[ShamashUruk]

If I said how they did, then that would be a different question and could have a different response.

However, I did not ask that.

But I will rewrite it, anyway.

Is it possible for someone to know the names of your parents?

Keep in mind, possible means "able to be done", not probable ("likely to be the case or happen"), nor how it can be done.

It's possible, if the person is told, or the information is somehow divulged, but if the information is not given or not accessible, then it cannot be given.

 

[Non sequitur]

It's possible, if the person is told, or the information is somehow divulged, but if the information is not given or not accessible, then it cannot be given.

Agreed. Information has to have been accessible to obtain it.

This would also apply to friends they knew and/or surface information about them, yes?

 

[ShamashUruk]

Agreed. Information has to have been accessible to obtain it.

This would also apply to friends they knew and/or surface information about them, yes?

Not necessarily, people don't always divulge information in that manner. I have known a guy where I live for about 3 years and I barely know anything about him. I know his name and that he lives down the road from me, nothing else, and I only know where he lives because I've seen him walking to his house. So no not all information is accessible and I'd hardly call knowing someone's name "surface information". For example I have seen the guy with kids before, and have asked him whose kids they are, he ignores my questions and only really says "hi", not much else.

 

[Non sequitur]

Not necessarily, people don't always divulge information in that manner. I have known a guy where I live for about 3 years and I barely know anything about him. I know his name and that he lives down the road from me, nothing else, and I only know where he lives because I've seen him walking to his house. So no not all information is accessible and I'd hardly call knowing someone's name "surface information". For example I have seen the guy with kids before, and have asked him whose kids they are, he ignores my questions and only really says "hi", not much else.

So close...

You are back to talking about the "how" and plausibility. This is not what I asked.

Is it possible for someone to know the names of your parents friends?

Keep in mind, possible means "able to be done", not probable ("likely to be the case or happen"), nor how it can be done.

 

[ShamashUruk]

So close...

You are back to talking about the "how" and plausibility. This is not what I asked.

Is it possible for someone to know the names of your parents friends?

Keep in mind, possible means "able to be done", not probable ("likely to be the case or happen"), nor how it can be done.

It's only possible for someone to know if the names are divulged and for what reason. Depends on who the person is, the circumstances, so on. You remove all these factors, which are actual factors in any event. It's not easy to forecast what a person is going to divulge, it depends on why the information would be divulged.

Since you like analogies so much, it would be like you telling me that birds fly south for the winter, without taking into consideration that all birds cannot fly. Even those that cannot fly, we should take into account those that are sick, injured, infantile, so on, meaning not all birds fly south for the winter.

You are producing generalities for your scenario.

 

[Non sequitur]

It's only possible for someone to know if the names are divulged and for what reason. Depends on who the person is, the circumstances, so on. You remove all these factors, which are actual factors in any event. It's not easy to forecast what a person is going to divulge, it depends on why the information would be divulged.

Again, here you do with the "how" and proceed to talk about it. This is not what I asked.

If I asked, is is possible a dog could ride a on skateboard, the answer is yes or no. That's it.

Not, "Well, it depends on if the dog has had training. Plus if it was a viral video, we can't know if it were faked. Also, different dogs have different leg strength and length. This could make it easier or harder to do. Plus, it would depend if it was up hill, downhill or on flat land. If the dog fell off after, say, 5 seconds I would say it doesn't count, however others might."

Is it possible for someone to know the names of your parents friends?

Since you like analogies so much, it would be like you telling me that birds fly south for the winter, without taking into consideration that all birds cannot fly. Even those that cannot fly, we should take into account those that are sick, injured, infantile, so on, meaning not all birds fly south for the winter.

You are producing generalities for your scenario.

This is not even remotely analagous. I have not made any claims.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Again, here you do with the "how" and proceed to talk about it. This is not what I asked.

If I asked, is is possible a dog could ride a on skateboard, the answer is yes or no. That's it.

Not, "Well, it depends on if the dog has had training. Plus if it was a viral video, we can't know if it were faked. Also, different dogs have different leg strength and length. This could make it easier or harder to do. Plus, it would depend if it was up hill, downhill or on flat land. If the dog fell off after, say, 5 seconds I would say it doesn't count, however others might."

Is it possible for someone to know the names of your parents friends?

This is not even remotely analagous. I have not made any claims.

You made my point about the dog, only the persons who are involved would know the capabilities of the dog.

To your question, by someone, so Mike and Mary are married and their children are aware of their name, that is someone. So Bob and Hellen the children are aware that Mike and Mary are their parents and know their name.

But, not everyone know's Mike and Mary's name, let's say Mike and Mary live in Texas would it be feasible that George who lives in Japan knows Mike and Mary's name if never meeting Mike or Mary.

So many avenues of approach to one question.

Here let's try it on for size, this is an example of your vague and broad-sweeping questions. Are all children subject to the flu? In most cases the answer is yes, but not in all, some children will never experience the flu due to their immunity systems.

 

[Non sequitur]

You made my point about the dog, only the persons who are involved would know the capabilities of the dog.

To your question, by someone, so Mike and Mary are married and their children are aware of their name, that is someone. So Bob and Hellen the children are aware that Mike and Mary are their parents and know their name.

But, not everyone know's Mike and Mary's name, let's say Mike and Mary live in Texas would it be feasible that George who lives in Japan knows Mike and Mary's name if never meeting Mike or Mary.

So many avenues of approach to one question.

Here let's try it on for size, this is an example of your vague and broad-sweeping questions. Are all children subject to the flu? In most cases the answer is yes, but not in all, some children will never experience the flu due to their immunity systems.

You missed the entire point of that dog question. I typed that out to show how that is not an answer to a yes or no question.

You are answering with how it is possible or not possible.
We have not yet determined whether if it is or is not possible.

Is the statement below true or false?

Something is either possible or not possible.

 

[ShamashUruk]

You missed the entire point of that dog question. I typed that out to show how that is not an answer to a yes or no question.

You are answering with how it is possible or not possible.
We have not yet determined whether if it is or is not possible.

Is the statement below true or false?

Something is either possible or not possible.

The "if" cannot stand alone in this situation unless the "how" is presented.

Things are possible, but circumstance dictates.

Who would know the names of the mother and father and why?

 

[Non sequitur]

The "if" cannot stand alone in this situation unless the "how" is presented.

Things are possible, but circumstance dictates.

Who would know the names of the mother and father and why?

This is not true. "If" can stand alone, until it brings in to question the "how" or "why".

Is it possible Piper has supernatural powers?
Yes.

The "how" did not need to be presented and the question can stand alone.

Correct?

 

[ShamashUruk]

This is not true. "If" can stand alone, until it brings in to question the "how" or "why".

Is it possible Piper has supernatural powers?
Yes.

The "how" did not need to be presented and the question can stand alone.

Correct?

Don't know what you mean by supernatural.

She definitely is in a trance state but I'm not sure if she understood what was going on while in a trance state.

The only thing that is possible is that if information is divulged then "someone" can know the parents names. That is "IF" but not always the case.

 

[Non sequitur]

Don't know what you mean by supernatural.

She definitely is in a trance state but I'm not sure if she understood what was going on while in a trance state.

The only thing that is possible is that if information is divulged then "someone" can know the parents names. That is "IF" but not always the case.

So, it is possible for someone to know the names of your parents friends?

I'm not implying anything, so there should be nothing else to speak on.

 

[ShamashUruk]

So, it is possible for someone to know the names of your parents friends?

I'm not implying anything, so there should be nothing else to speak on.

It's circumstantial, whether they know or not. Let's say I told Bob my parent's name then Bob would know. Whether Bob would go and divulge that information is unknown and even if he did it would only go so far.

 

[Non sequitur]

It's circumstantial, whether they know or not. Let's say I told Bob my parent's name then Bob would know. Whether Bob would go and divulge that information is unknown and even if he did it would only go so far.

Is it possible my car is green?