The only problem I have with this diagram is that my definition for knowledge is justified true belief. That would create a diagram with a third circle fully inside the belief circle, and knowledge would be the intersection of all three.
Your posts are becoming incoherent HR. You're even citing definitions now that contradict your own assessment. How is "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language" NOT fitting DJK's own usage of "pretty much literally the same"?
... See, now it's clear you're not reading the thread.
DJK was objecting to saying that two words were synonyms on the grounds that they had similar meanings and not identical meanings. This goes against the definition of the word "synonym," which, as you posted is, "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language," bolded emphasis mine. In other words, he was claiming two words were not synonymous when they are indeed synonyms.
If you can't keep up with the conversation, then the remedy is you actually investing the effort to read through the conversation, Stairc.
Your cherry-picking of definitions is meaningless when it isn't what the other people in the conversation are referring to.
You are the one who is consistently off-topic. I am criticizing DJK's position and specifically his usage of the word "belief." Discussing definitions IS the topic of this conversation.
As for going off topic... No. I have repeatedly been addressing your initial post here in which you claimed that we need to believe things outside of proof, observation or experimentation in order to function. The fact you seem to want to push this topic away doesn't suddenly make it off topic.
It was already addressed. DJK admitted that he does indeed believe things.
I continue to contend that your definition of "proof" here is either so strict that it's a meaningless statement
It's not a meaningless statement. Adhering to what words mean does not make the words meaningless, it does the exact opposite of that.
DJK is objecting to the idea of believing things. I have contended, and he has conceded, that he does indeed believe things. That was the topic of the conversation. You would know that if you read it.
or your statement is just plain wrong (if by proof you mean enough evidence to rationally accept the claim with a proportional degree of certainty based on the evidence). If it's the first, it's almost as meaningless as the Jesus deal.
What do you mean "if it's the first?" Of course it's the first one. I've only been saying exactly that.
And no, it's not meaningless when it's what the conversation is about.
Okay HR. It seems you're just going to continue insisting that I haven't read the discussion (for who knows what reason) until I actually start pasting specific quotes. No problem. Let's explore what was actually said by DJK here.
Quote from DJK »
Define truth, belief and faith- and preferably in a manner which distinguishes faith as some sort of subset of belief and not just a synonym for it, because nobody uses it that way.
This is a request for a more distinct definition of the word faith in this context. You know, like an appropriate one to the conversation. Like my own posts, it criticizes your conflation of faith and belief here until they're basicaly the same thing. It rightly calls that a synonym. Now, what did you write?
Quote from HR »
DJK was objecting to saying that two words were synonyms on the grounds that they had similar meanings and not identical meanings.
Is that so? Well, let's dig in. When you tried to claim this wasn't the right use of the word (completely erroneously I might add), he responded:
Quote from DJK »
When I say 'synonym' I mean 'pretty much literally the same' and not 'related words that express similar ideas'
Now the context of what he just posted, and the rest of that post, both make it clear that he's talking about "related" in the sense of one being a subset of the other. This is not a synonym. "Cow" and "Mammal" are not synonymous. If you believe they are, your English teacher did you a disservice.
Once more you've completely ignored context. Stop doing that.
Quote from HR »
You are the one who is consistently off-topic. I am criticizing DJK's position and specifically his conflicting usage of the word "belief." You consistently go off-topic, and then criticize me for going off-topic when you repeatedly intrude into a conversation you can't even muster up the effort to follow.
I objected to your initial post, and most of your subsequent ones. I do not believe my objections have been close to answered satisfactorily. If you don't want to respond to this, you're under no obligation to. But complaining that challenging your own assertions in a debate forum is somehow off-topic just makes you look silly.
Quote from HR »
Quote from Stairc »
I continue to contend that your definition of "proof" here is either so strict that it's a meaningless statement
It's the definition of the word "proof," Stairc. And adhering to the actual definitions of words does not make the words meaningless, it does the exact opposite of that.
Really? Sufficient evidence to rationally justify belief isn't just a different definition, it's not even a part of the actual definition? Because only the unquestionable certainty was the overly strict one I was calling meaningless. Well, you snipped from dictionary.com before. Let's see what they have to say
noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence:
(What proof do you have?)
3.
the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
to put a thing to the proof.
4.
the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.
Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6.
the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7.
an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
Fascinating. So again, what's your best example of a belief required to function in society that is not supported by sufficient evidence? After all, the first definitions lay proof and sufficient evidence as...
I'm a twice a year Christian. Basically the only reason I'm not an atheist is because I cannot believe in Magic or "Uncaused Events" as some call it.
Radioactive decay is an uncaused event (or depending on how nitpicky you want to get, it is caused by an uncaused event) which scientists witness on a regular basis.
The uncertainty principle indicates that quantum events are uncaused, period, but I figure radioactive decay specifically is a stronger argument for the existence of uncaused events since it's so much more familiar.
The only problem I have with this diagram is that my definition for knowledge is justified true belief. That would create a diagram with a third circle fully inside the belief circle, and knowledge would be the intersection of all three.
Then the issue is a definitional one. We have to have defined words to even debate. If I'm talking Greek and you only speak Spanish, we can't have a discussion. Step one (or zero) is always to define our terms.
So, again, epistemology kinda has the market cornered on what the word can mean. I would recommend looking at this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article if you have time. Pick one you like.
The only problem I have with this diagram is that my definition for knowledge is justified true belief. That would create a diagram with a third circle fully inside the belief circle, and knowledge would be the intersection of all three.
Then the issue is a definitional one. We have to have defined words to even debate. If I'm talking Greek and you only speak Spanish, we can't have a discussion. Step one (or zero) is always to define our terms.
It's not as different as you're suggesting (Greek vs. Spanish analogy). The diagram you posted puts knowledge as "true belief" and I put it as "justified true belief". The only real difference is that if you guess something and believe it despite a lack of justification, I don't count it as knowledge just because you got lucky and were right.
Yes, he admitted to believing things... when using a different definition for belief than the one he was using when he said he doesn't believe things.
Nor, even if DJK wasn't being misrepresented, would that be a relevant response to my own challenge. Convincing DJK, even if it did happen, is irrelevant to convincing me.
It's not as different as you're suggesting (Greek vs. Spanish analogy). The diagram you posted puts knowledge as "true belief" and I put it as "justified true belief". The only real difference is that if you guess something and believe it despite a lack of justification, I don't count it as knowledge just because you got lucky and were right.
But that "only real difference" is more or less what the entire argument is about.
@Taylor
Going of the definition of belief you used, my statement of "I don't believe things" is correct. In fact, it's prety much the definition I have been using whenever I said "I don't believe things". I later said that 'belief' could refer to a similar notion of 'what is thought to be justified' or some such, and under that kind of definition, and that kind of definition alone, I do believe things. But I am not contradicting myself HR, I stand by my original statement.
This position being what I meant: I don't think anything 'is the case (i.e. is true)' because I don't know what is the case, so I suspend judgement entirely. Instead, I am concerned with what seems to be the case: how well the consequences of my decisions appear to conform to the expectations of my thoughts. In this regard, science holds the highest bar, being the most rigorous form of investigation I can perform within my sensory experience to see whether ideas can functionally describe my experiences- hence, it is the important. Other things, such as pure logic, ethics, semantics, and art will also do similar things. Whether or not the ideas derived from these practices are descriptive of 'the actual world' is not a question I am able to answer, so it's not very concerning to me, what I am concerned with is the best understanding of the information available.
That is the point. If anyone wants to address this idea directly, regardless of this elongated tangent on what words correctly describe this notion, feel free to. Otherwise, please tell me exactly what words you would think describe this so we can be on the same page.
@Taylor
No, very much no. You are missing the difference between what is perceived and what really IS. Is it true that I am suspending judgement? I don't know, maybe even my most basic self-awareness isn't what it seems to be. But is it my perception that I am suspending judgement? Yes, because that's what it seems to be- that I am making a conscious decision to not think of things as true- whether it is or is not the case that I am actually doing this.
That's the power of perception in epistemology- it's universal and it's not subject to truth. It seems that I am thinking, it seems that I am seeing things, it seems that I am typing. I can say these things because they are not statements of what IS the case. And before you say it, no it is not the case that it seems to be case that certain things are happening, perception is not subject to 'being the case' because it is not established that such perceptions 'exist'. Even if it seems impossible for our perceptions to be false in-and-of-themselves, we cannot demonstrate this beyond doubt- we have to show that we are capable of correctly thinking anything and that thinking actually even exists, but that is impossible when what we are trying to show in the first place is our only tool to show anything. Essentially, the problem is that we are trying to prove an absolute from a fallible position (indeed, even if we WERE infallible, we wouldn't be able to show it. That's the funny thing about omniscience, even if there is a god that has it, he wouldn't be able to know himself whether his thinking was correct and existent in order that show that he exists and is omniscient in the first place).
But what we can do is assume that we are indeed perceiving things and there indeed exists something for us to perceive of (even if that something is only ourselves). This is a incredibly reasonable assumption, being almost actually knowable (the only barrier to it is the ultimate barrier of all knowledge), and we do this because our perceptions give us positive and negative experiences and we want to work with other what-seems-to-be-people to do what at least seems to improve those experiences. From this point, we derive more and more complex methods of investigating experience.
The simple answer to investigating reality is to stop trying to demonstrate an absolute altogether, and just follow what is most evident- merely accepting that our results are and always will be fallible.
But is it my perception that I am suspending judgement? Yes, because that's what it seems to be- that I am making a conscious decision to not think of things as true- whether it is or is not the case that I am actually doing this.
So, you think it's true that you perceive that you suspend judgement.
"I am asserting that I perceive that I don't assert anything."
I am hoping at this point you understand iteration enough that I don't have to keep doing this....
@Taylor
Really? Did you read what I said? I answered every possible objection you could make about that line of argument with one simple point: the absolute truth is not relevant if it cannot be known. I acknowledged that perceptions aren't necessarily existent in the first place, and countered that objection by saying "so what?".
Will asking whether this is all true do anything? No, because there is no end that line that reasoning, it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time.
When searching for the best understanding of reality, too many have missed the point. In searching for an answer, they have only found questions and haven't realised how meaningless their search has become.
I'll just highlight this for you to make it clear enough: The simple answer to investigating reality is to stop trying to demonstrate an absolute altogether, and just follow what is most evident- merely accepting that our results are and always will be fallible.
No, because there is no end that line that reasoning, it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time.
So, you think it's true that "it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time."
And, no, you're incorrect (which is self-evident because you're bing self-contradictory... but I digress). That line of reasoning is what brought us some of the most monumental logical theorems, like Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
When searching for the best understanding of reality, too many have missed the point. In searching for an answer, they have only found questions and haven't realised how meaningless their search has become.
I would say it is 'meaningless' to try and justify contradictory statements(like "I know it's true that I can't know anything is true") in an attempt to distance oneself from something you think is undesirable (like 'belief'), but which is -in fact- a logical necessity of thought.
The simple answer to investigating reality is to stop trying to demonstrate an absolute altogether, and just follow what is most evident- merely accepting that our results are and always will be fallible.
You realize this is an absolute... saying you don't believe in absolutes... right?
... No, of course you don't....
I don't like your attitude, it's pretty condescending. I'm happy to listen to your points, but only if you are willing to listen to what I have to say fairly.
No, because there is no end that line that reasoning, it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time.
So, you think it's true that "it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time."
And, no, you're incorrect (which is self-evident because you're bing self-contradictory... but I digress). That line of reasoning is what brought us some of the most monumental logical theorems, like Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
And once again you assume the assessment of truth where there is none. I don't think it's true that "it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time", it's evident to me that it is, it's my perception. But it's not a definite statement. And the line of reasoning I am talking about is trying to actually answer the question 'what is really true' since people realised a long time ago that knowledge is rather intangible. Godel's incompleteness theorem is a fine thing, the waste comes when we keep asking the question 'how do we know?' for too long. It's pretty clear that we don't know much of anything in the absolute sense. I'm not making an argument against epistemology, I'm making an argument against the concept of absolute truth, in that it's not relevant. What I am saying is that we should be concerned with what is apparent in our investigations.
When searching for the best understanding of reality, too many have missed the point. In searching for an answer, they have only found questions and haven't realised how meaningless their search has become.
I would say it is 'meaningless' to try and justify contradictory statements(like "I assert it's true that nothing is true") in an attempt to distance oneself from something you think is undesirable (like 'belief'), but which is -in fact- a logical necessity.
I never said 'I assert it's true that nothing is true' I said, essentially, 'it is apparent that truth is not a very meaningful conception of reality'. It has never been my goal to distance myself from belief, it has been my goal to investigate reality and determine the best understanding we can make of it. Belief is merely a notion which has issues, in that it is often defined in such a way that it seems none of us should be concerned with it- that is those definitions where belief is 'that which is thought to be true' or some such. Either truth would have to be defined as not an absolute, or belief would have to be something not related to what is considered true. Before you continue with your pointless repetition of 'but is that true', nothing I have said or will say I consider to be true- I consider it the best interpretation of the available information. I don't consider anything to be true, because I consider truth (when it's an absolute) to be a flawed notion. If you keep asking how I know things, you're only missing the point. A valid objection would be presenting some way we could know the absolute truth, or arguing why practical consequence is not the best system of justification outside of truth, or somehow arguing that it is impossible to think and act without thinking certain things are true and not simply justified to act according to (you could call the later belief if you want anyway). Questioning the absolute justification of a system which is not justified absolutely is pointless- there is none. I don't know, I don't understand, I don't care. I don't need an absolute justification, I just need a good one.
The simple answer to investigating reality is to stop trying to demonstrate an absolute altogether, and just follow what is most evident- merely accepting that our results are and always will be fallible.
You realize you're saying you believe it's absolute that you can't believe in absolutes... right?
... No, of course you don't....
I never said you can't believe in absolutes. I said that truth (when it's an absolute) is not something we should be concerned with. And that's not an absolute statement- so you know- it's an opinion justified by argument.
-
Let's not just have this be you arguing against my system- let's take a look at yours. You have said you 'have faith in science'. What is your justification for that? Why have faith in science? What's the point? What's the reason? If you think practical consequences, you essentially agree with me, you just think that science is true as well (which seems completely unnecessary if it's already justified). If you don't have a reason why, then your belief is arbitrary and essentially irrational. That means you have no more epistemic justification than a young earth creationist. And this why I don't have faith in science- because I want my ideas to be justified.
Okay HR. It seems you're just going to continue insisting that I haven't read the discussion (for who knows what reason) until I actually start pasting specific quotes.
Except pasting specific quotes =/= reading comprehension. Although the fact that you think it does might actually explain your behavior during this thread.
This is a request for a more distinct definition of the word faith in this context. You know, like an appropriate one to the conversation. Like my own posts, it criticizes your conflation of faith and belief here until they're basicaly the same thing. It rightly calls that a synonym. Now, what did you write?
[quote=HR]DJK was objecting to saying that two words were synonyms on the grounds that they had similar meanings and not identical meanings.
Is that so?
Umm, yeah, it's called reading the thread.
Quote from DJK »
When I say 'synonym' I mean 'pretty much literally the same' and not 'related words that express similar ideas'
Oh look, there it is.
I mean, honestly dude, is this about getting the last word in or something? How are you this inept at reading what is right in front of you?
Now the context of what he just posted, and the rest of that post, both make it clear that he's talking about "related" in the sense of one being a subset of the other.
No, it's him not understanding the definition of what a synonym is.
Dude, it's quite obvious you don't understand what's going on with this conversation. Since you can't be bothered to follow it, I don't know what to tell you.
Well, actually I would tell you to apologize to Taylor for calling him a waste of time, because you clearly cannot throw stones, but as to this debate... I mean, if you're going to tl;dr a 4 page debate, that rather speaks volumes of you.
It's not as different as you're suggesting (Greek vs. Spanish analogy). The diagram you posted puts knowledge as "true belief" and I put it as "justified true belief". The only real difference is that if you guess something and believe it despite a lack of justification, I don't count it as knowledge just because you got lucky and were right.
But that "only real difference" is more or less what the entire argument is about.
I have a jar of gumballs. With no further information provided, you believe the number of gumballs in the jar is even.
Do you know that the number is even? Under my definition for knowledge, no. Under the definition provided by your diagram, yes, so long as the number is in fact even.
Getting lucky is not a path to knowledge. Rather, I do not think using a definition for knowledge which allows for getting lucky as a means of gaining knowledge is useful.
Um, yeah it was.
Belief- something which is thought to be true
I reject doing this.
Belief- a concept which is thought to be justified
But not this.
On the basis that truth is not apparent.
Except that's just it: if you believe that the truth is not apparent, and yet you are still going with a particular thing that you believe to be true despite not knowing it is, that is faith. That's what faith means.
@Highroller
Thought and action do not require a position on truth. I think something because it IS apparent, but not because it's true because truth is NOT apparent. You have missed the point. The position I am defending is that we should be concerned with what is evident and NOT with what is true. Truth is discarded in this position as not being useful enough of a notion- instead what is relevant is observation and the conception of meaningful ideas to describe observation and relate different observations into a predictive model- regardless of whether such ideas ate ultimately true. I am getting sick of repeating this in the face of you and Taylor's objections which all seem to miss that this position is not based on ANY truth at all (unless you define truth as not absolute but relative and fallible). If at any time you have an objection to this position that concerns truth, it's probably not relevant.
@Highroller
Thought and action do not require a position on truth. I think something because it IS apparent,
And what of that? The man on hallucinogens perceives many things to be apparent. Of what value is this?
The position I am defending is that we should be concerned with what is evident and NOT with what is true.
And why on earth would we not be concerned about what is true?
But setting that aside for the moment, you do realize that is a belief, correct? In fact, we've been over this and you've conceded this is a belief. So therefore these statements you make about not believing are rather nonsensical, aren't they?
Truth is discarded in this position as not being useful enough of a notion- instead what is relevant is observation and the conception of meaningful ideas to describe observation and relate different observations into a predictive model
That is an exploration into truth. That's what you're describing.
regardless of whether such ideas ate ultimately true.
So you don't care whether the predictive model actually predicts anything? Why bother making one in the first place then?
I am getting sick of repeating this in the face of you and Taylor's objections which all seem to miss that this position is not based on ANY truth at all (unless you define truth as not absolute but relative and fallible). If at any time you have an objection to this position that concerns truth, it's probably not relevant.
Alternatively, it probably means your entire argument is nonsensical.
@Highroller
Thought and action do not require a position on truth. I think something because it IS apparent,
And what of that? The man on hallucinogens perceives many things to be apparent. Of what value is this?
A man of hallucinogens is capable of realising he was on hallucinogens- by coming out of it- and it's also possible to predict that one has recently been put on hallucinogens by the sudden appearance of highly unusual phenomena. And here's the point: who's to say this isn't what's happening to you? The value of my theory is you never know whether what you are seeing is real- you can't know for sure. But, if you don't know, what's the point in doing anything else but making the most out of your position? If I am in a hallucination but don't know it, and every time I do something, something else happens and there's no apparent cause of that event other than my action, is it not reasonable to use that information to inform other decisions? If at any point, I do that action and the result I thought would happen doesn't happen, and there's no apparent disruption, I would re-evaluate my idea. I would do science. Even if I find out that it was all just my mind playing tricks on me, I have nonetheless done something of value in potentially improving the experience of the hallucination- it may well be that in my hallucination I was capable of affecting what happened.
The position I am defending is that we should be concerned with what is evident and NOT with what is true.
And why on earth would we not be concerned about what is true?
What is true? Name something that you know to be true. Really, absolutely true. You can't.
And that's why. Also, even if we could, my justification system would STILL be valuable as a method of producing outcomes. My experience is my primary concern when it comes to the fulfilment of my desires, regardless of whether it is absolutely true. Whatever the absolute truth is, it's in some relationship with my perception, and that may well be a relationship that means my decisions are quite meaningful. So what I do is act as if my decisions are meaningful, because if they aren't it doesn't matter anyway.
I think where you and Taylor are going wrong is thinking that this system is about knowing reality- it's not. It's about the best possible understanding in relation to experience.
But setting that aside for the moment, you do realize that is a belief, correct? In fact, we've been over this and you've conceded this is a belief. So therefore these statements you make about not believing are rather nonsensical, aren't they?
Depends on your definition- I have given one in which it wasn't a belief that I was describing. I later mentioned one in which it is. Again, see comment #99.
Truth is discarded in this position as not being useful enough of a notion- instead what is relevant is observation and the conception of meaningful ideas to describe observation and relate different observations into a predictive model
That is an exploration into truth. That's what you're describing.
.
Depends on your definition. I was going of truth as being something like 'ideas that describe the actual state of affairs'. In which, the problem is differentiating the actual state of affairs from what just seems to be the actual state of affairs- in line with my example about hallucinations. You could easily use a definition of truth that works with my theory- in fact, I would- but in the context of this discussion I thought it would be better to use a broader definition.
regardless of whether such ideas ate ultimately true.
So you don't care whether the predictive model actually predicts anything? Why bother making one in the first place then?
.
If an idea doesn't predict my experience, then I modify it under this model. If an idea doesn't predict the absolute reality, then I do nothing because I can't tell whether ideas formed by my model predict absolute reality. See earlier in this comment for why this is still a good idea.
I am getting sick of repeating this in the face of you and Taylor's objections which all seem to miss that this position is not based on ANY truth at all (unless you define truth as not absolute but relative and fallible). If at any time you have an objection to this position that concerns truth, it's probably not relevant.
Alternatively, it probably means your entire argument is nonsensical.
Maybe, but that's clearly not what I think so you are going to have to show why this is true with regards to what the model is actually supposed to do.
@HR - For someone who spends as much time as you do attacking others and claiming they aren't either reading or understanding the discussion, it's funny to see DJK confirm what Lithl and I already assumed by reading his posts. I.E. that your misrepresentation of his actual position was once more based on a completely flawed conflation of definitions. Comprehension much?
You're in danger of transforming into Gob from arrested development. The character who, in response to being told that his plan for the business required a business model, went out and hired a girl named Starla to serve as said model for the business. Not exactly a meaningful use of the word.
It's clear at this point that you don't have any way to meaningfully back up the initial assertion I'm challenging. Your tactic has instead been largely to ignore the challenges to demonstrate your claim. When that didn't work, you tried insisting that challenging your assertions in the thread was somehow off topic. When that didn't work, you insist that I must not be reading the posts.
When that didn't work, you try to claim that you already convinced someone else that you're right - which is somehow applicable to me. When that didn't work, and also was confirmed to be untrue, you just start claiming that I don't understand the posts I'm quoting. No meaningful arguments here, just dull and repetitive evasions and attacks.
So I think I'll just slice up your initial assertion with a finishing move.
Here was your first attempt at deflection:
Quote from HR »
Quote from Stairc »
2) Based on this definition, what is your best example of something that DJK (or anyone) certainly believe outside of evidence?
I didn't say "outside of evidence." I said "outside of proof."
And once more... Since you're so fond of definitions...
Quote from Dictionary.reference.com »
PROOF
noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence:
Example: What proof do you have?
Which are entirely consistent with my question. Your distinction between evidence and proof is only correct in your prior claim if you are using the idea of absolute certainty via things like mathematical proofs. This is not meaningful to the discussion, nor the coloquial definition. When someone asks someone to prove that they're over 21, they ask for an ID. They don't start asking, "But how do you know your senses are accurate?" They're not questioning absolute certainty. They're asking for sufficient evidence.
Using the appropriate definition of proof for this discussion, which just means sufficient evidence to establish a thing as true, your claim is and always has been completely wrong. But you could easily prove otherwise. Just show one belief, just one, that it's necessary to hold to function in society despite that belief not being supported by sufficient evidence.
Quote from DJK »
What is true? Name something that you know to be true. Really, absolutely true. You can't.
I can actually. "I feel cold right now".
Whether or not this is an illusion is irrelevant. I still feel cold. Whether or not my body is actually on fire and I'm insane, I still feel cold. Whether I'm a computer program or not, I still feel an experience that I call "cold".
Absolutely certain statements can be made about our experiences. That's the foundation we can work with.
Statements like, "There is no such thing as a married bachelor" also work pretty well.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
DJK was objecting to saying that two words were synonyms on the grounds that they had similar meanings and not identical meanings. This goes against the definition of the word "synonym," which, as you posted is, "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language," bolded emphasis mine. In other words, he was claiming two words were not synonymous when they are indeed synonyms.
If you can't keep up with the conversation, then the remedy is you actually investing the effort to read through the conversation, Stairc.
You are the one who is consistently off-topic. I am criticizing DJK's position and specifically his usage of the word "belief." Discussing definitions IS the topic of this conversation.
It was already addressed. DJK admitted that he does indeed believe things.
It's not a meaningless statement. Adhering to what words mean does not make the words meaningless, it does the exact opposite of that.
DJK is objecting to the idea of believing things. I have contended, and he has conceded, that he does indeed believe things. That was the topic of the conversation. You would know that if you read it.
What do you mean "if it's the first?" Of course it's the first one. I've only been saying exactly that.
And no, it's not meaningless when it's what the conversation is about.
This is a request for a more distinct definition of the word faith in this context. You know, like an appropriate one to the conversation. Like my own posts, it criticizes your conflation of faith and belief here until they're basicaly the same thing. It rightly calls that a synonym. Now, what did you write?
Is that so? Well, let's dig in. When you tried to claim this wasn't the right use of the word (completely erroneously I might add), he responded:
Now the context of what he just posted, and the rest of that post, both make it clear that he's talking about "related" in the sense of one being a subset of the other. This is not a synonym. "Cow" and "Mammal" are not synonymous. If you believe they are, your English teacher did you a disservice.
Once more you've completely ignored context. Stop doing that.
I objected to your initial post, and most of your subsequent ones. I do not believe my objections have been close to answered satisfactorily. If you don't want to respond to this, you're under no obligation to. But complaining that challenging your own assertions in a debate forum is somehow off-topic just makes you look silly.
Really? Sufficient evidence to rationally justify belief isn't just a different definition, it's not even a part of the actual definition? Because only the unquestionable certainty was the overly strict one I was calling meaningless. Well, you snipped from dictionary.com before. Let's see what they have to say
Fascinating. So again, what's your best example of a belief required to function in society that is not supported by sufficient evidence? After all, the first definitions lay proof and sufficient evidence as...
Synonymous.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
So what caused god?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Radioactive decay is an uncaused event (or depending on how nitpicky you want to get, it is caused by an uncaused event) which scientists witness on a regular basis.
The uncertainty principle indicates that quantum events are uncaused, period, but I figure radioactive decay specifically is a stronger argument for the existence of uncaused events since it's so much more familiar.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
So, again, epistemology kinda has the market cornered on what the word can mean. I would recommend looking at this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article if you have time. Pick one you like.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Nor, even if DJK wasn't being misrepresented, would that be a relevant response to my own challenge. Convincing DJK, even if it did happen, is irrelevant to convincing me.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Going of the definition of belief you used, my statement of "I don't believe things" is correct. In fact, it's prety much the definition I have been using whenever I said "I don't believe things". I later said that 'belief' could refer to a similar notion of 'what is thought to be justified' or some such, and under that kind of definition, and that kind of definition alone, I do believe things. But I am not contradicting myself HR, I stand by my original statement.
This position being what I meant: I don't think anything 'is the case (i.e. is true)' because I don't know what is the case, so I suspend judgement entirely. Instead, I am concerned with what seems to be the case: how well the consequences of my decisions appear to conform to the expectations of my thoughts. In this regard, science holds the highest bar, being the most rigorous form of investigation I can perform within my sensory experience to see whether ideas can functionally describe my experiences- hence, it is the important. Other things, such as pure logic, ethics, semantics, and art will also do similar things. Whether or not the ideas derived from these practices are descriptive of 'the actual world' is not a question I am able to answer, so it's not very concerning to me, what I am concerned with is the best understanding of the information available.
That is the point. If anyone wants to address this idea directly, regardless of this elongated tangent on what words correctly describe this notion, feel free to. Otherwise, please tell me exactly what words you would think describe this so we can be on the same page.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
This very quote is self contradictory. You are saying:
"I am asserting that I don't assert anything."
No, very much no. You are missing the difference between what is perceived and what really IS. Is it true that I am suspending judgement? I don't know, maybe even my most basic self-awareness isn't what it seems to be. But is it my perception that I am suspending judgement? Yes, because that's what it seems to be- that I am making a conscious decision to not think of things as true- whether it is or is not the case that I am actually doing this.
That's the power of perception in epistemology- it's universal and it's not subject to truth. It seems that I am thinking, it seems that I am seeing things, it seems that I am typing. I can say these things because they are not statements of what IS the case. And before you say it, no it is not the case that it seems to be case that certain things are happening, perception is not subject to 'being the case' because it is not established that such perceptions 'exist'. Even if it seems impossible for our perceptions to be false in-and-of-themselves, we cannot demonstrate this beyond doubt- we have to show that we are capable of correctly thinking anything and that thinking actually even exists, but that is impossible when what we are trying to show in the first place is our only tool to show anything. Essentially, the problem is that we are trying to prove an absolute from a fallible position (indeed, even if we WERE infallible, we wouldn't be able to show it. That's the funny thing about omniscience, even if there is a god that has it, he wouldn't be able to know himself whether his thinking was correct and existent in order that show that he exists and is omniscient in the first place).
But what we can do is assume that we are indeed perceiving things and there indeed exists something for us to perceive of (even if that something is only ourselves). This is a incredibly reasonable assumption, being almost actually knowable (the only barrier to it is the ultimate barrier of all knowledge), and we do this because our perceptions give us positive and negative experiences and we want to work with other what-seems-to-be-people to do what at least seems to improve those experiences. From this point, we derive more and more complex methods of investigating experience.
The simple answer to investigating reality is to stop trying to demonstrate an absolute altogether, and just follow what is most evident- merely accepting that our results are and always will be fallible.
Hopefully that make sense.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"I am asserting that I perceive that I don't assert anything."
I am hoping at this point you understand iteration enough that I don't have to keep doing this....
Really? Did you read what I said? I answered every possible objection you could make about that line of argument with one simple point: the absolute truth is not relevant if it cannot be known. I acknowledged that perceptions aren't necessarily existent in the first place, and countered that objection by saying "so what?".
Will asking whether this is all true do anything? No, because there is no end that line that reasoning, it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time.
When searching for the best understanding of reality, too many have missed the point. In searching for an answer, they have only found questions and haven't realised how meaningless their search has become.
I'll just highlight this for you to make it clear enough:
The simple answer to investigating reality is to stop trying to demonstrate an absolute altogether, and just follow what is most evident- merely accepting that our results are and always will be fallible.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
So, you think it's true that "it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time."
And, no, you're incorrect (which is self-evident because you're bing self-contradictory... but I digress). That line of reasoning is what brought us some of the most monumental logical theorems, like Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
I would say it is 'meaningless' to try and justify contradictory statements(like "I know it's true that I can't know anything is true") in an attempt to distance oneself from something you think is undesirable (like 'belief'), but which is -in fact- a logical necessity of thought.
You realize this is an absolute... saying you don't believe in absolutes... right?
...
No, of course you don't....
And once again you assume the assessment of truth where there is none. I don't think it's true that "it's a black hole of pointless questions, ending in a complete waste of time", it's evident to me that it is, it's my perception. But it's not a definite statement. And the line of reasoning I am talking about is trying to actually answer the question 'what is really true' since people realised a long time ago that knowledge is rather intangible. Godel's incompleteness theorem is a fine thing, the waste comes when we keep asking the question 'how do we know?' for too long. It's pretty clear that we don't know much of anything in the absolute sense. I'm not making an argument against epistemology, I'm making an argument against the concept of absolute truth, in that it's not relevant. What I am saying is that we should be concerned with what is apparent in our investigations.
I never said 'I assert it's true that nothing is true' I said, essentially, 'it is apparent that truth is not a very meaningful conception of reality'. It has never been my goal to distance myself from belief, it has been my goal to investigate reality and determine the best understanding we can make of it. Belief is merely a notion which has issues, in that it is often defined in such a way that it seems none of us should be concerned with it- that is those definitions where belief is 'that which is thought to be true' or some such. Either truth would have to be defined as not an absolute, or belief would have to be something not related to what is considered true. Before you continue with your pointless repetition of 'but is that true', nothing I have said or will say I consider to be true- I consider it the best interpretation of the available information. I don't consider anything to be true, because I consider truth (when it's an absolute) to be a flawed notion. If you keep asking how I know things, you're only missing the point. A valid objection would be presenting some way we could know the absolute truth, or arguing why practical consequence is not the best system of justification outside of truth, or somehow arguing that it is impossible to think and act without thinking certain things are true and not simply justified to act according to (you could call the later belief if you want anyway). Questioning the absolute justification of a system which is not justified absolutely is pointless- there is none. I don't know, I don't understand, I don't care. I don't need an absolute justification, I just need a good one.
I never said you can't believe in absolutes. I said that truth (when it's an absolute) is not something we should be concerned with. And that's not an absolute statement- so you know- it's an opinion justified by argument.
-
Let's not just have this be you arguing against my system- let's take a look at yours. You have said you 'have faith in science'. What is your justification for that? Why have faith in science? What's the point? What's the reason? If you think practical consequences, you essentially agree with me, you just think that science is true as well (which seems completely unnecessary if it's already justified). If you don't have a reason why, then your belief is arbitrary and essentially irrational. That means you have no more epistemic justification than a young earth creationist. And this why I don't have faith in science- because I want my ideas to be justified.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Umm, yeah, it's called reading the thread.
Oh look, there it is.
I mean, honestly dude, is this about getting the last word in or something? How are you this inept at reading what is right in front of you?
No, it's him not understanding the definition of what a synonym is.
Dude, it's quite obvious you don't understand what's going on with this conversation. Since you can't be bothered to follow it, I don't know what to tell you.
Well, actually I would tell you to apologize to Taylor for calling him a waste of time, because you clearly cannot throw stones, but as to this debate... I mean, if you're going to tl;dr a 4 page debate, that rather speaks volumes of you.
It wasn't a different one. That's the point.
Do you know that the number is even? Under my definition for knowledge, no. Under the definition provided by your diagram, yes, so long as the number is in fact even.
Getting lucky is not a path to knowledge. Rather, I do not think using a definition for knowledge which allows for getting lucky as a means of gaining knowledge is useful.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Um, yeah it was.
Belief- something which is thought to be true
I reject doing this.
Belief- a concept which is thought to be justified
But not this.
On the basis that truth is not apparent.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Thought and action do not require a position on truth. I think something because it IS apparent, but not because it's true because truth is NOT apparent. You have missed the point. The position I am defending is that we should be concerned with what is evident and NOT with what is true. Truth is discarded in this position as not being useful enough of a notion- instead what is relevant is observation and the conception of meaningful ideas to describe observation and relate different observations into a predictive model- regardless of whether such ideas ate ultimately true. I am getting sick of repeating this in the face of you and Taylor's objections which all seem to miss that this position is not based on ANY truth at all (unless you define truth as not absolute but relative and fallible). If at any time you have an objection to this position that concerns truth, it's probably not relevant.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
That said,
And what of that? The man on hallucinogens perceives many things to be apparent. Of what value is this?
And why on earth would we not be concerned about what is true?
But setting that aside for the moment, you do realize that is a belief, correct? In fact, we've been over this and you've conceded this is a belief. So therefore these statements you make about not believing are rather nonsensical, aren't they?
That is an exploration into truth. That's what you're describing.
So you don't care whether the predictive model actually predicts anything? Why bother making one in the first place then?
Alternatively, it probably means your entire argument is nonsensical.
Depends on your definition, see comment #99 above. I thought was already clear.
A man of hallucinogens is capable of realising he was on hallucinogens- by coming out of it- and it's also possible to predict that one has recently been put on hallucinogens by the sudden appearance of highly unusual phenomena. And here's the point: who's to say this isn't what's happening to you? The value of my theory is you never know whether what you are seeing is real- you can't know for sure. But, if you don't know, what's the point in doing anything else but making the most out of your position? If I am in a hallucination but don't know it, and every time I do something, something else happens and there's no apparent cause of that event other than my action, is it not reasonable to use that information to inform other decisions? If at any point, I do that action and the result I thought would happen doesn't happen, and there's no apparent disruption, I would re-evaluate my idea. I would do science. Even if I find out that it was all just my mind playing tricks on me, I have nonetheless done something of value in potentially improving the experience of the hallucination- it may well be that in my hallucination I was capable of affecting what happened.
What is true? Name something that you know to be true. Really, absolutely true. You can't.
And that's why. Also, even if we could, my justification system would STILL be valuable as a method of producing outcomes. My experience is my primary concern when it comes to the fulfilment of my desires, regardless of whether it is absolutely true. Whatever the absolute truth is, it's in some relationship with my perception, and that may well be a relationship that means my decisions are quite meaningful. So what I do is act as if my decisions are meaningful, because if they aren't it doesn't matter anyway.
I think where you and Taylor are going wrong is thinking that this system is about knowing reality- it's not. It's about the best possible understanding in relation to experience.
Depends on your definition- I have given one in which it wasn't a belief that I was describing. I later mentioned one in which it is. Again, see comment #99.
Depends on your definition. I was going of truth as being something like 'ideas that describe the actual state of affairs'. In which, the problem is differentiating the actual state of affairs from what just seems to be the actual state of affairs- in line with my example about hallucinations. You could easily use a definition of truth that works with my theory- in fact, I would- but in the context of this discussion I thought it would be better to use a broader definition.
If an idea doesn't predict my experience, then I modify it under this model. If an idea doesn't predict the absolute reality, then I do nothing because I can't tell whether ideas formed by my model predict absolute reality. See earlier in this comment for why this is still a good idea.
Maybe, but that's clearly not what I think so you are going to have to show why this is true with regards to what the model is actually supposed to do.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You're in danger of transforming into Gob from arrested development. The character who, in response to being told that his plan for the business required a business model, went out and hired a girl named Starla to serve as said model for the business. Not exactly a meaningful use of the word.
It's clear at this point that you don't have any way to meaningfully back up the initial assertion I'm challenging. Your tactic has instead been largely to ignore the challenges to demonstrate your claim. When that didn't work, you tried insisting that challenging your assertions in the thread was somehow off topic. When that didn't work, you insist that I must not be reading the posts.
When that didn't work, you try to claim that you already convinced someone else that you're right - which is somehow applicable to me. When that didn't work, and also was confirmed to be untrue, you just start claiming that I don't understand the posts I'm quoting. No meaningful arguments here, just dull and repetitive evasions and attacks.
So I think I'll just slice up your initial assertion with a finishing move.
Here was your first attempt at deflection:
And once more... Since you're so fond of definitions...
Which are entirely consistent with my question. Your distinction between evidence and proof is only correct in your prior claim if you are using the idea of absolute certainty via things like mathematical proofs. This is not meaningful to the discussion, nor the coloquial definition. When someone asks someone to prove that they're over 21, they ask for an ID. They don't start asking, "But how do you know your senses are accurate?" They're not questioning absolute certainty. They're asking for sufficient evidence.
Using the appropriate definition of proof for this discussion, which just means sufficient evidence to establish a thing as true, your claim is and always has been completely wrong. But you could easily prove otherwise. Just show one belief, just one, that it's necessary to hold to function in society despite that belief not being supported by sufficient evidence.
I can actually. "I feel cold right now".
Whether or not this is an illusion is irrelevant. I still feel cold. Whether or not my body is actually on fire and I'm insane, I still feel cold. Whether I'm a computer program or not, I still feel an experience that I call "cold".
Absolutely certain statements can be made about our experiences. That's the foundation we can work with.
Statements like, "There is no such thing as a married bachelor" also work pretty well.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane