RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:42:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

If we're going to have this discussion, can we please conduct it in English? Evidence is not proof. Now look, I've debated priests before and I know the feeling well. I am not interested in listening to you recite your catechism, or in redefining English words to suit your agenda. If all you want to do is preach, we're done here.

K.



You're just involved in sophistry. Jump off a sky scraper and use your faith that the world is made of sponge cake. I won't jump because all the evidence tells me I'll splatter on the tarmac. I would not give you proof by jumping but you may give me proof of your faith by jumping.




tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:59:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Tweakabelle is right if her reasonable assumption is based on probabilities as is the atheist assumption that dead is dead and that there is no supernatural intervention in the laws of physics.

Tweakabelle is not right, and neither are you. Faith may be either reasonable or unreasonable.

K.


My original post asked people not to conflate reasonable assumptions with acts of faith. Mr K wishes to disupte this.

Well now Mr Kirata, I have a reasonable assumption that you exist (but no proof). There's no way in the world that that assumption will ever become an act of faith for me.

There is a difference.




crazyml -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 6:00:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

If faith is based on evidence and probability, it is hardly faith...

If we're going to have this discussion, can we please conduct it in English? Evidence is not proof. Now look, I've debated priests before and I know the feeling well. I am not interested in listening to you recite your catechism, or in redefining English words to suit your agenda. If all you want to do is preach, we're done here.

K.



Sure, evidence is not proof, but enough evidence could constitute proof.

Now, one person's standard of "proof" might be different to another's. So from a personal perspective, there is enough evidence to provide proof, by my personal standard, that we all exist. In fact there is enough of the stuff to meet the very high level of proof required for me to state that I know that I exist. Not having met you in person, I cannot know that you exist, although I believe that you do.










PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 6:09:33 AM)

FR

It seems to me that this conversation could use some sense of degree rather than just one of 'either/or'. At one pole there's 'blind faith', at the other is 'absolute proof'. The sociologist Anthony Giddens deals with this in terms of the difference between faith on the one hand, and 'trust' on the other. Pps 16 onward.




PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 6:15:03 AM)

quote:

My original post asked people not to conflate reasonable assumptions with acts of faith
.

Giddens carefully avoids that in the aforementioned book with his idea of faith versus trust. It's quite a good book, IMO.




GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 11:33:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
And what's my conspiracy theory?


He explains that the evidence is invalidated by his conspiracy theory and then explains that his conspiracy theory is validated by the lack of evidence.





[image]local://upfiles/566126/D3D97571A9794250806FA472822A219F.jpg[/image]




Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 1:24:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

It seems to me that this conversation could use some sense of degree rather than just one of 'either/or'. At one pole there's 'blind faith', at the other is 'absolute proof'.

In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. An objective reality existing independently of consciousness is not a scientific hypothesis, for the same reason that the existence of a supraphysical reality is not: neither is falsifiable by the methods of science.

K.




vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 2:45:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

It seems to me that this conversation could use some sense of degree rather than just one of 'either/or'. At one pole there's 'blind faith', at the other is 'absolute proof'.

In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. An objective reality existing independently of consciousness is not a scientific hypothesis, for the same reason that the existence of a supraphysical reality is not: neither is falsifiable by the methods of science.

K.


How is your observation different in kind from the observation that a tree falling in the forest makes no noise if there are no ears (auditory receptors of any kind) to record it? Serious question.

ETA: Science is a human activity so obviously it is dependent on consciousness. Faith is a human activity so it too is dependent on consciousness. So, what is your point? Are you saying that without human consciousness to observe it the Universe would have no independent existence?




Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:07:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Are you saying that without human consciousness to observe it the Universe would have no independent existence?

the operative concept here is proof. Nobody is saying that there isn't an objective reality that exists independently of consciousness, only that we cannot prove it

Link: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4317115

K.




meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:24:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Are you saying that without human consciousness to observe it the Universe would have no independent existence?

the operative concept here is proof. Nobody is saying that there isn't an objective reality that exists independently of consciousness, only that we cannot prove it

Link: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4317115

K.



Your level of proof is the equivalent of saying only a lethal bullet in someone's head is proof that a bullet in their head can be lethal. It is like rejecting the evidence of millions of dead from countless wars which for any reasonable person would be evidence that the probability of a bullet in the head, never mind in any other vital region, would be lethal.

Even for French philosophers who advocates that the world disappears when you close your eyes will accelerate at 9.81 sec per sec when they jump off a tall building before going splat on the tarmac, even if they close their eyes and the world disappears.  




Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:27:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

Have it as you wish, but even Karl Popper would not go as far as being dragged along that line by the likes of you.

Just so you know.

"That line" (in the post to which you're replying) being: faith is belief not based on proof. And Popper would hardly have to be dragged, because it is precisely his position that the truth content of scientific theories cannot be verified by scientific methods. He was deeply dissatisfied with classical empiricism. In Hawking's words:

Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world. Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them... Instead we adopt [a different view]

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4298645

Just so you know.

K.




Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:47:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Your level of proof...

I've never said anything whatsoever about a "level of proof."

I'm talking about a type of proof. The apparently obscure clue to this was a statement I made a couple posts back from one to which you replied.

In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof.

In other words, the same type of proof typically demanded of those who believe in the existence of a supraphysical reality.

Shoe on the other foot, get it?

K.




vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:15:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Are you saying that without human consciousness to observe it the Universe would have no independent existence?

the operative concept here is proof. Nobody is saying that there isn't an objective reality that exists independently of consciousness, only that we cannot prove it

Link: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4317115

K.


For the sake of syllogism I take it you do not deny the existence of human consciousness. Neither do you deny the existence of reality independent of consciousness. You conclude we cannot prove it.

Why not? Where is the disconnect between the two elements?

ETA Nevermind. You can pass this by if you are taking Hawkin's position above. I understand what you are saying. I can't say I agree with it.




Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 5:40:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

For the sake of syllogism I take it you do not deny the existence of human consciousness. Neither do you deny the existence of reality independent of consciousness. You conclude we cannot prove it.

Why not? Where is the disconnect between the two elements?

Ahhh, there's the rub. We can't know for sure that there is one, yet a disconnect is inherent in our subject/object view of the world.

K.





vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 6:06:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

For the sake of syllogism I take it you do not deny the existence of human consciousness. Neither do you deny the existence of reality independent of consciousness. You conclude we cannot prove it.

Why not? Where is the disconnect between the two elements?

Ahhh, there's the rub. We can't know for sure that there is one, yet a disconnect is inherent in our subject/object view of the world.

K.



Well wait. You say that we can't know for sure, yet a disconnect is inherent in our view. Seems like you are contradicting yourself.




Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 6:09:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You say that we can't know for sure, yet a disconnect is inherent in our view. Seems like you are contradicting yourself.

Our view could be wrong, or at least less than entirely and fundamentally correct.

K.




vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 6:46:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You say that we can't know for sure, yet a disconnect is inherent in our view. Seems like you are contradicting yourself.

Our view could be wrong, or at least less than entirely and fundamentally correct.

K.


Yes, of course. If our view (theory) is wrong, or some element of it is flawed, we search out another theory. Karl Popper championed "falsification." From what I read it was his position that if a theory was falsified the inquiry should turn to the least likely theory, the one with the greater number of uncertainties, and work from there. But, he did not say to abandon the search for a more valid theory.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Your Hawkins quote in part:
quote:

"Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them... Instead we adopt [a different view]"


What is the "different view" may I ask that leads from Hawkins to your position:

"In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. An objective reality existing independently of consciousness is not a scientific hypothesis, for the same reason that the existence of a supraphysical reality is not: neither is falsifiable by the methods of science."







Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 7:39:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

But, he did not say to abandon the search for a more valid theory.

Well, neither have I. Did you get that impression?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

What is the "different view" may I ask that leads from Hawkins to your position:

"In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. An objective reality existing independently of consciousness is not a scientific hypothesis, for the same reason that the existence of a supraphysical reality is not: neither is falsifiable by the methods of science."

The "different view" is quoted at the link in the post.

Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world. Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them... Instead we adopt a view that... a physical theory or world picture is a model... it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only where it agrees with observation.

Hawking agrees with Popper, who takes the position that all human knowledge is irreducibly conjectural. We can neither prove nor falsify the proposition that an objective world exists independently of conciousness because consciousness is what we employ to examine and understand it.

K.




Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 2:43:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Tweakabelle is right if her reasonable assumption is based on probabilities as is the atheist assumption that dead is dead and that there is no supernatural intervention in the laws of physics.


What probabilities, exactly?

You might want to acquaint yourself with the criticisms of Pascal's wager, as they apply to your notion of probabilities.

IWYW,
— Aswad.




Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 3:24:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

And therein lies the problem of your god-like self delusions.


No, actually, therein lies simple recognition of the fact that my thoughts don't work in a very normal way, a fact that's been established by others than myself, at that. And, to go with the evidence thing, it's been established by scientifically sound experiments and repeated for confirmation. Such doesn't constitute a "god-like self delusion", but you're welcome to discount science, of course.

As a very basic, simple and down to earth example, in primary/elementary school, I considered it self evident that Germanic strong verbs are conjugated by ablaut, and that the pattern is regular, which nobody else agreed with, and the teacher objected strongly to it, insisting that these must be memorized instead of learning the pattern. Later, it was confirmed to me that my original observation was correct and well known among linguists; indeed, the conjugation pattern is wholly conserved in Norwegian and its dialects. It allowed me to accurately conjugate dialectal forms I hadn't encountered back in grade 4 or so, while none of my peers learned to do this until grade 9, and then only a few.

When you recognize a pattern instinctively, it's self-evident to you. When you don't see it, but can be shown that it exist, it isn't self-evident to you, but neither is it self-evidently absent to you. When you can't even be shown the pattern, it is self-evidently absent to you. The trick is to remember that there will always be some people to whom the patterns you see will not be visible, and some people that see patterns which aren't visible to you, and of course that for all of us there will be some patterns we see that are actually illusory.

I know people that make me seem like an idiot child; so, no, not particularly god-like, and your posited delusion is false.

IWYW,
— Aswad.




Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625