Defending a belief rather than defending the pursuit of truth

Based on current understanding of how we perceive [ which is totally incorrect IMO ] the interpretation is subjective, [mind dependent] and the evidence is what ever it is [probably objective] but we have no way of knowing what it is.
And if you think that sounds like crap do the research yourself and realize that the worlds thinkers believe in crap.

example:
Evidence shows us that something exists that behaves in a way that we have since interpreted to be "Nuclear" Due to our interpretations of the evidence we have created Atomic theory in our quest to understand what it is we have observed and are observing.

We can not directly observe anything according to scientific understanding of how the brain/body /mind works a theory/hypothesis of which is fundamentally premised on Einstein/Minkowsky space/time and the use of propagating energy in the form of Photons, em and all that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean "we have no way of knowing"? I don't know about anyone else but that smells like bullshit to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yep it certainly is... but that's what science believes...on one hand and then conveniently ignores it on the other.
So we have this massive contradiction between philosophy that states absolute truth is unable to be known due to mind dependency and some of science who believe that fact and truth is indeed able to be known.
It is similar to the illusion that we can say we know what is happening in the universe today [ astrophysics- cosmology] yet all data we have to work with is hugely ancient in most cases. Some billions of years old. Yet editorials will often refer to it as being somehow relevant to today... common mistake... is to forget one of your first premises... light info delay times.

So what we think we know about the universe TODAY is essentially useless it is all based on incredibly obsolete and ancient information.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd believe you QQ, but your presentation of what science is today conflicts with my personal observations and the testimony of my friends who actually are scientists.

 

I am only using evidential references that "appear" to be correctly founded. such as:

Now you can defend your beliefs or defend the pursuit of truth... that is entirely up to you...but if you rely on "someone else's" authority then you will be caught up in their "belief systems" and become no more than an intellectual clone.
The point is, it is easy to call on authority with out having to do the work for yourself.. hey... most people do as it is time cost effective... but does it lead to a better belief [ a truer position ] than one existing... not likely.
And what ever you do, do not believe me, based entirely on just words posted on a net forum bulletin board... go do the work and form your own opinion.

 

According to the facts of epistemology belief is much more difficult than knowledge. Belief requires a sort of "reasonable truth" in order to be true to its own end and "reasonable doubt" in order for it to last forever. You can squander textbooks with ideas that appear reasonable and long upheld as fact just to have someone's belief smash it to pieces just by being more simple and pungent. A short phrase can destroy multiple long held ideologies by being contingent to the true ones and allowing the false one to stand out as false. And this epistemology is a belief! It is not bound inductively with reason nor is it deduced by many hypothesis. The simple fact still remains our system of logic appears to work for us when our intelligence formulates a response which is not discerned by anyone. Unquestioned and unequivocally post facto logic upholding the ideas of options far away from opinion. Yet the logic behind belief is still not for tradition. It is for advancement of those who understand all the options better than anyone else. The person who dares to find the slightest error in another's system of logic and identify them as mental for upholding a fraud rather than original ideas which attempt to modify a great thought from some great thinker we have the corruption of individuality which makes all facts fraudulent.

 

can you elaborate on this fascinating comment?
[ Please understand that IMO your use of the word "fraudulent" does not imply deliberate culpability]

The typical person suffering from various degrees of paranoia will often consider another's incorrect and stubborn beliefs as deliberate denial and accord a degree culpability [re: conspiracy theorist]

 

Anyone with the ability to discern that advance deserves a more simplistic quantification. The reason behind assumptions is to hold as many as possible before one appears to be either more true than the rest or less true than the rest. The actual test for this sort of realism in these days is to find the most simplistic truth that allows us to assume the highest order of original possibilities. Original possibilities are not something new. In fact they are something so ancient they "appear" new when a truth reveals itself. Yet the whole entire process fails if we fail to consider belief like a man stalking another man. They must appear equal until one finds the other.

Very true and both would oppose the pursuit of truth. Yet the arguments they render will aid both to seek truth and the ignorant man would continue to be ignorant in his own search.

 

@QQ --

Who says the two are mutually exclusive? I can defend my beliefs up till the point that they contradict the evidence without interfering with the pursuit of truth, and the pursuit of truth necessarily results in adopting beliefs.

You mean like you've been asking everyone one to do throughout this thread?

 

Thanks. You appear to be well studied in this area..
I agree with most if not all you have written...

 

you can support this paranoid statement I presume?
Or do you just make asinine accusations on the fly with out any support what so ever...

 

this is a good point.
[I wonder if enlightenedOne would care to comment as well.]

But think about it.
If you are defending your belief and defending your pursuit for truth simultaneously then you are not defending your belief are you?

Try this:
By pursuing a better truth are you not also by default considering the belief you hold to be potentially inferior?

[Now I suppose you think I am making a statement of fact [authority] when merely wishing to discuss it with you? The above is only premised on a personal opinion and certainly not as you have suggested as being some sort of truth [authority]]

It's as if you wish to accuse any one with more experience or knowledge or understanding as being a source of truth... why is that?

EnlightendOne is obviously erudite and well trained. Should I consider him/her as some sort of threat? if so why?

 

If all people were as genuinely curious and quick witted as QQ I Feel the world would not need individuality explained to them!

 

@QQ --

Sure you are, up till the point where they conflict with the evidence.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then we don't dispute the evidence. Just its interpretation.

 

And I trust you can support such disputes with something other than "but you don't know"? Perhaps providing us with alternative interpretations of the evidence which are just as logically sound?

 

but there is ALWAYS the potential for conflicting evidence...or alternative interpretations, which is why a belief is a belief and the truth is the truth

Belief is an infinite variable where as truth is an absolute.... there are no half truths for example... 0/2 still = 0

 

yes it has been one of my greatest problems when talking with people.
I type 1+1=2
and they say that I am trying to force them to believe it, that I am an authority that is oppressing their free spirit or something similar.....when in fact it is their own use of logic and rational that does the forcing not mine...

 

A classic example:
Human evolutionary theory states currently that man came out of Africa. Then one day as they are currently doing [according to the news??] they find earlier Human remains in Israel. Suddenly scientific "fact" becomes fiction. Then sometime in the future they may find earlier remains yet again in say Russia of under you chair.. who knows where...?
And all those kids in school have to relearn everything because some teacher incorrectly told then that Out of Africa was proven fact [truth]

So take a look under your seat... you could find a fossil that may rewrite the his-story of man so that it becomes Out of A*se instead of Out of A*ica [only kidding... couldn't resist the jibe]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@QQ --

Of course your guy made one assumption that I wouldn't, that the fossil represented a human ancestor when it may have simply been another species of bipedal ape(we weren't the only ones you know).