Belief/evidence

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Simon Anders, Nov 22, 2008.

  1. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502
    Very well put.
    Succinct, and all correct.

    Any wff (well formed formula) is always ultimately tautological (which is to say, devoid of novelty).

    This is the roadblock that some here continually run into, and they only run into it because they mistakenly believe that logic can uncover meaning. As pointed out here by swarm, the only powder that logic holds is to elucidate. To generate, one must make use of SM.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    that's assuming what we observe describes the real reality.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    There is no roadblock or dilemma. Senses or logic or whatever you want to use as justification are all methods of arriving to a conclusion. Does this mean one cannot posess knowledge? No. Furthermore, logic is the basis of reasoning. There is no reasoning without logic. Reason is wholy dependent on logic. Without logic, there is no reason. Without logic, there is nothing to discuss. Everything must conform/pertain to the parameters of logic. Otherwise, it is garbage.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,459
    Lixluke - I may be wrong, but in none of this have I seen you state any "certain knowledge" which you claim we are able to obtain...
    Surely your best way to demonstrate that there is no dilemma, as suggested, is to provide an example of such?
     
  8. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    It doesn't matter. Removing the errors is part of the process.
     
  9. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    it does matter. you cannot say that the reality we observe IS the real reality because we don't know.
     
  10. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    I've provided examples over and over and over and over.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,459
    Apologies, then, but please can you provide another... for clarity.
    Please?
     
  12. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    I agree with this, as it's the utility of the model that's important. The "Truth" is fundamentally irrelevant, as it can never be known.
     
  13. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Everytime I post an example people try to disprove it by jumping outside of the parameters of logic. Anythig can be disproven when jumping outside of the parameters of logic. Not to mention all requests for examples are utterly pointless as if you cannot provide your own example. There are tons of examples in nature, in science, or whatever that any intelligent individual would agree is true. Why ask me for an example instead of just provide one that any person with any intelligent reasoning would agree as true? I'm sick of providing example after example after example. Why don't you provide an example of something that is commonly accepted as obviously true? Then I'll let you know if I agree if it is definitely true. Then you'll have your example.
     
  14. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Hmmm.... I'm aware of quite a few which are "definately not true" lol.
    Sorry, ignore me guys.
     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,459
    But we won't have an example of something that it is categorically objectively true... all we will have is something that a number of people have agreed is a truth... but this is then merely a shared subjective truth and not an example or proof of an objective truth.

    So again I ask you to please provide an example of an objective truth.
     
  16. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Give an example of something that is subjectively true.
     
  17. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Peanut butter is yummy.
    Peanut butter is gross.

    Both statements are subjectively true.
     
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,459
    Anything I observe with my senses is subjectively true... due to the experiential nature of the observation... i.e. my experience of an observation will be different to yours, however slightly.
    We can use logic, reason, science to strip away much of the subjectivity - but we can never eliminate it.
    And since observation is the key to determining truth... implicit within any statement of truth must be subjectivity.

    Of course, something might be objectively true... but we can never know for sure. Until such time as you can categorgically prove that you are not just a brain in a jar, for example, you can not claim objective truth - and everything is merely subjective.

    Now, with a few assumptions thrown in, we can claim objective truth of things... but this is objective relative to the assumptions, and speaks nothing of the validity (truth or otherwise) of those assumptions.
     
  19. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Wrong. The subject uses senses to observe reality. However, reality is independent of the subject. Truth is independent of the subject. The claim that the subject "will never know for sure" is incorrect. Even if 2 subjects have antithetical beliefs on a matter, their beliefs cannot and will not ever have an effect on the truth of the matter. Furthremore, one of them must possess knowledge while the other one must possess misconception. It is impossible for both of them to not possess knowledge. Level of certainty has no relevance to a belief. There are only 2 states:
    A. Believe X is true.
    B. Consider the object inconclusive.

    All beliefs of a subject are beliefs about objective truth of an object. If a subject makes the statement that something is true. The subject is making the statement that it is objectively true independent of any subject. It is impossible for a subject to state that something is subjectively true. In order for truth to be subjective, truth must depend on the subject.

    TRUTH IS ONLY SUBJECTIVE WHEN:
    If subject believes X is true, then X is true.


    Give an example of any object, and it can have only 1 of 2 possible qualities. True or False. It is impossible for truth to be subjective. It is impossible for man to be unable to possess knowledge.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,459
    Well, if you say so...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Round and round and round he goes... where he stops, nobody knows.

    If you are going to be precise you need to say "objective truth is independent of the subject". As "subjective truth" also exists as a concept.

    Then answer me this one simple question... how do you know that the objective truth is that you are not merely a brain in a jar, and that everything you observe with any of your senses is being fed to you by some lab-assistant and a bunch of electrodes?

    Answer me that and we can move on....


    The rest of your drivel is irrelevant unless you can answer the above question.
    And please get used to using the phrase "objective truth" if that is what you mean, rather than just "truth" - as it will get VERY confusing otherwise.

    Furthermore, noone accepts your "rules of knowledge". This has been covered in another thread, has been found wanting and discarded. Please therefore have the courtesy not to litter other threads, such as this, with the same detritus.
     
  21. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    We've already been over "how do you know" statements many times and its misinterpretation.
    "How do you know" = "What justification compeled you to a belief". There could be counless methods at which an individual arrives to a conclusion (is compelled to a belief). The method is irrelevant to whether a person possesses the knowledge or not. And, as proven, the repeated question of "how do you know you know X" is a completely invalid question.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,459
    lixluke, just for a second please stop regurgitating your drivel and actually try to understand the words that you use and the sentences you put together.

    The logical conclusion of all that you say is that it is impossible to say whether something is objectively true or not. The best we can do is make a claim of knowledge... "I know X is true"... based on whatever justification.

    "I know X is true" is a claim that we make that X is true.

    This claim, you agree, is irrelevant to the actual truth or not of the whether X is true or not.

    But if the best we can do is make a claim of knowledge, we can never reach objective truth... just a consensus claim of knowledge.


    But I'll go out on a limb, here, and you'll say I'm wrong, and then regurgitate more of the same bollox you always seem to.


    Round and round and round....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    This is getting rediculious!!!
     

Share This Page