Words have no Meaning

[granpa]

belief is formed through fuzzy logic on the basis of fuzzy evidence.
knowledge is formed through deductive logic on the basis of (nonfuzzy) facts.

the difference between them is that one accepts fuzzy logic values (values between true and false) and the other doesnt.

 

[Myles]

You say you would believe something as true, with no evidence.
And you think you are typical?

I don’t get it. Why would anyone believe something with no evidence.
For that matter, why would someone have an opinion with no evidence?
I have had occasions to think about decision making. That is what we are talking about, isn’t it? We are talking about making a decision such as: “I have a belief this is true.”, and you would make such a decision with no evidence.
I would say I have very little respect for your decision making.


Well, you have not shown that beliefs can be formulated without evidence. If it is possible, I do not think it is common place.

Even if you could, evidence supports falseness as handily as it supports truthfulness. Knowledge may be true, it may be false. Evidence has sent men to their death in a legal court of law, and some of those death causing decisions were based on false conclusions. Yes you can get others to agree with you, whether you are correct or not.

This is a thing that is true because we say it is true. Every rational person knows it is true, and only an irrational person would disagree with your claim.
When there is no disagreement, no justification is necessary. There is no need to justify your claim to any sane person. If justification is necessary for knowledge, this is not knowledge.

What you say is a truism. Knowledge must be supported by the evidence.
The problems is, who gets to decide what is acceptable evidence?
Among Christians, there is much evidence Jesus was the only son of God, and the savior of the world.
Do you claim among Christians there is not an abundance of evidence for these things?

Is there knowledge about global warming?
There is conflicting information about the causes and effects of global warming, especially in regard to mankind’s role, and all of the beliefs are supported by evidence, so is all of the information knowledge, that cannot be wrong?

In many cases there are two sides, each with evidence, and you would have us believe . . . .what?
Are we to think any time there is disagreement between two groups, neither one has knowledge (true information), or do they both have knowledge?

You seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I can believe in unicorns, alien invaders, cabbages on mars without objective evidence. There is no limit to what beliefs I can have .

Knowledge is belief supported be evidence. I assumed you would infer that I meant objective evidence, i.e., evidence that would be acceptable to others- see what I said about rain and my meaning should be clear

 

[granpa]

I can believe in unicorns, alien invaders, cabbages on mars without objective evidence..

i cant.

 

[Myles]

i cant.

If I sent you a pic would that help ?

 

[granpa]

If I sent you a pic would that help ?

nope. i cant arbitrarily make myself believe in something.

one must distinguish between believing (thinking), feeling, and knowing. what you are describing sounds more like a FEELING than a belief. feelings are the result of inductive thinking. like the monster behind the shower curtain. i can make myself feel that there is a monster behind the shower curtain. but i dont believe it.

in inductive thinking you temporarily suspend your disbelief in something in order to get a FEEL for whether it is probably true or not.

suspension of disbelief is not the same as belief.
FEELING is not the same as believing.

 

[Myles]

nope. i cant arbitrarily make myself believe in something.

one must distinguish between believing (thinking), feeling, and knowing. what you are describing sounds more like a FEELING than a belief. feelings are the result of inductive thinking. like the monster behind the shower curtain. i can make myself feel that there is a monster behind the shower curtain. but i dont believe it.

in inductive thinking you temporarily suspend your disbelief in something in order to get a FEEL for whether it is probably true or not.

suspension of disbelief is not the same as belief.
FEELING is not the same as believing.

Not necessarily. People who believe in alien abduction will describe in great detail how they were taken to the spaceship, what was done to them and so. Some are probably hoaxers but I suggest there are a few who believe it because they have the (subjective) evidence.

Consifder also how people behave under hypnosis, not to mention all those who believe in miracles which cannot be supported by evidence

 

[granpa]

Not necessarily. People who believe in alien abduction will describe in great detail how they were taken to the spaceship, what was done to them and so. Some are probably hoaxers but I suggest there are a few who believe it because they have the (subjective) evidence.

Consifder also how people behave under hypnosis, not to mention all those who believe in miracles which cannot be supported by evidence

so, in other words, naive, nonobjective people believe in things based on the evidence of subjective feelings. you may be onto something there. but i dont think thats true of mature objective adults.

 

[Enmos]

How can any human be objective ?

 

[granpa]

objectivity

How can any human be objective ?

a subjective person sees whatever they look for. look for a monster behind the shower curtain and you will see it. an objective person honestly looks for the objective truth. look for the objective truth and you will find it.

its just a matter of being willing to accept the truth whether it is what you want it to be or not. that is objectivity.

 

[Enmos]

a subjective person sees whatever they look for. look for a monster behind the shower curtain and you will see it. an objective person looks for the objective truth. look for the objective truth and you will find it.

its just a matter of being willing to accept the truth whether it is what you want it to be or not. that is objectivity.

I don't think objective truth can be experienced though.. what exactly do you mean by it ?

 

[granpa]

I don't think objective truth can be experienced though.. what exactly do you mean by it ?

i mean exactly what people usually mean. as far as not being able to experience (know) objective truth, there isnt much i can say. i have told you exactly what you must do. you will just have to try it and see for yourself.

our senses are fuzzy but fuzziness can be eliminated with error correction techniques. thats precisely what 'feelings' are for. also not everything needs to be known precisely. if there was an atom bomb 10 feet over my head i may not know whether it is 10 feet or 10.001 feet but either way i know that if it went off i would die.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

its just a matter of being willing to accept the truth whether it is what you want it to be or not. that is objectivity.

Is it so easy to know what one wants to believe?
I assume, also, that you believe in free will? Was your process at arriving in the belief objective?
If you don't believe in free will, I find your sense of what an objective person does rather odd. They would be compelled to have their beliefs just like everyone else.

 

[granpa]

Is it so easy to know what one wants to believe?
I assume, also, that you believe in free will? Was your process at arriving in the belief objective?

why you would believe that beyond me.

If you don't believe in free will...They would be compelled to have their beliefs just like everyone else.

so? as long as they, by being objective, are compelled to believe in the objective truth what does it matter?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

why you would believe that beyond me.

I will answer that question, but can you state it clearly whether you believe in free will or not.

so? as long as they are compelled to believe in the objective truth what does it matter?

I may not have made my point clearly. It seemed to me you were making a distinction between two ways of arriving at a belief. In a deterministic universe this distinction is meaningless. And certainly there is no room for pride in the process of ascertaining truth, everyone being simply propelled toward it unavoidably, whatever that belief is. Beliefs would simply happen in that universe.

But it seemed like you believe in free will. So perhaps that issue is moot. Let me know.

 

[granpa]

so, in other words, naive, nonobjective people believe in things based on the evidence of subjective feelings. you may be onto something there. but i dont think thats true of mature objective adults.

its just a matter of being willing to accept the truth whether it is what you want it to be or not. that is objectivity.

Is it so easy to know what one wants to believe?

one doesnt need to know what one wants to believe. one simply has to be willing to accept the truth regardless of what one wants.

If you don't believe in free will...They would be compelled to have their beliefs just like everyone else.

I may not have made my point clearly. It seemed to me you were making a distinction between two ways of arriving at a belief. In a deterministic universe this distinction is meaningless. And certainly there is no room for pride in the process of ascertaining truth, everyone being simply propelled toward it unavoidably, whatever that belief is. Beliefs would simply happen in that universe.

i have no idea why you are bringing up the issue of freewill. i see no connection at all. what two ways of arriving at a belief are you talking about. why is the distinction meaningless in a deterministic universe?

i am saying that objective people dont form beliefs based on the evidence of subjective feelings.

beliefs are based on fuzzy logic. knowledge isnt. thats what i meant when i said that fuzziness can be eliminated (through objective error correction).

 

[Myles]

so, in other words, naive, nonobjective people believe in things based on the evidence of subjective feelings. you may be onto something there. but i dont think thats true of mature objective adults.

How about all the people who believe in god ?

 

[Vkothii]

The usual crop of ideas about the subjects of free will, objectivity, etc.

"Free will" is a strange beast. "Free" means unbound or unconstrained, and "will" means control or constraint, so it's non sequitur.
"Choice" is an easier version to deal with, in my lexicon.

We have choice, or we can choose. It's an advantage.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

one doesnt need to know what one wants to believe. one simply has to be willing to accept the truth regardless of what one wants.

What I was heading toward was that recent psychology and neuroscience seems to question how much the conscious mind really knows about why it makes the choices it makes, including those choices that seem objective and logical.

i have no idea why you are bringing up the issue of freewill. i see no connection at all. what two ways of arriving at a belief are you talking about. why is the distinction meaningless in a deterministic universe?

I thought you made a distinction between those who search for knowledge that fits with what they want and those who search for the truth regardless of whether it fits with their wants. The distinction becomes meaningless in a deterministic universe because each would simply end up in a belief. The belief being the last domino in some chain.

i am saying that objective people dont form beliefs based on the evidence of subjective feelings.

That word 'form' could be misleading. It makes it sound like they create or choose their beliefs. In a deterministic universe they would not choose their beliefs. Just like the people you are calling subjective, the beliefs would simply happen.

 

[Myles]

The usual crop of ideas about the subjects of free will, objectivity, etc.

"Free will" is a strange beast. "Free" means unbound or unconstrained, and "will" means control or constraint, so it's non sequitur.
"Choice" is an easier version to deal with, in my lexicon.

We have choice, or we can choose. It's an advantage.

Free will , as used by philosophers, means the ability to make unconstrained choices

Why do you believe that will means control or constraint ?

 

[granpa]

if you would just say 'no, being objective wont change anything. its all beliefs' i could understand. you would be wrong but i would understand. bringing up freewill makes it sound like i am suggesting something mystical or supernatural.

objectivity is simply being perfectly willing to accept the outcome of ones reasoning whether it is what you want it to be or not. it has the effect of eliminating subjective bias. there is nothing mystical about it.

eliminating the fuzziness from our fuzzy logic thinking is simply a matter of error correction. again nothing mystical here.