|
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2008 : 18:09:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Lambchopsuey
FURTHERmore, to respond to an idea that was posted above, IF you have to create fantastical scenarios to make your point, your point is probably pretty damn weak to begin with. Hence the "If I say something is true without any possibility of verification, and later such verification becomes available and I was right" well, sorry, but the initial claim was STILL no more convincing or compelling than opinion. I find this all the time - I can TELL what's going to happen sometimes if someone does something - and I warn them - and they don't believe me and go ahead and do it anyway - and it turns out I was right. So what? Clearly, even though I had a good basis for my prediction, it was not persuasive enough. People have to learn for themselves and figure things out through trial and error - you shouldn't expect mere argument to convince someone of something for which there is no objective evidence. No matter how emotional YOU feel about it. |
This is not about persuasion, though, or how compelling an argument is. This is about what is and is not the case, regardless of how well it can be elaborated on, how charismatically it can be orated, or how persuasive its proponents can be. |
 |
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 18:18:11 [Permalink]
|
No, it is NOT a "dead ballerina" - it is called "Fat Man"! NOW do you see how illustrious it is???
And here's my response to your message above:
1) THINK FOR YOURSELF.
2) Agree? I'm not sure - I'm getting this undeniable impression that you're trying to sneak SOMETHING in through the back door.
The fact that there are mathematical equations that support String Theory - to be honest, that String Theory was formulated on the basis of the results of mathematical equations (cart/horse) - validates String Theory to some extent. It's got SOMETHING. Anyone can look over the equations for themselves, you see, and check 'em out. That's tangible.
Then again, there isn't anybody telling everyone else they HAVE to accept String Theory, or that they'll be punished in an eternity of screaming, writhing agony if they don't, or that there is something fundamentally wrong with them as human beings if they don't, is there? Didn't think so.
3) What enrages me is that for actually over a year now, I think, I have been telling you that I hold to the conformity definition of truth, (I havent got it in front of me, btu I think I said someting like a proposition needs to be in accord with what is the case for it to be true) and you simultaniously dont and accuse me of not holding to it as if you do.
Ah. Then would you please be so kind as to define "Absolute Truth" and how it is used, of what use it is, like that, again for me, since I seem to have forgotten? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 18:26:03 [Permalink]
|
HI EVERY-BODY!
(HI DOCTOR FILTH!)
Welcome to SFN! I realize that we are providing refuge from another forum that seems to have a spastic trigger finger on the delete button (lots of those around), and that's ok. Have at it. And don't feel bashful about joining in on some other threads.
Again, welcome; hoping you'll liven the place up a little!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
The_Death_Of_Achilles
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 18:26:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Lambchopsuey
No, it is NOT a "dead ballerina" - it is called "Fat Man"! NOW do you see how illustrious it is??? |
Honestly I just dont see it. Has he been squashed or something?
With reply to 1, the topic isnt something I am in a position to give enough thought to at the moment. I'm struggling with "Starting Logic" - once I've got my head round the basics, then I can worry about the philosophy behind it.
With regard to 2, then I really simply dont know what more I can do. Anything I say, even when we come to similar conclusions, will be seen as an attempt to sneak Christianity in. My beliefs are even going through flux as it happens (think about it, when on the Pit did you last see me making a thread affirming traditional Christendom or anything of the sort - I dont even tend to mention religious beliefs or theology anymore unless in reply to somebody else) but because I was once an active apologetic, now everything I say must somehow be related? I dont think I can get around that. It's like the story of the man who was convinced that all his collegues were trying to poison him, and no matter how much people would protest they werent he would simply believe them to be trying to lull him into a sense of false security.
I think absoloute truth tends to be used to contrast with relativistic notions of truth. As far as I can see the main disagreement comes down to the Law of Non-Contradiction. Can something "Be and Not Be". The conformity model of truth is, by the way, an absoloutist theory of truth. If proposition P accords with the state of affairs in the world, then it is true. |
|
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 18:26:58 [Permalink]
|
| Hi, Filthy! Love ya - mean it! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 19:31:53 [Permalink]
|
(Note: I'm not going to delete this thread, but I am going to move it. Hope everyone finds it again okay.)
The "absolute truth" is unknowable, because we're always separated from what is to some extent, and have no control over how accurate the intervening medium (or media) is (or are).
For all we know, we're living in a Matrix, and all of this is basically a lie and the real truth is untouchable. (I was actually disappointed that nobody in the trilogy really asked, "what if this isn't real, either?" Once you've broken through one layer of "reality," there's no telling when you'll reach real reality.)
But, as has already been noted, living as if what appears to be reality is not is, to say the least, impracticle. People who get close - either on purpose or through disease - are seen as insane.
Pragmatism, it seems to me, is the only rational guide. If everything about X behaves as would be expected if X were real, then we can tentatively and pragmatically assign "true" to X.
By the way, there have been cases where people steadfastly refuse to believe that particular limbs are theirs. There was the famous guy who, while in the hospital for something else, woke up and was utterly convinced that someone had snuck in, removed his left leg and replaced it with someone else's. He even tried to throw the "impostor" leg out of his bed (and wound up sprawled on the floor because of the force he used). So while most people may have difficulties denying that their hand is theirs, it certainly isn't an impossible or even unheard of act. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 19:33:51 [Permalink]
|
Oh hey, welcome to SFN people! My signature pretty much sums it up for me, even though it may be a bit of an exaggeration.
I dunno... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 19:40:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
By the way, there have been cases where people steadfastly refuse to believe that particular limbs are theirs. There was the famous guy who, while in the hospital for something else, woke up and was utterly convinced that someone had snuck in, removed his left leg and replaced it with someone else's. He even tried to throw the "impostor" leg out of his bed (and wound up sprawled on the floor because of the force he used). So while most people may have difficulties denying that their hand is theirs, it certainly isn't an impossible or even unheard of act.
|
I believe that tale was in "The Man Who Thought His Wife Was A Hat", by the psychologist Oliver Sacks.
The guy described it as a horrible, creepy cadaver leg someone had somehow attached to his body. The name of the short story was 'The Man Who Fell Out Of Bed.'
That reminds me of those guys who are bound and determined to have perfectly healthy limbs amputated. But I digress... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 19:57:34 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks, Lambchopsuey, for reminding me. Having that book on my shelf, I just re-read the tale (it's less than three pages). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 21:14:34 [Permalink]
|
TDoA said:
| I think Emsby is talking about logical certainty here |
Hrmmm... interesting.
Logic is about the only place you can find complete certainty.
Because, you know, I can't tell you (with absolute certainty) that I won't be able to teleport next week.
SFN has been home to variants of this particular conversation quite a few times, but its still interesting.
So, if you have this basic logical construction:
All A = B
No C = A
Therefore No C = B
As long as your premises do not change, your conclusion is certain.
From a pragmatic point of view, out here in the real world, I understand why people don't want to declare certainty.
Here is another example: I'll record myself on video for 60 seconds and not speak. You can then say, after looking at the video, with absolute certainty, that I did not speak for those 60 seconds. Before you see the video, you can't.
My point is- Individual knowledge does not have bearing on the "truth" of a certain thing.
People often confuse the concept of "I can't be certain" with "no one can be certain". It is a mistake to extend that particular quality outside one's self without careful consideration. Obviously there are limits to what I can know today, but those exact same limits only apply to me and only for this moment. A given person's limits may not change much, but it is foolish to project them onto all others.
What did the first Norman to set foot in Saxony in 1066 say at 12:54pm of that day? (Die Saxon dog! or Get this f'ing arrow out of me!) I don't know, likely can't know. But the guy walking one pace behind him knew.
emsby asked:
When exactly are we justified in claiming that X is true?
|
Depends on the context.
In a place (like here) where you conclusions are likely to be examined and challenged you can claim "X is true" when you can provide evidence(independently verifiable, repeatable) to support the claim and an explanation of why the evidence supports the claim.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 21:48:01 [Permalink]
|
I think we all, more or less, can agree that there is both a truth irrespective of human knowledge, and that human knowledge is limited in the extent it can perceive that truth.
However, accepting these limiting conditions, the next question must then be "what the best method available to humans for discovering as much of what's true as possible?" I submit that it is applied skepticism, and that any claim to knowledge which fails to pass skeptical muster, using reasonable standards of evidence, should be discarded.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/14/2008 21:48:32 |
|
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 23:48:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I think we all, more or less, can agree that there is both a truth irrespective of human knowledge, and that human knowledge is limited in the extent it can perceive that truth.
However, accepting these limiting conditions, the next question must then be "what the best method available to humans for discovering as much of what's true as possible?" I submit that it is applied skepticism, and that any claim to knowledge which fails to pass skeptical muster, using reasonable standards of evidence, should be discarded.
|
I absolutely agree. Skepticism is the way to go, and those who make the claims need to provide the evidence if they want their claims to be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
The_Death_Of_Achilles
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 05:39:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
TDoA said:
Logic is about the only place you can find complete certainty. |
See, I genuinly disagree with this.
| People often confuse the concept of "I can't be certain" with "no one can be certain". It is a mistake to extend that particular quality outside one's self without careful consideration. Obviously there are limits to what I can know today, but those exact same limits only apply to me and only for this moment. A given person's limits may not change much, but it is foolish to project them onto all others. |
But, to play Devil's advocate, what of Descartes' evil daemon? Or perhaps the "brain in a vat" hypothesis - or the famous "How do you know you're not dreaming?"
- I would argue against all of those, but it's certainly the case that skeptics throughout the centuries have come up with ever more unlikely (and, yet - importantly - nethertheless conceivable) hypothesis' which they would argue render such pragmatic certainties up for doubt. Of course I am using the word "sceptic" in the philosophic sense there, rather than that which the word is being used on this esteemed site I now join.
When exactly are we justified in claiming that X is true?
|
Depends on the context.
In a place (like here) where you conclusions are likely to be examined and challenged you can claim "X is true" when you can provide evidence(independently verifiable, repeatable) to support the claim and an explanation of why the evidence supports the claim.
|
And, finally, for my actual view. Even under the conditions you give Emsby (using her name to represent "The Philosophic Skeptic" rather than trying to actually commit her to any position) could well come back with "Ah, but what you are commited to there is just a high degree of probability, and that is not which we call Knowledge" and no matter how much you protested about how great the degree of evidense you have Emsby could say "Knowledge requires that what you say cannot be wrong - untill you can give me a certain justification rather than just a high degree of probability it is improper that you use the word "knowledge" to describe it. You cannot give me certain justification till you can assure me that I am not just a brain in a vat, therefore - seeing as how you cannot do that - you can never use the word knowledge in any philosophic discussion".
Or, knowing Emsby, something somewhat more eloquent than the convuluted nonsense I am wont to post when I just woke up! But I hope you get what I mean.
My response to this would essentially be (and here I am quoting a summary of Wittgenstein - so not so much "my" response but perhaps "the response which I believe to be successfull") | But even the form the sceptic's challenge takes - the linguistic format to which it must conform so that another can understand it - presupposes the existence of the community and it's linguistic practices. The sceptic's doubts are thus self-defeating. They presuppose the very existence of that which he wishes to challenge as possibly non-existent |
And on that basis I'd say that the non-logical proposition "There is a world" can be afforded the same degree of certainty. As can a lot of other basic common sense propositions "I exist today and existed yesterday" "I am in some spatial relation to other material objects" etc etc. And, to reiterate, the claim I make here is stronger than "For practical reasons, we must suppose these as axioms" but rather "They simply are not coherently doubted". |
| Edited by - The_Death_Of_Achilles on 02/15/2008 05:40:24 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 06:09:50 [Permalink]
|
Wow, fortune smiles on us, its rare to get so many new posters at once, welcome all.
I am of the ilk that feels something is either true or not-true, our perception of it or inability to prove it has no bearing on its truth value. Not exactly a practical position but accurate none the less. I am also of the ilk that says due to sophistry, certainty is impossible. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 07:45:45 [Permalink]
|
TDoA said:
But, to play Devil's advocate, what of Descartes' evil daemon? Or perhaps the "brain in a vat" hypothesis - or the famous "How do you know you're not dreaming?"
|
If the argument is reduced to this level, then all you have is solipsism.
There are a few things that must be assumed: There is an objective reality and my senses are capable of accurately detecting it. This, obviously, cannot be proven so we have to assume it is true to avoid that solipsistic pit of meaninglessness.
You can't even place value on this conversation unless you work from that base set of assumptions.
Working within that context (the context of my assumption that objective reality exists and I am capable of detecting it) you can indeed have knowledge and sometimes certainty.
Originally posted by Dude
Logic is about the only place you can find complete certainty.
TDoA said:
See, I genuinly disagree with this.
|
|
If I didn't say it previously (perhaps I should have) it was because I mistakenly assumed everyone participating would know this: Logic, and any conclusion reached using it, is context dependent.
From the pragmatic point of view my base assumptions must be assigned a value of true, and within that context there are plenty of things I can say with certainty.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
On Truth
