|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2005 : 13:11:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
Well this discussion appears to be going nowhere fast.
Oh BTW ISAIAH, I don't really appreciate being misquoted!
I changed the word "borrowed" to "altered" if that makes you feel better; I wasn't trying to attribute the altered quote to you.
This discussion may indeed be petering out, but I've had a great time. Thanks. |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
 |
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 13:13:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wendy
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
That doesn't mean that those people are correct. Art and aesthetics are subsets of philosophy, which has peer-review.
I agree. It also does not mean those people are incorrect. Unless you accept as proof the agreement of a majority of the peers (I don't), philosophical theory as to what is beautiful is impossible to prove. It is entirely subjective.
I love that "impossible to prove" and "impossible to believe" go hand in hand for skeptics. That makes me smile.
Isaiah |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 14:18:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I love that "impossible to prove" and "impossible to believe" go hand in hand for skeptics. That makes me smile.
You are out there in your own little world, aren't you?
To a skeptic, following the rules of logic, the only thing "impossible to prove" is a negative. For example: "God does not exist." So, by your (obviously flawed) reasoning, skeptics must also think that the statement "It is impossible to believe that god does not exist." to be true!
...
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 14:31:15 [Permalink]
|
This probably won't move the conversation along much but I figure it's time to weigh in…
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
I love that "impossible to prove" and "impossible to believe" go hand in hand for skeptics. That makes me smile.
They don't go hand in hand for me. I believe to my core that I love my girlfriend and my children even though that would be impossible to prove. In matters of the heart, you will just have to take me at my word…
quote:
Isaiah
What I'm actually talking about is my choice about eight years ago to stop being so skeptical. I think that that choice had an effect on my emotional and aesthetic openness as well as my openness to accepting a belief without evidence.
While your openness to accepting a belief without evidence makes sense as an example of what would happen if we choose to stop thinking critically, has it not occurred to you that the effect on your emotional and aesthetic openness might be due to your own personal growth and nothing to do with skepticism at all? Did you wake up the day after you let go of your skepticism and notice all the beauty that you could not see the day before? Were you more touched by the sunrise then you were the day before?
I have been a skeptic for more than 30 years now. At 55 I can honestly say that I have a much deeper appreciation now than I did when I was 25 for art, music (curious because I have been a musician for longer than I have been a skeptic) and the sheer beauty and power of nature. (Again, curious because I was a surfer for 25 of my years.) I can choose to deconstruct what I see and hear or ignore what I know, and feel it in a way that I just didn't do when I was younger. As a musician, I can let the beauty of the blues wash over me, or, if I choose, I can listen to how it is being played and what makes this interpretation different than that interpretation. I now have the ability to choose how I am going to appreciate what I see and hear. And I am sure that is one of the prizes of maturing, even though I can't prove it… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 15:19:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
They don't go hand in hand for me. I believe to my core that I love my girlfriend and my children even though that would be impossible to prove. In matters of the heart, you will just have to take me at my word…
Precisely!
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 15:45:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
While your openness to accepting a belief without evidence makes sense as an example of what would happen if we choose to stop thinking critically, has it not occurred to you that the effect on your emotional and aesthetic openness might be due to your own personal growth and nothing to do with skepticism at all?
Yes, it has. And I think you're right. That was what I thought the reason was at first. But this conjecture has been tickling at the back of my head for awhile, and I didn't know any other real way of hearing people fight against it except coming here and having this argument. My apologies for wasting the time of you guys, but I needed someone to argue with that would have an investment in the skeptic's side of things. At best, I'm a philosopher, and I needed to play devil's advocate--pushing the argument as far as I thought it could go. I'm willing to concede that giving up being as skeptical probably isn't tied to opening up aesthetically or emotionally, but I had to play through the arguments a little, give them a chance since they wouldn't let go. And I don't have a lot of people around me who like argument as much anymore (and part of me says "Thank Goddess" for that).
Again, sorry for wasting your time, but I enjoyed listening to you (even you, Dude). Hope I wasn't too much of an asshole. |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 19:23:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Again, sorry for wasting your time, but I enjoyed listening to you (even you, Dude). Hope I wasn't too much of an asshole.
I wouldn't say you were an asshole.
Just willfully ignorant and predisposed to think of skeptics in a negative context.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 19:25:09 [Permalink]
|
Isaiah, it's fairly obvious to me that most of this has not been a "waste of time." Some parts, perhaps, but not all.
Oh, and I've just got to respond to this:quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
I love that "impossible to prove" and "impossible to believe" go hand in hand for skeptics. That makes me smile.
My favorite color is blue. It's not a belief, it's a fact. No amount of critical analysis or testing led to this discovery. I just realized, "I like blue the best or all colors." It's impossible to prove in any scientific way, but also impossible for me to not believe it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 20:31:36 [Permalink]
|
It is, I think, possible to be inappropriatly skeptical as this conversation makes clear:
Me: Honey, I'm home.
My wife: Oh darling, I love you.
Me: Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
My wife: What! ...What! I work my fingers to the bone for you. I cook, I clean! How dare you say something like that!
Me: Well yeah, but that's your job, I...
I am now recovering in a hospital bed.
Of course no one is really that 'skeptical'. I know I'm not, ...er anymore. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 22:08:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
Oh BTW ISAIAH, I don't really appreciate being misquoted!
quote:
I changed the word "borrowed" to "altered" if that makes you feel better; I wasn't trying to attribute the altered quote to you.
Ahh, but you see the quote is mine; I said it. So by altering it you are misquoting me.
Also, I did not mean to imply that this entire thread has been a waste, it has not. Just the parts attempting to quantify beauty. It is in the "eye of the beholder" after all. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 19:42:24 [Permalink]
|
Open up those cans of whoop-ass again.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
1. Discussion and clarification of my original question -- which certainly does need clarified since I only put this into words the day before I wrote it here (and I wrote it here in order to further clarify it, so thank you)
...
I'm going to try to stay focused on topic #1 for right now.
A lot got pinned on discussion of Heisenberg, photons, and quantum physics when I was only trying to use that as an example of what I meant by set 2 questions. It obviously wasn't a good example because it caused the conversation to derail into discussion of the specifics of how that example doesn't fit set 2. So I'm on a quest to find a non-paranormal, "wacko" example of what I mean by set 2 in order to show it's not an empty set.
Good luck trying. Because the way I see it, now, is that with a well-understood and well-defined statement about a subject, testing the subject will either (A) allow us to better discover the truth value of the statement (we'll never know if it is precisely 1, though), or (B) destroy the subject and leave us forever in the dark about the statement's truth value. In neither case does the statement's truth value itself change.
I haven't given up yet, I've just been doing what I said I was: trying to think of another example for set 2 . I have an example.
"Wikipedia is a more independent source than most traditional encyclopedias and that the reliability is potentially greater than that of a traditional source, since errors can be corrected immediately."
This is closer to what I imagined for set 2. I think it is certainly possible to be skeptical of Wikipedia's reliability. But, testing the subject (Wikipedia) won't (B) destroy it and I also think it won't (A) better discover the truth value.
I think this is partly because of the investigation of a unique object and partly because of the nature of the object. |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 12:52:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
I haven't given up yet, I've just been doing what I said I was: trying to think of another example for set 2 . I have an example.
"Wikipedia is a more independent source than most traditional encyclopedias and that the reliability is potentially greater than that of a traditional source, since errors can be corrected immediately."
I don't think that this statement would qualify as being well defined. How do you quantify how independent something is? What is a traditional source? Is the reliability greater or only potentially greater? You have also combined at least two separate statements into one. It is best to evaluate the statements separately when possible.
How about this simplified statement.
"Wikipedia is more reliable than the Encylopedia Brittanica."
It should be possible to test this statement and get a fairly good idea of its truth value.
quote:
This is closer to what I imagined for set 2. I think it is certainly possible to be skeptical of Wikipedia's reliability. But, testing the subject (Wikipedia) won't (B) destroy it
I'm not sure what you mean here. By "destroy it" do you mean "falsify the statement" or something else.
quote:
and I also think it won't (A) better discover the truth value.
Provided the statement is properly defined, why not?
quote:
I think this is partly because of the investigation of a unique object and partly because of the nature of the object.
I think that it is an artifact of an ambiguous statement. It looks like word games to me. :) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 20:46:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
Open up those cans of whoop-ass again.
No need for whoop-ass when simple discussion will suffice.
As Dude pointed out, you've got two statements mixed together:quote:
"Wikipedia is a more independent source than most traditional encyclopedias...
I believe this statement to be true on its face, as Wiki doesn't technically require turning a profit to keep it in business. But, how would testing Wikipedia or traditional encyclopedias change the actual truth value of the statement? As far as I can tell, if it can be shown that the majority of contributors to Wiki are highly biased and not independent, the truth value of the statement doesn't change, only my assuptions which led to my tentatively assigning a truth value of 1 would change. In other words, if I'm wrong, the real truth doesn't change one bit.
And we (members of the SFN) say this quite a lot to some people. For example, it's not uncommon for us to point out to creationists that their distate for evolution doesn't change the fact of evolution at all. The real world doesn't care one bit about our desires or our ignorance.quote:
...and that the reliability is potentially greater than that of a traditional source, since errors can be corrected immediately."
This statement is also true on its face, since regardless of the current reliability of Wiki, it does have the potential to be more reliable than a printed encyclopedia, which cannot be updated constantly and immediately (and is subject to institutional bias, which Wiki should - technically - be immune to). And how would testing Wiki, traditional encyclopedias, or the reliability of either one change the truth value of the statement itself? Wouldn't the results of such tests instead modify our knowledge of the things involved, and lead us to a better understanding of the statement's actual truth value?
Again, that's what this is all about. A statement, like "Wiki is more independent than Britannica," has a truth value. By learning about Wiki and the Britannica, we can better estimate what that truth value is, but we don't actually change it.
Instead, perhaps stereotypically, we start with the statement, and devise a way to test it (or to test the null hypothesis, "Wiki is just as independent as Britannica"), run the tests and look at the results. If the results are consistent with our hypothesis, we raise our estimation of its truth value. If the results contradict our hypothesis, we lower our estimation of its truth value. In neither case has the actual truth value changed.
In fact, with such a statement, the only way for our testing to change the actual truth value of the statement is for us to so drastically change either Wiki or Britannica that the statement would no longer refer to the same thing (for example, we could hack Wiki and completely change its functionality, and thus its independence). But if we accept that as "changing" the truth value of the original statement, then the statement wasn't well-defined (because by "Wikipedia" means something specific, and not a hack job version of it which doesn't act the same). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
