|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/24/2005 : 10:33:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
What I was intending to convey was more along the lines of "In order for a premise to be even considered as possibly true, it must at least not contradict known evidence".
If a premise contradicts known evidence, it is probably false. But this goes along with (not instead of) Dude's assertion that for a premise to be considered true, it must be supported by evidence. The fairy-poop premise doesn't contradict any known evidence (and so isn't clearly false), but neither it is supported by any evidence (so we can't say it's true). Dude's guideline is sufficient for tentatively assigning "true" to some premise. Yours is only sufficient to assign "false" to one.quote:
A true skeptic apparently holds his determinations tentatively, and I would assume that this is primarily because of inherent uncertainties regarding the truthfulness of the premises and not the logic itself.
Primarily? Yes. But it's also because we recognize that it's possible that our logic is wrong. |
- 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 - 06/24/2005 : 20:54:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would rather say, "In order for a premise to be considered true, it must not contradict known evidence."
By that criteria you could rationalize any nonsense you cared to, leaving the actual realm of logic far behind.
In the realm of strict logic a premise must be true in order for the argument it is contained in to be sound.
Translated to the real world, that means that a premise must be supported by evidence.
quote:
What I was intending to convey was more along the lines of "In order for a premise to be even considered as possibly true, it must at least not contradict known evidence".
Also wrong. "Known evidence" may be incorrect. But it adds to the truth value of a premise if it doesn't contradict things already known.
And really, the actual reason you wouldn't give the dark-matter=fairy-poop premise any consideration is because it lacks evidentiary support. On many levels.
quote:
Yet we know that imagination can be a good thing. It can get us places that pure reason and logic cannot. Yet judging by the wide range of imaginative and speculative conclusions (as you point out) regarding God, it pays the price by being very fallible. I personally prefer a synergy of reason and imagination.
If you think that imagination and creativity aren't an integral part of science.... then you are seriously misinformed.
(edited for spelling. Always mispell "evidentiary", keep using a c in place of the t... ) |
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 |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/25/2005 13:56:43 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 03:44:15 [Permalink]
|
Not trying to be a smartass, but this has been kicking around the back of my mind for a while. I would like a clarification of the term: "religionist." I'm sure that it's merely something I've missed along the line, but it's a tad confusing.
Does it mean a blanket embrace of all religious philosophies, or none but still believing, or is it a sort of soft agnosticism?
I could google it and probably will, but I want to see some local, as it were, opinion on it first.
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 07:29:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Not trying to be a smartass, but this has been kicking around the back of my mind for a while. I would like a clarification of the term: "religionist." I'm sure that it's merely something I've missed along the line, but it's a tad confusing.
Does it mean a blanket embrace of all religious philosophies, or none but still believing, or is it a sort of soft agnosticism?
I could google it and probably will, but I want to see some local, as it were, opinion on it first.
A religionist to me is someone who believes in a supreme being or higher principle or law and attempts to live in accordance with his perception of that being or principle. This of course leaves a whole lotta room for varying beliefs.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2005 : 10:21:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Not trying to be a smartass, but this has been kicking around the back of my mind for a while. I would like a clarification of the term: "religionist." I'm sure that it's merely something I've missed along the line, but it's a tad confusing.
Does it mean a blanket embrace of all religious philosophies, or none but still believing, or is it a sort of soft agnosticism?
I could google it and probably will, but I want to see some local, as it were, opinion on it first.
A religionist to me is someone who believes in a supreme being or higher principle or law and attempts to live in accordance with his perception of that being or principle. This of course leaves a whole lotta room for varying beliefs.
I see. A deity without the dogma, ceremony, pulpet, and the collection plate. I rather like it, although unlikely to subscribe to it.
Odd I think, that the fundamentalists might despise you even more than they do me, an atheist. You worship (is that the correct word?) with neither material contribution nor ordained guidence, and, regardless of sect, they refuse to accept that such a thing is proper nor can even be done.
Thanks.
|
"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!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/25/2005 10:25:11 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
