|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 01/19/2010 : 10:31:18 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Easily: I examined the evidence, came to a conclusion on which group values truth more, and happened to note that I am self-included in that group. |
Still makes your conclusion just a subjective opinion. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 01/19/2010 10:33:49 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 10:40:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Still makes the orginal claim just your subjective opinion. |
And that objection, after I've explained the objective means of determining my claim's veracity, makes every claim out to be nothing more than subjective opinion, regardless of how well or poorly they match up with reality.
Or do you really think that claims like "the French enjoy wine more than the Dutch" or "the English value vacations more than Americans" are "subjective" claims? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 10:49:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by Dave W.
How could one even define "Christian," then?
|
Are you saying that you can? |
No.  Bill seemed to be saying that it's impossible to generalize the qualities of a group which numbers in the billions, in which case it would be impossible to label anyone a "Christian."
However, we can easily make such generalizations. A mammal is a type of animal with hair, whose females give birth to live young and supports them in early life with milk. Finding a person with full-body alopecia or a woman who never breastfed her babies doesn't mean that humans are not mammals. Just like finding a single instance in which a skeptic showed a willful disregard for truth doesn't falsify the generalization that skeptics value truth more than theists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 11:46:57 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| It would be pointless and never ending for us to argue who holds their belief in what is truth as more important then the other. |
If that is what you think I was talking about, then you've been dreadfully mistaken. |
No, I understand what you are talking about. I simply demonstrated how pointless it would be for both of us to debate who cared more about truth to highlight just how much more pointless it would be for us to argue about who cared more for truth between groups of people that number in the billions.
And that objection, after I've explained the objective means of determining my claim's veracity, makes every claim out to be nothing more than subjective opinion, regardless of how well or poorly they match up with reality.
Or do you really think that claims like "the French enjoy wine more than the Dutch" or "the English value vacations more than Americans" are "subjective" claims? |
Let's see, you could probably do a study and determine who drank more wine per capita between the two and remove some of the subjectiveness. All though it is still subjective. Usually people who have an abundence value what they have less then those who have very little. Maybe the Dutch love wine more then the French but just do not have the same access to it? You could probably look at data and see who vacations more per capita etc... and remove some of the subjectiveness from that statement as well. But how are you going to measure who has put a greater value on truth? It's subjective.
Again, just because you believe your version of truth over mine in no way whatsoever diminishes my level of importance placed on truth one iota. Just as belief by the skeptical community as a whole in their version of truth over the entire group of theist's version in no way diminishes the level importance placed on truth by the theists one iota. In other words just because you dismiss my reality and truth this in no way equivocates that somehow by default you place more importance on truth then do I. Just as I can not claim to love truth more then you just because I reject your version of truth. Same would be true among groups of theists and skeptics only the subjectivity would require more wrangling in a group format.
| No. Bill seemed to be saying that it's impossible to generalize the qualities of a group which numbers in the billions, in which case it would be impossible to label anyone a "Christian." |
Nope. Your saying that skeptics give truth a higher value then theist. So your basically saying that you can get in the head of an entire group of people and somehow measure that they have more value on truth then do another group of people who you have measured their level of importance as well. Oh please.
| However, we can easily make such generalizations. A mammal is a type of animal with hair, whose females give birth to live young and supports them in early life with milk. Finding a person with full-body alopecia or a woman who never breastfed her babies doesn't mean that humans are not mammals. Just like finding a single instance in which a skeptic showed a willful disregard for truth doesn't falsify the generalization that skeptics value truth more than theists. |
Look if you want to call a dog a mammal or a person that goes to church on Sunday a Christian you certainly will not get an objection from me. But that is not what you are doing. You are basically claiming to be able to get into the mind of billions of people and somehow measure which ones value truth the most. Obviously you can't do this so your claim is just a subjective opinion.
| Easily: I examined the evidence, came to a conclusion on which group values truth more, and happened to note that I am self-included in that group. |
That is funny, I examined the evidence, came to a conclusion on which group values truth more, and also noted that I am self-included in that group as well. The difference boils down to the fact that I can recognize, and will fully admit, that my conclusion is nothing but my subjective opinion, while you are unable to grasp that reality just yet. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 01/19/2010 12:33:47 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 11:50:30 [Permalink]
|
I guess if you define skeptic as someone who consistently demands a certain type of independently verifiable information in all areas of their lives, and if you define theists as people who don't, then I guess you could say in that sense, that skeptics value truth more than theists.
I'm not even sure that we've defined skeptic as someone who is not a theist yet, have we? What skeptic do you know that you can say without a doubt has no delusions?
Again, I'm not disagreeing, here, just trying to clarify. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 12:29:27 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Gorgo |
| I guess if you define skeptic as someone who consistently demands a certain type of independently verifiable information in all areas of their lives, and if you define theists as people who don't, then I guess you could say in that sense, that skeptics value truth more than theists. |
That would be a straw-man definition. Besides, I was slandered on this thread by skeptics and it was totally unfounded. So much for independently verifiable information. Just one example. Not saying theists would never do such a thing, just saying that for one to say that all, and only, skeptics demand a certain type of independently verifiable information is a delusion. The truth is that some theist care much more for the truth then do skeptics and visa-versa. Which group cares for the truth on a higher percentage? I have my conclusion but to debate this would be pointless and never ending as this is an completely subjective conclusion. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 12:38:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
That would be a straw-man definition. Besides, I was slandered on this thread by skeptics and it was totally unfounded. So much for independently verifiable information. |
Speaking of definitions, you may have been libeled here, but you weren't slandered. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 01/19/2010 12:39:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 13:07:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
No, I understand what you are talking about. I simply demonstrated how pointless it would be for both of us to debate who cared more about truth to highlight just how much more pointless it would be for us to argue about who cared more for truth between groups of people that number in the billions. |
You did? By talking past my argument?| Let's see, you could probably do a study and determine who drank more wine per capita between the two and remove some of the subjectiveness. All though it is still subjective. Usually people who have an abundence value what they have less then those who have very little. Maybe the Dutch love wine more then the French but just do not have the same access to it? You could probably look at data and see who vacations more per capita etc... and remove some of the subjectiveness from that statement as well. But how are you going to measure who has put a greater value on truth? It's subjective. |
No, the claims as stated are objective, empirical claims which are amenable to testing. Your mantra of "subjective" simply hand-waves it all away without actually addressing the issue.| Again, just because you believe your version of truth over mine in no way whatsoever diminishes my level of importance placed on truth one iota. |
I never said it did. Once again, you fail to understand the argument.| Just as belief by the skeptical community as a whole in their version of truth over the entire group of theist's version in no way diminishes the level importance placed on truth by the theists one iota. |
Also completely irrelevant.| In other words just because you dismiss my reality and truth this in no way equivocates that somehow by default you place more importance on truth then do I. Just as I can not claim to love truth more then you just because I reject your version of truth. |
Still utterly irrelevant. I thought you said that you understood the claim. Apparently not, since you do not seem to be able to raise a relevant objection to it.| Same would be true among groups of theists and skeptics only the subjectivity would require more wrangling in a group format. |
Irrelevant and false at the same time. Good going.| Nope. Your saying that skeptics give truth a higher value then theist. So your basically saying that you can get in the head of an entire group of people and somehow measure that they have more value on truth then do another group of people who you have measured their level of importance as well. Oh please. |
Happens all the time. Ask a sociologist how it's done professionally. Your incredulity is also not a counterargument.| Look if you want to call a dog a mammal or a person that goes to church on Sunday a Christian you certainly will not get an objection from me. But that is not what you are doing. You are basically claiming to be able to get into the mind of billions of people and somehow measure which ones value truth the most. |
Yes, and I even outlined a way to do it.| Obviously you can't do this so your claim is just a subjective opinion. |
Obviously you can't address the root argument, so you hand-wave it away by calling it "subjective" without cause.| That is funny, I examined the evidence, came to a conclusion on which group values truth more, and also noted that I am self-included in that group as well. The difference boils down to the fact that I can recognize, and will fully admit, that my conclusion is nothing but my subjective opinion, while you are unable to grasp that reality just yet. |
I already addressed this. You've basically defined everything as "subjective," and since all claims must be subjective, objecting to a claim as being subjective is to nullify all claims, including your own objections. Since your objections are subjective, I can just ignore them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 13:10:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
...just saying that for one to say that all, and only, skeptics demand a certain type of independently verifiable information is a delusion. |
Nobody has said that. If you're going to lecture on strawmen, you shouldn't create so many of them yourself, Bill.| The truth is that some theist care much more for the truth then do skeptics and visa-versa. |
Which is to miss the forest for the trees, again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/19/2010 : 13:20:39 [Permalink]
|
The devil is not in Haiti, no. Really, there is no devil except the one having continual coitus with the mind of a clown in Virginia Beach, VA.
Pat Robertson should have learned to keep his stupid gob shut back when he and the fool Falwell were ragging on 9-11. Of course, not having the ability to learn beyond anything that the seductive voice in his head tells him, he'll never shut it. We can only hope the evil bastard contacts tetanus.
The banality of evil, coined by Hannah Arendt about Adolf Eichmann, applies not to sociopaths or cartoon moustache twirling villains, but rather ordinary people who accepted the principles of a morally corrupt regime without question and convinced themselves that gassing millions of people and shoving the bodies into ovens was perfectly normal behavior. Even… morally righteous.
But those people are a thing of the past. Could never happen here. People can’t be dragged down into that darkness again. Yet when I listen to Pat Robertson speaking, a shiver of unease slices up my spine. To Pat Robertson, the catastrophe in Haiti is a direct result of the Haitians who made a ‘pact with the devil’ hundreds of years ago to get rid of the French.
Pat Robertson has at best a tenuous grasp of history, or he simply doesn’t like the idea of uppity black folk, or both. For Pat Robertson, the Haitian Revolution had nothing to do with African slaves revolting against one of the most hellish slave colonies ever to have existed, overthrowing their French oppressors and establishing the first black republic in the world. The poverty in Haiti is completely unrelated to the economic blockades and imposed reparations crippling the country for centuries – imposed by God-fearing Christians of Europe and the United States.
No, Pat Robertson apparently believes that Haiti was ‘under the heel of the French, ah, Napoleon the Third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact with the devil. They said, we will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French. True story!’
Why let pesky facts such as Napoleon the Third wasn’t even born until four years after the Haitian Revolution and the establishment of an independent Haiti stand in the way of a ‘true story’? He then compounds his demonstration of colossal ignorance and bigotry by a comparison of ‘desperately poor’ Haiti and the Dominican Republic, ‘prosperous, healthy, full of resorts…’ The Spanish colonized the Dominican Republic which tried to gain independence in 1821, but was invaded and occupied by Haitian military for the next twenty three years, and has suffered its own bloody history of tyrannical rulers and political upheaval. But, hey! It’s got resorts on it, the sort favoured by fat, rich, white men with pockets full of viagra.
|
I know that this is something of a recap of one of my earlier posts, but it is much better.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 13:40:48 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I'm the one that built the strawman, hoping everyone would recognize it as an opportunity to clarify what you're saying, rather than yell "STRAWMAN!" at one another. You seem to keep saying what you're not saying, and saying "way to miss the point" rather than clarifying. I'd probably agree with you if I understood what you're saying.
Have you done scientific testing on what the French and Dutch enjoy, or are you assuming that because the French drink more wine (assuming they do) per capita that means they enjoy it more or place more "value" on it? They may drink it because of tradition. They may all hate it and not know they hate it.
I guess you've had too much of Bill to help clarify things for me. That's okay. I'll back out and leave this one alone. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 15:16:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Dave, I'm the one that built the strawman, hoping everyone would recognize it as an opportunity to clarify what you're saying, rather than yell "STRAWMAN!" at one another. |
Actually, no, you quite correctly used the word "consistently," while Bill tried to misrepresent that definition to mean that skeptics only use that sort of "independently verifiable information" and had unique access to it. It's the sort of grandiose claim that Bill wishes I were making, whereas the fact is that skeptics have access to no more or less of that sort of information than anyone else, we just try to consistently focus on it to the exclusion of unverifiable information. It's actually the theists who claim to have special, exclusive sources of information, so Bill was also trying to reverse reality there. And saying that theists don't consistently apply empiricism in all aspects of their lives should be a surprise to nobody, since the major groups tend to focus on (and be proud of themselves for) faith, a completely different epistemology (if one can call it that).| You seem to keep saying what you're not saying, and saying "way to miss the point" rather than clarifying. |
I apologize for that. One thing I get a big chuckle out of in these discussions with Bill is the fact that I'll tell him he's wrong about what I'm saying, yet he'll boldly insist on continuing to use his incorrect assessment without so much as a pause to ask, "okay, what do you mean?"| I'd probably agree with you if I understood what you're saying. |
I'm saying that as a group, skeptics tend to place more importance on the veracity of information than do theists, and that this claim itself is objectively verifiable simply by observing the two groups (even though they overlap) in action, including historically.| Have you done scientific testing on what the French and Dutch enjoy, or are you assuming that because the French drink more wine (assuming they do) per capita that means they enjoy it more or place more "value" on it? They may drink it because of tradition. They may all hate it and not know they hate it. |
All of those concerns are irrelevant to whether or not the claim that the French enjoy wine more than the Dutch is itself an objective claim or a subjective one. Bill seems to be under the impression that by applying some metrics, the claim becomes "less subjective." It's my opinion that by virtue of simply being able to apply mutually agreeable metrics, it is an objective claim (regardless of whether it is true or false: that's what the metrics are for).| I guess you've had too much of Bill to help clarify things for me. That's okay. I'll back out and leave this one alone. |
Give a guy a chance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 15:35:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Give a guy a chance.
|
Thanks. Very interesting. I'll have to give that all some thought.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 01/19/2010 15:39:43 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2010 : 23:44:23 [Permalink]
|
Dave W......
I spent about an hour reviewing this hijacked thread of Hal's this evening, and after considerable thought I sent an additional donation of $1000.00 to the American Red Cross Haiti Relief.
I want to state that I am happy to be able to help these people, and I am happy to announce it to the Forum!
If this gives your anal sphincter a little frisson, Dave, I am also happy to be of service to you!
Bill Buck |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2010 : 01:09:36 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott.....
Et tu, Gulielmus? Quis vos perfectus pro sanctimonia? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Haitian Relief
