|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2008 : 00:38:01 [Permalink]
|
Lambchop said:
| I don't have a penis, you see, |
Forgot to read the warning label on that woodchipper? Or natural causes?
^Sometimes I think I'm funny.^
Somehow, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" can apparently be ignored if you think you can simply make a compelling enough philosophical argument, and redefining words for your own convenience is considered acceptable in that context. Doesn't work for me, and I'm glad to see that there are others who don't buy it, either.
|
In my experience most True Believers(tm) ignore anything that is inconvenient to their belief, and are openly hostile towards inconvenient facts that directly contradict their belief. Sometimes it is funny, mostly its just pathetic.
None of it gets a free pass.
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
HoldMeCloserTonyDanza
New Member
Ireland
4 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 07:31:22 [Permalink]
|
| Damn! *I*'ve been saying that for a couple of years now and getting nowhere with the "Absolute Truth" crowd! Maybe they'll listen to you - I don't have a penis, you see, and apparently that makes a difference somehow. |
Your lack of a penis has nothing to do with the fact that you are wrong here. That's a pretty lame attempt to discredit those who disagree with you.
| Somehow, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" can apparently be ignored if you think you can simply make a compelling enough philosophical argument, and redefining words for your own convenience is considered acceptable in that context. Doesn't work for me, and I'm glad to see that there are others who don't buy it, either. |
What does evidence have to do with it? Whether we can prove something to be true or not has no bearing on whether it is actually true or not.
| Leon plays the false dichotomy game - either it is or it isn't - even when I have provided examples of more possible options (since we're all free to make up as many different scenarios as we want, in the presence of no restrictive evidence, so long as the scenarios are reasonable). |
All your examples are incorrect, as Leon has shown. At this stage your refusal to acknowledge that is bordering on dissociation.
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 07:44:28 [Permalink]
|
So if you prove something to be true, it may not actually be true?
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 11:41:43 [Permalink]
|
We do not sensibly refer to reality and say "true." I know this seems odd, at first blush, to say, but imagine if you will, someone pointing at a rock and saying "True." When we apply truth values, we apply them to propositions (language constructs) about the world. We are referring to something we are doing with respect to this or that aspect of reality.
Now, what if we came to think of truth values for propositions as mere variables upon which we supervene "properties" or "meanings?" Consider, if you will indulge me, the "meaning" of a truth value in programming code. For the computer, it has none at all obviously, because a computer is not the sort of thing that can recognize truth values as being meaningful. But, for the coder, it doesn't mean what our natural language usage of true-false means either. For the coder, true-false are simple states or conditions upon which other states or conditions are contingent. The use of true-false in this context may be misleading. A variable upon which other states or conditions are contingent could have more than two "truth values" - it could have any number of "truth values."
Now what if the use of true-false were misleading in natural language as well? Someone has already referred to true-false as possibly being a "false dichotomy." Interesting idea, that. But what makes it a false dichotomy if it were so. Is it because propositions may have different truth values at different times, representing different states of perception (remember, we are talking about propositions here) or the referents to which it applies, or is there something a little more covert going on?
What if, for example, assignment of truth values were an active decision on our part, as opposed to the passive recognition it is assumed to be? Could it be that truth values represent an imposed bias that simply does not apply in such a dichotomous simplistic form?
Whether one takes that route or not, it is instructive, I think, to consider if the dichotomous nature of the true-false dichotomy (whether it be a false dichotomy or not) influences the way we think about the world and categorize or propositions about it in a way that perhaps introduces error into our thinking.
For example, much is often made about the idea that it is not sensible to doubt (and one poster here used this example) the existence of one's own hand. But, and this may be a confusion brought about by the dichotomous nature of true-false, that seems to assume that to doubt something is to change it's truth value from true to false (with no other possible alternatives). Perhaps true-false is not so much a matter of false dichotomy so much as a matter of false alternatives, because we have forgotten what we are referring to - propositions about reality. Perhaps it might be useful to introduce a new truth value (unknown) and expand our list of operators to include it in the mix.
Why would we even consider this kind of approach when the Aristotelian dualism seems to have been so firmly established throughout human history? Well, there are problems that arise with truth-falsity (the fatalist dilemma being a prime example) when we assume true-false to be the only possible worlds.
A v ~A
If A, then B
If ~A, then B
Therefore B
Looks, perfectly logical don't it? Because A or ~A represent all possible worlds - there are only two possible truth value to A, right?
A = I will be killed by a bomb tomorrow
~A = I will NOT be killed by a bomb tomorrow
B = There is no point in going into a bomb shelter.
In all possible worlds, there is no point in going into a bomb shelter.
Now let's take all this and try to sum it up in a short, concise way that may help us understand why doubting the existence of one's hand may actually be sensible after all. Doubt does not equal denial. To say that something may not be the case is not to say that it is not the case. If one posits that doubt and denial are not the same thing, suddenly all the carefully contrived contradictions of skepticism vanish as the illusion they were.
|
| Edited by - dglas on 02/19/2008 11:56:44 |
|
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 03:10:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The statement of "The existance of God is an absolute truth" is a very strong statement. |
Not if all it says is that God's existence must either be true or false.
LeonKennedy seems to have ducked my "clarification is necessary" comment, so the statement is still ambiguous. Some here are obviously interpreting as being the same as "the existence of God is absolutely true," but I don't get that from Leon's other writing.
|
Apologies, Dave. I forgot about my contributions here, and were it not for my early decision to bookmark this site, any questions you had of me probably would've gone eternally unanswered!
Earlier, you asked: Winky aside, is there a better stratagem for deciding which things should be believed and which shouldn't? I mean, if belief doesn't follow evidence, how does one choose which things to believe and which to doubt? What "filter" does one apply that isn't wholly arbitrary (like, "I believe in X because X is red")?
I apologize in advance for the rough terminology I'm about to employ, but I don't exactly have it all worked out -- as issues such as these are one's that I'm actually presently dealing with in my own mind. I would suggest that, generally speaking, belief following evidence is the way we ought to govern our affairs, but I feel as if religion or spirituality or what-have-you is an entirely different "sphere of thinking" which demands, as Kierkegaard would say, a wholly irrational "leap to faith."
Regardless of that whole mess, when I say "The existence of God is an absolute truth" I mean precisely what you've suggested -- that God's existence must either be true or false (true, in the case of that particular statement), objectively, leaving no room for the "It's true for me, but not for you" of ice cream discrimination. |
| Edited by - LeonKennedy on 02/20/2008 03:11:48 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 06:23:04 [Permalink]
|
I think you missed the point,
Whats the difference between these two "wholly irrational leaps of faith" Which wwould lead you to believe that (A) is true?
A)"The existence of God is an absolute truth"
B)"The existance of the Matrix is an absolute truth"
How can you come to any conclusion in this matter? |
"...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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 07:10:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
How can you come to any conclusion in this matter? |
Rationally, you can't. Which is the point, I think.
Put in other terms, Leon is saying, "The assertion 'God exists' is either true or false." Similarly, if we had absolute knowledge of the whole of existence, we'd be able to say that the Matrix either exists or it doesn't. We should all be able to agree that these sorts of things aren't subjective claims, like one's favorite ice cream flavor. And we should be able to agree that these claims are objective whether or not we can assign 'true' or 'false' to the underlying claims ("God exists" and "the Matrix exists," respectively).
In still other words, "The existance of God is an absolute truth" is a metastatement - not about God, but about statements about God.
Leon, where you and I differ is that I see no demand for religion or spirituality at all, so I see no need to grant those alleged "spheres of thinking" the need for irrational thought. I'll agree that they use irrational "leaps of faith," but I think the world would be better off without them - precisely because of their irrationality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HoldMeCloserTonyDanza
New Member
Ireland
4 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 09:52:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
So if you prove something to be true, it may not actually be true?
|
No, if something is not true then you will not be able to prove that it is true without making an error. |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 10:22:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
So if you prove something to be true, it may not actually be true?
|
Yes and no. Depends on whether "true" is equivocated or not. Something that happens a lot, actually.
For example:
All fish live in trees.
All minnows are fish
Therefore, all minnows live in trees.
Equivocating empirical "truth" with logical "truth."
How about this one:
It is Right(TM) to kill sinners
All people are sinner.
It is Right(TM) to kill all people.
Equivocating "spiritual" truth with moral "truth" with some logical "truth" thrown in for fun.
Words are tools, not truths. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 02/20/2008 10:31:53 |
|
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 13:24:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Leon, where you and I differ is that I see no demand for religion or spirituality at all, so I see no need to grant those alleged "spheres of thinking" the need for irrational thought. I'll agree that they use irrational "leaps of faith," but I think the world would be better off without them - precisely because of their irrationality. |
Fair enough. As is the case with most of my debates, it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion.
You've fleshed out what I think better than I could explain, and for that, I'm quite appreciative.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 13:42:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
Fair enough. As is the case with most of my debates, it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion. |
Well, it might be interesting to hijack this discussion and instead talk about why you think - if I've surmised correctly - that religion and spirituality are needed.| You've fleshed out what I think better than I could explain, and for that, I'm quite appreciative. |
I might have to go after Randi's million.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 13:50:30 [Permalink]
|
| No, no, no... you're supposed to kick and scream and disagree with everything we say, not "be appreciative". Wheres the fun in that? It would make me feel a lot better if you said I was going to Hell for no particular reason. |
"...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 |
|
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 21:09:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
When we apply truth values, we apply them to propositions (language constructs) about the world. We are referring to something we are doing with respect to this or that aspect of reality.
Now what if the use of true-false were misleading in natural language as well? Someone has already referred to true-false as possibly being a "false dichotomy." Interesting idea, that. But what makes it a false dichotomy if it were so. Is it because propositions may have different truth values at different times, representing different states of perception (remember, we are talking about propositions here) or the referents to which it applies, or is there something a little more covert going on?
What if, for example, assignment of truth values were an active decision on our part, as opposed to the passive recognition it is assumed to be? Could it be that truth values represent an imposed bias that simply does not apply in such a dichotomous simplistic form?
Whether one takes that route or not, it is instructive, I think, to consider if the dichotomous nature of the true-false dichotomy (whether it be a false dichotomy or not) influences the way we think about the world and categorize or propositions about it in a way that perhaps introduces error into our thinking.
Perhaps true-false is not so much a matter of false dichotomy so much as a matter of false alternatives, because we have forgotten what we are referring to - propositions about reality. Perhaps it might be useful to introduce a new truth value (unknown) and expand our list of operators to include it in the mix.
there are problems that arise with truth-falsity (the fatalist dilemma being a prime example) when we assume true-false to be the only possible worlds.
Doubt does not equal denial. To say that something may not be the case is not to say that it is not the case. If one posits that doubt and denial are not the same thing, suddenly all the carefully contrived contradictions of skepticism vanish as the illusion they were.
|
Excellent analysis - one of the best I've seen. Clearly, the terms we choose ARE important, because they, by definition, limit the possibilities. And, in the face of a complete unknown with nothing at all that can be verified, how can you begin to limit what is utterly undefined?
To define it is to place limits on it, and, without any objective information, how can this be done honestly? As mentioned above, I suspect that there (is) something a little more covert going on. Why try to discuss it in defined terms at all or make arguments for it being this way or that way when there's no way to know whether any of it is even close?
Another option is that such a being, if it exists, simply winks in and out of existence, unpredictably from moment to moment; and form, sometimes singular, sometimes plural, sometimes one form, sometimes any of an infinite variety of other forms; and when it winks out of existence, one has no way of knowing whether it will return or whether it is gone for good.
In the face of absolute uncertainty, there is really no reason to try to apply characteristics and definitions to the concept in question. UNLESS there (is) something a little more covert going on.
| No, no, no... you're supposed to kick and scream and disagree with everything we say, not "be appreciative". Wheres the fun in that? It would make me feel a lot better if you said I was going to Hell for no particular reason. |
Well, *duh*! But none of these guys is going to throw you that particular bone - they're much too sneaky and crafty for that.
Sneaking? Sneaking? Fat hobbit is always so polite. Smeagol shows them secret ways that nobody else could find, and they say "sneak!" Sneak? Very nice friend. Oh, yes, my precious. Very nice, very nice.
|
| Edited by - Lambchopsuey on 02/21/2008 21:11:09 |
|
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 00:21:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Lambchopsuey
But none of these guys is going to throw you that particular bone - they're much too sneaky and crafty for that. |
Yes, that must be it. It's not that I'm just not a jackass; it's actually that I'm "sneaky and crafty" and I want to sneak Christianity in through the back door of every argument I make. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2008 : 04:53:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
Originally posted by Lambchopsuey
But none of these guys is going to throw you that particular bone - they're much too sneaky and crafty for that. |
Yes, that must be it. It's not that I'm just not a jackass; it's actually that I'm "sneaky and crafty" and I want to sneak Christianity in through the back door of every argument I make.
|
Have a care, my friend; someone just might take that seriously even though you've yet to do so. So many that come here insist on evangelizing and some of us have a sort of knee-jerk reaction to it (settle down leg, he's just being rhetorical). 
|
"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! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
On Truth
