Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding


bornagainathiest

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

^ I nearly fell over laughing when I read that the other morning...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

  23 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

As for "as much critical thinking as it takes", you have admitted that your science can't even show that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. So are you using critical thinking, or are you interpreting data based on what you want to be true, or what is 'probably' true?

You weren't being flippant about critical thinking were you? As much as it takes, you said, and that's fine but we both have to employ it right?

 

No Dude, I didn't admit that science can't even show that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

 

Here's what I wrote, in answer to you on this issue, in post # 32.

 

"It's agreed between us that science can't show with 100% confidence that the Earth isn't standing still at the center of the universe."

 

Now, please tell me exactly what I admitted to in the above sentence.

I hope that you will clearly and unequivocally say what the difference is between what you said I admitted to and what I actually admitted to.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

Ok. You aren't admitting that Earth is the center of the universe, but that in fact it may be sitting still at the center of the universe and science can't show with %100 confidence that it isn't.

 

As for #78, neener neener! Told you so! Ha! :)  And I hereby retract the cheeky Scotsman fallacy accusation. It was mostly in fun, as Josh correctly said.

.

.

.

Well, **** me, Dude!

You had me chasing my tail and getting really confused over this one.  (This is wry amusement btw, not anger.)  Could you tell?  

 

Anyway, that's a Yes to what I was admitting to.  

And the main reason why this is so is because it's not within science's remit to prove things to a 100% level of confidence.  (Ok, in math you can do that.)  Therefore, is it reasonable to ask science to do something it can't do, to blame it for that failure and then to withhold our confidence in it because of that failure?  I'd say No.  That's like asking a trusted friend who is blind to read a book to you, blaming him for being unable to do so and then telling him that you won't trust him again.  Surely these actions are unreasonable?

 

There's one other point lurking within my admission that also deserves mentioning.

If we still believe that Earth is at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith?  By going down the road of putting faith before evidence, we run the risk of following in the footsteps these bozos.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

You said:  "There's one other point lurking within my admission that also deserves mentioning.

If we still believe that Earth is at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith?  By going down the road of putting faith before evidence, we run the risk of following in the footsteps these bozos..."

 

My answer would be if we still believe that Earth is not at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith? 

 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, duderonomy said:

BAA,

 

You said:  "There's one other point lurking within my admission that also deserves mentioning.

If we still believe that Earth is at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith?  By going down the road of putting faith before evidence, we run the risk of following in the footsteps these bozos..."

 

My answer would be if we still believe that Earth is not at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith? 

 

 

 

 

Dude,

 

It's different (at least different from Christianity) in this way.  Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3 gives the quintessential Christian definition of faith.

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Believers are called to accept things that have zero evidence to validate them.

They are even told that they should believe in what they cannot see, in what was not seen by any human eyes and in what cannot be tested or checked in any way.   Jesus himself agrees with this evidence-free philosophy of belief, when he speaks to Thomas (the evidence-seeking realist) in John 20 and the apostle John reinforces the point that Christians are blessed if they believe without seeing (evidence).

 

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

Do you see how this is categorically different from the evidence-based philosophy of science, Dude?

Christians proceed to believe with zero evidence.  Even though science cannot demonstrate anything to a confidence level of 100%, it can still demonstrate some things to a very high level of confidence.  And that is why, when it comes to Earth's place in the universe, we have some very good evidence to go on.  Therefore, when science says that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, that claim can be checked and tested and evaluated on the basis of the evidence.  While a purely religious belief about the Earth's location cannot.  See the difference?

 

An evidence-free article of religious faith can never be tested.

The evidence-rich claims of science can be.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, duderonomy said:

BAA,

 

You said:  "There's one other point lurking within my admission that also deserves mentioning.

If we still believe that Earth is at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith?  By going down the road of putting faith before evidence, we run the risk of following in the footsteps these bozos..."

 

My answer would be if we still believe that Earth is not at the center of the universe, when neither science nor the evidence of our senses can show this, how is that any different from a religious belief that is accepted as true by faith? 

 

 

 

 

If it's any further help Dude, let me modify your last sentence to bring it into line with what I wrote 3 hours ago.  That might be useful.

 

We do not believe (without evidence and by faith) that the Earth is not at the center of the universe.

Instead, we are confident that it isn't - to the level of confidence shown in our evidence.    

Yes, neither science nor our senses can show that it isn't to a 100% level of confidence.  

But since science never deals in such absolute proof, asking for that is a pointless exercise.

Therefore, science shouldn't be blithely accepted as true - it should be recognized for what it is.

As an evidence-rich, evidence-led, testable, but inherently uncertain way of understanding reality.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2017 at 1:50 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Dude,

 

It's different (at least different from Christianity) in this way.  Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3 gives the quintessential Christian definition of faith.

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Believers are called to accept things that have zero evidence to validate them.

They are even told that they should believe in what they cannot see, in what was not seen by any human eyes and in what cannot be tested or checked in any way.   Jesus himself agrees with this evidence-free philosophy of belief, when he speaks to Thomas (the evidence-seeking realist) in John 20 and the apostle John reinforces the point that Christians are blessed if they believe without seeing (evidence).

 

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

Do you see how this is categorically different from the evidence-based philosophy of science, Dude?

Christians proceed to believe with zero evidence.  Even though science cannot demonstrate anything to a confidence level of 100%, it can still demonstrate some things to a very high level of confidence.  And that is why, when it comes to Earth's place in the universe, we have some very good evidence to go on.  Therefore, when science says that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, that claim can be checked and tested and evaluated on the basis of the evidence.  While a purely religious belief about the Earth's location cannot.  See the difference?

 

An evidence-free article of religious faith can never be tested.

The evidence-rich claims of science can be.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BAA,

 

Evidence Free vs. Evidence Rich.

 

Funny that you are the one that wants to throw away the word faith in our discussion and you want to replace the word faith with the word confidence, even though I have said that I don't mean faith in a religious sense.

Then you post a Biblical quote equating faith with confidence. That's rich, just like it's rich that the passage you quoted says 

"so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."  Is that incorrect? 

Can we see what the world is made of? Can we see atoms or quarks or whatever is smaller than those?

 

The fact is that if the Earth is sitting still at the center of the universe, or if the Earth is the center of the universe and there is no difference as it relates to location, and the science you cling to doesn't know and at this point can't know, Would I be wrong if I said with confidence that the Earth might be the center of the universe or at least it currently has residence at the center of the universe? You can't say with confidence, (or faith) that it doesn't can you?  

 

Yet you bring up "zero evidence" about my arguments. I think you sometimes have to take your science on faith, or if you prefer, confidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA,

 

Evidence Free vs. Evidence Rich.

 

Funny that you are the one that wants to throw away the word faith in our discussion and you want to replace the word faith with the word confidence, even though I have said that I don't mean faith in a religious sense.

Then you post a Biblical quote equating faith with confidence. That's rich, just like it's rich that the passage you quoted says 

"so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."  Is that incorrect? 

Can we see what the world is made of? Can we see atoms or quarks or whatever is smaller than those?

 

The fact is that if the Earth is sitting still at the center of the universe, or if the Earth is the center of the universe and there is no difference as it relates to location, and the science you cling to doesn't know and at this point can't know, Would I be wrong if I said with confidence that the Earth might be the center of the universe or at least it currently has residence at the center of the universe? You can't say with confidence, (or faith) that it doesn't can you?  

 

Yet you bring up "zero evidence" about my arguments. I think you sometimes have to take your science on faith, or if you prefer, confidence. 

 

No, it's not funny, Dude.

I was trying to show the difference between Christian religious faith and secular confidence in science.  That's drawing a contrast between the two things - not equating them.  You've totally misread what I said here.  So you are incorrect about what I was trying to illustrate.  

 

You seem to make no distinction between religion and science on the sole ground that neither can 'know'. 

That because neither can 'know' then both are equally flawed and equally untrustworthy.  And it's a matter of subjective, personal choice as to which one to go with.  That evidence plays no role and might as well not exist.  So I must now ask you a vital question.  One that I should have asked earlier.  

 

What do you mean by 'know'?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA,

 

Evidence Free vs. Evidence Rich.

 

Funny that you are the one that wants to throw away the word faith in our discussion and you want to replace the word faith with the word confidence, even though I have said that I don't mean faith in a religious sense.

Then you post a Biblical quote equating faith with confidence. That's rich, just like it's rich that the passage you quoted says 

"so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."  Is that incorrect? 

Can we see what the world is made of? Can we see atoms or quarks or whatever is smaller than those?

 

The fact is that if the Earth is sitting still at the center of the universe, or if the Earth is the center of the universe and there is no difference as it relates to location, and the science you cling to doesn't know and at this point can't know, Would I be wrong if I said with confidence that the Earth might be the center of the universe or at least it currently has residence at the center of the universe? You can't say with confidence, (or faith) that it doesn't can you?  

 

Yet you bring up "zero evidence" about my arguments. I think you sometimes have to take your science on faith, or if you prefer, confidence. 

 

Dude, I'd be remiss if I expected you to answer my question, without answering yours.

 

Can we see what the world is made of?   Yes we can.  

Can we see atoms?  Yes we can.

Can we see quarks?  No.  But we can infer they exist and how they behave from the confirmed predictions of quantum chromodynamic theory.

 

Would you be wrong if you said with confidence that the Earth might be at the center of the universe?

Yes.  According to the evidence, you'd be wrong.

 

Would you be wrong if you said with confidence that the Earth currently has residence at the center of the universe?

Yes.  According to the evidence, you'd be wrong.

 

You can't say with confidence, (or faith) that it doesn't can you?  

Yes, I can say that it doesn't, because I have confidence in the evidence.

 

And here's the kicker, Dude.

 

I don't have to 'know'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA and Dude,

 

You are having an interesting debate/exchange.  One thing missing from it (I think) is the application of probability.  Does Bayes Theorem help with the search for knowledge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

BAA and Dude,

 

You are having an interesting debate/exchange.  One thing missing from it (I think) is the application of probability.  Does Bayes Theorem help with the search for knowledge?

 

Thank you, sdelsolray. :)

 

Could you please explain how Bayesian probability might help us out?   I'm certainly willing to examine and consider what you're offering.  

I suspect that the Dude's definition of the word, 'know' will be highly relevant to the evolution of this thread.  Quite how that information will mesh with your proposed input, I can't say.  Time will tell.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2017 at 4:17 AM, bornagainathiest said:

 

No, it's not funny, Dude.

I was trying to show the difference between Christian religious faith and secular confidence in science.  That's drawing a contrast between the two things - not equating them.  You've totally misread what I said here.  So you are incorrect about what I was trying to illustrate.  

 

You seem to make no distinction between religion and science on the sole ground that neither can 'know'. 

That because neither can 'know' then both are equally flawed and equally untrustworthy.  And it's a matter of subjective, personal choice as to which one to go with.  That evidence plays no role and might as well not exist.  So I must now ask you a vital question.  One that I should have asked earlier.  

 

What do you mean by 'know'?

 

 

BAA,  what do you mean by the word know, and why do you keep putting it in quotes? Maybe you should define your meaning of the word, as you are the one making a big deal about it.

I'll admit it's important what we mean by knowing.  For example, who was it that said "Know thyself"? If meant in the Biblical sense, were the great philosophers telling us to fuck ourselves?  

 

We seem to have come to a draw at whether Earth is residing at the center of the universe. You want to argue a preponderance of evidence, but you have no evidence. You have confidence, and you want me to sign on to your confidence and thus to your point of view.  

Does science even know where the center of the universe is?  No? Then how does science know where it isn't?

You'll say that nobody knows where the center of the universe is, and posit some various ideas concerning whether it has a center, and on and on. But you have no proof, you claim evidence that doesn't exist, and you put your faith confidence in what you perceive from your point of view to be the best answer.

 

Can you at least show me from science that Earth is moving at all, without invoking faith, confidence, probability, or your own subjective personal choice as to which you'd prefer to be true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Off the top of my head, over in the Beginning of the universe thread we have shown there is evidence to show we are not at the centre of the observable universe.

 

What we don't know, and cannot tell at this time due to lack of information, is if the observable universe is at the centre of the entire universe

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA,  what do you mean by the word know, and why do you keep putting it in quotes? Maybe you should define your meaning of the word, as you are the one making a big deal about it.

I'll admit it's important what we mean by knowing.  For example, who was it that said "Know thyself"? If meant in the Biblical sense, were the great philosophers telling us to fuck ourselves?  

 

(snip)

 

Ok Dude,

 

I will certainly answer your questions, despite the fact that I answered six of yours in post # 88 and only requested that you answer one of mine.

However, before I answer your 'know' related questions, first let me provide some evidence to back up my short replies to three of your six queries.

 

Can we see what the world is made of?   

Yes we can.  It's made of 92 naturally occurring elements and 23 man-made ones.  https://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/periodic/physical_natural.htm

 

Can we see atoms?   Yes we can.  

 

 
http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/F00/atoms.htm Image of individual silicon atoms.
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324162621.htm Image of individual boron and nitrogen atoms.
 
 
 
http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=29848 Image of individual atoms of molybdenum diselenide.
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0 Video made by IBM using individual atoms.

 

Can we see quarks?  

 

No.  But we can infer they exist and how they behave from the confirmed predictions of quantum chromodynamic theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_quark Theorized to exist in 1964, discovered in 1968.

 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_quark Theorized to exist in 1964, discovered in 1968.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_quark Theorized to exist in 1964, discovered in 1968.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charm_quark Theorized to exist in 1970, discovered in 1974.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_quark Theorized to exist in 1973, discovered in 1977.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_quark Theorized to exist in 1973, discovered in 1995.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaquark Theorized to exist in 1964, discovered in 2015.
.
.
.
Now to your latest questions.
 
What do I mean by the word, 'know'..?  
When I say that I know something I mean that I have confidence in the evidence for it, up to, but not including 100% confidence.
 
Why do I keep putting it in quotes?
I put the word 'know' into quotation marks because I realized recently how pivotal it was to this thread and thought it deserved to be highlighted in this way.
 
Who was it who said, "Know Thyself"?
This is usually taken to be # 8 of the Delphic Maxims...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_maxims  ...and is usually attributed to the Seven Sages of Greece.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sages_of_Greece
 
If meant in the Biblical sense, were the great philosophers telling us to fuck ourselves?
The content and message of the Bible is totally opposed to Delphic philosophy.  This is because the Delphic oracle herself (the Python) was deemed to be working at the behest of the demonic spirits in league with Satan.  In Acts 16 : 16 - 18 we see the apostle Paul cast out the spirit of divination that possessed a slave girl, thus showing Christianity's domination over these unclean spirits.  
.
.
.
So, I have now answered ten of your questions Dude and done so in a very full, explanation-rich and evidence-rich way.
I therefore think, in the light of fairness and balance, that it's not unreasonable for me to ask you to answer just one question for me and to expect you to answer it without posing me any more questions.   Therefore, please answer this question.
 
What do you mean by know?
 
Thanks,
 
BAA.
 
 
 
p.s.
I will be responding the portion of your last post that I snipped out, Dude.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Ok Dude,

 

I will certainly answer your questions, despite the fact that I answered six of yours in post # 88 and only requested that you answer one of mine.

However, before I answer your 'know' related questions, first let me provide some evidence to back up my short replies to three of your six queries.

 

Can we see what the world is made of?   

Yes we can.  It's made of 92 naturally occurring elements and 23 man-made ones.  https://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/periodic/physical_natural.htm

 

Can we see atoms?   Yes we can.  

 

 
http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/F00/atoms.htm Image of individual silicon atoms.
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324162621.htm Image of individual boron and nitrogen atoms.
 
 
 
http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=29848 Image of individual atoms of molybdenum diselenide.
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0 Video made by IBM using individual atoms.

 

Can we see quarks?  

 

No.  But we can infer they exist and how they behave from the confirmed predictions of quantum chromodynamic theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_quark Theorized to exist in 1964, discovered in 1968.

 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_quark Theorized to exist in 1964, discovered in 1968.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_quark Theorized to exist in 1964, discovered in 1968.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charm_quark Theorized to exist in 1970, discovered in 1974.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_quark Theorized to exist in 1973, discovered in 1977.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_quark Theorized to exist in 1973, discovered in 1995.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaquark Theorized to exist in 1964, discovered in 2015.
.
.
.
Now to your latest questions.
 
What do I mean by the word, 'know'..?  
When I say that I know something I mean that I have confidence in the evidence for it, up to, but not including 100% confidence.
 
Why do I keep putting it in quotes?
I put the word 'know' into quotation marks because I realized recently how pivotal it was to this thread and thought it deserved to be highlighted in this way.
 
Who was it who said, "Know Thyself"?
This is usually taken to be # 8 of the Delphic Maxims...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_maxims  ...and is usually attributed to the Seven Sages of Greece.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sages_of_Greece
 
If meant in the Biblical sense, were the great philosophers telling us to fuck ourselves?
The content and message of the Bible is totally opposed to Delphic philosophy.  This is because the Delphic oracle herself (the Python) was deemed to be working at the behest of the demonic spirits in league with Satan.  In Acts 16 : 16 - 18 we see the apostle Paul cast out the spirit of divination that possessed a slave girl, thus showing Christianity's domination over these unclean spirits.  
.
.
.
So, I have now answered ten of your questions Dude and done so in a very full, explanation-rich and evidence-rich way.
I therefore think, in the light of fairness and balance, that it's not unreasonable for me to ask you to answer just one question for me and to expect you to answer it without posing me any more questions.   Therefore, please answer this question.
 
What do you mean by know?
 
Thanks,
 
BAA.
 
 
 
p.s.
I will be responding the portion of your last post that I snipped out, Dude.
 

 

BAA, 

 

You know I was trying to be humorous when I brought up the "know thyself" in the "Biblical sense" stuff, right? I have to say I think it was it was pretty obvious, but nonetheless...

 

I understand that quarks are a thing, even though they have never been seen, but what are quarks made of? What are the things that quarks are made from made from? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

 

I won't even point out that the world is made from things that cannot be seen because they couldn't be seen 'at the time' that the book of Hebrews said that, so it was technically correct. That would be a cheap shot.

 

Let me ask you another question, BAA. Is it possible that the things that we can see are made of things so small that even with our best science we will never be able to see them? Is it possible? I say yes, it's possible. In fact, the way science has trended since the advent of the splitting of the atom, to quarks, to the certain knowing that there are building blocks that quarks are made of only proves that the more science learns, the less it knows about the things that cannot be seen.

My point is, you have faith that someday all will be known. So does the Christian. Duh.

 

So then BAA, you said:

"What do I mean by the word, 'know'..?  

When I say that I know something I mean that I have confidence in the evidence for it, up to, but not including 100% confidence."

 

No big reveal here on my part then BAA,  I'm good with your description of the word. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planck length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude,

 

In just two words, sdelsolray answered this portion of your post...

 

I understand that quarks are a thing, even though they have never been seen, but what are quarks made of? What are the things that quarks are made from made from? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

 

I won't even point out that the world is made from things that cannot be seen because they couldn't be seen 'at the time' that the book of Hebrews said that, so it was technically correct. That would be a cheap shot.

 

Let me ask you another question, BAA. Is it possible that the things that we can see are made of things so small that even with our best science we will never be able to see them? Is it possible? I say yes, it's possible. In fact, the way science has trended since the advent of the splitting of the atom, to quarks, to the certain knowing that there are building blocks that quarks are made of only proves that the more science learns, the less it knows about the things that cannot be seen.

 

There comes a point (the Planck length) where it is impossible for us to see anything smaller.

(I'll tell you why this is if you like.  Please ask.)  This is just as much a barrier to our powers of investigation as the visual horizon of the universe is.  We can't see any smaller than the Planck length and we can't see any bigger, further away or further back in time than the 'edge' of the universe.  So Yes, you are (as far as I know) correct.  There are limits to how far science can go.  Now we can move on to your next sentence.

 

My point is, you have faith that someday all will be known. So does the Christian. Duh.

.

.

.

Wrong.  Mistaken.  In error.  

You are all of these things Dude, if you think that I have faith that some day ALL will be known.

 

The square/circle/triangle diagram I began my this thread with is an illustration of how all will NOT be known.  

In post # 3 I mentioned that we humans do not see the whole truth.  

In post # 13 I discussed with Pantheory the idea of we humans accepting that we can never gain absolute knowledge of reality.  

In post # 18 I stated that our individual perspectives of reality are severely limited.  

In post # 21 I said that to be human means to never know anything with absolute certainty, but to always be working with less than 100% certainty.

In post # 28 I wrote that human nature prevents us from knowing anything with 100% certainty. 

In post # 29 I answered you by saying that science cannot conclusively show (with 100% confidence) that the Earth is not the center of the universe with everything revolving around it.

In post # 32 I said that it was also agreed between us that NO method of understanding reality (science, religion, clairvoyance, guesswork, etc.) can show ANYTHING with 100% confidence.

In post # 33, when it came to knowing something with 100% confidence, I wrote, 'That's an impossible target - one that science can never deliver on.'

In post # 49, I replied to you saying, '...unless you can show otherwise, I contend that nothing can deliver 100% certainty.'  (And I included science in that nothing.)

In post # 53, when referring back to the square/circle/triangle diagram I asked you to...  'Please note that my line in this thread has been consistent about this.  I have maintained that the central Truth cannot be fully seen from any viewpoint.' 

In post # 54 I asked you, 'Do you accept that humans can never know the central Truth of reality with 100% certainty?

In post # 69, when talking to Josh, I wrote...

'Well, if that is the Dude's angle Josh, then I've been wasting a lot of my time here.

At no point have I said, suggested or implied that science can deal with ultimate reality.  I've been at pains to make it abundantly clear that the ultimate reality will always remain less than 100% known to us.  What I have said is that science allows us to know something of reality - not all of it.'

In post # 85, when referring to us knowing if the Earth is at the center of the universe, I said...  'Yes, neither science nor our senses can show that it isn't to a 100% level of confidence.' 

 

I find myself staggered and confused by you, Dude.

Staggered and confused that after saying the same thing so many times and in so many different ways, you still believe the opposite.  You still believe (contrary to the evidence) that I have faith that some day ALL will be known.  How many more times and in how many more different ways do I need to say it before you will see that I'm saying that ALL will not be known?  (Rhetorical question, btw.  I'm only going to ask you one question in this post.)  

 

Here is that question.

 

Which one of these two options has been my consistent line from the beginning of this thread?

 

A.  That  ALL will be known.

B.  That ALL will never be known.

 

Please answer.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ninety+ posts, four+ pages, multiple attempts to take a qualitative but nuanced approach toward important concepts that stem from and revolve around probability and what some folks decide to take away is that BAA has a faith based belief system around the unsupported claim that science will reveal "all?"

 

This is astonishing and I cannot help but think this is why those of us who are involved in doing actual science (albeit, a limited number of published papers with my name attached) have not really engaged in this discussion. Clearly, it would have been a waste of time IMHO. 

 

BAA, is your inbox full?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2017 at 10:16 AM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Thank you, sdelsolray. :)

 

Could you please explain how Bayesian probability might help us out?   I'm certainly willing to examine and consider what you're offering.  

I suspect that the Dude's definition of the word, 'know' will be highly relevant to the evolution of this thread.  Quite how that information will mesh with your proposed input, I can't say.  Time will tell.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Sorry, I missed your post.  As to Bayesian probability compared to common probability, I'll simply quote a decent Wikipedia definition/explanation for your perusal:

 

"Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief."

 

Your arguments tend to imply Bayesian probability.  You're fine with something less than an absolute and perfect conclusion/truth and that conclusion is based not only in the simple "frequency or propensity of some phenomenon" but enters the realm of knowledge and personal belief.  Dude's arguments tend to ignore probability in any fashion.  He seems to require an absolute and perfect conclusion/truth without considering the consequences or futility of such a demand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RogueScholar said:

Ninety+ posts, four+ pages, multiple attempts to take a qualitative but nuanced approach toward important concepts that stem from and revolve around probability and what some folks decide to take away is that BAA has a faith based belief system around the unsupported claim that science will reveal "all?"

 

This is astonishing and I cannot help but think this is why those of us who are involved in doing actual science (albeit, a limited number of published papers with my name attached) have not really engaged in this discussion. Clearly, it would have been a waste of time IMHO. 

 

BAA, is your inbox full?

 

I've opened up some room in my Inbox, RS.  

The forum's new format tripped me up there, so I'll have to keep a closer watch on it.  Please PM me at your leisure.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Sorry, I missed your post.  As to Bayesian probability compared to common probability, I'll simply quote a decent Wikipedia definition/explanation for your perusal:

 

"Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief."

 

Your arguments tend to imply Bayesian probability.  You're fine with something less than an absolute and perfect conclusion/truth and that conclusion is based not only in the simple "frequency or propensity of some phenomenon" but enters the realm of knowledge and personal belief.  Dude's arguments tend to ignore probability in any fashion.  He seems to require an absolute and perfect conclusion/truth without considering the consequences or futility of such a demand.

 

 

Thanks sdelsolray.

 

Yes, from what you write, I'm happy with Bayesian probability.

 

In the Dude's defense, he's just changed from his absolutist position to one of acceptance of probability.  He wrote...

 

So then BAA, you said:

"What do I mean by the word, 'know'..?  

When I say that I know something I mean that I have confidence in the evidence for it, up to, but not including 100% confidence."

No big reveal here on my part then BAA,  I'm good with your description of the word. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Edited to add...

The diagrammatic steps in Fweethawt's thread... 'Evidence And How It Works' ...seem to be a nice parallel to the square/circle/triangle diagram I opened this thread up with.  The last step yields a pentagon (Our Theory) , which while not being the circle (The Truth), is closer to that truth than the lone data point in the first step.  Additional steps, with more data and more testing might add angles to the pentagon, changing it from a five-sided object to a six, seven, eight or nine-sided one.  

 

Each such change brings Our Theory a little closer to The Truth, by making the shape more and more like a circle.

However, Our Theory can never become The Truth any more than adding angles can change the pentagon onto a perfect circle.  It would take an infinite number of additional angles to do that.  

 

Does that resonate with Bayesian probability, sdelsolray?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Thanks sdelsolray.

 

Yes, from what you write, I'm happy with Bayesian probability.

 

In the Dude's defense, he's just changed from his absolutist position to one of acceptance of probability.  He wrote...

 

So then BAA, you said:

"What do I mean by the word, 'know'..?  

When I say that I know something I mean that I have confidence in the evidence for it, up to, but not including 100% confidence."

No big reveal here on my part then BAA,  I'm good with your description of the word. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Edited to add...

The diagrammatic steps in Fweethawt's thread... 'Evidence And How It Works' ...seem to be a nice parallel to the square/circle/triangle diagram I opened this thread up with.  The last step yields a pentagon (Our Theory) , which while not being the circle (The Truth), is closer to that truth than the lone data point in the first step.  Additional steps, with more data and more testing might add angles to the pentagon, changing it from a five-sided object to a six, seven, eight or nine-sided one.  

 

Each such change brings Our Theory a little closer to The Truth, by making the shape more and more like a circle.

However, Our Theory can never become The Truth any more than adding angles can change the pentagon onto a perfect circle.  It would take an infinite number of additional angles to do that.  

 

Does that resonate with Bayesian probability, sdelsolray?  

 

I would like to adjust a previous statement I made concerning Bayesian probability.  In an earlier post I mused, 'BAA, your seem to imply the application of Bayesian probability in your posts', or something like that.  I would like to change that to, "BAA, perhaps you should consider applying Bayesian probability to your presentation by adding it as a separate thought stream".

 

Applying Bayesian probability requires some preliminary work, basically identifying prior and post probabilities.  This is done before application of new data and results in an updated knowledge or belief probability. 

 

I am by no means an expert in this area.  However, I think I understand the theory behind it.  I was impressed with the application of Bayesian probability by Richard Carrier in his book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (2012).  

 

Here's Carrier's Bayesian calculator:

 

http://www.richardcarrier.info/bayescalculator.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2017 at 8:02 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Dude,

 

In just two words, sdelsolray answered this portion of your post...

 

I understand that quarks are a thing, even though they have never been seen, but what are quarks made of? What are the things that quarks are made from made from? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

 

I won't even point out that the world is made from things that cannot be seen because they couldn't be seen 'at the time' that the book of Hebrews said that, so it was technically correct. That would be a cheap shot.

 

Let me ask you another question, BAA. Is it possible that the things that we can see are made of things so small that even with our best science we will never be able to see them? Is it possible? I say yes, it's possible. In fact, the way science has trended since the advent of the splitting of the atom, to quarks, to the certain knowing that there are building blocks that quarks are made of only proves that the more science learns, the less it knows about the things that cannot be seen.

 

There comes a point (the Planck length) where it is impossible for us to see anything smaller.

(I'll tell you why this is if you like.  Please ask.)  This is just as much a barrier to our powers of investigation as the visual horizon of the universe is.  We can't see any smaller than the Planck length and we can't see any bigger, further away or further back in time than the 'edge' of the universe.  So Yes, you are (as far as I know) correct.  There are limits to how far science can go.  Now we can move on to your next sentence.

 

My point is, you have faith that someday all will be known. So does the Christian. Duh.

.

.

.

Wrong.  Mistaken.  In error.  

You are all of these things Dude, if you think that I have faith that some day ALL will be known.

 

The square/circle/triangle diagram I began my this thread with is an illustration of how all will NOT be known.  

In post # 3 I mentioned that we humans do not see the whole truth.  

In post # 13 I discussed with Pantheory the idea of we humans accepting that we can never gain absolute knowledge of reality.  

In post # 18 I stated that our individual perspectives of reality are severely limited.  

In post # 21 I said that to be human means to never know anything with absolute certainty, but to always be working with less than 100% certainty.

In post # 28 I wrote that human nature prevents us from knowing anything with 100% certainty. 

In post # 29 I answered you by saying that science cannot conclusively show (with 100% confidence) that the Earth is not the center of the universe with everything revolving around it.

In post # 32 I said that it was also agreed between us that NO method of understanding reality (science, religion, clairvoyance, guesswork, etc.) can show ANYTHING with 100% confidence.

In post # 33, when it came to knowing something with 100% confidence, I wrote, 'That's an impossible target - one that science can never deliver on.'

In post # 49, I replied to you saying, '...unless you can show otherwise, I contend that nothing can deliver 100% certainty.'  (And I included science in that nothing.)

In post # 53, when referring back to the square/circle/triangle diagram I asked you to...  'Please note that my line in this thread has been consistent about this.  I have maintained that the central Truth cannot be fully seen from any viewpoint.' 

In post # 54 I asked you, 'Do you accept that humans can never know the central Truth of reality with 100% certainty?

In post # 69, when talking to Josh, I wrote...

'Well, if that is the Dude's angle Josh, then I've been wasting a lot of my time here.

At no point have I said, suggested or implied that science can deal with ultimate reality.  I've been at pains to make it abundantly clear that the ultimate reality will always remain less than 100% known to us.  What I have said is that science allows us to know something of reality - not all of it.'

In post # 85, when referring to us knowing if the Earth is at the center of the universe, I said...  'Yes, neither science nor our senses can show that it isn't to a 100% level of confidence.' 

 

I find myself staggered and confused by you, Dude.

Staggered and confused that after saying the same thing so many times and in so many different ways, you still believe the opposite.  You still believe (contrary to the evidence) that I have faith that some day ALL will be known.  How many more times and in how many more different ways do I need to say it before you will see that I'm saying that ALL will not be known?  (Rhetorical question, btw.  I'm only going to ask you one question in this post.)  

 

Here is that question.

 

Which one of these two options has been my consistent line from the beginning of this thread?

 

A.  That  ALL will be known.

B.  That ALL will never be known.

 

Please answer.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

BAA,

 

My answer would be "B".  Of course, neither of us can say with certainty that all will never be known, but that does seem to be your consistent line.
Yet you say that I have (or had) the absolutist position?  

 

I honestly don't know how much further I want to go with this BAA.  You, Sdelsolray and RS all seem to be building up some kind of strawmanish views of what I'm saying/getting at, and I have little interest in having to work through that in order to proceed.

So far as I know, Sdelsolray is still trying to figure out what "alt-right" means so he can get back to me about why he called me an "alt-right wannabe" once in ToT, and RS is off somewhere "doing science", and thus he is not wasting his time commenting in this thread beyond his commenting in this thread.
 

Now comes probability, which I see in the context of our dialogue as some kind of a God of the gaps theory, only with science being the God of it's own gaps. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I sincerely sorry that you feel this way, Dude.

 

I can't speak for anyone else in this thread, but as far as I'm concerned, you could solve any misunderstandings or communication problems by being more proactive and less reactive.  Instead of leaving us to ask you questions and then glean what your thinking is from your answers, you could simply explain yourself, explain your thinking and explain what your position is.  Now, if doing that comes across as something unreasonable to you, then I'm sorry.  

 

Quite why such a thing should seem unreasonable (and even objectionable?) to you is beyond me.  

Forums and threads like this exist for debates and discussions such as this one.  Where a two-way flow of information and opinions is both expected and valued.  Where all parties are happy to present their arguments and also pleased to outline their positions.   If asking for this much from you is too much, then I am both baffled.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA,

 

My answer would be "B".  Of course, neither of us can say with certainty that all will never be known, but that does seem to be your consistent line.
Yet you say that I have (or had) the absolutist position?  

 

I honestly don't know how much further I want to go with this BAA.  You, Sdelsolray and RS all seem to be building up some kind of strawmanish views of what I'm saying/getting at, and I have little interest in having to work through that in order to proceed.

So far as I know, Sdelsolray is still trying to figure out what "alt-right" means so he can get back to me about why he called me an "alt-right wannabe" once in ToT, and RS is off somewhere "doing science", and thus he is not wasting his time commenting in this thread beyond his commenting in this thread.
 

Now comes probability, which I see in the context of our dialogue as some kind of a God of the gaps theory, only with science being the God of it's own gaps. 

 

 

 

You seem to have it all figured out, at least according to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Well, I sincerely sorry that you feel this way, Dude.

 

I can't speak for anyone else in this thread, but as far as I'm concerned, you could solve any misunderstandings or communication problems by being more proactive and less reactive.  Instead of leaving us to ask you questions and then glean what your thinking is from your answers, you could simply explain yourself, explain your thinking and explain what your position is.  Now, if doing that comes across as something unreasonable to you, then I'm sorry.  

 

Quite why such a thing should seem unreasonable (and even objectionable?) to you is beyond me.  

Forums and threads like this exist for debates and discussions such as this one.  Where a two-way flow of information and opinions is both expected and valued.  Where all parties are happy to present their arguments and also pleased to outline their positions.   If asking for this much from you is too much, then I am both baffled.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA,

 

I've answered your questions and I feel I've explained myself quite well. Well enough in fact that you've conceded to some of my points. Pardon me if I find your mental bafflement concerning an issue that you are making up out of thin air to be a bit silly.

Don't try to put some imagined blame on me because you don't like my answers. You started the thread for a reason, and maybe you haven't achieved your desired outcome? I don't know.

 

If you need clarification on anything just ask. Your assumption that I find communicating with you "unreasonable" or "objectionable" is obviously incorrect.

Now you've got me being an absolutist that is objecting to communicating my POV because I find it unreasonable for me to do so.  Really BAA? Really?  

After all of the times we've communicated here over the years, do you know how dumb that sounds and how insulting that is?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.