On knowledge v belief: who to trust?

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

10 hours ago, Weezer said:

One thing is obvious.  All men are not “created” with equal IQs.  

Must have missed this earlier 

[pantheory]

Quote Weezer:

 

"Here's my last question...Prof and Walter: do you agree with Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal"?"  Just a simple yes or no will suffice.  Thanks."

 

Hope you don't mind Weez, if I add my two cents here. The forefather that wrote most of the constitution was James Madison,

 

And of course Thomas Jefferson was a very interesting fellow of high intellect and so were his writings.

 

In one of the rooms of the White house, filled with well-known scientists, John Kennedy is quoted as saying "there probably hasn't been so much intellect in this room since Thomas Jefferson dined here alone. Pretty funny ! 

 

Although Thomas Jefferson wrote a lot in the constitution and endorsed its wordings, he did not write most of it. That prize goes to James Madison, called the father of the constitution. He was especially involved with the classical statements therein, such as all men all created equal -- whereby he probably meant, but could not write it -- in the eyes of God which is in the Bible. Of course Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin etc.  were all geniuses.

 

But by his writings, many have speculated that Jefferson was an atheist, He was accused of this by his opponent Pinckney in the presidential election of 1804 -- quoting some of his statements and his well-known non-church-going record. But of course he was reelected anyway.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

10 minutes ago, pantheory said:

-- whereby he probably meant, but could not write it -- in the eyes of God which is in the Bible.

I agree that he was likely referring to human worth in the eyes of god.  Not that they were born with the same abilities.

[pantheory]

12 minutes ago, Weezer said:

I agree that he was likely referring to human worth in the eyes of god.  Not that they were born with the same abilities.

Yeah, you're right. Only a very few could believe that

[Edgarcito]

41 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Yeah, you're right. Only a very few could believe that

My friends here didn't like my number analogy...."an object or unit that represents".... If you run out the analogy, then you run into big math and then concepts like infinity....an idea.  But that's illegal apparently with the same analogy, humanity...."an object that represents".  So, we are fine with big math (that eventually becomes too complex) and big science (that eventually becomes too complex) until it runs into ideas....and then it's ok to be a stop the boat and theorize.... but it's not ok to stop the boat and faithfully assert.  Ah well.      

 

Edit:  We call all agree on human worth until it becomes the sticking point to our egos....

[◊ Weezer ◊]

26 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

Edit:  We call all agree on human worth until it becomes the sticking point to our egos....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

32 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

My friends here didn't like my number analogy...."an object or unit that represents".... If you run out the analogy, then you run into big math and then concepts like infinity....an idea.  But that's illegal apparently with the same analogy, humanity...."an object that represents".  So, we are fine with big math (that eventually becomes too complex) and big science (that eventually becomes too complex) until it runs into ideas....and then it's ok to be a stop the boat and theorize.... but it's not ok to stop the boat and faithfully assert.  Ah well.      

 

Edit:  We call all agree on human worth until it becomes the sticking point to our egos....

This is a false representation of what occurred (which anyone can verify for themselves by perusing the preceding pages).  The objection to your analogy is that it did not represent a situation wherein exact opposites are involved, and therefore is a false analogy when applied to the Law of Excluded Third.  A more appropriate analogy would involve 1 and -1; because then it would be obvious that a number cannot be both positive and negative at the same time.  I know you're not a complete diplodocus, Ed; but your online persona certainly moonlights as one.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

@TheRedneckProfessor  that's not right....1 and 100 are numbers, symbols of quantity.  Subjective in the frame I was using it was a partial understanding of total, absolute objectivity.  How in the heck or why do we need to impose your logic rule in the way you have done in the first place.  They never were opposites there amigo....

[Edgarcito]

Let me give you an example so you will be clear in how I approach subjectivity.  Joe Bob is breathing different air than Jim Bob.  They are subjectively different...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Edgarcito, are subjectivity and objectivity opposites?  Is Subjective Truth the opposite of Absolute Truth?  Yes?

 

Is 1 the opposite of 100?  Is Jim Bob's air the opposite of Joe Bob's air?  No?

 

This is why your analogies keep failing.  This and the fact thst you're simply not paying attention to what I've been trying to tell you.

 

You're honestly not too stupid to understand why Excluded Third applies, Ed, even if you think you are.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Subjective in the frame I was using it was a partial understanding of total, absolute objectivity. 

Even if this retrofit were true (it's not), you'd then have to justify your claim that all Truth is subjective in light of your belief in an Absolute Truth or Objectivity.  In which case, guess what?  Truth cannot be both Absolute and Subjective... thereby Excluded Third still applies. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Let me ask you this, @Edgarcito: why do we not have access to Absolute Truth right here, right now?  Is it because Absolute Truth exists in some other dimension we can't get to?  Is it because "god" hasn't revealed it?  Is it because it doesn't exist yet; but someday will?

 

Big problem: Absolute means without limitation, doesn't it?  And every reason you can give as to why we don't have access to Absolute Truth right now is a limitation of some kind or other.  You run afoul of the same problems that come with assigning "god" any omni- characteristics.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Not qualified or diminished in any way...

 

 

[Edgarcito]

33 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Edgarcito, are subjectivity and objectivity opposites?  Is Subjective Truth the opposite of Absolute Truth?  Yes?

 

Here's where we are having the problem, or maybe just me.  I haven't totally decided yet.  I'm seeing two different statements here.  Subjectivity is not the opposite of objectivity....hence being subject.  I may be possess total objectivity in my subjectivity or there would be no need for the word/definition  subjectivity.  That does not exclude an absolute because I may have a subjective truth and there may be an absolute truth.  They are not opposites imo.  It falls under philosophy anyhow....so neener neener...

[Edgarcito]

Subjective truth is within an absolute truth and but are not exclusive as I understand you saying.  I am trying to understand....I just disagree.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Subjectivity is not the opposite of objectivity....hence being subject

Umm...

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Subjective truth is within an absolute truth and but are not exclusive as I understand you saying.  I am trying to understand....I just disagree.

I will make two statements and let's see if we can determine the difference between them.  Most importantly, let's see if we can figure out which one is an objective truth, and which one is a subjective truth.

 

Statement 1: A glass cannot be both empty and full at the same time.

 

Statement 2: Suzuka Nakamoto is the fiercest metal singer ever.

 

Both of these statements are true; but there is a major fundamental difference between them.  What is it?

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Umm...

 

 

Dude that’s so far off it hurts…

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I will make two statements and let's see if we can determine the difference between them.  Most importantly, let's see if we can figure out which one is an objective truth, and which one is a subjective truth.

 

Statement 1: A glass cannot be both empty and full at the same time.

 

Statement 2: Suzuka Nakamoto is the fiercest metal singer ever.

 

Both of these statements are true; but there is a major fundamental difference between them.  What is it?

Let's try this instead because we don't limit our lack of understanding.  

 

We are in the universe and the universe has a practical universal truth.  Earth and humanity are without limitation to the universe and that truth.  But, because we are subject to the particulars of Earth, our truth is subjective....

[walterpthefirst]

34 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Subjective truth is within an absolute truth and but are not exclusive as I understand you saying.  I am trying to understand....I just disagree.

 

Is it possible that your disagreement here is an emotional one, Ed?

 

That you don't like what the Prof is explaining to you, not because his argument if flawed, but because it somehow rankles you on a deep emotional level?

 

I'm not accusing you here - I'm just asking to get a better understanding of your position.

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Maybe it's more a left brain/right brain preference

[walterpthefirst]

23 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let's try this instead because we don't limit our lack of understanding.  

 

We are in the universe and the universe has a practical universal truth.  Earth and humanity are without limitation to the universe and that truth.  But, because we are subject to the particulars of Earth, our truth is subjective....

 

To be subject to something is quite different to experiencing something subjectively.

 

The same word, subject, is used in both cases, but in different ways and with different meanings.

 

 

For example, we are all subject to the gravity of the planet Earth.  This means that, whether we like it or not, the Earth imposes its gravitation upon us. 

 

What it does not mean is that each of us experience that gravity in our own unique way.  Please note that I am using the word experience to mean gravity's external effect upon our physical bodies  -  not our inner, mental experience of gravity in the privacy of our minds..

 

Do you see the difference here, Ed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Is it possible that your disagreement here is an emotional one, Ed?

 

That you don't like what the Prof is explaining to you, not because his argument if flawed, but because it somehow rankles you on a deep emotional level?

 

I'm not accusing you here - I'm just asking to get a better understanding of your position.

 

 

Did you not read my universe example?  Do you see emotion in that Walter?  How about telescopes that are land based vs. space based.....any subjective differences there?

[Edgarcito]

Just now, walterpthefirst said:

 

To be subject to something is quite different to experiencing something subjectively.

 

The same word, subject, is used in both cases, but in different ways and with different meanings.

 

 

For example, we are all subject to the gravity of the planet Earth.  This means that, whether we like it or not, the Earth imposes its gravitation upon us. 

 

What it does not mean is that each of us experience that gravity in our own unique way.  Please note that I am using the word experience to mean gravity's external effect upon our physical bodies  -  not our inner, mental experience of gravity in the privacy of our minds..

 

Do you see the difference here, Ed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually Walter, we do, because at no instant are we equal to another.  

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

Did you not read my universe example?  Do you see emotion in that Walter?  How about telescopes that are land based vs. space based.....any subjective differences there?

 

I asked these things because you brushed aside the Prof's questions about statements 1 and 2.

 

Even if you really think that your judgment and understanding of this issue is better than his would it be such a terrible thing to just answer his question and see where it leads?