On knowledge v belief: who to trust?

[Edgarcito]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Certainly.  But it is more reasonable to concede when the very definitions of the words you're using demonstrate that you are wrong.  It is more reasonable, as in a more reasoned choice, to accept an uncomfortable truth than cling to a comfortable falsehood, or, in this case, a comfortable false hope. 

No, you’re overreaching…. marrying/ conflating posit and defining, declaring…

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Then we are going to have to disagree… positing and defining are wonderfully different…

"Positing" with a reckless disregard for the definitions of the terms you're using is not even "positing".  It's just intellectualized word-salad.  Your strong suit, to be sure; but completely worthless in honest discourse.

 

 

So, yes, we disagree on more than just the point you're wrong about.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

No, you’re overreaching…. marrying/ conflating posit and defining, declaring…

No, I am not.  And unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I would appreciate a retraction of that accusation. 

[Edgarcito]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"Positing" with a reckless disregard for the definitions of the terms you're using is not even "positing".  It's just intellectualized word-salad.  Your strong suit, to be sure; but completely worthless in honest discourse.

 

 

So, yes, we disagree on more than just the point you're wrong about.

The def of posit as it it being used here is literally a philosophical assertion.  How you are moving that into the realm you are is amazing…

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The def of posit as it it being used here is literally a philosophical assertion.  How you are moving that into the realm you are is amazing…

I am not moving it into any realm, here, Ed.  I am simply holding you true to the definitions of the words you are using.  Yes, you are "positing" a "philosophical assertion;" but the very words by which you are "positing" it make it both a logical, and practical, impossibility.  I'm sure it sucks for you to hear that; but that does not equate to me attempting to move anything anywhere.

 

So, rather than demonstrating the veracity of the first false accusation you made against me, you have simply doubled down here and made yet another false accusation.  If this is going to turn into yet another thread in which you make false claims that you then cannot support, I'm out.  I have neither the time, and nary the inclination, to be lied to, or about.  I will engage with you in honest discussion, even if it involves positing logically impossible philosophical assertions; but I will not abide your (habitual) attempts to deceive, obfuscate, and inveigle.

[Edgarcito]

34 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I am not moving it into any realm, here, Ed.  I am simply holding you true to the definitions of the words you are using.  Yes, you are "positing" a "philosophical assertion;" but the very words by which you are "positing" it make it both a logical, and practical, impossibility.  I'm sure it sucks for you to hear that; but that does not equate to me attempting to move anything anywhere.

 

So, rather than demonstrating the veracity of the first false accusation you made against me, you have simply doubled down here and made yet another false accusation.  If this is going to turn into yet another thread in which you make false claims that you then cannot support, I'm out.  I have neither the time, and nary the inclination, to be lied to, or about.  I will engage with you in honest discussion, even if it involves positing logically impossible philosophical assertions; but I will not abide your (habitual) attempts to deceive, obfuscate, and inveigle.

You’re an idiot.  What do you think they are looking for w the atom smashers, leprechauns?  Tell them that all the money and positing is useless in their endeavors bc you say so…

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

You’re an idiot.  What do you think they are looking for w the atom smashers, leprechauns?  Tell them that’s all the money and positing is useless in their endeavors bc you say so…

We're done, here.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

9 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You’re an idiot.

That's not nice, Ed

[mwc]

On 11/3/2023 at 10:10 AM, pantheory said:

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.

     The phrase, or concept actually, pre-dates Jefferson but his specific use is most likely a reference to the right to self-rule, something which would be of utter importance in a Declaration of Independence, which was later more closely tied to the individual rights listed just after the phrase in the declaration ignoring the establishment of governments that comes just after that list.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You’re an idiot.  What do you think they are looking for w the atom smashers, leprechauns?  Tell them that all the money and positing is useless in their endeavors bc you say so…

 

What they are looking for is a better description and a better understanding of the natural universe, Ed.

 

What they are not looking for is an absolute or perfect description/understanding of everything.

 

The phrase, 'Theory of Everything' never meant an absolute and perfect proof.

 

That's because absolute proofs only exist in math and in logic, not in empirical science.

 

So, it's a category error on your part to believe that science is looking for anything absolute.

 

That's not in its remit.

 

 

What you seem to be doing is projecting your remit (looking for the absolute) on to science.

 

Sorry,  but its wrong to do that.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Theory of everything - Wikipedia

 

Fundamental limits in accuracy

No physical theory to date is believed to be precisely accurate. Instead, physics has proceeded by a series of "successive approximations" allowing more and more accurate predictions over a wider and wider range of phenomena. Some physicists believe that it is therefore a mistake to confuse theoretical models with the true nature of reality, and hold that the series of approximations will never terminate in the "truth". Einstein himself expressed this view on occasions.

[walterpthefirst]

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia

 

The absolute is only achievable if it is proven and Kurt Godel mathematically proved that there are certain theories that cannot be be proven.

 

Therefore, the absolute will always be out of reach for science and for scientific theories.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We're done, here.

 

THANK GOODNESS!   This kind of incessant argument usually leads to insults and anger.

 

13 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

You’re an idiot.  

 

 

And in a bar room situation can esculate to more anger and insults.  And that may lead to going outside to settle the argument.  But one of the guys getting beat up may not settle the argument.  He has a gun under the seat of his vehicle, so he goes to get it, and some one gets killed, leaving a wife and kids at home with no daddy.

 

And if these two guys have some buddies on their side, it can become a gang fight, with several getting hurt or killed. 

 

And if it is two nations it can result in thousands getting killed.  Just because of a pissing contest over something insignificant.  "By god, I am right!!  And I'm going to have it MY way".

 

Having these argument here may seem insignificant.  But it is a mind set that is causing heartaches, fights, domestic violence, divorces, traumatized kids, murders, and wars.  

 

IS THIS THE KIND OF MINDSETS WE WANT TO PROMOTE ON THIS WEBSITE??  

 

If we are wanting to be of assistance to rational minded people wanting to leave incessantly oppressive reigion, are the incessant ego battles here encouraging them to join us??

 

One small act of disrespect may not amount to much, and we might even laugh at it, or say, "they had it coming", but it is adding to a mind set that produces negative "energy" or emotions.  Anger.  Sadness.  Depression.  Division.  This can slowly accumulate and become a huge problem like we see in the world today.  

 

Respecting each other, and presenting ideas for consideration, but not trying to "prove" others are wrong, may not be the "manly" way of doing things, but it might bring in more struggling people who are seeking a better way.  

 

Thank you Professor for bowing out of this argument!

[Edgarcito]

Oh my goodness Wheezer,,,,you know that J and I have argued countless times...countless.  I WAS respectful to M, and you did notice where Walter and I agreed to some mutual understanding...yet John kept saying I was wrong wrong wrong even AFTER I said the possibility of my idea was likely never to have a chance just because we are incapable of that level of observation. 

 

What in the world is it that y'all just don't get.  This is not hard to fathom.  We can't see very far away and we can't see something infinitely small.  

 

This doesn't mean that there isn't an exact logic to all of it.  Either there is or there is something woo-ish involved.  

 

Need I reference 1 Cor 13:12...

 

I've discussed these very ideas with them several times and they already knew where I stood.  Let me repeat, already KNEW where I stood...yet because they didn't like the way I was treating this lady, they jumped in and started harassing.  I'm tired of it.  I don't care.  They are my thoughts and my opinions.....  So badger me and I will badger back.  John wouldn't shut up last night until I called him a name.  Then everyone is butt hurt.  He could care less if I call him and name and vice versa.  No one cares at this point.  It's just not a biggie.  Start your own thread and maintain any decorum you desire.  Thx. 

[Edgarcito]

To add....NO ONE spoke up from the periphery to vote one way or the other.....but just bitched after it was over.  "Ed, he's wanting you to see this and I don't see that you are seeing this point".  Or "John, ....xyz...".  Again, no one cares and a conversation on the internet is just that.... 

[walterpthefirst]

For the record...

 

 

I no longer fight with anyone in this forum.

I do NOT disrespect anyone in this forum.

I do NOT escalate things by responding to insults or aggression.

If someone refuses to answer a question, I no longer continue to press them to do so.

I do NOT promote my opinions but instead cite facts.

I NEVER say or imply that I'm going to have things my way.

I am no longer lead by my ego.

 

I respect that people have their opinions and beliefs and they also have the right to hold these things.

But this is a debate area of the forum and debate, by definition, is adversarial.

Therefore, since ALL members have the right to challenge the opinions, beliefs and claims of other members, I do so.

Instead of fighting, disrespecting, escalating, promoting myself or trying to have things my way I take another path.

 

Instead I make my stand on the facts, citing them whenever I can and not just to 'win' the argument.

Rationality and reason are under attack the world over and if I can do my small part here in defending them I will.

When it comes to the facts there are such things as right and correct and wrong and incorrect.

 

I simply state the facts and inform others of where they are wrong - no more than that.

 

 

 

PERSONAL  OPINION

 

I would consider it a sad day for this forum if its members could not cite facts and not point out what when someone is  wrong, for fear of disrespecting them.  If a member makes a claim then is that not the signal that their claim can be challenged?  Must I then water down my response to them so as to not run the risk of offending their delicate sensibilities?  Is it really disrespectful of me to point out when they are wrong, when, by the facts, they are?  Or must I now put their feelings above being factually correct?

 

The rules and guidelines of the debate areas and the Den in particular clearly inform anyone entering them of what is permitted and what they can expect when they get there.  Long-time members should know exactly what happens in the Den and be under no illusions about what transpires there.  The onus is upon ALL members to be ready for what happens in these areas.  And should they not like how things pan out then they are under no obligation to keep entering there.  This principle operates everywhere across the Internet.  If you don't like what you see, exit the page.

 

Now to the question of whether declaring what is right or wrong serves the good of this forum.

 

It does.  Those of us who are well acquainted with counter-apologetic arguments perform a service to those trying to deconvert from religion by standing on the facts.  It is the facts that help set people free from the clutches of religion.   The facts help dismantle the lies and half-truths of religion.  The facts help demolish the claims put forward by the religious.  The facts are the allies and instruments of reason and rationality.  The facts are the enemies of religion and superstition.

 

And where there is what is factually correct, there is also what is factually incorrect.  It is therefore a vital and necessary service for us to promote and defend the facts against all the religionists, relativists and subjectivists - those who would have us believe that all viewpoints are equally valid and that everyone is entitled and justified in believing whatever they like, regardless of the facts.

 

Here endeth the lesson!

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

And for god's sake Wheezer, the entire thing falls under the category "philosophy".  How can someone declare right or wrong???

[walterpthefirst]

15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Oh my goodness Wheezer,,,,you know that J and I have argued countless times...countless.  I WAS respectful to M, and you did notice where Walter and I agreed to some mutual understanding...yet John kept saying I was wrong wrong wrong even AFTER I said the possibility of my idea was likely never to have a chance just because we are incapable of that level of observation. 

 

What in the world is it that y'all just don't get.  This is not hard to fathom.  We can't see very far away and we can't see something infinitely small.  

 

This doesn't mean that there isn't an exact logic to all of it.  Either there is or there is something woo-ish involved.  

 

Need I reference 1 Cor 13:12...

 

I've discussed these very ideas with them several times and they already knew where I stood.  Let me repeat, already KNEW where I stood...yet because they didn't like the way I was treating this lady, they jumped in and started harassing.  I'm tired of it.  I don't care.  They are my thoughts and my opinions.....  So badger me and I will badger back.  John wouldn't shut up last night until I called him a name.  Then everyone is butt hurt.  He could care less if I call him and name and vice versa.  No one cares at this point.  It's just not a biggie.  Start your own thread and maintain any decorum you desire.  Thx. 

 

 

This doesn't mean that there isn't an exact logic to all of it.

 

I agree, Ed.

 

There could indeed be an exact logic to all of it.

 

Where we differ is that I have embraced and understood the fact that we will never know.

 

I have cited various reasons why we will never know.

 

There are many things that we cannot ever know.

 

How does that thought sit with you?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

And for god's sake Wheezer, the entire thing falls under the category "philosophy".  How can someone declare right or wrong???

 

Is science philosophy?

 

You mentioned particle colliders earlier in this thread.

 

Is the work being done with them science or philosophy?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

This doesn't mean that there isn't an exact logic to all of it.

 

I agree, Ed.

 

There could indeed be an exact logic to all of it.

 

Where we differ is that I have embraced and understood the fact that we will never know.

 

I have cited various reasons why we will never know.

 

There are many things that we cannot ever know.

 

How does that thought sit with you?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

I said that....almost verbatim.  But John kept saying wrong.  I agree, there appears to be a populated ZPF and an actual zero.  And then what happens after that potentially, will we discover other particles even smaller?  We will never get there, never.  It just doesn't exclude the possibility imo nor violate any rule that we keep looking or speculate.  

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Is science philosophy?

 

You mentioned particle colliders earlier in this thread.

 

Is the work being done with them science or philosophy?

 

 

Yes, very much so......both.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I said that....almost verbatim.  But John kept saying wrong.  I agree, there appears to be a populated ZPF and an actual zero.  And then what happens after that potentially, will we discover other particles even smaller?  We will never get there, never.  It just doesn't exclude the possibility imo nor violate any rule that we keep looking or speculate.  

 

 

I will not comment on what passed between you and the Prof.

 

That is between you and him.

 

 

However, undiscoverable possibilities can't be the basis of an argument for the real existence of an absolute, can they?

 

They can be the basis for a belief in the absolute, but if you do that you are returning to Hebrews 11 : 1.

 

Where faith is the belief in unseen things that are unsupported by any evidence.

 

 

If you continue to believe in the absolute, that belief is therefore only evidence-free faith.

 

Such a belief cannot be supported by scientific evidence, as you seem to acknowledge.

 

So such a belief cannot qualify either as science or as a logical argument for its existence.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes, very much so......both.

 

Science is underpinned by philosophy, but it is not philosophy itself.

 

 

Philosophy - Wikipedia

 

Philosophy (love of wisdom in ancient Greek) is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its own methods and assumptions.

 

Science - Wikipedia

 

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavour that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

 

 

Philosophy does not use tests (experiments) on the natural, physical world.

 

Philosophy does not make explanations about the way birds migrate, rocks weather or planets move.

 

Philosophy does not make predictions about how electrons move or about how cells divide.

 

 

Science can inform philosophy and philosophy underpins science, but they are two separate and different disciplines with different methodologies, different assumptions and different aims.

 

To conflate the two or to blur the clear division between them is wrong.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[Edgarcito]

26 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

I will not comment on what passed between you and the Prof.

 

That is between you and him.

 

 

However, undiscoverable possibilities can't be the basis of an argument for the real existence of an absolute, can they?

 

They can be the basis for a belief in the absolute, but if you do that you are returning to Hebrews 11 : 1.

 

Where faith is the belief in unseen things that are unsupported by any evidence.

 

 

If you continue to believe in the absolute, that belief is therefore only evidence-free faith.

 

Such a belief cannot be supported by scientific evidence, as you seem to acknowledge.

 

So such a belief cannot qualify either as science or as a logical argument for its existence.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I understand but disagree….

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Science is underpinned by philosophy, but it is not philosophy itself.

 

 

Philosophy - Wikipedia

 

Philosophy (love of wisdom in ancient Greek) is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its own methods and assumptions.

 

Science - Wikipedia

 

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavour that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

 

 

Philosophy does not use tests (experiments) on the natural, physical world.

 

Philosophy does not make explanations about the way birds migrate, rocks weather or planets move.

 

Philosophy does not make predictions about how electrons move or about how cells divide.

 

 

Science can inform philosophy and philosophy underpins science, but they are two separate and different disciplines with different methodologies, different assumptions and different aims.

 

To conflate the two or to blur the clear division between them is wrong.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Please post the definition for underpinned