Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

False.
There may be several reasons why they would not choose to comment.

Well there is obviously no absolute false nor absolute true answer here. In other words there is no absolute correct answer.

As far as I am concerned IF what I am saying and meaning was being FULLY heard and FULLY understood, then far more people would be making far more comments. But obviously it is never going to be the case that ALL people would be commenting ALL of the time. So, you are absolutely right, in that regard. But, I am pretty certain that if what I am actually meaning was being FULLY understood, then there would be far more comments made.

We will just have to wait and see what happens when, and if, I ever gain the ability to be better heard and better understood. So far I obviously have a lot more to learn and understand about how to communicate far more successfully with human beings.

As is evident, you can string several sentences together. You are just in denial.

I am just in denial of 'what' exactly?

Are you saying you FULLY understand exactly what I was saying previously in those two sentences of mine but you still just asked for clarification just for the sake of asking it?

Your Truly open and honest response would be most appreciated.

Also, OF COURSE I can string two sentences together but I rarely, if ever, am FULLY heard and get those sentences FULLY understood.

Not if you are going to make stupid comments like "I can string two sentences together"
People are just not going to take you seriously

But I NEVER, and I will repeat NEVER, said, "I can string two sentences together" before this post here.

Now even if you made a mistake here and you meant that I did previously say, "I cannot string string two sentences together", then you still FORGOT TO ADD that I made it very CLEAR that that was in relation to SOME THING ELSE.

Now, if you purposely wrote "I can string two sentences together" because you KNEW or more correctly ASSUMED that that was what I was going to write in this post, then you still FORGOT TO ADD that 'Of course 'I can string to sentences together' but I rarely, if ever, am FULLY heard and get those sentences FULLY understood'.

If any one just said what you propose here alone, then I would hope you or no one else would take them seriously. But what can be clearly seen is that I have NEVER said anything like what you have proposed, by itself. You have obviously taken this out of context of what I said and meant.

What I say really does need to be taken in context with the rest of what I have said. Otherwise, if people continued to do what you are doing, by taking what I say out of context, then they would also be doing what you are doing, and that is; not taking what I say seriously.

You are obviously showing that you are NOT fully hearing me and NOT fully understanding what I am saying and meaning, even when what I have said and meant is in the EXACT SAME sentence. You are obviously just wanting to grabbed and latch onto absolutely any thing, which you think will "justify" your own already held beliefs and assumptions. You are obviously NOT fully hearing me nor fully understanding what it is that I am saying and pointing out here.

Bias is necessary; it is the essence of opinion. Without that you can only remain silent.

If you BELIEVE this to be absolutely true, then go right ahead and continue BELIEVING whatever you want to believe is true.

I do not believe anything.
I only type what I know.

But, you 'trying to' "justify" your behaviors does NOT show to me what you BELIEVE my supposed "biases" ARE exactly. And, if you do not want to share your views in this regard, then so be it. I cannot make you do anything that you do not really want to do anyway.

It appears that at least this one here is not willing to share what they believe my biases are. Hopefully there may be other ones who will? The one appears to just want to claim that I have biases, but also does not want to back this up with any supporting evidence at all. One's own belief that they cannot speak without biases is NOT evidence at all of the supposed "biases" they claim I have, and obviously does not support anything at all, other than their own attempts at 'trying to' "justify" their own strongly held onto biases as being necessary for their ability to speak or not, which, when looked at FULLY is obviously very funny indeed to say the least.

You are quite correct.
You are severely disabled.
Nothing you say makes any sense.
Although you seem to be able to string two sentences together; you end up typing complete moronic gibberish.
You should sign yourself in to a clinic, or take mindfullness lessons.

[Terrapin Station]

I do not believe anything.
I only type what I know.

You also say you don't believe anything?

And you don't agree with the "justified true belief" characterization of propositional knowledge?

[Sculptor1]

I do not believe anything.
I only type what I know.

You also say you don't believe anything?

And you don't agree with the "justified true belief" characterization of propositional knowledge?

I know where and when the model can be used to work. This does not mean I have to believe in anything.
Belief is the death of reason.

[Terrapin Station]

You also say you don't believe anything?

And you don't agree with the "justified true belief" characterization of propositional knowledge?

I know where and when the model can be used to work. This does not mean I have to believe in anything.
Belief is the death of reason.

What alternate characterization of propositional knowledge do you use? Propositional knowledge is not justified true belief on your view but what?

[Steve3007]

This does not mean I have to believe in anything.
Belief is the death of reason.

Note the use of the word "in". I think this is another example of a usage of the word "belief" which is approximately the same as something like "blind faith".

[Terrapin Station]

This does not mean I have to believe in anything.
Belief is the death of reason.

Note the use of the word "in". I think this is another example of a usage of the word "belief" which is approximately the same as something like "blind faith".

Right. It's curious how some folks come to semantically limit belief to just that arena, though. Again, in my experience I've mainly seen atheists who are focused on arguing with theists online doing this, and it always seemed to be reactionary--theists focus on religious belief so much that the atheists in question want to distance themselves from belief period, thus they say things like, "I don't believe anything!!!"

But then that leads to needing to say things like "I do not believe that 2+2=4," "I do not believe that my car is parked on Main Street," etc.

And it leads to people saying things like, "I do not believe that 2+2=4, I know that 2+2=4"--as if the person wants to where a sandwich board announcing that they're unfamiliar with epistemology 101 (since it's very well-accepted in philosophy that propositional knowledge is justified true belief (even if some folks agree that the jtb formulation needs further qualification in light of the Gettier problem, for example)).

[Terrapin Station]

Oops: where=wear

[Sculptor1]

Note the use of the word "in". I think this is another example of a usage of the word "belief" which is approximately the same as something like "blind faith".

Right. It's curious how some folks come to semantically limit belief to just that arena, though.

It's practical.
I try to avoid the word when I can to avoid confusion.
There is a class of thing I do "believe in", but these I would class as aspirations; such as justice, equality and so forth. I know there is no such thing, but think they are worth promoting for the time when humans might be as smart as they want to think they are.

Again, in my experience I've mainly seen atheists who are focused on arguing with theists online doing this, and it always seemed to be reactionary--theists focus on religious belief so much that the atheists in question want to distance themselves from belief period, thus they say things like, "I don't believe anything!!!"

But then that leads to needing to say things like "I do not believe that 2+2=4," "I do not believe that my car is parked on Main Street," etc

And it leads to people saying things like, "I do not believe that 2+2=4, I know that 2+2=4"--

Duh. Don't you know that 2+2=4?? Is there something wrong with saying that?

as if the person wants to where a sandwich board announcing that they're unfamiliar with epistemology 101 (since it's very well-accepted in philosophy that propositional knowledge is justified true belief (even if some folks agree that the jtb formulation needs further qualification in light of the Gettier problem, for example)).

JTB is a bloody mouthful when you can live without using "belief" at all.
Knowledge is a perfectly good idea. Let the religious colonise the word. I don't give a ****; I just don't need it.

[Sculptor1]

This does not mean I have to believe in anything.
Belief is the death of reason.

Note the use of the word "in". I think this is another example of a usage of the word "belief" which is approximately the same as something like "blind faith".

Since the word "belief" was used in exactly the religious mode of meaning, I feel perfectly justified in responding that I do not belief in anything in this context.
The word was used as a accusation of a thing without justification.

[Steve3007]

Since the word "belief" was used in exactly the religious mode of meaning, I feel perfectly justified in responding that I do not belief in anything in this context.
The word was used as a accusation of a thing without justification.

I wasn't questioning your justification for using the word "belief" in any particular sense. I was just trying to establish the sense in which you are actually using it.

When you say the word was used as an accusation, I presume you'd say the accusation came from creation, because I can't spot anything that looks like an accusation in any recent posts to you by TS, and they're the only other people here. If so, then I presume that's because it's clear from numerous past posts that creation himself sees the word as being associated with some kind of blind faith. So (assuming that neither of you are fans of blind faith) we have a situation where he uses the word "belief" to accuse you of blind faith and you use that same word to push back.

Suppose we ditch blind faith and take the word belief to simply mean "thinking, on the basis of evidence available so far, that something is true but being perfectly open to changing that in the light of new evidence". I'm guessing you'd have no beef with belief in that sense?

To use TS's example:

I believe there is a fridge in my kitchen. But I could be wrong.

I don't believe in my fridge, in the same sense that someone might believe in God.

Fair enough?

[Steve3007]

Right. It's curious how some folks come to semantically limit belief to just that arena, though. Again, in my experience I've mainly seen atheists who are focused on arguing with theists online doing this, and it always seemed to be reactionary--theists focus on religious belief so much that the atheists in question want to distance themselves from belief period, thus they say things like, "I don't believe anything!!!"...

Yes, I've seen that too in some of the many long arguments about theism vs atheism on this site. But this appears to be a general problem with lots of other words too. We quite recently (within the last month or so) had a conversation along similar lines about the word "proof". You were pointing out to someone that terms like "scientific proof" are a misuse of the word "proof" and that proofs are more properly associated with logic and mathematics, as opposed to the empirical propositions of science. I then pointed out that, in fairly common usage, the word has (at least) two distinct meanings. One of them is similar to the meaning of the word "test", as in the old saying "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". The other is the one that applies to logic. As I recall, I think you responded by accepting that but saying you thought it best to still avoid using the word "proof" outside of maths and logic because of the potential for ambiguity.

That worry about the potential for ambiguity is essentially the same as the worry that those atheists you mentioned above clearly have about using the word "belief". It all stems ultimately from the fact that most people throw words around without thinking particularly carefully what they mean by them. So arguments that should be about ideas just end up being assertions about the meanings of words.

...And it leads to people saying things like, "I do not believe that 2+2=4, I know that 2+2=4"--as if the person wants to where a sandwich board announcing that they're unfamiliar with epistemology 101 (since it's very well-accepted in philosophy that propositional knowledge is justified true belief (even if some folks agree that the jtb formulation needs further qualification in light of the Gettier problem, for example)).

They probably are unfamiliar with epistemology 101. That's not necessarily the problem. As you've noted before in various conversations, it's very difficult, with some posters at least, to get a sense that the conversation is building something - progressing. If it were possible, as you've often said you like to do, to tackle one small issue at a time, resolve that issue, and then move on to the next issue having remembered that resolution, then it would be quick and easy for us all to learn the sense in which we are each using words, and, for each poster, to say to ourselves "aha! I remember that poster X uses word Y in that particular sense, so I will price that in to my interpretation of his/her words". But there seem to be various reasons why that doesn't happen very efficiently.


Another word, among many, that suffers from this is "objective". I see RJG has recently resurfaced and started misusing that word (at least according to my understanding of it) again.

[Steve3007]

It's practical.
I try to avoid the word when I can to avoid confusion.
There is a class of thing I do "believe in", but these I would class as aspirations; such as justice, equality and so forth. I know there is no such thing, but think they are worth promoting for the time when humans might be as smart as they want to think they are.

For my part, I generally don't try to avoid using that word and, so far, I've never known it to cause confusion. For example, if someone walked into the office and asked me:

"Is John in today?"

I might say something like:

"Yes, I believe so."

That doesn't mean that I have an unshakable faith that John is somewhere in the office and that, if it turns out that he's off sick today, I will be shaken to the core of my being and have to completely rethink my worldview, perhaps by sitting in a cave for a year.

[creation]

Now why do you say that this is not provable?

Why is it impossible for you to prove to me that there is a refrigerator in your kitchen?

I already explained this to you a couple days ago.

First, it's not saying that it's impossible to prove something--it's not a necessary fact, it's a contingent fact. Presumably things could be different than they are.

Let's go step by step over what I explained a couple days ago and figure out what problems you're having with the explanation.

Please do, and let us see if you actually did do this.

"We can't prove empirical claims because we can always turn out to be wrong. The simplest aspect of this is that we can't even know with certainty what the relationship is between phenomenal data and the way the world really happens to be."

But that is NOT an explanation to back up and support your beliefs. That is, as I explained to you already, is just more of your beliefs, which, obviously, could be completely and utterly WRONG.

Okay, what are your issues--whether a disagreement or something you don't understand--with this first bit?

Firstly, if saying; "Empirical claims are not provable" is NOT saying, "It is impossible to prove empirical claims", then please explain the extremely subtle difference that you see, which I obviously do not.

Secondly, the possibility that you being wrong during your attempt to prove one empirical claim has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your claim that "empirical claims are not provable". This is like saying there are no grey swans just because, to you, you have only seen black and white swans.Just because you might be wrong when trying to do prove some empirical claim, this does not then make, nor mean, that ALL empirical claims are therefore not provable. This does just not logically follow.

Obviously, and it really is this simple, it is possible to prove some empirical claims. Therefore, if you can prove an empirical claim, then you can. If you proved an empirical claim, then you just did it. But, if you cannot prove an empirical claim, then you just cannot prove that empirical claim. So be it!. But this certainly does NOT mean that you cannot prove each and every other empirical claim for the rest of eternity, obviously.

Thirdly, As I just explained to you; I can very easily prove that there is a refrigerator in my kitchen. But if you cannot prove that there is a refrigerator is in your kitchen, then so be it. By the way, if you still are not understanding this, then your inability to understand this is certainly NOT evidence for your claim here.

Fourthly, to KNOW with CERTAINTY what the relationship is between phenomenal data and the way the so called "world" really happens to be, is actually an extremely very simple and very easy thing to do, as I have explained to you ALREADY. This is done through AGREEMENT.

So, to use your example, for an example, if I want to prove to some one that 'There is a refrigerator in my kitchen', then firstly I ask that one to come with me to what I call "my kitchen". I then ask them, 'Do you agree that this is my kitchen? If they say, 'Yes', then I point to the refrigerator and ask them to touch it and feel it, I then ask them, "Do you agree that this is a refrigerator?' If they say, 'Yes', then I ask them to clarify, 'Does this then prove to you that there is a refrigerator in my kitchen or not? If they say, 'Yes it does', then all is good. My job is done and complete. I have just proved my empirical claim here. If, however, that one says, 'No, this does not prove that there is a refrigerator in your kitchen', then I just ask them to clarify why they say that this does not prove to them the empirical claim that 'There is a refrigerator in my kitchen?'

Now, most people I know would answer 'Yes, this does prove that there is refrigerator in my kitchen' to my clarifying question. But, obviously you would be the exception as you would obviously answer 'No, this does not prove that there is a refrigerator in your kitchen'. So, please explain and tell us WHY would that not prove to you my empirical claim, "That there is a refrigerator in my kitchen?"

When, and if, you can explain that, then I might better understand your claim that "empirical claims are not provable". But, just to be forewarned, expect more clarifying questions being posed to you.

Fifthly, OF COURSE things can be different than they, 'really', happen to be. But if it is possible to KNOW how things 'really happen to be', then it is obviously possible to KNOW how things 'really ARE' or 'really happen to be'. Therefore, empirical claims can be proved.

Sixth, if 'we' agree what a 'refrigerator' is, agree what a 'kitchen' is, and agree that 'this' kitchen is 'my' kitchen, then this is NOT different from the way the so called "world" really happens to be. Our agreement makes the so called "world the way that it really happens to be'. As I have explained to you previously in this forum.

As I state, and which you absolutely disagree with; 'Agreement, itself, is the very thing, that makes the so called "world" the way it happens to be to us'. We can also delve into this much further and much deeper if needed to be for you to grasp and FULLY understand this concept, idea, and/or view, by the way.

Okay, you wanted to go through this step by step, so what are your issues--whether they are a disagreement or something else you do not yet understand--with this first bit?

[creation]

So, are you suggesting that some people can learn absolutely everything, instantly?

No more than I'm suggesting that some people can do absolutely every physical task instantly, otherwise they must have muscular dystrophy. Surely you don't think I'm suggesting that, do you?

The concept of learning disabilities has nothing to do with anyone "learning absolutely everything instantly."

Maybe in "your world". But human beings have learned ways to 'try to' "justify" all of their own inabilities and short comings.

'Learning disabilities', like 'greed', like 'doing wrong' are just about always, and very "conveniently and coincidentally", only things that "other people" have and do. Very rarely will an adult human being admit to be greedy, doing wrong, and having cognitive and learning disabilities. As has been evidenced and shown here throughout.

And, you are a PRIME EXAMPLE of one with a very strong learning disability, which can be clearly evidenced and seen throughout your writings.

People with learning disabilities don't get through life where they earn two PhDs without being diagnosed with a learning disability.

LOL

The 'intellectual superiority' complex at its finest display on show here.

So called "earning" one or many phds mean absolutely nothing in regards to one's ability to learn, understand, and reason. in fact I some times find the most intellectual people are the most stupidest or least intelligent people of all.

In fact the ones who have learned the least are the ones who are actually the most intelligent.

Now, let this reveal signs of the Truly non-intelligent ones about to show their True form

It's just like people with muscular dystrophy don't get through life where they have a career on a pro sports team without being diagnosed with muscular dystrophy.

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with one's ability to grasp, learn, and understand more and anew or not.

One being OPEN or being CLOSED has absolutely nothing to do with how much muscular dystrophy or not there is within the physical human body.

You will have to learn and know where one's ability to learn, understand, and reason comes from to grasp and understand what I am actually saying and meaning here. You are, by the way, a very long way off learning and understanding this concept. But this is because of who you are, and because of the learning disability you have gained along the way.

[creation]

Well there is obviously no absolute false nor absolute true answer here. In other words there is no absolute correct answer.

As far as I am concerned IF what I am saying and meaning was being FULLY heard and FULLY understood, then far more people would be making far more comments. But obviously it is never going to be the case that ALL people would be commenting ALL of the time. So, you are absolutely right, in that regard. But, I am pretty certain that if what I am actually meaning was being FULLY understood, then there would be far more comments made.

We will just have to wait and see what happens when, and if, I ever gain the ability to be better heard and better understood. So far I obviously have a lot more to learn and understand about how to communicate far more successfully with human beings.



I am just in denial of 'what' exactly?

Are you saying you FULLY understand exactly what I was saying previously in those two sentences of mine but you still just asked for clarification just for the sake of asking it?

Your Truly open and honest response would be most appreciated.

Also, OF COURSE I can string two sentences together but I rarely, if ever, am FULLY heard and get those sentences FULLY understood.




But I NEVER, and I will repeat NEVER, said, "I can string two sentences together" before this post here.

Now even if you made a mistake here and you meant that I did previously say, "I cannot string string two sentences together", then you still FORGOT TO ADD that I made it very CLEAR that that was in relation to SOME THING ELSE.

Now, if you purposely wrote "I can string two sentences together" because you KNEW or more correctly ASSUMED that that was what I was going to write in this post, then you still FORGOT TO ADD that 'Of course 'I can string to sentences together' but I rarely, if ever, am FULLY heard and get those sentences FULLY understood'.

If any one just said what you propose here alone, then I would hope you or no one else would take them seriously. But what can be clearly seen is that I have NEVER said anything like what you have proposed, by itself. You have obviously taken this out of context of what I said and meant.

What I say really does need to be taken in context with the rest of what I have said. Otherwise, if people continued to do what you are doing, by taking what I say out of context, then they would also be doing what you are doing, and that is; not taking what I say seriously.

You are obviously showing that you are NOT fully hearing me and NOT fully understanding what I am saying and meaning, even when what I have said and meant is in the EXACT SAME sentence. You are obviously just wanting to grabbed and latch onto absolutely any thing, which you think will "justify" your own already held beliefs and assumptions. You are obviously NOT fully hearing me nor fully understanding what it is that I am saying and pointing out here.



If you BELIEVE this to be absolutely true, then go right ahead and continue BELIEVING whatever you want to believe is true.

I do not believe anything.
I only type what I know.

But, you 'trying to' "justify" your behaviors does NOT show to me what you BELIEVE my supposed "biases" ARE exactly. And, if you do not want to share your views in this regard, then so be it. I cannot make you do anything that you do not really want to do anyway.




It appears that at least this one here is not willing to share what they believe my biases are. Hopefully there may be other ones who will? The one appears to just want to claim that I have biases, but also does not want to back this up with any supporting evidence at all. One's own belief that they cannot speak without biases is NOT evidence at all of the supposed "biases" they claim I have, and obviously does not support anything at all, other than their own attempts at 'trying to' "justify" their own strongly held onto biases as being necessary for their ability to speak or not, which, when looked at FULLY is obviously very funny indeed to say the least.

You are quite correct.
You are severely disabled.
Nothing you say makes any sense.
Although you seem to be able to string two sentences together; you end up typing complete moronic gibberish.
You should sign yourself in to a clinic, or take mindfullness lessons.

Okay, if this is what you know, then this could not be anything else.

This, to you, has to be absolutely and irrefutably true, and there is therefore absolutely nothing at all wrong in anything that you say and know. In fact you are so absolutely 'sure of yourself' you NEVER even have to check and clarify anything at all. You, "sculptor1", are so SURE OF YOURSELF' that you are so 'FULL OF YOURSELF' that you actually accept everything that you think as though it is thee one and only absolutely true, right, and correct knowledge that exists. This means that you never even need to be challenged nor questioned because you could NEVER be wrong, could you?