tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post2127678760713797386..comments2024-01-07T12:38:39.465-06:00Comments on Clean Cut: Accounting For The Book of MormonClean Cuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comBlogger141125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-43985494742932237052009-11-05T22:02:47.947-06:002009-11-05T22:02:47.947-06:00Ok, wow, I get what you are saying. You're rig...Ok, wow, I get what you are saying. You're right.<br /><br />Hmm...that's no good.Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-27173062240074059212009-11-05T21:48:42.659-06:002009-11-05T21:48:42.659-06:00Yet our claims are about (even though we are stepp...<strong>Yet our claims are about (even though we are stepping up from the original claim) a true contradiction.</strong><br /><br />In addition, you are begging the question here.<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-57483016432274994292009-11-05T21:45:34.106-06:002009-11-05T21:45:34.106-06:00You can't have it both ways, Andrew. If you c...You can't have it both ways, Andrew. If you claim there is a contradiction (i.e. I am not fully right to say it is true or false, but must say it is both/and to be fully right), then you can't be arguing for no contradiction. You can't use the very item you are trying to deny in order to support your argument. <br /><br />Your argument is imploding around you.<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-80858076798496419532009-11-05T21:39:25.752-06:002009-11-05T21:39:25.752-06:00That there is a contradiction between "either...<i>That there is a contradiction between "either/or" logic and "both/and" logic which your position claims does not exist. Once again, you defeat yourself.</i><br /><br />Yet our claims are about (even though we are stepping up from the original claim) a true contradiction. So, the contradiction doesn't show much, because it is a true contradiction.<br /><br />This relates similarly to your other comment.Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-32616429805713164152009-11-05T21:29:29.863-06:002009-11-05T21:29:29.863-06:00Yes, you are as free to say it is false as you are...<em>Yes, you are as free to say it is false as you are free to say "The statement is not true" is false. The issue is that your statement is only partially correct.</em><br /><br />Okay, here is the thing. Your contention is that if I am to be fully correct about the statement "This statement is false," I must say it is "both true and false". When I ask if it is "true or false" your answer is essentially "no, not fully". So, while denying either/or logic (which would mean there is a contradiction) you actually employ it in your claim that this statement is <strong>not</strong> true/false but it is both/and. You are saying that the statement is <strong>either</strong> "true/false" <strong>or</strong> "both true and false". You imply the very claim you are trying to deny. That there is a contradiction between "either/or" logic and "both/and" logic which your position claims does not exist. Once again, you defeat yourself.<br /><br /><em>Again, this is something I know about my perception, but not something I know about reality.</em><br /><br />Yes, it is something you claim to know about reality. It is a claim about how your perception does/does not apply to reality. Making this claim necessitates knowledge about reality, namely, that you can't know if your perception of it is accurate.<br /><br />You are commiting a fallacy attempting to make a "nothing but" claim which neccesitates "more than" knowledge which your very claim denies you have. Again, you defeat yourself.<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-82583303023591990542009-11-05T19:38:45.113-06:002009-11-05T19:38:45.113-06:00In that case, is it true that "it is both tru...<i>In that case, is it true that "it is both true and false that this statement is both true and false"?</i><br /><br />Again, both true and false. You will go into another circle by this path.<br /><br /><i>Sorry, I should have asked another question. Since you claim that the statment is "both true and false", am I then free to say it is false?</i><br /><br />Yes, you are as free to say it is false as you are free to say "The statement is not true" is false. The issue is that your statement is only partially correct.<br /><br /><i>Also, your claim that you don't/can't know if reality aligns with your perception - is this something you know about reality?</i><br /><br />Again, this is something I know about my perception, but not something I know about reality. It's something I either may or may not know about reality. Again, if you deal with dialetheias, you don't just unentangle the dialetheia one "step" up. That is the pervading nature of paradox.Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-56024564749133690522009-11-05T15:59:47.343-06:002009-11-05T15:59:47.343-06:00Sorry, I should have asked another question. Sinc...Sorry, I should have asked another question. Since you claim that the statment is "both true and false", am I then free to say it is false?<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-50309681738737484712009-11-05T15:45:53.050-06:002009-11-05T15:45:53.050-06:00It is both true and false that this statement is b...<em>It is both true and false that this statement is both true and false.</em><br /><br />In that case, is it <strong>true</strong> that "it is both true and false that this statement is both true and false"?<br /><br />Also, your claim that you don't/can't know if reality aligns with your perception - is this something you <strong>know</strong> about reality?<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-53670267545690018882009-11-05T15:04:41.868-06:002009-11-05T15:04:41.868-06:00Your statement "This statement is not true.&q...<i>Your statement "This statement is not true." --- is it true that this statement is both true and false?</i><br /><br />It is both true and false that this statement is both true and false.<br /><br /><i>Your claim "We cannot know if we know reality" -- is that claim something you know about reality?</i><br /><br />I don't know if I know this about <b>reality</b>. What's more important is that I perceive that I know it, however...not whether I actually do or do not. So, <b>this claim <i>is</i> something I know about my perception</b>. But does my perception align with reality? For this, we can go back to the Last Thursday problem. Does my perception of my life being older than a week (several years, in fact) align with reality? As you point out, we are stuck between possible, probable, and actual, and we may or may not know the difference.Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-31846660846782467632009-11-05T11:14:56.279-06:002009-11-05T11:14:56.279-06:00Andrew,
We are kind of going in circles here. Le...Andrew,<br /><br />We are kind of going in circles here. Let me ask you a couple of questions to see if we can nail this down.<br /><br />Your statement "This statement is not true." --- is it <strong>true</strong> that this statement is both true and false?<br /><br />Your claim "We cannot know if we know reality" -- is that claim something you <strong>know</strong> about reality?<br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-68756303993315317522009-11-05T11:14:43.772-06:002009-11-05T11:14:43.772-06:00Andrew,
We are kind of going in circles here. Le...Andrew,<br /><br />We are kind of going in circles here. Let me ask you a couple of questions to see if we can nail this down.<br /><br />Your statement "This statement is not true." --- is it <strong>true</strong> that this statement is both true and false?<br /><br />Your claim "We cannot know if we know reality" -- is that claim something you <strong>know</strong> about reality?<br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-7547095621795615182009-11-05T00:57:37.695-06:002009-11-05T00:57:37.695-06:00Actually, the sentence is not proof of anything ot...<i>Actually, the sentence is not proof of anything other than the fact that a bunch of words can be grouped together into a meaningless statement. Kind of like the statement "I drove the blue car over the moon." It is entirely meaningless when it comes to reality.</i><br /><br />Except the statement is very meaningful. Even the blue car statement is meaningful...the issue is that it is in reality *false*, because the external object of a "blue cars" and the external object of the "moon" was not, in fact, interacted with. But "This statement is not true," isn't so ambitious. In this case, we find that the statement is meaningful, true, and false. This is the paradox. <br /><br /><i>While it might be fun to think about something being both true and false at the same time, it is not actually possible for it to be so. </i><br /><br />Not only is it possible, but we have shown an instance where it happens.<br /><br /><i>Those who hold to Paraconsistent Logic (I am not one of them :) ) might not mind violating the laws of reality as well as the 2nd law of classic logic. However, when living in reality, it is better to stick with what is actually possible.</i><br /><br />If you <i>don't</i> hold to paraconsistent logic, please note that your entire experiment with the law of non-contradiction in reality is disregardable. You're simply attacking a strawman of a trivialist philosophy that someone who accepts paraconsistent logic would clearly not buy. In this case, it does not follow from our one true contradiction that *everything* is true. We just note that arms, legs, etc., are paraconsistent. <br /><br />The existence of one true contradiction does not mean that all contradictions are true. <br /><br /><i>I agree with you that it is logically possible that we are being deceived by an evil God. However, my point was the same one I am making above: the simple fact that a statement is logically possible does not mean it is actually possible, probable, or real.</i><br /><br />And yet you don't know if you know if it is actually possible, probable, or real. You believe you know that true paradoxes don't exist. You could be right. Or the paradox of the lie could be real -- a true paradox. <br /><br />I agree with you that in the end, we make shortcuts...based on what we perceive possibility, probability, and reality to be. Of course, if our perceptions are faulty with respect to reality (and we don't know it), then we will come to different conclusions. Even our "high probability" goes out the window, if we are determining high probability with respect to perceptions that do not match with reality.Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-6891922233256950482009-11-04T22:56:25.492-06:002009-11-04T22:56:25.492-06:00In this case, we actually *can* evaluate the actua...<em>In this case, we actually *can* evaluate the actual possibility of this statement...and what we find is that the contradictory nature IS actually possible...and in fact, it does exist. The statement is proof of it.</em><br /><br />Actually, the sentence is not proof of anything other than the fact that a bunch of words can be grouped together into a meaningless statement. Kind of like the statement "I drove the blue car over the moon." It is entirely meaningless when it comes to reality.<br /><br />While it might be fun to <em>think</em> about something being both true and false at the same time, it is not actually possible for it to be so. <br /><br />Those who hold to Paraconsistent Logic (I am not one of them :) ) might not mind violating the laws of reality as well as the 2nd law of classic logic. However, when living in reality, it is better to stick with what is actually possible. <br /><br />In fact, let's use an example from earlier in our conversation to test the law of non-contradiction in reality. Next time you are crossing the street go ahead and walk out in front of an on-coming car. When it hits you, you need to remember that it can be both true and false that you are in pain, have a broken back, arm, legs, etc. When the nurse trys to stop you from getting out of bed and tells you that it is <strong>true</strong> that your legs are broken, you just need to look back at her and tell her that it is not true, it is both true and false and that you are choosing to go the false route. That way you can get up and walk right out of the room. Think she will buy it? Heck, do you think your body will buy it?<br /><br /><em>Because your answer to the Last Thursday world doesn't negate my main contention: that we cannot know if we know reality.</em><br /><br />I agree with you that it is logically possible that we are being deceived by an evil God. However, my point was the same one I am making above: the simple fact that a statement is logically possible does not mean it is actually possible, probable, or real.<br /><br />For example, it is logically possible that there are unicorns on the dark side of the moon. It is logically possible that werewolves exist. It is logically possible that we are all living in The Matrix. It is logically possible that aliens seeded life on earth. <br /><br />My contention all along has been that logic applies to reality (as we have already discussed, it is self contradictory to claim that it doesn't). However, we need to understand exactly <em>how</em> it applies. If something is <strong>not</strong> logically possible, it will not be actually possible. However, it being logically possible does not guarantee that it will be actually possible or actually real.<br /><br />This is where looking at possibility, probability, and reality come in. In reality, that is how we tend to live most of our lives... based upon what is possible, probable, and real.<br /><br />There are many, many things that we live our lives by everyday. Things we hold as truths when, in fact, we cannot empirically/scientifically demonstate them to be true. Instead, we use the process of induction to determine that they are true to a high degree of probablity... high enough in fact that we call them truth. So the real question is, what is more probable:<br /><br />1) There is a God (whether evil as in your example or wholly loving)<br /><br />2) There is no God<br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-10703148964401107272009-11-04T17:30:04.096-06:002009-11-04T17:30:04.096-06:00You have to distinguish between things that are st...<i>You have to distinguish between things that are stateable, but not logically or actually possible. There is a huge difference. </i><br /><br />No, we really do not have to distinguish. Because statements like these already imply actual possibility that can be evaluated. In this case, we actually *can* evaluate the actual possibility of this statement...and what we find is that the contradictory nature IS actually possible...and in fact, it does exist. The statement is proof of it.<br /><br />In this case, it is *reality* that we have created a statement that is *both* true *and* false. So, yes, it is contradictory. <b>No, it is not illogical</b>. We have just shown that the law of noncontradiction is not necessary for logical statements (we use paraconsistency to avoid worse consequences).<br /><br /><i>There are numerous things we can say along the same lines. For example, "No sentence in english is longer than 5 words" is stateable, but not actually possible because it self-references and violates its own claim.</i><br /><br />The problem is that this statement is simply false. But we figured that out because of what I just discussed in the last part...statements already imply the ability to actually evaluate their possibility. The statement before is both true and false. This one is simply false. This statement is clearly possible: it's just incorrect. Coming to the conclusion "there are sentences in English greater than 5 words long" doesn't express a contradiction where both are true. <br /><br />Continuing with the last Thursday world...it seems then that I should never had gotten into a logic discussion. Because your answer to the Last Thursday world doesn't negate my main contention: that we cannot know if we know reality. Instead, we are going based on probabilities and either being really lazy with what "knowledge" entails or admitting that we don't know.Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-55574075686187481342009-11-04T16:19:06.586-06:002009-11-04T16:19:06.586-06:00I'm having flashbacks from my philosophy class...I'm having flashbacks from my philosophy class - aahhhhh make it stop...Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08851361429948616077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-16214685003815730192009-11-04T16:04:05.420-06:002009-11-04T16:04:05.420-06:00For example, "This sentence is not true."...<em>For example, "This sentence is not true." This statement shows that we can contradict...a statement can be both true and false.</em><br /><br />You have to distinguish between things that are <em>stateable</em>, but not logically or actually <em>possible</em>. There is a huge difference. <br /><br />The statement "This sentence is not true" is stateable, but is not actually or logically possible because it falls within its own frame of reference and contradicts itself. For, if the sentence is true, then it is false. Yet, if it is false, then it is true. As a result, while we can <strong>say</strong> it, it is, in reality, nothing more than gibberish. It is illogical, contradictory, and has no grounding in reality. <br /><br />There are numerous things we can say along the same lines. For example, "No sentence in english is longer than 5 words" is stateable, but not actually possible because it self-references and violates its own claim.<br /><br />Things that are not logically possible, will <strong>never</strong> be actually possible. On the reverse, however, things that are logically possible may or may not be actually <strong>possible</strong> and may or may not be actually <strong>real</strong>. This leads me to your example.<br /><br />Your example of a deceitful God creating a world that looks millions of years old so as to fool us into thinking it is when it is actually only a few days old is <strong>logically</strong> possible. There are no inherent contradictions in your statement so it is logical. As a result, it is actually possible that such a thing could be true (again, logic applies to reality). However, simply because it is logically and actually possible does not, on the other hand, make it actually <strong>real</strong> or <strong>probable</strong>.<br /><br />Take, for example, the sentence "I can jump over the moon." This sentence is logically possible... there are no inherent contradictions in the statement. However, while I may be healthy and strong, it is not <strong>actually possible, probable, or real</strong> that I can jump over the moon.<br /><br />We are dealing with multiple items here and it can sometimes get confusing. But it is important to distinguish between:<br /><br />1) Logic (which when negated always rules out the actual but when affirmed does not always guarantee the actual)<br />2) Actual<br />3) Possible<br />4) Probable<br /><br />There is another problem with your deceitful God scenario. It almost appears to be a form of a <em>nothing but</em> claim and therefore, necessitates <em>more than</em> knowledge which we don't have. I will have to touch on that later as I need to get back to work.<br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-84282520673500445742009-11-03T23:32:15.476-06:002009-11-03T23:32:15.476-06:00You are correct Sir! And, since it is self-defeati...<i>You are correct Sir! And, since it is self-defeating, it defies the law of non-contradiction and cannot be true.</i><br /><br />Not necessarily, because we have clear dialetheias which show that the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily hold. For example, "This sentence is not true." This statement shows that we can contradict...a statement can be both true and false. Instead, we are now relying on some paraconsistency to evaluate which statements are which. <br /><br /><i>...As a result your bifurcation of perception and reality (i.e. we can't know if we know our perceptions are in fact reality) does not work.<br /><br />There is a third option that you did not mention, and in fact, it is the only option that is not self-defeating: Human logic is applicable to reality.</i><br /><br />Let me try to raise a scenario and see what your answer to it is. Let us say that everything was created last Thursday. However, when the universe was created last Thursday (let's say there is a God who has done this in such a way, so that is how we can refer to an "absolute" time period and absolute "reality"), it was created with the appearance that it is much, much older than about a week old. With our perceptions, we can investigate details that we <i>believe</i> tell us about the universe. So, we evaluate that we have these memories of activities we participated in, so we think, "OK, I am xx years old. I am much older than ~a week old." We evaluate the earth, the stars, the universe, everything...and from the way that things appear to work (all observable laws of physics, etc.,), the universe, earth, etc., definitely appear to be greater than a week old.<br /><br />Since all appearances and perceptions lead them to believe such, some people would claim that they *know* certain things from their perceptions. For example, they would claim to know that at the very least, the universe is as old as they are...because they are xx years old (not ~1 week old). And others would go further and say that based on all the observable evidence of the universe, the universe is billions of years old and we know it.<br /><br />...the issue is...our perceptions, in this scenario, <b>are</b> incorrect. The universe <b>was</b> created ~1 week ago, so its true age is ~1 week.<br /><br />The problem is...in this instance, we can't know if we know our perceptions are in fact reality. Those who "know" that the universe is very old most certainly don't know (because they are, in fact, incorrect.) Yet even those who believe that the universe was created ~1 week ago, because their perceptions are utterly disconnected from reality (which causes them to be unable to know if their perceptions are connected to reality or not), cannot say they 'know' the universe was created ~1 week ago.<br /><br />This is a principle example I was trying to raise in the first place. Does it fit the idea, "human logic/reason may or may not be applicable to reality" or am I going at a different concept?Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-70509458098795273312009-11-03T15:48:59.912-06:002009-11-03T15:48:59.912-06:00Andrew,
The second option is, "Human logic a...Andrew,<br /><br /><em>The second option is, "Human logic and reason are not applicable to reality." (wouldn't you say that whatever logic/reason we used to come to that statement -- regardless of the truth of the proposition, would be self-defeating?)</em><br /><br />You are correct Sir! And, since it is self-defeating, it defies the law of non-contradiction and cannot be true.<br /><br /><em>If we say, it "may or may not be," then we allow for both possibilities, if and when they occur.</em><br /><br />Here is where the problem occurs: this statement is <strong>still</strong> self-defeating. For you are making a logical statement about reality that allows for the possibility that logical statements don't apply to reality (i.e. it is self-defeating to say that a logical statement about reality applies to reality in the cases where you are saying that logic does not apply to reality). As a result your bifurcation of perception and reality (i.e. we can't know if we know our perceptions are in fact reality) does not work. <br /><br />There is a third option that you did not mention, and in fact, it is the only option that is not self-defeating: Human logic is applicable to reality. <br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-43254666723350845922009-11-02T17:24:32.036-06:002009-11-02T17:24:32.036-06:00Re: Darrell,
Based on the above, would it be corr...Re: Darrell,<br /><br /><i>Based on the above, would it be correct to say that your position is "Human logic and reason <b>may or may not be</b> applicable to reality"? Since you cannot know whether you know a truth, is that how you see it? </i><br /><br />As of now, I don't see any inaccuracies in restating my position as this. This should be controversial...since it actually covers all options.<br /><br />For example, one option is "Human logic and reason are applicable to reality." The second option is, "Human logic and reason are not applicable to reality." (wouldn't you say that whatever logic/reason we used to come to that statement -- regardless of the truth of the proposition, would be self-defeating?) If we say, it "may or may not be," then we allow for both possibilities, if and when they occur.<br /><br /><i>Do you believe you can know for certain that anything is true (i.e. that you are looking at a computer screen right now), or are there only certain truths that you believe you cannot be certain you know?</i><br /><br /><b>Perceptions</b> are things we can know...think of it as an extension, "I think, therefore I am." We may or may not know if we are, in <b>reality</b>, looking at a computer screen. For example, if we are floating minds and matter is an illusion...then the <b>reality</b> is that we are <i>not</i> looking at computer screens. However, in this case, <b>reality and truth are disregarded</b>. Regardless of reality, what you and I care is the fact that we perceive that we are looking at computer screens, and that the screens, our keyboards, our fingers, and so on, are consistent perceptions. So if they are a lie (in reality, they do not exist), if the sense data is a deception...that's fine...but it's a consistent deception. In this case, even if we are being pervasively deceived, it doesn't affect our daily lives, because we simply go with the persistent deceptions. You can be certain that you are experiencing certain perceptions because these persons are subjective and internal to you. You don't have to reference anything else.<br /><br />...this gets us back to the idea of <b>subjectivity</b> vs. <b>objectivity</b>, where here, objectivity (or knowledge of objectivity) has taken a suicide bombing. <br /><br />This is pretty weird stuff here, so usually, people take one of two shortcuts. 1) They disregard the concept of reality and focus on perceptions and appearances (It doesn't matter if the computer screen exists or not...only the perception of the computer screen matters)...or 2) They insist that perceptions and appearances tell us information about reality. (The computer screen exists because you and I perceive the computer screen.)Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-75527936499693033882009-11-02T16:14:09.485-06:002009-11-02T16:14:09.485-06:00Andrew,
I am trying to fully understand your view...Andrew,<br /><br />I am trying to fully understand your viewpoint. You said:<br /><br /><em>But the problem is I don't know if I can know a truth. It may be that I can...it may be that I cannot. We may have knowledge, but we don't have knowledge of knowledge.<br /></em><br /><br />Based on the above, would it be correct to say that your position is "Human logic and reason <strong>may</strong> or <strong>may not</strong> be applicable to reality"? Since you cannot know whether you know a truth, is that how you see it? <br /><br />If not, would you mind expanding upon your reason for stating that you cannot know if you know a truth? Do you believe you can know for certain that <strong>anything</strong> is true (i.e. that you are looking at a computer screen right now), or are there only certain truths that you believe you cannot be certain you know? If so, what is the difference between the truths you can be sure you know and the truths you cannot be sure you know?<br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.troughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-48407713998495208622009-11-02T11:57:25.070-06:002009-11-02T11:57:25.070-06:00Darrell:
While at first I suspected it, no, I did...Darrell:<br /><br />While at first I suspected it, no, I did not conclude that you meant to attribute that to anyone here.<br /><br />...However...then I wondered why you were bringing it up <b>since no one has taken this stance</b>. It is irrelevant to the discussion.<br /><br />But continuing...<br /><br />If we can't be sure of anything, so what? If that <b>is</b> the truth, then that <b>is</b> the truth regardless of what we feel about it (a point that <i>you</i> raised. The truth of a proposition is independent of the subjective evaluation of that proposition having truth.) The key is that we do get around it. It's because even if our subjective interpretations do give us faulty conclusions (solipsism and philosophical skepticism at their finest...), the thing is that some faulty conclusions are consistent and persistent.<br /><br />So it's not that science tells us what is <b>true</b> Rather, science is a way at going for what is consistent, persistent. let us say I don't exist or my computer I am typing on doesn't exist. The deception is consistent and persistent enough that the truth is irrelevant with regards to my (subjective) perception.<br /><br /><i>But if you can know a truth and there is the possibility that by not knowing it, it could hurt you, wouldn't you want to find it out?</i><br /><br />Certainly. But the problem is I don't know if I can know a truth. It may be that I can...it may be that I cannot. We may have knowledge, but we don't have knowledge of knowledge.<br /><br /><i>I don't know many people who would willingly cross the street without first seeking correct knowledge about on-coming traffic. Wouldn't it be wise of us to do so in other areas of our life as well, rather than resigning ourselves to hopeless skepticism?</i><br /><br />The thing is that if we did what you said, we would still be paralyzed. For example, we watch out for on-coming traffic because it's closest to us and most relevant to us...we know the interaction with cars. We typically do not watch for sharks on a day-to-day basis because it's a bit more distant (although, sharks are still something plausible.) While we are aware of fraud or of unfaithfulness in a relationship, we have even less incentive to find correct knowledge, because these are further away.<br /><br />And what's furthest away? I don't know, but things that affect the afterlife are <i>pretty darn far away</i>. Shouldn't you first seek correct knowledge about the statistics textbooks that await you in the afterlife? Or maybe about Vishnu...Or Xenu? Even if we come to correct knowledge, we don't know we have come to correct knowledge. So really, what will affect us more is our <i>perception</i> (which IS subjective) of knowledge, not actually having it. In other words, you change your behavior because you perceive that you have sought correct knowledge...you could be very wrong. It is your perception of knowledge that you go by, since you don't know if you truly have knowledge or not.Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-74161094441021784942009-11-02T11:39:06.552-06:002009-11-02T11:39:06.552-06:00Andrew,
I think you have mistakenly miscontrued m...Andrew,<br /><br />I think you have mistakenly miscontrued my comment to mean that <strong>you</strong> or someone else on this post has taken the stance that "only empirical evidence can tell us the truth". If I gave that impression I apologize. Such was not my intent.<br /><br />That being said, there are people who have held and continue to hold this position. If you have not read Hume or Ayer, I would recommend doing so. Hume was pretty much the father of modern day skepticism and his philosophies have probably had more influence on the modern day way of thinking that any other philosophy in history. <br /><br />My purpose in bringing this "empirical only" position up was to demonstrate two things:<br /><br />1) It is self-defeating<br /><br />2) Some are not aware of it, but it is having a great influence on how they think.<br /><br />Its influence is even coming through in some of your comments to me (which is actually another reason I brought it up). For while you say you do not hold to this position (and I believe you), your comments portray a type of skeptcism that can only be described as Hume like or Kant like. For example, you said:<br /><br /><em>I say, we may not be able to know, but what we can't know is whether or not we can know (e.g., one level back in knowledge; knowledge of knowledge.) Heck, I can't even know if I know that.</em><br /><br />This comment demonstrates a high level of skepticism that appears to say that truth is unknowable. For, if one cannot even know if they have the truth, then they can not be sure of anything. Perhaps they don't even exist? Perhaps the computer which I am typing on is not real?<br /><br />This type of skeptical thinking has contributed greatly to the modern day revere we, as a society, have for science. The idea that we can only be sure of something being true if science tells us so (i.e. As we have been discussing - the mistaken bifurcation between the truth that science gives us (absolute truth) and all other truth (subjective truth)). <br /><br /><em>You said: I'm saying, as long as I'm not hurt (and nothing disturbs my worldview,) the utter TRUTH that what I don't know *can* hurt me is irrelevant.</em><br /><br />But if you <strong>can</strong> know a truth and there is the possibility that by <strong>not</strong> knowing it, it could hurt you, wouldn't you want to find it out? For example, when we were 3 years old we did not realize that an on-coming car could hit and kill us. Therefore, we did not bother to look both ways when we crossed the street. As we grew older, and our parents taught us better, we began to realize that the cars could hurt us. As a result, today we look both ways when we cross the street precisely because we know we <strong>can</strong> find the truth by doing so. <br /><br />I don't know many people who would willingly cross the street without first seeking correct knowledge about on-coming traffic. Wouldn't it be wise of us to do so in other areas of our life as well, rather than resigning ourselves to hopeless skepticism?<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-39035649380948401742009-11-02T01:48:21.790-06:002009-11-02T01:48:21.790-06:00CC,
"I agree that this is a matter of percept...CC,<br />"I agree that this is a matter of perception. And from my perception, God didn't run out of breath in the first century."<br /><br />These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world gives, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. John 14:16-20, 23-28<br /><br />CC wat other documents do you consider God Breathed and when was the last one produced that you aware aware of?kelarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-37458324497139683392009-11-01T22:43:18.442-06:002009-11-01T22:43:18.442-06:001) The only way we can know whether something is t...<i>1) <b>The only way we can know whether something is true or not is if we can empirically test it.</b><br />2) However, this very statement cannot be empirically tested.<br />3) Therefore, it is self-defeating, does not meet its own standard, and is utter gibberish. </i><br /><br />1 is the strawman point. Since you have brought up empiricism, always, you have pointed out that "many claim" or "you have heard" this point 1. And you refer to "those who cry out for empirical evidence" to introduce this idea that people think "the only way" we can know whether something is true is to empirically test it. You really wanting to push this idea of empiricism-alone so you can smack it down, when no one's brought it up and no one's biting at the bait. Since you have continued pursuing this when it's not really...appropos to anything...I don't know what to say.<br /><br /><i>In this case, the consequences would lie in the opportunity cost (what she missed out on by living with an un-faithful liar for years. What "could have" been.) Lack of knowledge of consequences does not necessarily mean there are none.</i><br /><br />I most certainly agree. In my last posts, notice I haven't said consequences don't exist. But the opportunity costs become irrelevant when the person never discovers. The person doesn't perceive they are living with an un-faithful liar for years (even though they are), so they never come to recognize "what could have been".<br /><br />Note: I'm not saying, "What I don't know can't hurt me." I'm saying, as long as I'm not hurt (and nothing disturbs my worldview,) the utter TRUTH that what I don't know *can* hurt me is irrelevant. My life is changed *only* when the speeding car comes and hits me. When I realize that I've been cheated on. When I realize my bank account has been wiped out. Or, when the statistics textbook starts torturing me. <br /><br /><i>As to your text books example... it is only correct if you assume one cannot know whether or not they will be tortured by text books. We are back again to whether we can or can not know. You speak of this as if it has already been decided that we can't. I don't agree with you on this... so don't be surprised by me saying we can know whether or not we will be tortured by textbooks.</i><br /><br />I don't speak as if we cannot know whether or not we will. I don't speak as if that's been decided. I say, we <b>may</b> not be able to know, but what we can't know is whether or not we can know (e.g., one level back in knowledge; knowledge of knowledge.) Heck, I can't even know if I know that. You can certainly disagree, and I'm not surprised if you would take a different stance. But the issue is that people do the same for MANY, MANY, MANY things, with just as much confidence.Andrew Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11149921396698798441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-3333887122370479592009-11-01T21:55:08.786-06:002009-11-01T21:55:08.786-06:00Andrew,
You said: "Since you've already...Andrew,<br /><br />You said: "Since you've already dropped the argument once, I take your admittance that you would love to discuss things as a friendly gesture, but one that is empty."<br /><br />I didn't drop the argument, because it wasn't really an argument in the first place. Your point regarding empirical evidence of feelings had nothing to do with the point I was making about truth being absolute. Since it was irrelevant to my point, I didn't address it. <br /><br />My gesture is not empty at all. I am genuinely curious as to your reason for thinking my argument a straw-man... not because I think you are right. But because I am curious as to your reasoning.<br /><br />For your convenience, here is the argument again.<br /><br />1) The only way we can know whether something is true or not is if we can empirically test it.<br />2) However, this very statement cannot be empirically tested.<br />3) Therefore, it is self-defeating, does not meet its own standard, and is utter gibberish. <br /><br />Nevertheless, if you don't want to share, that is certainly fine.<br /><br />You said: "And yet, any man or woman who does not discover that his spouse has been cheating on them (i.e., subjectively interpret the data and come to this conclusion) -- even though the cheating is truth and history -- would not be able to tell you the consequences. Regardless of whether knowing the truth has consequences (which it usually does), if we cannot access truth, these consequences are functionally irrelevant to us. What is more important are the consequences we perceive (even if they end up not being true)."<br /><br />In this case, the consequences would lie in the opportunity cost (what she missed out on by living with an un-faithful liar for years. What "could have" been.) Lack of knowledge of consequences does not necessarily mean there are none. <br /><br />The statement "What I don't know can't hurt me." is false. If you don't think so, next time you cross the street, don't bother to look both ways. Afterall, proper knowledge of whether a car is coming is really of no consequence, right? :-)<br /><br />As to your text books example... it is only correct if you assume one cannot know whether or not they will be tortured by text books. We are back again to whether we can or can not know. You speak of this as if it has already been decided that we can't. I don't agree with you on this... so don't be surprised by me saying we can know whether or not we will be tortured by textbooks.<br /><br />DarrellDarrellhttp://www.toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com