Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Aug 11, 2019 06:47 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 11, 2019 05:09 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]You are intentionally obscuring the issue. If you don't know how to become unstuck then no amount of words can assist you. I did not say this for self-validation, but for informing others.

Unfortunately those words are illusory as everything else in the material world according to you.

People are parts of the world as far as I can tell. So are the things they say and write. So if Ostro thinks that he's somehow penetrating the illusion of material reality and can reveal the truth to us poor ignorant wretches, then this world can't all be illusion. The Ostro-and-his-prophetic-message part of this world would need to somehow be true.

As for me, I'm inclined to think that reality just is. Truth, falsity or illusion aren't really ideas that directly apply to it. Those words are applicable instead to how we understand and conceptualize reality, to what we say about it. Truth is a property of propositions, not states of affairs.

We may indeed be misconceptualizing reality. I'm rather certain that we often are. But learning to conceptualize things better isn't a matter of traveling to somewhere new (heaven or some 'higher plane'). We'd still be right here, right now. 

Quote:Because of your words of wisdom I thank you for cementing my view that it’s ok to believe whatever you want, just keep it to yourself, absolutely no need to spread it around.

Ostro can believe anything he wants, but if he hopes to convince me to join him in believing whatever it is, then the burden is on him to be persuasive. (And since I'm the one to be convinced, I get to decide what's convincing.)

Quote:Ostro can believe anything he wants, but if he hopes to convince me to join him in believing whatever it is, then the burden is on him to be persuasive. (And since I'm the one to be convinced, I get to decide what's convincing.)

Somehow Yaz, you don’t strike me as the type of person who can be persuaded to accept a belief sans evidence.

Can the persuader turn belief into fact without any proof? Appears that’s a major step in the process. Christ, MR just recently reaffirmed the glass breaking magicians trick in one of his poltergeist videos is that of a real ghost. He doesn’t need any proof, you just believe him, that’s all.

Quote:Christ, MR just recently reaffirmed the glass breaking magicians trick in one of his poltergeist videos is that of a real ghost. He doesn’t need any proof, you just believe him, that’s all.

Sounds like another belief of yours. You sure share alot of beliefs don't you?

(Aug 12, 2019 01:01 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Christ, MR just recently reaffirmed the glass breaking magicians trick in one of his poltergeist videos is that of a real ghost. He doesn’t need any proof, you just believe him, that’s all.

Sounds like another belief of yours. You sure share alot of beliefs don't you?

Are you about to tell us you’re a fraud?

(Aug 12, 2019 02:37 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 12, 2019 01:01 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Christ, MR just recently reaffirmed the glass breaking magicians trick in one of his poltergeist videos is that of a real ghost. He doesn’t need any proof, you just believe him, that’s all.

Sounds like another belief of yours. You sure share alot of beliefs don't you?

Are you about to tell us you’re a fraud?

Is that another belief of yours?

(Paraphrasing)There’s an old African proverb that states: a butterfly thinks it’s a bird because it can fly.

Proverb: stating a general truth or piece of advice (dictionary)
Belief:an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists (dictionary)
Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge(dictionary)

What makes either worthy or more worthy of prosthelytizing?

Is my view my belief?....... I have no way of proving that spreading the word about something is detrimental. Only my opinions, my views, always subject to change plus I’m willing to hear the evidence against it.



Where is the line between opinion and belief?

(Aug 12, 2019 02:26 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Where is the line between opinion and belief?

And where does knowledge factor in?

I would define define 'belief' as a mental state, with a proposition as its object, in which the truth of the proposition is asserted.

That would suggest that both knowledge and opinion are species of belief.

So what distinguishes knowledge from opinion. (In ancient Greek terms emphasized by Plato, episteme and doxa.)

Knowledge has traditionally been defined as 'Justified True Belief' (that dates back to Plato too). That definition of knowledge has come under some criticism in the last few iconoclastic decades, but not fatally and I still personally accept it as a working approximation.

So attacking somebody else's view for being a 'belief' is misconceived, since all views are beliefs simply by definition, whenever we are asserting something to be true. Knowledge is belief. Science is belief. Total bullshit is often belief.

That leaves 'true' and 'justified' as marks of what is knowledge in contrast to opinion.

Pretty clearly, an idea wouldn't count as knowledge if it was false.

But there's a serious problem with truth. We seemingly can't directly perceive truth (in the sense of correspondence with reality). We would arguably need to have a "God's-eye" perspective to know for sure which of our beliefs are true and which aren't. Some kind of perception that would make us immune from the possibility of error. No human being possesses that.

Which leaves us with justification. Even if we can't be absolutely certain which of our beliefs is in fact true, we can still know which ones appear to be suitably justified.

Except that defining what "suitably justified" means in various real-life situations is going to be a difficult task. Perhaps impossible, if our goal is producing an exhaustive list of all satisfactory forms of justification without exception.

(Aug 12, 2019 04:53 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]

(Aug 12, 2019 02:26 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Where is the line between opinion and belief?

And where does knowledge factor in?

I would define define 'belief' as a mental state, with a proposition as its object, in which the truth of the proposition is asserted.

That would suggest that both knowledge and opinion are species of belief.

So what distinguishes knowledge from opinion. (In ancient Greek terms emphasized by Plato, episteme and doxa.)

Knowledge has traditionally been defined as 'Justified True Belief' (that dates back to Plato too). That definition of knowledge has come under some criticism in the last few iconoclastic decades, but not fatally and I still personally accept it as a working approximation.

So attacking somebody else's view for being a 'belief' is misconceived, since all views are beliefs simply by definition, whenever we are asserting something to be true. Knowledge is belief. Science is belief. Total bullshit is often belief.

That leaves 'true' and 'justified' as marks of what is knowledge in contrast to opinion.

Pretty clearly, an idea wouldn't count as knowledge if it was false.

But there's a serious problem with truth. We seemingly can't directly perceive truth (in the sense of correspondence with reality). We would arguably need to have a "God's-eye" perspective to know for sure which of our beliefs are true and which aren't. Some kind of perception that would make us immune from the possibility of error. No human being possesses that.

Which leaves us with justification. Even if we can't be absolutely certain which of our beliefs is in fact true, we can still know which ones appear to be suitably justified.

Except that defining what "suitably justified" means in various real-life situations is going to be a difficult task. Perhaps impossible, if our goal is producing an exhaustive list of all satisfactory forms of justification without exception.

You are correct to say that no human being possesses that given their limited perceptual abilities. However, that does not exclude us from accessing the supernatural nor does it exclude us from tapping into ultimate reality. It is a matter of state.

(Aug 12, 2019 04:53 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Which leaves us with justification. Even if we can't be absolutely certain which of our beliefs is in fact true, we can still know which ones appear to be suitably justified.

Except that defining what "suitably justified" means in various real-life situations is going to be a difficult task. Perhaps impossible, if our goal is producing an exhaustive list of all satisfactory forms of justification without exception.

We gather information from our senses which travels to the mind at the speed of light indicating that it is received from the past. The conscious mind deciphers what is justifiable and what isn't. The task of filtering is more refined than previously thought, as we possess a lot of junk knowledge that needs to be eliminated.

By the way, since it is coming from the past that means it can change before light carries it to your eyes or before perceptual faculties confirm it.

It is impossible to deny God on logical grounds. However, we can confirm existence.