07 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe manner in which your notion of faith fits into the concepts discussed above depends upon from whom I have learned? Wow! Talk about action at a distance! Presumably you mean that you would prefer to explain your notion of faith to me by leading me in some Socratic dialog. Of course, this would be pointless. In light of your shamelessly disingenuous nonsense about Schopenhauer, your willful obscurity in your "justice" thread, and your general disregard for basic standards of critical reasoning and clarity of exposition, I'm going to opt out of giving you another opportunity to publicly embarrass yourself and waste my time. At least KellyJay is authentic and sincere. Now where is that 'block' button...
My answer depends upon your response.
07 May 10
Originally posted by bbarrSuit yourself.
The manner in which your notion of faith fits into the concepts discussed above depends upon from whom I have learned? Wow! Talk about action at a distance! Presumably you mean that you would prefer to explain your notion of faith to me by leading me in some Socratic dialog. Of course, this would be pointless. In light of your shamelessly disingenuous non ...[text shortened]... my time. At least KellyJay is authentic and sincere. Now where is that 'block' button...
In your high tower, I suppose it's easier to cherry pick your targets. If a lack of honesty is present, I submit that it centers in a person who demands another to submit to their standard of expression--- when such a proposition is known to be impossible.
Your intellectual bullying of KellyJay (despite your backhanded compliment) is action unfit of a true teacher. Block yourself.
07 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrAs I have said earlier we are creatures of faith, we act upon on our beliefs
I asked you a question. Where does your notion of faith fit into those set of terms I clarified in my post above? You seem to think that if it is possible that a belief of ours is wrong, that that belief cannot constitute knowledge. In short, you seem to think that we cannot know something unless we are epistemically certain of it. Further, you seem to thi either stupid or simply an instance of you using these terms in silly, nonstandard ways.
as if they are without a doubt true, when that may not be the case.
I also said that if you use science you always have to leave the door open
to change, because something new could come along and change all the
ways we view things.
I don't care one wit about how you view knowledge and its standard ways
if you choose to tell me that what you think about a billion years ago is
anything other than a belief you fooling yourself.
I don't hold to your computer example it is not one I have ever brought up.
I have actually said that the closer to now things are, the more likely you
are going to be correct. Now if you tell me in 1974 you were typing on a
computer at 5PM on Guam I may question you.
Kelly
07 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't think something is going to come along and change ALL the way we view things as you put it. we may discover something that builds upon the knowledge we had before, or discover something that slightly tweaks what we new before, for example the very recent evidence that there is Neanderthal ancestry in the human population. That is something which wasn't known before, it was speculated that it may have occurred, but now there is evidence for it.
As I have said earlier we are creatures of faith, we act upon on our beliefs
as if they are without a doubt true, when that may not be the case.
I also said that if you use science you always have to leave the door open
to change, because something new could come along and change all the
ways we view things.
I don't care one wit about how you view ...[text shortened]... f you tell me in 1974 you were typing on a
computer at 5PM on Guam I may question you.
Kelly
08 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou've still failed to even attempt to clarify how your notion of faith fits into the bevy of concepts mentioned above. Why should I, LJ, or anybody else who has actually studied epistemology and the nature of scientific inference take your claims about faith seriously, when you can't (or, worse, won't) even explain what you mean by the term?
As I have said earlier we are creatures of faith, we act upon on our beliefs
as if they are without a doubt true, when that may not be the case.
I also said that if you use science you always have to leave the door open
to change, because something new could come along and change all the
ways we view things.
I don't care one wit about how you view f you tell me in 1974 you were typing on a
computer at 5PM on Guam I may question you.
Kelly
...we act upon on our beliefs as if they are without a doubt true, when that may not be the case.
Actually, we don't. To have a belief is to endorse some proposition; to take it to be true. Nobody believes both that they have some belief and that belief is false. That would be to fail to have the belief in the first place, by definition. But you are wrong when you claim that we treat our beliefs as though they are true "without a doubt". I have a variety of beliefs that I have some doubts about; that is, that I will readily admit may possibly turn out false, despite it being very unlikely that they will and despite my having very good reasons for holding them. This is one thing I was at pains to point out above. Our beliefs can be justified even if they are not epistemically certain.
...if you use science you always have to leave the door open to change, because something new could come along...
True, but so what? What, again, does this have anything to do with your notion of faith? You seem to mistakenly take the fallibility of scientific inquiry to indicate that the beliefs to which it leads are based on faith. But this is simply stupid. Because scientific inquiry is fallible we should not take its results to be epistemically certain, and we shouldn't by psychologically certain when we believe these results. That is, we should admit we could be mistaken. But this is consistent with being justified! Just because it is possible that one is mistaken, it does not follow that one does not know! Now stop, and read that last sentence again. Repeat as necessary until you understand. We all know things. We all are very often possibly mistaken about what we know. Nothing about faith follows, unless you are using the term 'faith' in some silly and non-standard way.
08 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you think it is always the
As I have pointed out over and over, as long as you all the coditions you
are dealing covered you stand a better chance of understanding what it
is you are dealing with, the more out of your control the more there is that
can skew your results. Looking at something with the possible time laps of
~billion years there is a lot that is unknown. If you thin ...[text shortened]... rself to blame for being
so full of yourself and your testing methods as being flawless.
Kelly
case that nothing will be over looked, or misunderstood than you have no
right to be upset if you ever discover you were wrong as if someone or
something conspired to trick you. You only have yourself to blame for being
so full of yourself and your testing methods as being flawless.
Well, as I have told you I-don't-know-how-many times: I do not think that. I do not think it is always the case that science will get everything right because I think the deliverances of science, more or less by their nature, should stand subject to revision as appropriate. Generally, I take them to be defeasible, or capable of being overturned, in the event that new evidence comes to light. But, this is something that applies to basically any exercise in scientific method or abductive reasoning. So how is it all that interesting, in specific, to the question of the age of the earth/universe? It will be the case that our general "testing methods" fail to be "flawless" regardless of what question we are addressing; so how exactly is this alone supposed to undergird your skepticism toward only certain questions in particular?
I do not think you answered my earlier question: do you think conclusions you draw from your DUTs are always "just a matter of faith" too? First, though, perhaps it would be best if you would just answer bbarr's question regarding how your 'faith' fits into the terms he clarified.
09 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, I think our conclusions are based upon the tests we apply to them.
[b]If you think it is always the
case that nothing will be over looked, or misunderstood than you have no
right to be upset if you ever discover you were wrong as if someone or
something conspired to trick you. You only have yourself to blame for being
so full of yourself and your testing methods as being flawless.
Well, as I have told you I-do ...[text shortened]... t answer bbarr's question regarding how your 'faith' fits into the terms he clarified.[/b]
Those tests again are results of all the conditions we apply to them, both
the known an unknown and every time we reach conclusions the bottom
line is always the same, it is what the tests tell us. I don't have a choice
but to take everything we do with a grain of salt, mainly because at all
times if anything is left out the conclusions drawn could mean something
other than what was first thought. When you think you have gotten all
the bases covered you run with what you got, but again those conclusions
are only as good as your tests.
Kelly
09 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry, but I do not see how any of this actually addresses bbarr's question to you.
No, I think our conclusions are based upon the tests we apply to them.
Those tests again are results of all the conditions we apply to them, both
the known an unknown and every time we reach conclusions the bottom
line is always the same, it is what the tests tell us. I don't have a choice
but to take everything we do with a grain of salt, mainly becaus ...[text shortened]... you run with what you got, but again those conclusions
are only as good as your tests.
Kelly
I've already told you numerous times that I agree with what you are saying here. Yes, it is NOT the case that science is "flawless". Science cannot deliver conclusions with epistemic certainty. For any such conclusion we draw, there will generally be some epistemic possibility for us that the conclusion is actually false. And such conclusions by default stand subject to future revisions if needed. So what? There that is some mere epistemic possibility that some conclusion is mistaken does not mean that the conclusion actually is mistaken; and it does not mean that belief in the conclusion cannot be justified. So how exactly would this alone preclude knowledge?
I am also confused on whether or not you have addressed my question. Let's try this again in another wording. Do you think you derive knowledge from your DUTs? Yes or no?
10 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloI get knowledge from everything, but it is based upon the what, why, and
Sorry, but I do not see how any of this actually addresses bbarr's question to you.
I've already told you numerous times that I agree with what you are saying here. Yes, it is NOT the case that science is "flawless". Science cannot deliver conclusions with epistemic certainty. For any such conclusion we draw, there will generally be some epistemic p ...[text shortened]... is again in another wording. Do you think you derive knowledge from your DUTs? Yes or no?
hows. As I pointed out, results are only as good as the tests.
Kelly
10 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo that is a "Yes"? You do think you derive knowledge from your device testing?
I get knowledge from everything, but it is based upon the what, why, and
hows. As I pointed out, results are only as good as the tests.
Kelly
Surely, no matter how hard you strive to control the conditions of your device testing, there will still be epistemic uncertainty in any conclusions you draw, right? There will surely be some possibility that you are wrong, right? Even if you were psychologically certain in the results, there would still be epistemic uncertainty. But you just seemed to say that you still derive knowledge from such venture. So, you should agree that the mere fact it is epistemically possible that one is mistaken in his conclusions does not imply that he is without knowledge on such issues, right? So, why is it that when we ask you why one cannot know the age of the earth/universe through scientific endeavor, you only point to the mere existence of epistemic uncertainty? I'm afraid that your skepticism, insofar as you have articulated it, is not coherent.
11 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou see what I said about the DUT as some how different than the age of
So that is a "Yes"? You do think you derive knowledge from your device testing?
Surely, no matter how hard you strive to control the conditions of your device testing, there will still be epistemic uncertainty in any conclusions you draw, right? There will surely be some possibility that you are wrong, right? Even if you were psychologically certa ...[text shortened]... ainty? I'm afraid that your skepticism, insofar as you have articulated it, is not coherent.
the earth or universe? I have never said that it isn't possible that the age
of the universe isn't billions of years old, I have said that the results of our
current testing methods are what they are, just as they are with the DUT,
both are only as good as the tests and the more left to the unknown the
more you are taking on faith! Every factor possible is taken into account
with DUT from cradle to grave, and still things are left to the unknown, how
much more do you think is possible to be over looked when you are looking
at such lengths of time in an uncontrolled environment?
Kelly
13 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrAccording to Wikipedia and I'm sure several other sources:
You've still failed to even attempt to clarify how your notion of faith fits into the bevy of concepts mentioned above. Why should I, LJ, or anybody else who has actually studied epistemology and the nature of scientific inference take your claims about faith seriously, when you can't (or, worse, won't) even explain what you mean by the term?
[b]...we act aith follows, unless you are using the term 'faith' in some silly and non-standard way.
"Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.”
[/b]I've been saying all along you and I both are creatures of faith.
We live out our lives acting as though all the things we trust in are true,
from walking across the ground, stepping on ladders, leaving the house
at a certain time to arrive where we are going, taking someone at their
word they are going to do something they say, trusting in the data of
tests we do, and so on. We can be misguided, mistaken, taken in, wrong,
right, correct about all these things yet we act upon them as if we know
and what we believe is truth. My notion about faith is simply applied
across all things not limited to notions about my religion, people act
upon good faith all the time when they buy products it is how we all
function in an uncertain world.
Kelly
13 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayPlease give me your considered reasons for thinking that, say, radiometric dating tests cannot be sufficiently controlled.
You see what I said about the DUT as some how different than the age of
the earth or universe? I have never said that it isn't possible that the age
of the universe isn't billions of years old, I have said that the results of our
current testing methods are what they are, just as they are with the DUT,
both are only as good as the tests and the more lef ...[text shortened]... er looked when you are looking
at such lengths of time in an uncontrolled environment?
Kelly
I have never said that it isn't possible that the age
of the universe isn't billions of years old, I have said that the results of our
current testing methods are what they are
Sorry, but just saying that things are what they are is basically tautological. It is simply vacuous, and you may as well have just said nothing at all. Please start providing actual reasons in these types of discussions.
Every factor possible is taken into account
with DUT from cradle to grave, and still things are left to the unknown, how
much more do you think is possible to be over looked when you are looking
at such lengths of time in an uncontrolled environment?
Who said anything about, say, radiometric dating testing being "uncontrolled"? You may want to check what assumptions you are importing.