14 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloFine with me, you want to do a little testing and say you can look at
Please give me your considered reasons for thinking that, say, radiometric dating tests cannot be sufficiently controlled.
[b]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 wha ...[text shortened]... ing testing being "uncontrolled"? You may want to check what assumptions you are importing.[/b]
something that tells you its millions or billions of years old feel free.
I believe you can too, I just don't think you can go beyond that and
say what is being said "reflects" reality and should be considered
factual, it can be without a doubt what that testing process says. If
you want to claim you have all the bases covered, you cannot be wrong,
and what your test tells you is giving you factual information you
are without a doubt a true believer, does not mean your right, only that
you believe you are.
Kelly
14 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayOh, so your claims about faith are completely trivial. When we have a belief, we act as though that belief is true. Guess what? That is just what it means to have a belief! It is to take something to be true! This whole discussion is freaking ridiculous. People make claims about radiometric dating, and you say this is based on faith. People object, claiming that radiometric dating is good evidence for belief in an old universe. You make the trivial claim that they cannot be certain about this. People respond by claiming, rightly, that we do not need to be certain in order to be justified in our beliefs, or even to have knowledge. You agree, but then insist that in the absence of certainty, our beliefs are based on faith. People start asking you what the hell you mean by 'faith'. You then characterize 'faith' as 'confident belief'. So, your whole point boils down to the trivial claim that although we may not be certain of a belief, when we have a belief we are confident that it is true. Yes. So what? All your talk of faith is a complete red herring in this discussion. Bah, whatever. Enjoy your continued obfuscation and confusion.
According to Wikipedia and I'm sure several other sources:
"Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.”
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 ...[text shortened]... all the time when they buy products it is how we all
function in an uncertain world.
Kelly[/b]
14 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI just don't think you can go beyond that and
Fine with me, you want to do a little testing and say you can look at
something that tells you its millions or billions of years old feel free.
I believe you can too, I just don't think you can go beyond that and
say what is being said "reflects" reality and should be considered
factual, it can be without a doubt what that testing process says. If
you ...[text shortened]... out a doubt a true believer, does not mean your right, only that
you believe you are.
Kelly
say what is being said "reflects" reality and should be considered
factual
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about that. When a team of scientists publish some paper that they have worked tirelessly on for some time, that is more or less exactly what they are saying -- that they have some claims and argument here that should be taken seriously by the reader because they purport to be reporting the facts of some matter in a manner accordant with the relevant evidence they have amassed. Some reader may substantively disagree with them, and this reader may have his own counter-argument that purports to report the facts of the same matter.
I think you still stand in major confusion over the epistemic terms that bbarr outlined before. To say that what I am saying "reflects reality and should be considered factual" ain't a big deal. It is more or less just to say that I take what I am saying to be true. (And why should that get your undies in such a bunch? Would you rather people go around saying whatever they think is false?) Please note further: it is NOT to say that I take what I am saying to be true without any doubt whatsoever. We can be quite justified in our claims that purport to report the facts of some matter, even when we acknowlede that we do not have epistemic certainty.
If
you want to claim you have all the bases covered, you cannot be wrong,
and what your test tells you is giving you factual information you
are without a doubt a true believer
A person can say that what they are saying about X "reflects reality and should be considered factual". A person could also say that what they are saying about X "cannot be wrong" and is true beyond any doubt whatsoever. Notice, however, that these are not the same. Why do you keep insisting on equating them?
does not mean your right, only that
you believe you are.
Of course people believe they are right when they claim something that purports to report facts! But they do purport to report the facts. As I have told you already, if you want to contribute something meaningful to the discussion, then start engaging in the practices of justification and the give and take of reasons for/against. In the absence of this, I am afraid that all your skeptical talks just deserves to be ignored in the end. It offers absolutely nothing that should actually concern us here.
14 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayAm I to take it, then, that you simply have no considered reasons for thinking that radiometric dating tests cannot be sufficiently controlled?
Fine with me, you want to do a little testing and say you can look at
something that tells you its millions or billions of years old feel free.
I believe you can too, I just don't think you can go beyond that and
say what is being said "reflects" reality and should be considered
factual, it can be without a doubt what that testing process says. If
you ...[text shortened]... out a doubt a true believer, does not mean your right, only that
you believe you are.
Kelly
20 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf you want to go back over years of posts here on that subject you may.
Am I to take it, then, that you simply have no considered reasons for thinking that radiometric dating tests cannot be sufficiently controlled?
Bottom line, you are telling me that your test results are consistent over
thousands, millions, or billions of years. I say okay, that is what your tests
tell you, good for you, good for your tests that is what they say. So if they
are acturate over that time period the tests will tell us the age of whatever
it is we are testing. This is the same stance I take on all tests!
Kelly
20 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySo if they
If you want to go back over years of posts here on that subject you may.
Bottom line, you are telling me that your test results are consistent over
thousands, millions, or billions of years. I say okay, that is what your tests
tell you, good for you, good for your tests that is what they say. So if they
are acturate over that time period the tests will ...[text shortened]... s the age of whatever
it is we are testing. This is the same stance I take on all tests!
Kelly
are acturate over that time period the tests will tell us the age of whatever
it is we are testing. This is the same stance I take on all tests!
So, your stance on tests is basically that if a test is accurate, then it will tell us accurate stuff. Wow, what an insightful stance.
If someone says something that purports to report the facts about X, you respond by saying it's all just a matter of faith or that's just what they believe. Yes, of course it's what they believe, but did you just forget to respond to the issue that they are purporting to report the actual facts about X, or what? As I have told you before, you are under absolutely no obligation to agree with what they say. You are under no obligation to agree with their take on the facts. You should of course be true to your own honest take on the issue, supposing you have one. But, as a player in these types of discussions there is reasonable expectation of you that, supposing you do disagree with them, you will offer actual evidential reasons why. This practice of give and take of reasons invariably strengthens the discussion through healthy confluence of ideas. In contrast to this, your offerings never seem to do this. In fact, an offering like yours is not a debate-enhancer but rather a debate-stopper. This is because your offerings just basically boil down to saying "well, that's just your opinion; and this is just my opinion". First of all, such an observation is completely trivial since when one renders some judgment or opinion, well, of course it is theirs. Second, your observation is argumentatively pointless since it offers no one any reasons at all to think any differently about the issue at hand. Third, it functions as a debate stopper since you exude the attitude that you are really not open to the give and take of reasons. From there, we are no longer actually discussing the issue at hand; rather, we are off discussing what you even mean when you say it all just boils down to 'faith', or some such remark. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, I am reasonably sure that you do not mean anything of interest with such remarks.
21 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, my view is the test shows us what the test show us period. Our
[b]So if they
are acturate over that time period the tests will tell us the age of whatever
it is we are testing. This is the same stance I take on all tests!
So, your stance on tests is basically that if a test is accurate, then it will tell us accurate stuff. Wow, what an insightful stance.
If someone says something that purports to report ...[text shortened]... e day, I am reasonably sure that you do not mean anything of interest with such remarks.[/b]
"facts" are the test results along with all variables that can have some
influence upon the results, what they mean or can mean is how we apply
what we think is true accordingly. What the facts are isn't always what
we think they are for each test result, as I have pointed out it is very
possible to not have all the "facts right" about the test environment. Our
test results can say one thing, but not for the reasons we think if we
didn’t know our test temperature was off, the wrong test tape was
applied, the wrong build of material was tested, and so on. The data is
just the data and it is only as good as our complete understanding of all
factors that could possibly influence test results.
You can without a doubt believe what you will about the age of the earth
and universe. You may feel that what you have is not a mere belief, but
instead you rest upon solid reasoned out facts, you may feel that if you
are wrong it is God’s fault for lying to you for the way He setup the
universe. I think however if you are wrong it will not because you were
lied to, instead it would be because you claimed to know and understand
things you really don’t instead of being lied to.
Kelly
21 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJellodouble post
[b]So if they
are acturate over that time period the tests will tell us the age of whatever
it is we are testing. This is the same stance I take on all tests!
So, your stance on tests is basically that if a test is accurate, then it will tell us accurate stuff. Wow, what an insightful stance.
If someone says something that purports to report e day, I am reasonably sure that you do not mean anything of interest with such remarks.[/b]
21 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayScience has shown the age of the universe. There is nothing to doubt there.
You can without a doubt believe what you will about the age of the earth
and universe. You may feel that what you have is not a mere belief, but
instead you rest upon solid reasoned out facts, you may feel that if you
are wrong it is God’s fault for lying to you for the way He setup the
universe. I think however if you are wrong it will not because you ...[text shortened]... use you claimed to know and understand
things you really don’t instead of being lied to.
Kelly
21 May 10
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaymy view is the test shows us what the test show us period.
No, my view is the test shows us what the test show us period. Our
"facts" are the test results along with all variables that can have some
influence upon the results, what they mean or can mean is how we apply
what we think is true accordingly. What the facts are isn't always what
we think they are for each test result, as I have pointed out it is very ou claimed to know and understand
things you really don’t instead of being lied to.
Kelly
That is not a substantive view. That is just a tautology. Of course the tests show us what the tests show us!
as I have pointed out it is very
possible to not have all the "facts right" about the test environment.
Yep, you keep pointing this out. And, as I keep telling you, you are correct in this statement each and every time you do so. But, as has been explained ad nauseam the mere epistemic possibility of being mistaken about X does not entail anything of interest here. For instance, it doesn't preclude one's being justified about X; it doesn't preclude one's being in fact right about X; it doesn't preclude one's view of X from being highly or even overwhelmingly probable; it doesn't preclude one's view about X from being overwhelmingly more plausible than some other view; etc; etc; etc; etc; etc. This observation of yours is neither interesting nor relevant.
If you want to use such an observation as a cautionary tale about one's being overly psychologically certain about his conclusions, that is fine. It may have some use in such a scenario. But when you just keep trotting this out time and time again under the guise of participating constructively in discussions of this type; this is a silly charade.
21 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrKellyFaith: Belief despite the lack of epistemic certainty.
I am astounded that, after years of being corrected, you continue to muddle very basic and very important epistemological concepts. So, here is a basic primer on the meaning and function of those terms that are key to your ongoing debate with LJ:
1) Belief: A mental representation that something is the case. An attitude individuals have towards a propos
Here is the question to you: Where does your notion of faith fit into all this?
22 May 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOr something like that, yes. But since we can be justified in believing P, or even know that P, despite being epistemically uncertain that P (hence, having KellyFaith that P), KellyFaith is totally uninteresting and irrelevant to discussions of whether our beliefs are reasonable.
KellyFaith: Belief despite the lack of epistemic certainty.
22 May 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm not forcing you to continue in this, if you don't want my views on this
[b]my view is the test shows us what the test show us period.
That is not a substantive view. That is just a tautology. Of course the tests show us what the tests show us!
as I have pointed out it is very
possible to not have all the "facts right" about the test environment.
Yep, you keep pointing this out. And, as I keep telling ...[text shortened]... of participating constructively in discussions of this type; this is a silly charade.[/b]
or any matter stop asking for them.
Kelly