Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Self-Evident

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 7:05:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The skeptic looks for evidence as it stares him, or her, in the face. The evidence sufficient for any truth is one's self. In other words, a person believes in something because of his, or her, experience; it is an experience that is real to the individual or the individual could not honestly believe in it.

However, the doubter questions another's beliefs because he, or she, has not experienced that which the believer has experienced. The skeptic either believes the believer is being dishonest or suffers from delusion. In questioning the believer's honesty, the skeptic is questioning the believer's moral integrity; in concluding the believer is delusional, the skeptic calls into question the integrity of the believer's faculties.

In both instances, the skeptic is operating out of ignorance; for, there is no possible way the skeptic could know the person is lying unless the person admits to it and there is no possible way the skeptic could know the believer is deluded.

A believer who is not true to his, or her, own experience has betrayed his, or her, own self.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 4:43:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What you describe is purely subjective to the individual and is his truth, but that truth does not necessarily extend into the outer world hence is unverifiable and cannot be equated with what occurs outside ourselves and can be tested.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 8:29:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What you describe is purely subjective to the individual and is his truth, but that truth does not necessarily extend into the outer world hence is unverifiable and cannot be equated with what occurs outside ourselves and can be tested.

Saying one's truth cannot transcend the individual is in effect saying there cannot be shared beliefs. Truth is both subjective and objective: subjective in that it's true for the individual, it's been personalized, it has individual biases, and objective in that it transcends the individual, is shared, and is agreeable to the collective, or group.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 12:59:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 8:29:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What you describe is purely subjective to the individual and is his truth, but that truth does not necessarily extend into the outer world hence is unverifiable and cannot be equated with what occurs outside ourselves and can be tested.

Saying one's truth cannot transcend the individual is in effect saying there cannot be shared beliefs. Truth is both subjective and objective: subjective in that it's true for the individual, it's been personalized, it has individual biases, and objective in that it transcends the individual, is shared, and is agreeable to the collective, or group.

Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. Argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of people believed the sun was circling the earth, the world was flat, and Earth was the center of creation. Didn't make it true. Doesn't the Christian bible say something about wide is the gate and straight the path that leadeth to destruction?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 4:39:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 12:59:17 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 8:29:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What you describe is purely subjective to the individual and is his truth, but that truth does not necessarily extend into the outer world hence is unverifiable and cannot be equated with what occurs outside ourselves and can be tested.

Saying one's truth cannot transcend the individual is in effect saying there cannot be shared beliefs. Truth is both subjective and objective: subjective in that it's true for the individual, it's been personalized, it has individual biases, and objective in that it transcends the individual, is shared, and is agreeable to the collective, or group.

Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. Argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of people believed the sun was circling the earth, the world was flat, and Earth was the center of creation. Didn't make it true. Doesn't the Christian bible say something about wide is the gate and straight the path that leadeth to destruction?

That a lot of people agree on something certainly doesn't make it true, however it is a very reliable means of determining (at a base level) what things are true. Science works precisely because it is repeatable. Everybody can verify the same result. And precisely because a large number of people do verify it we accept it to be 'knowledge'.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:33:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. Argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of people believed the sun was circling the earth, the world was flat, and Earth was the center of creation. Didn't make it true. Doesn't the Christian bible say something about wide is the gate and straight the path that leadeth to destruction?

It makes it true for them or they wouldn't believe it. People believing in a geocentric world or the earth being flat was true for them, and for them to say otherwise would've been a lie.

Not long ago, doctors believed stress and certain foods caused ulcers; however, we now know the etiology of most peptic ulcers is a bacteria called H. pylori. If a doctor thirty years ago neglected to counsel a patient concerning the roles stress and diet played in the incidence of peptic ulcer disease, he, or she, would have been considered an unconcerned, or negligent doctor. Why...? Because, the medical establishment was operating under the belief these two risk factors warranted attention.

A lie is something one believes is untrue. You may say it's not, but your saying it's true, while someone else believes it's a lie doesn't change the fact it's untrue for that person.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 1:34:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 10:33:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. Argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of people believed the sun was circling the earth, the world was flat, and Earth was the center of creation. Didn't make it true. Doesn't the Christian bible say something about wide is the gate and straight the path that leadeth to destruction?

It makes it true for them or they wouldn't believe it. People believing in a geocentric world or the earth being flat was true for them, and for them to say otherwise would've been a lie.

Not long ago, doctors believed stress and certain foods caused ulcers; however, we now know the etiology of most peptic ulcers is a bacteria called H. pylori. If a doctor thirty years ago neglected to counsel a patient concerning the roles stress and diet played in the incidence of peptic ulcer disease, he, or she, would have been considered an unconcerned, or negligent doctor. Why...? Because, the medical establishment was operating under the belief these two risk factors warranted attention.

A lie is something one believes is untrue. You may say it's not, but your saying it's true, while someone else believes it's a lie doesn't change the fact it's untrue for that person.

This appears to posit that there is no difference between 'true for a person' and 'belief of a person' is there a point of distinction that I am missing?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 6:43:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This appears to posit that there is no difference between 'true for a person' and 'belief of a person' is there a point of distinction that I am missing?

If something is true for a person, he, or she, believes it. To say otherwise would be contradiction. It would be like saying, "I believe in Einstein's theory of relativity; however, I don't believe it's true," or, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution; however, I believe it's true."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:30:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 4:39:41 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 11/17/2014 12:59:17 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 8:29:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What you describe is purely subjective to the individual and is his truth, but that truth does not necessarily extend into the outer world hence is unverifiable and cannot be equated with what occurs outside ourselves and can be tested.

Saying one's truth cannot transcend the individual is in effect saying there cannot be shared beliefs. Truth is both subjective and objective: subjective in that it's true for the individual, it's been personalized, it has individual biases, and objective in that it transcends the individual, is shared, and is agreeable to the collective, or group.

Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. Argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of people believed the sun was circling the earth, the world was flat, and Earth was the center of creation. Didn't make it true. Doesn't the Christian bible say something about wide is the gate and straight the path that leadeth to destruction?

That a lot of people agree on something certainly doesn't make it true, however it is a very reliable means of determining (at a base level) what things are true. Science works precisely because it is repeatable. Everybody can verify the same result. And precisely because a large number of people do verify it we accept it to be 'knowledge'.

You are making two different arguments. Simple belief of many is proof of nothing. Repeated testing generating similar or identical results is evidence that the hypothesis under scrutiny is most likely real. Apples and oranges, or worse, apples and rocks. This is a false analogy.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 4:16:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 6:43:01 AM, s-anthony wrote:
This appears to posit that there is no difference between 'true for a person' and 'belief of a person' is there a point of distinction that I am missing?

If something is true for a person, he, or she, believes it. To say otherwise would be contradiction. It would be like saying, "I believe in Einstein's theory of relativity; however, I don't believe it's true," or, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution; however, I believe it's true."

But that is belief in truth, not truth for a person. Let's further the example and take as short hand for the theory of general relativity 'gravity'

1) I believe 'gravity' is true
2) I believe in 'gravity'
3) 'gravity' is true

You argue that 1 and 2 are the same above. Which I am happy to agree with.
3 relates to whether the physical effects of gravity are observable to the person making the statement (e.g. they fall to the floor if they jump off a table).
Where does this statement fit in your analysis?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 4:21:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:30:45 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 4:39:41 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 11/17/2014 12:59:17 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 8:29:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What you describe is purely subjective to the individual and is his truth, but that truth does not necessarily extend into the outer world hence is unverifiable and cannot be equated with what occurs outside ourselves and can be tested.

Saying one's truth cannot transcend the individual is in effect saying there cannot be shared beliefs. Truth is both subjective and objective: subjective in that it's true for the individual, it's been personalized, it has individual biases, and objective in that it transcends the individual, is shared, and is agreeable to the collective, or group.

Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. Argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of people believed the sun was circling the earth, the world was flat, and Earth was the center of creation. Didn't make it true. Doesn't the Christian bible say something about wide is the gate and straight the path that leadeth to destruction?

That a lot of people agree on something certainly doesn't make it true, however it is a very reliable means of determining (at a base level) what things are true. Science works precisely because it is repeatable. Everybody can verify the same result. And precisely because a large number of people do verify it we accept it to be 'knowledge'.

You are making two different arguments. Simple belief of many is proof of nothing. Repeated testing generating similar or identical results is evidence that the hypothesis under scrutiny is most likely real. Apples and oranges, or worse, apples and rocks. This is a false analogy.
What exactly do you think my argument is? Do you disagree that large numbers of people agreeing on the results of an experiment is an important part of determining the validity of the result?
Notice I used the word agreement, not belief.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 5:24:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
But that is belief in truth, not truth for a person. Let's further the example and take as short hand for the theory of general relativity 'gravity'

1) I believe 'gravity' is true
2) I believe in 'gravity'
3) 'gravity' is true

You argue that 1 and 2 are the same above. Which I am happy to agree with.
3 relates to whether the physical effects of gravity are observable to the person making the statement (e.g. they fall to the floor if they jump off a table).
Where does this statement fit in your analysis?

Because, statement (3) is a false statement if the reader believes it is a lie.

Somehow, you believe propositions exist without sentient beings. It is the observer's observation of the physical world that determines statements of fact. In other words remove the physical world from the equation and there's no observation; remove the observer from the equation and there's no observation; both are needed to create a proposition.

If the observer believes the observation is untrue, the observation is untrue (remember observer plus physical world equals observation.) Likewise, if the observer believes the observation is true, the observation is true.

The contradiction arises as you say the observation the observer believes to be true is false.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:06:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 4:21:51 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 11/18/2014 10:30:45 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 4:39:41 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 11/17/2014 12:59:17 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 8:29:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
What you describe is purely subjective to the individual and is his truth, but that truth does not necessarily extend into the outer world hence is unverifiable and cannot be equated with what occurs outside ourselves and can be tested.

Saying one's truth cannot transcend the individual is in effect saying there cannot be shared beliefs. Truth is both subjective and objective: subjective in that it's true for the individual, it's been personalized, it has individual biases, and objective in that it transcends the individual, is shared, and is agreeable to the collective, or group.

Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. Argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of people believed the sun was circling the earth, the world was flat, and Earth was the center of creation. Didn't make it true. Doesn't the Christian bible say something about wide is the gate and straight the path that leadeth to destruction?

That a lot of people agree on something certainly doesn't make it true, however it is a very reliable means of determining (at a base level) what things are true. Science works precisely because it is repeatable. Everybody can verify the same result. And precisely because a large number of people do verify it we accept it to be 'knowledge'.

You are making two different arguments. Simple belief of many is proof of nothing. Repeated testing generating similar or identical results is evidence that the hypothesis under scrutiny is most likely real. Apples and oranges, or worse, apples and rocks. This is a false analogy.
What exactly do you think my argument is? Do you disagree that large numbers of people agreeing on the results of an experiment is an important part of determining the validity of the result?
Notice I used the word agreement, not belief.

I said that was a valid statement, but your original assertion was that shared belief made it transcend the individual and become the truth for a collective. That is not the same as many individuals testing a hypothesis and obtaining the same result. As I said, a false analogy when you try to conflate belief and acceptance.