Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Truth and Belief are Mutually Exclusive

Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?
To believe is to know nothing.
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 4:52:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

It's on the way out, slowly but surly. But whatever the reason it's probably the same reason I've been called, to culminate several hours of discussion, a Suppositionalistic Subjective Self-Defeating and Damned sinner by one particular user here who's been doing nothing but supposing their own subjective interpretation of their self-defeating scripture to a damned sinner like me.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:24:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 4:52:05 AM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

It's on the way out, slowly but surly. But whatever the reason it's probably the same reason I've been called, to culminate several hours of discussion, a Suppositionalistic Subjective Self-Defeating and Damned sinner by one particular user here who's been doing nothing but supposing their own subjective interpretation of their self-defeating scripture to a damned sinner like me.

It's this sort of thing that gets on my nerves. I'm sorry you had to go through that.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.
To believe is to know nothing.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

Belief in *what*?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:27:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.

Yes, I agree. But only inductively true, since what really is "true"? Science may be the standard for answers, but answers aren't dependent on epistemology ... but if you're referring to belief in God, I side (somewhat) with you.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:28:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

Belief in *what*?

Belief in anything.
To believe is to know nothing.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:29:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:28:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

Belief in *what*?

Belief in anything.

But if there is a truth x, then you obviously believe in x being true (it is true, but that's irrelevant) ...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:33:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.

Science can't prove anything really, but I understand your point. However, doesn't that refute your thread title? Perhaps it should have been "Truth and Unevidenced Belief are Mutually Exclusive".
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:43:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:27:50 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.

Yes, I agree. But only inductively true, since what really is "true"? Science may be the standard for answers, but answers aren't dependent on epistemology ... but if you're referring to belief in God, I side (somewhat) with you.

Good point. I suppose I take a rather pragmatic approach to this. One appreciates the credentials of science and evidence when humanity manages to land a probe on a comet travelling at 34,000 miles per hour, 360 million miles from earth.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:44:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:29:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:28:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

Belief in *what*?

Belief in anything.

But if there is a truth x, then you obviously believe in x being true (it is true, but that's irrelevant) ...

Sure. I think this is all the more reason why certainty in anything is such a luxury.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:50:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:33:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.

Science can't prove anything really, but I understand your point. However, doesn't that refute your thread title? Perhaps it should have been "Truth and Unevidenced Belief are Mutually Exclusive".

But surely evidenced belief, however accurate it is in reality, is still subjective, until we know it is true.
To believe is to know nothing.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:44:37 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:29:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:28:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

Belief in *what*?

Belief in anything.

But if there is a truth x, then you obviously believe in x being true (it is true, but that's irrelevant) ...

Sure. I think this is all the more reason why certainty in anything is such a luxury.

What about belief in *inductive* truth x?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 5:55:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:46:47 AM, JJ50 wrote:
No religion is based on anything but belief, not FACT.

I agree. It applies to everyone though, not just the religious.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 6:10:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:52:07 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:44:37 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:29:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:28:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

Belief in *what*?

Belief in anything.

But if there is a truth x, then you obviously believe in x being true (it is true, but that's irrelevant) ...

Sure. I think this is all the more reason why certainty in anything is such a luxury.

What about belief in *inductive* truth x?

Belief in truth, whichever way you choose to arrive at that truth, is knowledge, not belief. Beliefs are theories which may or may not be true. However, the difference I am trying to point out is in knowing what we don't know (which is what science strives for), as opposed to thinking we already know what we don't know, which is tantamount to not knowing what we don't know - something that many religious people are guilty of.
To believe is to know nothing.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 6:22:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 5:50:36 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:33:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.

Science can't prove anything really, but I understand your point. However, doesn't that refute your thread title? Perhaps it should have been "Truth and Unevidenced Belief are Mutually Exclusive".

But surely evidenced belief, however accurate it is in reality, is still subjective, until we know it is true.

But isn't that the point? How do we know when something is true? Everything is only provisionally true in science. Some new evidence could come along that requires a refining of even the most established theory. Newton's laws of motion and gravity were considered the last word until Einstein came along. They weren't wrong, it's just that they weren't complete under extreme conditions.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 6:36:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 6:10:43 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:52:07 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:44:37 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:29:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:28:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

Belief in *what*?

Belief in anything.

But if there is a truth x, then you obviously believe in x being true (it is true, but that's irrelevant) ...

Sure. I think this is all the more reason why certainty in anything is such a luxury.

What about belief in *inductive* truth x?

Belief in truth, whichever way you choose to arrive at that truth, is knowledge, not belief. Beliefs are theories which may or may not be true. However, the difference I am trying to point out is in knowing what we don't know (which is what science strives for), as opposed to thinking we already know what we don't know, which is tantamount to not knowing what we don't know - something that many religious people are guilty of.

Knowledge is justified true belief.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

How does a belief become justified, what is the criteria?
Well, that depends.
If we seek scientific knowledge, we should expect to use scientific justification.
A good scientific justification is the SM.
The SM often leads to truth, but not always. Sometimes it gets it wrong.
So, what appears as Scientific truth, what appears as a justified true belief, is not true, is not congruent with reality.
Since it is not a justified true belief, it is not knowledge, even though it came from proper application of the SM.

If we seek not scientific knowledge, but other kinds of knowledge, we should expect different criteria.

If I seek personal knowledge, of the sort 'What did I eat last night that made me sick.'
I will justify my beliefs on unscientific criteria. I will do personal observations, accept here say, many things which would not pass the criteria of the SM.

When I find out that five other family members got sick and also ate the same tuna fish I did, which is no longer available for testing, I may have a justified true belief that tuna fish made me sick, and that will be knowledge, as it is true, and justified, although unscientific.

If I seek religious knowledge, I see no reason to use scientific criteria.
If my beliefs are true, and justified, they are knowledge.
It really does not matter what science has to say about it, as science has no proof for anything. Science may say it seems my belief is not true, but that alone does not make it false.
I may consider what science indicates, have discussions with other who share my beliefs, and decide that my beliefs are not true. I will use here say to adjust my justification for my beliefs. A very unscientific method.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 6:42:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 6:22:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:50:36 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:33:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.

Science can't prove anything really, but I understand your point. However, doesn't that refute your thread title? Perhaps it should have been "Truth and Unevidenced Belief are Mutually Exclusive".

But surely evidenced belief, however accurate it is in reality, is still subjective, until we know it is true.

But isn't that the point? How do we know when something is true? Everything is only provisionally true in science. Some new evidence could come along that requires a refining of even the most established theory. Newton's laws of motion and gravity were considered the last word until Einstein came along. They weren't wrong, it's just that they weren't complete under extreme conditions.

You're right. Most of the time theories are all we have and that's absolutely fine. In science, beliefs are subjective and being wrong is actually a good thing. The same can't be said for religion, which essentially uses an obsolete reverse approach.
To believe is to know nothing.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 6:46:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is my post about a case where the SM was properly applied, repeatedly, over decades, by multiple teams of scientists, and got it wrong.
http://www.debate.org...

As I indicate, reason alone says this was not an isolated event, as it was not particularly newsworthy.
It is common knowledge that as the SM operates, it expects that from time to time it will get it wrong, and have to correct it.
So, what was believed to be scientific knowledge, that had been justified, was not true.
Therefore it was not knowledge, just a false belief, supported by the SM.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 6:49:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 6:42:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:22:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:50:36 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:33:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.

Science can't prove anything really, but I understand your point. However, doesn't that refute your thread title? Perhaps it should have been "Truth and Unevidenced Belief are Mutually Exclusive".

But surely evidenced belief, however accurate it is in reality, is still subjective, until we know it is true.

But isn't that the point? How do we know when something is true? Everything is only provisionally true in science. Some new evidence could come along that requires a refining of even the most established theory. Newton's laws of motion and gravity were considered the last word until Einstein came along. They weren't wrong, it's just that they weren't complete under extreme conditions.

You're right. Most of the time theories are all we have and that's absolutely fine. In science, beliefs are subjective and being wrong is actually a good thing. The same can't be said for religion, which essentially uses an obsolete reverse approach.

Now this is interesting.
How is "being wrong" a good thing for science, but a bad thing for religion, or philosophy, or any endeavor. Or, is it only bad for religion, and nothing else?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:27:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 6:36:57 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:10:43 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:52:07 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:44:37 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:29:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:28:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

Belief in *what*?

Belief in anything.

But if there is a truth x, then you obviously believe in x being true (it is true, but that's irrelevant) ...

Sure. I think this is all the more reason why certainty in anything is such a luxury.

What about belief in *inductive* truth x?

Belief in truth, whichever way you choose to arrive at that truth, is knowledge, not belief. Beliefs are theories which may or may not be true. However, the difference I am trying to point out is in knowing what we don't know (which is what science strives for), as opposed to thinking we already know what we don't know, which is tantamount to not knowing what we don't know - something that many religious people are guilty of.

Knowledge is justified true belief.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

With respect, I'm not sure I agree. Justified true belief is a non sequitur. The mistake made here is in treating truth as something that can be wrong. As though truth is merely a perception. This is the essence what I am trying to get at. Truth is definitive. A belief is nothing more than an opinion. A belief in X may well be true but if one doesn't know this then it remains subjective.


How does a belief become justified, what is the criteria?
Well, that depends.
If we seek scientific knowledge, we should expect to use scientific justification.
A good scientific justification is the SM.
The SM often leads to truth, but not always. Sometimes it gets it wrong.

The SM is the only method of attaining knowledge. For the vast majority of the time, it proves theories wrong. The SM itself has its limitations though because it's practiced by human beings which are capable of making mistakes. This is partly why it is so difficult to know that X is true, instead of thinking that X is true.

So, what appears as Scientific truth, what appears as a justified true belief, is not true, is not congruent with reality.

Here you explain the confusion well. Scientific truth is no something that can be claimed flippantly and later disproven. It is universally definitive.

Since it is not a justified true belief, it is not knowledge, even though it came from proper application of the SM.

Objective beliefs are not born from the SM, only theories and facts.


If we seek not scientific knowledge, but other kinds of knowledge, we should expect different criteria.

There is no such thing as other kinds of knowledge. Knowledge is utterly definitive. This is exactly what I contest in my original post.


If I seek personal knowledge, of the sort 'What did I eat last night that made me sick.'
I will justify my beliefs on unscientific criteria. I will do personal observations, accept here say, many things which would not pass the criteria of the SM.

What you are describing here is subjectivity, not personal knowledge. There's no such thing as personal knowledge.


When I find out that five other family members got sick and also ate the same tuna fish I did, which is no longer available for testing, I may have a justified true belief that tuna fish made me sick, and that will be knowledge, as it is true, and justified, although unscientific.

Again, I disagree. There are too many uncertainties that you haven't accounted for. It isn't knowledge, it's your opinion and it may be right but you simply do not know. To use your example, you don't know that it was the tuna fish because you don't know if someone poisoned you all individually, or if it was something airbourne. The variables are too great for you to know. In order to know, you need to use the SM, if your example is testable in the first place, which it probably isn't.


If I seek religious knowledge, I see no reason to use scientific criteria.

Just as there is no such thing as personal knowledge, there is no such thing as religious knowledge, it's just knowledge, proven by the SM.

If my beliefs are true, and justified, they are knowledge.

If by justified you mean proven using the SM, then you are correct.

It really does not matter what science has to say about it, as science has no proof for anything. Science may say it seems my belief is not true, but that alone does not make it false.

Then in that case there is no such thing as truth. But is it true that 2 x 4 = 8? Science doesn't say your belief is not true because that would be a factual claim that it can't make. You're right that your belief could be true. But because you do not know, it is confined to the limits of subjectivity, which is absolutely fine.

I may consider what science indicates, have discussions with other who share my beliefs, and decide that my beliefs are not true. I will use here say to adjust my justification for my beliefs. A very unscientific method.

Here you're using subjectivity and as I've said, there's nothing wrong with that.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:42:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 6:46:23 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Here is my post about a case where the SM was properly applied, repeatedly, over decades, by multiple teams of scientists, and got it wrong.
http://www.debate.org...


As I indicate, reason alone says this was not an isolated event, as it was not particularly newsworthy.
It is common knowledge that as the SM operates, it expects that from time to time it will get it wrong, and have to correct it.
So, what was believed to be scientific knowledge, that had been justified, was not true.
Therefore it was not knowledge, just a false belief, supported by the SM.

Regardless of whether someone says they know something (that they don't in reality), even if they've used the SM, they still did not know. It's quite simple.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 7:59:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 6:49:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:42:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:22:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:50:36 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:33:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.

Science can't prove anything really, but I understand your point. However, doesn't that refute your thread title? Perhaps it should have been "Truth and Unevidenced Belief are Mutually Exclusive".

But surely evidenced belief, however accurate it is in reality, is still subjective, until we know it is true.

But isn't that the point? How do we know when something is true? Everything is only provisionally true in science. Some new evidence could come along that requires a refining of even the most established theory. Newton's laws of motion and gravity were considered the last word until Einstein came along. They weren't wrong, it's just that they weren't complete under extreme conditions.

You're right. Most of the time theories are all we have and that's absolutely fine. In science, beliefs are subjective and being wrong is actually a good thing. The same can't be said for religion, which essentially uses an obsolete reverse approach.

Now this is interesting.
How is "being wrong" a good thing for science, but a bad thing for religion, or philosophy, or any endeavor. Or, is it only bad for religion, and nothing else?

Indeed. May I suggest you watch some Lawrence Krauss lectures and debates on youtube. Time and again he mentions how he loves being proven wrong because it means that he knows a little bit more. He knows that he was wrong. As I've mentioned earlier, Religion makes its own conclusions and then works backwards to try and prove them right. But then science comes along and sometimes provides the real answers.

Being wrong isn't necessarily a bad thing in everyday life because it's an opportunity to learn.

Being wrong isn't something that a lot of religious people like though, be it a perception of someone else or an accusation by someone else of being wrong. That becomes evident just by looking at the world today, not to mention the past. Blasphemy laws for instance, apostasy... the concept of heaven and hell.
To believe is to know nothing.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 8:10:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:27:01 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:36:57 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:10:43 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:52:07 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:44:37 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:29:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:28:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

Belief in *what*?

Belief in anything.

But if there is a truth x, then you obviously believe in x being true (it is true, but that's irrelevant) ...

Sure. I think this is all the more reason why certainty in anything is such a luxury.

What about belief in *inductive* truth x?

Belief in truth, whichever way you choose to arrive at that truth, is knowledge, not belief. Beliefs are theories which may or may not be true. However, the difference I am trying to point out is in knowing what we don't know (which is what science strives for), as opposed to thinking we already know what we don't know, which is tantamount to not knowing what we don't know - something that many religious people are guilty of.

Knowledge is justified true belief.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

With respect, I'm not sure I agree. Justified true belief is a non sequitur. The mistake made here is in treating truth as something that can be wrong. As though truth is merely a perception. This is the essence what I am trying to get at. Truth is definitive. A belief is nothing more than an opinion. A belief in X may well be true but if one doesn't know this then it remains subjective.

Well, you are free to define words as you choose, just do not be surprised if others find such meanings to be arbitrary, or self serving, or both.
What I offer is the classical, traditional, universally accepted meaning in the field of philosophy.
This is the religion section, a branch of philosophy.
A justified true belief is much more than an opinion.
Knowledge is a type of belief.
Knowledge is true.
Truth is a belief.

How do you 'know' something is 'true'?
With the SM, that can lead to false beliefs, when it is used as intended?
So things which are false, are actually true?

How do you know you have knowledge?
If the SM approves it, is it knowledge, even when false?


How does a belief become justified, what is the criteria?
Well, that depends.
If we seek scientific knowledge, we should expect to use scientific justification.
A good scientific justification is the SM.
The SM often leads to truth, but not always. Sometimes it gets it wrong.

The SM is the only method of attaining knowledge.

Well, that is an interesting theory.
It differs from my knowledge, my justified true belief.
Shackelton had knowledge about rogue waves, that the SM, that scientiests said was false.
He was truthful, they were wrong, mistaken.
They had false beliefs, obtained through proper application of the SM.
He had justified true beliefs, obtained from personal observation, refuted by the SM.

For the vast majority of the time, it proves theories wrong. The SM itself has its limitations though because it's practiced by human beings which are capable of making mistakes. This is partly why it is so difficult to know that X is true, instead of thinking that X is true.

The limitation go beyond how it is practiced by humans.
The SM does not have the capabilities to operate fault free, and it has nothing to do with human error, it has to do with a process that is not perfect.
Do you claim it is a perfect process, incapable of producing statements of scientific facts that are false?
Did you not just say it gets it wrong from time to time, and that is good?

So, what appears as Scientific truth, what appears as a justified true belief, is not true, is not congruent with reality.

Here you explain the confusion well. Scientific truth is no something that can be claimed flippantly and later disproven. It is universally definitive.

As I said, the SM applied many times, in many places, by many teams. That is not flippant.
Still, the results were false.
Universally false? Maybe so.
Results of the SM are from time to time shown to be false.
A theory is formulated, approved by the SM, and with one occurrence it is shown to be false. That is how it works. Disproven, by the same SM that said it was true.

Since it is not a justified true belief, it is not knowledge, even though it came from proper application of the SM.

Objective beliefs are not born from the SM, only theories and facts.

And these theory and facts are sometimes mistaken, false, not congruent with reality.


If we seek not scientific knowledge, but other kinds of knowledge, we should expect different criteria.

There is no such thing as other kinds of knowledge. Knowledge is utterly definitive. This is exactly what I contest in my original post.

Well, I say it is rubbish, as I demonstrated.
Your beliefs are rubbish, as the evidence shows.
We all have personal knowledge, with no stamp of approval from science.


If I seek personal knowledge, of the sort 'What did I eat last night that made me sick.'
I will justify my beliefs on unscientific criteria. I will do personal observations, accept here say, many things which would not pass the criteria of the SM.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 8:10:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:27:01 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:36:57 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:10:43 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:52:07 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:44:37 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:29:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:28:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:25:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:

What you are describing here is subjectivity, not personal knowledge. There's no such thing as personal knowledge.

Well, that is just bizarre.
When you are about to cross a road, you have no knowledge about whether or not cars may be coming, to strike you dead?
You have no knowledge if the food you are about to eat is safe or not?
You have no knowledge about whether or not you are alive?


When I find out that five other family members got sick and also ate the same tuna fish I did, which is no longer available for testing, I may have a justified true belief that tuna fish made me sick, and that will be knowledge, as it is true, and justified, although unscientific.

Again, I disagree. There are too many uncertainties that you haven't accounted for. It isn't knowledge, it's your opinion and it may be right but you simply do not know. To use your example, you don't know that it was the tuna fish because you don't know if someone poisoned you all individually, or if it was something airbourne. The variables are too great for you to know. In order to know, you need to use the SM, if your example is testable in the first place, which it probably isn't.

Here is what I say.
It was the tuna fish. That has been decided. The question is, was my belief a lucky guess, or was it justified.
If it was a lucky guess, then it was not knowledge.
If it was justified, by means that were not up to the standards of the SM, and it was true, then it is knowledge.


If I seek religious knowledge, I see no reason to use scientific criteria.

Just as there is no such thing as personal knowledge, there is no such thing as religious knowledge, it's just knowledge, proven by the SM.

If my beliefs are true, and justified, they are knowledge.

If by justified you mean proven using the SM, then you are correct.

You haven not been paying attention.
If you understood what I wrote, you know I say quite clearly that is not the case.

It really does not matter what science has to say about it, as science has no proof for anything. Science may say it seems my belief is not true, but that alone does not make it false.

Then in that case there is no such thing as truth. But is it true that 2 x 4 = 8? Science doesn't say your belief is not true because that would be a factual claim that it can't make. You're right that your belief could be true. But because you do not know, it is confined to the limits of subjectivity, which is absolutely fine.

I am not once who says there is no such thing as truth.
It does not follow that simply because science has no proof for anything - which either you said, or others said it and you did object - nothing is true.
Do you now want to argue that science has true proof, and not conditional 'high probability'.

I may consider what science indicates, have discussions with other who share my beliefs, and decide that my beliefs are not true. I will use here say to adjust my justification for my beliefs. A very unscientific method.

Here you're using subjectivity and as I've said, there's nothing wrong with that.

Well, if you accept science pronouncements as truth, then clearly you have no problem with subjectivity.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 8:14:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:42:50 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:46:23 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Here is my post about a case where the SM was properly applied, repeatedly, over decades, by multiple teams of scientists, and got it wrong.
http://www.debate.org...


As I indicate, reason alone says this was not an isolated event, as it was not particularly newsworthy.
It is common knowledge that as the SM operates, it expects that from time to time it will get it wrong, and have to correct it.
So, what was believed to be scientific knowledge, that had been justified, was not true.
Therefore it was not knowledge, just a false belief, supported by the SM.

Regardless of whether someone says they know something (that they don't in reality), even if they've used the SM, they still did not know. It's quite simple.

Well, since it is simple, please tell me how you distinguish false beliefs from truth, given that it has been demonstrated that some pronouncements of science are false.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 8:15:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

There is no contradiction between truth and belief. In fact knowledge is constituted by true justified beliefs. This is to say that a belief is a truth bearer.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 8:17:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 7:59:49 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:49:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:42:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 6:22:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:50:36 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:33:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:24:54 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 6/17/2015 5:14:26 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:48:30 AM, Impartial wrote:
Why does society not frown upon people who think their beliefs are facts? Some religious people indoctrinate and circumcise their children, discriminate against homosexuals, even blow themselves up etc etc because they think they know it's what they must do. Why is this confusion between faith and truth not forbidden in all cultures?

If you believe something, hopefully based on evidence, it can't be true?

I'm sure you'll agree, a belief can be true but it isn't considered truth until it's proven using science.

Science can't prove anything really, but I understand your point. However, doesn't that refute your thread title? Perhaps it should have been "Truth and Unevidenced Belief are Mutually Exclusive".

But surely evidenced belief, however accurate it is in reality, is still subjective, until we know it is true.

But isn't that the point? How do we know when something is true? Everything is only provisionally true in science. Some new evidence could come along that requires a refining of even the most established theory. Newton's laws of motion and gravity were considered the last word until Einstein came along. They weren't wrong, it's just that they weren't complete under extreme conditions.

You're right. Most of the time theories are all we have and that's absolutely fine. In science, beliefs are subjective and being wrong is actually a good thing. The same can't be said for religion, which essentially uses an obsolete reverse approach.

Now this is interesting.
How is "being wrong" a good thing for science, but a bad thing for religion, or philosophy, or any endeavor. Or, is it only bad for religion, and nothing else?

Indeed. May I suggest you watch some Lawrence Krauss lectures and debates on youtube. Time and again he mentions how he loves being proven wrong because it means that he knows a little bit more. He knows that he was wrong. As I've mentioned earlier, Religion makes its own conclusions and then works backwards to try and prove them right. But then science comes along and sometimes provides the real answers.

And what about all those times he is wrong, but no one shows it?
Do you deny that happens?
Do you deny it is possible that he will go to his grave with false beliefs, as provided by science?
All of this is good?


Being wrong isn't necessarily a bad thing in everyday life because it's an opportunity to learn.

Being wrong isn't something that a lot of religious people like though, be it a perception of someone else or an accusation by someone else of being wrong. That becomes evident just by looking at the world today, not to mention the past. Blasphemy laws for instance, apostasy... the concept of heaven and hell.