more science v religion

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594660 time=1662461157 user_id=22925]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568123 time=1650001015 user_id=15238]
Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
[/quote]

[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594144 time=1662300807 user_id=22925]
I don't think either of them "validates" anything at all, but for different reasons. Both seek to reach [i]what they understand as[/i] 'truth'...
[/quote]

[quote=Advocate post_id=594508 time=1662398173 user_id=15238]
They each make truth claims purported to be supported.
[/quote]

Yes, they do, but each of them uses a different meaning of 'truth', and each of them weights and values 'evidence' quite differently too. There is spiritual 'truth' and there is scientific 'truth'. They aren't referring to the same thing, even though they use the same word. And the "support" they claim is quite different, too.

The worst of them — scientists and believers alike — deliberately exploit these differences to introduce confusion, and make one sort of truth claim resemble another, when it doesn't. Scientists may treat a spiritual claim as a scientific one, just so that they can seem to debunk that 'truth'. The opposite is sometimes the case too. Such straw man attacks are best ignored, IMO.
[/quote]

There is only one Truth. "Spiritual" truth can only be a subset of truth, and it cannot have it's own epistemology. Spiritual only makes sense as "of the patterns in the mind".
Last edited by Advocate on Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 12:59 pm There is only one truth.
Hmm, OK. Then what is it, this One Truth of which you seem to have knowledge?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594703 time=1662470049 user_id=22925]
[quote=Advocate post_id=594693 time=1662465580 user_id=15238]
There is only one truth.
[/quote]

Hmm, OK. Then what is it, this One Truth of which you seem to have knowledge?
[/quote]

fixed:. There is only one Truth. There are infinite truths, which are instances of The Truth, such as a fact or a perspective. The bit i have knowledge of is metaphysics and epistemology.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:19 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:14 pm
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 12:59 pm There is only one truth.
Hmm, OK. Then what is it, this One Truth of which you seem to have knowledge?
fixed:. There is only one Truth. There are infinite truths, which are instances of The Truth, such as a fact or a perspective. The bit i have knowledge of is metaphysics and epistemology.
How does one KNOW, for sure, when they have arrived at the one Truth?

How does one, accurately, DISTINGUISH between a truth and the one Truth?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Age post_id=594778 time=1662511666 user_id=16237]
How does one KNOW, for sure, when they have arrived at the one Truth?

How does one, accurately, DISTINGUISH between a truth and the one Truth?
[/quote]

a) Knowledge is justified belief and the amount of justification necessary to be considered knowledge is contingent. If it doesn't have major or moral implications, weight of evidence may be sufficient. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for other uses. "For all intents and purposes" is always sufficient, and plenty of ideas can be known to that level of certainty.

Truth is whatever continuously replicates so you Know it if all available evidence points to it, even if that's one iota-speck of a shred of some larger hypothetical validation.

b) i just answered that. One is an instance of the other.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:47 am How does one KNOW, for sure, when they have arrived at the one Truth?
How does one, accurately, DISTINGUISH between a truth and the one Truth?
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am a) Knowledge is justified belief and the amount of justification necessary to be considered knowledge is contingent. If it doesn't have major or moral implications, weight of evidence may be sufficient. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for other uses. "For all intents and purposes" is always sufficient, and plenty of ideas can be known to that level of certainty.

Truth is whatever continuously replicates so you Know it if all available evidence points to it, even if that's one iota-speck of a shred of some larger hypothetical validation.
So, according to your first paragraph, and in keeping with your second, you consider 'the truth' to be that which seems most likely to be true. I know you didn't express it exactly that way, but I think that's what you're saying? You do mention weight of evidence, and the like, but your conclusion is that a 'reasonable' level of certainty is sufficient to establish 'the truth'.

This is a practical and pragmatic approach to 'truth', and I don't fault it. But it is not as precise and certain as you initially seemed to assert. Even at this 👆 fairly superficial level of scrutiny, I think it's obvious that there is more to 'the truth' than immediately meets the eye?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am
Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:47 am How does one KNOW, for sure, when they have arrived at the one Truth?

How does one, accurately, DISTINGUISH between a truth and the one Truth?
a) Knowledge is justified belief and the amount of justification necessary to be considered knowledge is contingent.
But EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, has some CLAIMED so-called "justification" for ALL of your BELIEFS. Even when the BELIEFS are in DIRECT OPPOSITION of each other.

Therefore, 'your', adult, 'knowledge' is False, Wrong, or Incorrect, or 'knowledge' is NOT a so-called 'justified belief' AT ALL.

'Contingent' on 'what', EXACTLY?

Just look at the OPPOSING BELIEFS of: GOD does exist, AND, God does not exist. EVERY one of 'you', with those OPPOSING BELIEFS, BELIEVE that 'you' have the RIGHT amount of 'justification', for your BELIEFS.
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am If it doesn't have major or moral implications, weight of evidence may be sufficient. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for other uses. "For all intents and purposes" is always sufficient, and plenty of ideas can be known to that level of certainty.
Sounds all rather complex and difficult, while being Truly unnecessary, well from my perspective anyway.

I found how KNOWING, for sure, and DISTINGUISHING, accurately, far MORE SIMPLER and EASIER than what you have proposed here.
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am Truth is whatever continuously replicates so you Know it if all available evidence points to it,
But all "available" so-called 'evidence' pointed to the earth being flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and the Universe beginning and expanding, but 'we' ALL now KNOW, for sure, that they all are NOT the one Truth, correct?
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am even if that's one iota-speck of a shred of some larger hypothetical validation.
Very unnecessary words being added here. Again, from my perspective, only.
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am b) i just answered that. One is an instance of the other.
So, 'the truth', God does exist, and, God does not exist, are BOTH instances of the one Truth, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:05 pm
Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:47 am How does one KNOW, for sure, when they have arrived at the one Truth?
How does one, accurately, DISTINGUISH between a truth and the one Truth?
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 9:02 am a) Knowledge is justified belief and the amount of justification necessary to be considered knowledge is contingent. If it doesn't have major or moral implications, weight of evidence may be sufficient. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for other uses. "For all intents and purposes" is always sufficient, and plenty of ideas can be known to that level of certainty.

Truth is whatever continuously replicates so you Know it if all available evidence points to it, even if that's one iota-speck of a shred of some larger hypothetical validation.
So, according to your first paragraph, and in keeping with your second, you consider 'the truth' to be that which seems most likely to be true. I know you didn't express it exactly that way, but I think that's what you're saying? You do mention weight of evidence, and the like, but your conclusion is that a 'reasonable' level of certainty is sufficient to establish 'the truth'.
What ANY one believes or accepts as 'the truth', or 'being true', is ALWAYS based on some sort of a 'reasonable' level of certainty, as being sufficient to establish 'that truth'.

'Reasonable' is EXTREMELY 'relative'. And, a 'reasonable level of certainty' is ALSO EXTREMELY 'relative' to the one with 'the truth'.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:05 pm This is a practical and pragmatic approach to 'truth', and I don't fault it.
I DO, if ANY one is CURIOS.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:05 pm But it is not as precise and certain as you initially seemed to assert. Even at this 👆 fairly superficial level of scrutiny, I think it's obvious that there is more to 'the truth' than immediately meets the eye?
To me, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between 'the truth', and, 'the Truth'.

And, how to DISTINGUISH between the two and KNOW the DIFFERENCE, for sure, is an EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY process. Well to me anyway.

Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594882 time=1662552320 user_id=22925]
[quote=Age post_id=594778 time=1662511666 user_id=16237]
How does one KNOW, for sure, when they have arrived at the one Truth?
How does one, accurately, DISTINGUISH between a truth and the one Truth?
[/quote]

[quote=Advocate post_id=594817 time=1662537760 user_id=15238]
a) Knowledge is justified belief and the amount of justification necessary to be considered knowledge is contingent. If it doesn't have major or moral implications, weight of evidence may be sufficient. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for other uses. "For all intents and purposes" is always sufficient, and plenty of ideas can be known to that level of certainty.

Truth is whatever continuously replicates so you Know it if all available evidence points to it, even if that's one iota-speck of a shred of some larger hypothetical validation.
[/quote]

So, according to your first paragraph, and in keeping with your second, you consider 'the truth' to be that which seems most likely to be true. I know you didn't express it exactly that way, but I think that's what you're saying? You do mention weight of evidence, and the like, but your conclusion is that a 'reasonable' level of certainty is sufficient to establish 'the truth'.

This is a practical and pragmatic approach to 'truth', and I don't fault it. But it is not as precise and certain as you initially seemed to assert. Even at this 👆 fairly superficial level of scrutiny, I think it's obvious that there is more to 'the truth' than immediately meets the eye?
[/quote]

Yes and no.

A reasonable level of certainty is that state of mind that accounts for all Available evidence. It literally cannot be more. What evidence is later or ultimately available Cannot be accounted for in a reasonable understanding of truth Now. That's a category mistake i find all the time. Transcendent Truth isn't available to us, and never will be. But we can know it sufficiently for all intents and purposes, and regularly do.

"Truth" can't mean the ultimate truth that it references, but it can mean as close to that as possible in reality (accessible subset of Actuality). A truth makes sense as a subset of Truth, and we all have our own. Whether we know it and how we express it are separate questions.

Or is that also clear as mud?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Age post_id=594902 time=1662555315 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=594817 time=1662537760 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=594778 time=1662511666 user_id=16237]
How does one KNOW, for sure, when they have arrived at the one Truth?

How does one, accurately, DISTINGUISH between a truth and the one Truth?
[/quote]

a) Knowledge is justified belief and the amount of justification necessary to be considered knowledge is contingent.[/quote]

But EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, has some CLAIMED so-called "justification" for ALL of your BELIEFS. Even when the BELIEFS are in DIRECT OPPOSITION of each other.

Therefore, 'your', adult, 'knowledge' is False, Wrong, or Incorrect, or 'knowledge' is NOT a so-called 'justified belief' AT ALL.

'Contingent' on 'what', EXACTLY?

Just look at the OPPOSING BELIEFS of: GOD does exist, AND, God does not exist. EVERY one of 'you', with those OPPOSING BELIEFS, BELIEVE that 'you' have the RIGHT amount of 'justification', for your BELIEFS.

[quote=Advocate post_id=594817 time=1662537760 user_id=15238]
If it doesn't have major or moral implications, weight of evidence may be sufficient. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for other uses. "For all intents and purposes" is always sufficient, and plenty of ideas can be known to that level of certainty.[/quote]

Sounds all rather complex and difficult, while being Truly unnecessary, well from my perspective anyway.

I found how KNOWING, for sure, and DISTINGUISHING, accurately, far MORE SIMPLER and EASIER than what you have proposed here.
[quote=Advocate post_id=594817 time=1662537760 user_id=15238]
Truth is whatever continuously replicates so you Know it if all available evidence points to it, [/quote]

But all "available" so-called 'evidence' pointed to the earth being flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and the Universe beginning and expanding, but 'we' ALL now KNOW, for sure, that they all are NOT the one Truth, correct?
[quote=Advocate post_id=594817 time=1662537760 user_id=15238]
even if that's one iota-speck of a shred of some larger hypothetical validation.[/quote]

Very unnecessary words being added here. Again, from my perspective, only.
[quote=Advocate post_id=594817 time=1662537760 user_id=15238]
b) i just answered that. One is an instance of the other.
[/quote]

So, 'the truth', God does exist, and, God does not exist, are BOTH instances of the one Truth, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?
[/quote]

The kind of thing god is does not admit of justification at any level of certainty. That's what faith is; belief without justification. The justification claimed is Always insufficient or imaginary.

Truth is equivalent to certainty in the actual world now, not ultimate future hypothetical validation. If all available evidence points to something it's truth for all intents and purposes. If the next bit of evidence shows otherwise THEN someone can say it's not.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Age post_id=594905 time=1662555895 user_id=16237]
[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594882 time=1662552320 user_id=22925]
Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.
[/quote]

Some "truths" can be reviewed some times, but that can only happen with the addition of previously unavailable evidence that literally could not have been accounted for earlier. One cannot cross willy-nilly between varieties of truth available to different people or and some transcendent Truth-knower. What truth is can only ever get known by what evidence is actually available now.

A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later. That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees. When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.
Ah, so "the Truth" is Objective Truth — correspondence with 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'? If you wanted to say that you consider Truth to be Objective, why didn't you just say so?
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:13 pm Transcendent Truth isn't available to us, and never will be. But we can know it sufficiently for all intents and purposes, and regularly do.
I assume "Transcendent Truth" is pretty much the same as Objective Truth, and I quite agree: it is inaccessible to us humans. But we don't know "it" sufficiently, we know the approximation we create for it, which isn't quite the same thing. But, in fairness, that last is nit-picking. 😊
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594933 time=1662562548 user_id=22925]
[quote=Advocate post_id=594922 time=1662560039 user_id=15238]
Transcendent Truth isn't available to us, and never will be. But we can know [b][color=#0000BF]it[/color][/b] sufficiently for all intents and purposes, and regularly do.
[/quote]

I assume "Transcendent Truth" is pretty much the same as Objective Truth, and I quite agree: it is inaccessible to us humans. But we don't know "[color=#0000BF][b]it[/b][/color]" sufficiently, we know the approximation we create for it, which isn't quite the same thing. But, in fairness, that last is nit-picking. 😊
[/quote]

I think we grok the same Truth about truth.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 2:04 pm Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:31 pm A person lives in the forest and every time a particular squirrel squeaks, a tree falls a few seconds later. That person is justified to believe the squirrel causes the tree falling and that belief is necessary and sufficient for everything they're doing, because they don't have the additional evidence that correlation is not causation and they don't have knowledge that a squirrel can't cut down trees. When you add information, of course they're wrong. Inside the scenario given, no could say so and their belief is as close to certain as possible, therefore is truth.
Their belief is nowhere close to certain. It is as close to certainty as possible, but it's misleading to phrase it that way, when the belief you describe falls so very far short of certainty. Yes, it's the best we can do, so we use it as the 'truth', but we know it's a guess.

But is it actually misleading to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...
Post Reply