more science v religion
Re: more science v religion
[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594937 time=1662562858 user_id=22925]
[quote=Age post_id=594905 time=1662555895 user_id=16237]
Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.
[/quote]
[quote=Advocate post_id=594930 time=1662561113 user_id=15238]
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.
[/quote]
Their belief is nowhere close to [i]certain[/i]. It [u]is[/u] 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 [i]certainty[/i]. 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 [color=#0000BF]misleading[/color] to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...
[/quote]
Based on the best available evidence, however scanty, is always the polar opposite of a guess.
Certainty is relative to purpose. The woods-person doesn't have need of that level of causality, so certain "for all intents and purposes" is in the context of their life, not other unrelated lives. Knowledge can only be judged in relation to Available evidence, and that's bound to the scope of a given use-case.
[quote=Age post_id=594905 time=1662555895 user_id=16237]
Also, and by the way, 'the Truth' IS IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'the truth' can be REFUTED on MANY occasions.
[/quote]
[quote=Advocate post_id=594930 time=1662561113 user_id=15238]
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.
[/quote]
Their belief is nowhere close to [i]certain[/i]. It [u]is[/u] 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 [i]certainty[/i]. 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 [color=#0000BF]misleading[/color] to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...
[/quote]
Based on the best available evidence, however scanty, is always the polar opposite of a guess.
Certainty is relative to purpose. The woods-person doesn't have need of that level of causality, so certain "for all intents and purposes" is in the context of their life, not other unrelated lives. Knowledge can only be judged in relation to Available evidence, and that's bound to the scope of a given use-case.
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am
Re: more science v religion
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.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pm 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...
I'm sorry, I just don't get that. At one end of the spectrum are guesses made without any foundation whatever. We might reasonably describe such guesses as "arbitrary" or even "random". At the other end, we have what our friend calls "the Truth", the only thing that can be correctly described as "certain", even though it's inaccessible to humans. All other guesses lie somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes.
"Certain" is a word we use to artificially inflate our outpourings, to confer upon them the unchallengeability of certainty — unjustifiably.
Re: more science v religion
If, and when, one wants to use the 'mind' word, then I suggest that they have an IRREFUTABLE definition for that word. Otherwise I suggest they just leave that word out altogether.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pmAh, so "the Truth" is Objective Truth — correspondence with 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'?
But I did NOT want to say 'that'.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pm
If you wanted to say that you consider Truth to be Objective, why didn't you just say so?
WHY did you ASSUME that 'that' is what I wanted to say?
And, if you REALLY WANTED to KNOW what I meant by A, or ANY, word, then why not just pose a question, for clarification. Like, for example;
When you use the 'Truth' word, then what do you mean, or are referring to, EXACTLY?
Re: more science v religion
You are MISSING the POINT.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:21 pmThe kind of thing god is does not admit of justification at any level of certainty. That's what faith is; belief without justification.Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:55 pmBut 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.
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.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?Very unnecessary words being added here. Again, from my perspective, only.So, 'the truth', God does exist, and, God does not exist, are BOTH instances of the one Truth, correct?
If no, then WHY NOT?
EVERY one who BELIEVES some 'thing' BELIEVES that they DO HAVE the 'justification' for 'it'.
For example, EVERY 'thing' you BELIEVE is true you ALSO BELIEVE that you have the 'justification' for 'it', correct?
If no, then WHY BELIEVE 'it' is true, to begin with?
To me, BELIEVING ANY thing is INSUFFICIENT, and COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. Besides only one or two of 'you', posters, here, the rest BELIEVE that they HAVE TO BELIEVE 'things'.
And, I as you rightly POINT OUT here, EVERY time I have sought 'justification' for that BELIEF of theirs, they have NEVER provided ANY sufficient NOR real 'justification'.
WHEN is 'now'?
If some 'thing' is thought, said, or written, and 'it' can NOT be refuted, FOREVER, then 'it' is just 'thee Truth'.
How one arrives at that 'certainty' of KNOWING, for sure, that 'it' can NEVER be refuted, Is a KNOWN process, by some of us.
'truth' and 'Truth' are TWO VERY DIFFERENT 'things'.
'evidence' can back up and support 'truths', but 'truths' can be False, Wrong, or Incorrect, and thus REFUTED.
'Truth', however, NEEDS 'proof', of which 'evidence' is NOT. It is IRREFUTABLE 'proof' that makes 'Truth', IRREFUTABLE, FOREVER MORE.
Well what a complete and utter WASTE OF TIME, and ENERGY, as some would say.
Re: more science v religion
In case you have STILL NOT GRASP 'this'.
To me, 'Truth' and 'truth' are TWO VERY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 'things'.
To me, 'truth' is NOT even really worth mentioning and discussing. 'Truth', however, is a VERY DIFFERENT 'thing'.
Have you GRASPED 'this' NOW?
Do you comprehend and understand what I am SAYING HERE?
So-called 'evidence' is usually NOT even worth LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING.
One could gather, for example, ten different people, expose them to some scenario, and then ask them, What happened? You could get ten DIFFERENT versions of 'what happened', with each one claiming to have 'evidence' for their story or their view of things.
'Proof', however, is A VERY DIFFERENT 'thing'. 'Proof' can NOT be REFUTED.
WHEREABOUTS does this, SUPPOSEDLY, happen?
Or, are you just MAKING UP some STORY, in order to 'try to' 'justify' the BELIEF that you currently HOLD to be true?
If a person BELIEVES that to be true, or even BELIEVES that they are 'justified' to BELIEVE that 'that' is true, then that person is even MORE STUPID than the tree, let alone the squirrel.
You are just explaining the STUPID way 'you', human beings, individually, and collectively, over the years have 'tried to' 'justify' the BELIEFS that 'you' so dearly HOLD to be true.
You are, however, providing REALLY GOOD REASONS here WHY it would be MUCH BETTER for 'you', human beings, to STOP ASSUMING and BELIEVING 'things' are true, when 'you' do NOT YET have thee ACTUAL PROOF for them.
Oh, and by the way, once you obtain thee ACTUAL PROOF, then you no longer NEED to BELIEVE nor ASSUME them to be true.
With PROOF, they are JUST True, FOREVER MORE.
Which is WHY I SAY and CLAIM 'truth' is not even worthy of being LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED here. Especially considering that this here is a A PHILOSOPHY FORUM.
Re: more science v religion
YET 'you' two speak as though 'you' KNOW that 'it' exists.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pmI assume "Transcendent Truth" is pretty much the same as Objective Truth, and I quite agree: it is inaccessible to us humans.
In case 'you' have NOT YET NOTICED, if some 'thing' is INACCESSIBLE to 'you', human beings, then 'you', OBVIOUSLY, would NOT KNOW if 'it' even exists or not.
What 'Objective Truth' IS, EXACTLY, and how 'It' is OBTAINED, EXACTLY, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to KNOW.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pm 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.
Just for your information.
Re: more science v religion
It never ceases to amaze that when 'you', adult human beings, think or believe some 'thing' is 'true', then it, automatically, becomes and is 'the Truth'. But when ANY one express 'a truth', which does NOT fit in with one's OWN 'truth', then it is the "OTHER" one's 'truth' that is NOT 'the Truth'.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:58 pmI think we grok the same Truth about truth.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pmI 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.
As example above here, ONCE AGAIN.
Re: more science v religion
To me, anyway, it is VERY MISLEADING to describe your best guesses, assumptions, and/or theories as being 'true' or being 'the truth'.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pmTheir 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.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.
But is it actually misleading to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...
There is ONLY One Truth, and that is the One, which is IRREFUTABLE. ALL other so-called 'truths' are just what 'you', human beings, think, assume, or believe is true.
And, if what is claimed could be REFUTED, one day, then WHY even bother expressing 'it' as being 'true' or 'a truth'?
Re: more science v religion
LOL No matter how much, supposed, 'evidence' one has for some 'thing', that does NOT make the 'thing' 'true', NOR the polar opposite of 'a guess'.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:35 pmBased on the best available evidence, however scanty, is always the polar opposite of a guess.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pmTheir 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.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.
But is it actually misleading to describe our best guess as "truth"? I'm not sure...
The claim that the sun REALLY DOES revolve around the earth, which was based upon ALL the so-called 'best evidence', available, "at the time", the Fact that 'that' was NOT 'true', and was, in Fact, just 'a guess' can NOT be REFUTED.
I would LOVE to SEE you provide AN EXAMPLE for your CLAIM here "advocate".
But 'knowledge' can be JUDGED in relation to, or BASED UPON, ACTUAL PROOF, instead of just so-called 'evidence'.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pm Certainty is relative to purpose. The woods-person doesn't have need of that level of causality, so certain "for all intents and purposes" is in the context of their life, not other unrelated lives. Knowledge can only be judged in relation to Available evidence, and that's bound to the scope of a given use-case.
WHY would 'you', "advocate", ASSUME or BELIEVE that 'knowledge' can ONLY be judged in relation to 'Available' (with a big 'A') evidence?
Re: more science v religion
Just to be absolutely CLEAR here, the CLAIM that 'the Truth' is INACCESSIBLE to human beings, is just 'a, or your, truth'. Which, again, has NO ACTUAL bearing on what is or could be ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:56 pmAdvocate 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.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pm 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...I'm sorry, I just don't get that. At one end of the spectrum are guesses made without any foundation whatever. We might reasonably describe such guesses as "arbitrary" or even "random". At the other end, we have what our friend calls "the Truth", the only thing that can be correctly described as "certain", even though it's inaccessible to humans.
Is this CLEAR among the "posters" here?
Or, are 'you' wanting to CLAIM that it is an IRREFUTABLE Truth that 'the Truth' is NOT ACCESSIBLE to human beings?
To me, it seems like "advocate" is just CONFLATING 'things' here with completely UNNECESSARY wording, which "pattern chaser" is 'trying to' CLEAR UP. But while doing this "pattern chaser" is 'trying to' make the CLAIM that 'the Absolute, Irrefutable, Transcendent, or Objective Truth' can NOT be KNOWN, by ANY one, FOREVER MORE.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:55 pm All other guesses lie somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes.
"Certain" is a word we use to artificially inflate our outpourings, to confer upon them the unchallengeability of certainty — unjustifiably.
Which would either be 'thee Truth', and so CONTRADICT the CLAIM, or just 'their own truth', which would just be a guess that could be Wrong.
Re: more science v religion
[quote=Age post_id=595020 time=1662598433 user_id=16237]
[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594944 time=1662566177 user_id=22925]
<wrote stuff>
[/quote]
Using the word Truth to mean only that which is ultimately irrefutable is to make the word worthless. There will never be a time when we have all available evidence about anything, and therefore the word Truth could not be applied to anything we know, of any level of certainty.
[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594944 time=1662566177 user_id=22925]
<wrote stuff>
[/quote]
Using the word Truth to mean only that which is ultimately irrefutable is to make the word worthless. There will never be a time when we have all available evidence about anything, and therefore the word Truth could not be applied to anything we know, of any level of certainty.
Re: more science v religion
WHY do you CLAIM this?
Using the word 'Truth' is just used to separate 'that word' from the other word 'truth'. They, after all, OBVIOUSLY have VERY DIFFERENT meanings from my perspective anyway.
LOL Do you REALLY STILL NOT YET UNDERSTAND what I have been POINTING OUT and SAYING in regards to 'evidence' AND 'proof'?
Also, your CLAIM here that "There will NEVER be a time ...". SHOWS and REVEALS just how CLOSED 'you' REALLY ARE.
'you' are SO CLOSED here "advocate" that 'you' did NOT even NOTICE the ABSURD CONTRADICTION in your BELIEF and CLAIM here.
Furthermore, WHY do 'you' NOT look at and discuss what I have been saying and pointing out here, instead of just rephrasing your OWN current BELIEFS?
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am
Re: more science v religion
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pm Ah, so "the Truth" is Objective Truth — correspondence with 'that which actually, and mind-independently, is'?
I'm sorry that "mind" does not meet with your approval. Happily, in this case, it's role is peripheral, at best. "Mind-independently" is a common abbreviation used in such discussions as these, to describe how Objective Truth is independent of the thoughts, ideas, beliefs and opinions of any human (or any other intelligent being).
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:51 pm If you wanted to say that you consider Truth to be Objective, why didn't you just say so?
I'm sorry if I erred. I wasn't assuming anything, but only trying to understand your words and your position. My best guess as to your intended meaning was as I described. Happily, you are here to correct my misapprehensions.
I thought I had done exactly that...?
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am
Re: more science v religion
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.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:00 pm 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...
So we are in agreement, on this point, at least. [Except, perhaps, for your concept of the "One Truth", which I am still unclear about. ]Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:39 am To me, anyway, it is VERY MISLEADING to describe your best guesses, assumptions, and/or theories as being 'true' or being 'the truth'.
There is ONLY One Truth, and that is the One, which is IRREFUTABLE. ALL other so-called 'truths' are just what 'you', human beings, think, assume, or believe is true.
And, if what is claimed could be REFUTED, one day, then WHY even bother expressing 'it' as being 'true' or 'a truth'?
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am
Re: more science v religion
Oo, goody! Many philosophers have been puzzled, over the millennia, about what Objective Truth is, and now you have discovered it. Please tell us what it is, and how we might know that it is true, according to the criterion of Objectivity? Thanks.