ethical suppression of speech

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Advocate »

>>Knowledge is justified belief. [/quote]

>Could 'knowledge' be ANY thing else? Or, is what you say here irrefutable true, to you?

It can be anything you want it to be, to you. this definition is necessary and sufficient for all philosophical purposes, just in case you can find any value in that.

>But your actual examples do NOT actually logically follow on from this.

a) You're wrong
b) I don't care to debate you, ever. I have actionable certainty that nothing meaningful will ever come from it.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

The standard definition of knowlege is justified true belief but I do not use it because belief and
knowledge are not and can never mean the same thing so that definition for me is an invalid one

My definition of knowledge is that which is taken to be true and which can be demonstrated to be true
And there are two ways in which a truth statement can be demonstrated to be true : logic or evidence
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
I would actually say that the human beings known as or who call themselves scientists are just as susceptible to their own biases as other human beings
The ones that are called scientist just pretend or believe they are not and some others actually believe this
Do you have any evidence for this ?

Why do you adult human beings continually make up hypotheses when the actual Truth is HERE for ALL to SEE ?
The actual truth is obviously not known to those who have to make up hypotheses instead to determine what it is

WHEN science is done by those who are Truly OPEN and NOT by those who PRETEND they ARE
Do you have any evidence for this ?
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Advocate »

[quote=surreptitious57 post_id=471336 time=1600168245 user_id=9490]
The standard definition of knowlege is justified true belief but I do not use it because belief and
knowledge are not and can never mean the same thing so that definition for me is an invalid one

My definition of knowledge is that which is taken to be true and which can be demonstrated to be true
And there are two ways in which a truth statement can be demonstrated to be true : logic or evidence
[/quote]

The truth of s belief is what knowledge is a pointer toward, it cannot be part of the definition of knowledge itself. It's trying to include a set inside itself, which cannot work in reality. Justified belief is both necessary and sufficient.

Logic is evidence of the semantic and necessary kind. Empirical measurement ("evidence" in your formula) is is pure replication of measurement - "just works"/things keep happening the same way.

As for believe, just as justified belief is knowledge, unjustified belief is faith. Surely you admit belief can be either justified or unjustified!?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

Advocate wrote:
Surely you admit belief can be either justified or unjustified ?
Yes it can but belief can never be knowledge and here is why
Belief is a faith position with insufficient supporting evidence / knowledge is a non faith position with sufficient supporting evidence
Belief is opinion based and knowledge is fact based and they can never be the same because opinion and fact can never be the same

I never actually use the word believe but think instead so there are things I know and things I think I know but there is nothing I believe
Very often the words believe and think are regarded as synonymous in everyday conversation and I have absolutely no problem with this
But I personally have no need to use the word believe even in a general sense so I just avoid it completely other than on forums like this
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Advocate »

[quote=surreptitious57 post_id=471403 time=1600193738 user_id=9490]
[quote=Advocate]

Surely you admit belief can be either justified or unjustified [b]?[/b]
[/quote]

Yes it can but belief can never be knowledge and here is why
Belief is a faith position with insufficient supporting evidence / knowledge is a non faith position with sufficient supporting evidence
Belief is opinion based and knowledge is fact based and they can never be the same because opinion and fact can never be the same

I never actually use the word believe but think instead so there are things I know and things I think I know but there is nothing I believe
Very often the words believe and think are regarded as synonymous in everyday conversation and I have absolutely no problem with this
But I personally have no need to use the word believe even in a general sense so I just avoid it completely other than on forums like this
[/quote]

That division raises more questions than it answers because it eliminates the mechanism for deciding where the line between opinion and fact is drawn. It presumes all facts are known to be so in an agreed manner.

Using "justified belief" gets straight to the point of whether an idea in someone's heads of appropriately supported according to the needs of an explicit purpose. (justified enough for what?)
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

Advocate wrote:
That division raises more questions than it answers because it eliminates the mechanism for deciding where the line between opinion and fact is drawn
The line between opinion and fact is actually very clearly drawn : opinion is subjective truth which does not have to be demonstrated as it is
simply what someones thinks / believes . Whereas fact is objective truth which has to be demonstrated as it is what someone actually knows
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:16 pm
Age wrote:
I would actually say that the human beings known as or who call themselves scientists are just as susceptible to their own biases as other human beings
The ones that are called scientist just pretend or believe they are not and some others actually believe this
Do you have any evidence for this ?
Yes.
surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:16 pm
Age wrote:Why do you adult human beings continually make up hypotheses when the actual Truth is HERE for ALL to SEE ?
The actual truth is obviously not known to those who have to make up hypotheses instead to determine what it is
Ah okay. This appears to be what is actually True.

Maybe if those who, supposedly, 'have to' make up hypotheses tried some thing else other than what they have been currently doing, then they also might actually find out just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY is to RECOGNIZE and SEE what thee Truth actually IS.
surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:16 pm
Age wrote:WHEN science is done by those who are Truly OPEN and NOT by those who PRETEND they ARE
Do you have any evidence for this ?
Yes.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
I would actually say that the human beings known as or who call themselves scientists are just as susceptible to their own biases as other human beings
The ones that are called scientist just pretend or believe they are not and some others actually believe this
What evidence do you have for this ?

Maybe if those who supposedly have to make up hypotheses tried some thing else other than what they have been currently doing then
they also might actually find out just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY is to RECOGNIZE and SEE what thee Truth actually IS
What is the something else they could try ?

WHEN science is done by those who are Truly OPEN and NOT by those who PRETEND they ARE
What evidence do you have for this ?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:19 pm
Age wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:59 am
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:19 pm>>Knowledge is justified belief.
>Could 'knowledge' be ANY thing else? Or, is what you say here irrefutable true, to you?
It can be anything you want it to be, to you.
PERFECT.

So, what 'it' is, to you, could have been anything you wanted it to be, correct?
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:19 pm this definition is necessary and sufficient for all philosophical purposes, just in case you can find any value in that.
The actual "value" I found in that is that that definition is what IS true, to you.

Now, what do you mean by 'philosophical purposes'?

What does the word 'philosophy' actually mean, to you?
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:19 pm
Age wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:59 am>But your actual examples do NOT actually logically follow on from this.
a) You're wrong
Okay.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:19 pmb) I don't care to debate you, ever. I have actionable certainty that nothing meaningful will ever come from it.
I do NOT do 'debate', anyway.

Because of what 'debate' actually IS, and causes, this a huge reason WHY 'you', human beings, are living in the confused, conflicted, and messed up state that you are in now, when this is being written.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:44 am
Age wrote:
I would actually say that the human beings known as or who call themselves scientists are just as susceptible to their own biases as other human beings
The ones that are called scientist just pretend or believe they are not and some others actually believe this
What evidence do you have for this ?
The words of the ones known as "scientists" and the words of the "others" who actually believe that.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:44 am
Age wrote: Maybe if those who supposedly have to make up hypotheses tried some thing else other than what they have been currently doing then
they also might actually find out just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY is to RECOGNIZE and SEE what thee Truth actually IS
What is the something else they could try ?
LOOKING AT 'things' differently.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:44 am
Age wrote: WHEN science is done by those who are Truly OPEN and NOT by those who PRETEND they ARE
What evidence do you have for this ?
Plenty.

But as I have previously stated; I am in processing of learning how to communicate better my observations and views.

Also, when you are, if you become, Truly OPEN, then you will SEE what thee actual evidence IS in how the actual Truth is ALREADY KNOWN.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by RCSaunders »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:10 pm The standard definition of knowlege is justified true belief but I do not use it because belief and
knowledge are not and can never mean the same thing so that definition for me is an invalid one

My definition of knowledge is that which is taken to be true and which can be demonstrated to be true
And there are two ways in which a truth statement can be demonstrated to be true : logic or evidence
I think you have confused the terms belief and faith. Outside their superstitions, what most mean by their beliefs are, "what they take to be true," based on either evidence or reasoning from that evidence. In most cases, I readily admit, for most people the, "evidence," is doubtful and the reasoning totally spurious, and what they call belief should really be called faith.

I'm not criticizing. I very much agree with your reluctance to use the term belief, because it is very badly misused. But to say one does not believe anything implies a kind of nihilism, that one does not hold anything to be true, which I'm sure is not your intention, is it?
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Advocate »

[quote=RCSaunders post_id=471677 time=1600340268 user_id=16196]
[quote=surreptitious57 post_id=471336 time=1600168245 user_id=9490]
The standard definition of knowlege is justified true belief but I do not use it because belief and
knowledge are not and can never mean the same thing so that definition for me is an invalid one

My definition of knowledge is that which is taken to be true and which can be demonstrated to be true
And there are two ways in which a truth statement can be demonstrated to be true : logic or evidence
[/quote]
I think you have confused the terms [i][i]belief[/i][/i] and [i]faith[/i]. Outside their superstitions, what most mean by their beliefs are, "what they take to be true," based on either evidence or reasoning from that evidence. In most cases, I readily admit, for most people the, "evidence," is doubtful and the reasoning totally spurious, and what they call belief should really be called faith.

I'm not criticizing. I very much agree with your reluctance to use the term belief, because it is very badly misused. But to say one does not believe anything implies a kind of nihilism, that one does not hold anything to be true, which I'm sure is not your intention, is it?
[/quote]

Belief is salience, with (knowledge) or without (faith) justification. That's an ordinary definition which is necessary and sufficient for all philosophical questions. The contention is not that it could potentially be useful if you argue about it and fuck with it for a while. The only meaningful debate possible is whether it meets this contention, not what other people mean by it, including yourselves. You can take it or leave it but by rejecting it without testing it you've ensured the reality of the contention lies forever beyond your understanding. And i mean the Royal "you".
Post Reply