Things that should really be touched on

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Naddread

I don't think the OP did cover it that's why I brought it up. It covered absolute scepticism that says basically "what do we really know anyway?". This is not what I'm saying. "Things" can be known, but not through the exchange of second hand information. That is just not knowledge no matter how much you want it to be. I'm simply pointing out the difference between knowledge and information. You said ... "so it makes sense to believe it." and that's fine. But it is just that - a belief. No matter how critically minded that information was attained.

Yep... it's sensible to believe it because of the overwhelming evidence. Absolute knowledge is somewhat of a misnomer.

Adept boasts a scientific mindset (science; etymologically "to know") but his claim of the use of logic and empiricism (etymologically "experienced") is backed by examples of information (not knowledge) he has attained through second hand sources and the use of the term "we" as if empiricism does not rely on individual experience.
Unless his examples were things that he experientially derived then he is really not talking about empiricism.

~Naddread~

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Adept

Inert: lacking the ability or strength to move. The sun moves ;)

Motion is relative... or better said... speed is relative while acceleration is a constant. Inertia describes an object that isn't acted on by any force, i.e. something that is not accelerating. We can assume any point of reference to be inert.

Originally Posted by Gem

Motion is relative... or better said... speed is relative while acceleration is a constant. Inertia describes an object that isn't acted on by any force, i.e. something that is not accelerating. We can assume any point of reference to be inert.

Fair enough!

Originally Posted by Adept

As I said, the absolute skeptics should do us all a favor and practice what they preach. Everything you type, hell every coherent thought you have makes you a hypocrite. If you think you can show A and Non-A then by all means, go for it.

Would that be just me then ? No alas not, I am made up of the same stuff as most everyone else. hypocrisy and all, wherever you point your blade, you also point it at yourself. I would have liked to have conversed with you but you do seem to be shutting yourself down to possibility..which is a bit of a shame, because possibility at the expense of fact/logic is so often a massive stumbling block, especially in the realms of subjects that are perhaps more suited to a spiritual discussion forum. Matter of fact/ Logic is fine if its what get's you through the day...and night. I happen to suspect theres more to it than that as do , much to my surprise, the developers the Large Hadron Collider... It's your call , but acknowledging another's hypocrisy is in my experience tant amount to acknowledging ones own hypocrisy. That is to say you detected it, saw it and know what your name for it is.

i am all for chatting with folk on mutual terms..but if I am forbidden by the persons own perception , so be it. arriverderci, au revoir...If I am able, if not, and you remain so closed to others , Goodbye..

Always saddens me, does that...

Originally Posted by Neville

Would that be just me then ? No alas not, I am made up of the same stuff as most everyone else. hypocrisy and all, wherever you point your blade, you also point it at yourself. I would have liked to have conversed with you but you do seem to be shutting yourself down to possibility..which is a bit of a shame, because possibility at the expense of fact/logic is so often a massive stumbling block, especially in the realms of subjects that are perhaps more suited to a spiritual discussion forum. Matter of fact/ Logic is fine if its what get's you through the day...and night. I happen to suspect theres more to it than that as do , much to my surprise, the developers the Large Hadron Collider... It's your call , but acknowledging another's hypocrisy is in my experience tant amount to acknowledging ones own hypocrisy. That is to say you detected it, saw it and know what your name for it is.

i am all for chatting with folk on mutual terms..but if I am forbidden by the persons own perception , so be it. arriverderci, au revoir...If I am able, if not, and you remain so closed to others , Goodbye..

Always saddens me, does that...

I never said it applied to only you, it applies to everyone, especially those trying out absolute skepticism.

I can't begin to describe how unbelievably sick I am of people making outrageous claim and running away when asked to back then up. I will await your argument against the law of identity.

[Faith33]

(just lightening things up)

Who on earth would argue identity? that surely is a default thingy..Individuality being the transitory tangible thing , should we talk of this in 90 years time ? I think not because this me shall not even be here in this form.

God made man in his own image...Sure we all look like God...Once again I think not. Identity is the tool through which creation experiences, In that regard Creation, Creates and in this process we are the Creator and the Creation, Microcosms and Macrocosms...discussion with you would be easier if perhaps you were not so quiet...Spade is a Spade...Especially when we both know Spades can be used for a great many tasks.

Hope33, I am delighted that I could be of some entertainment to you.

Originally Posted by Adept

Where is it specified that it has to be from your senses? Forget that; do you not understand what objectivity is? Objectivity deals with that which is true free of subjectivity, independent belief, etc. Science, and logic, and math, are objective. This means that what is true for one is true for another, such as the earth orbiting the sun.

It is specified by Logic and Reason. If Empiricism is as you said:

Originally Posted by Adept

empirical evidence is simply evidence that involves the senses. You can hear it, feel it, see it, taste it, or smell it

Then the individual has no empirical evidence of the earth orbiting the sun until they partake of the experiments that were undertaken to come to that knowledge. You may have heard from a well respected scientist that the earth orbits the sun, but for you that is not empirical evidence of it. For you it is empirical evidence that a well respected scientist told you that the earth orbits the sun. They are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Adept

Luckily knowledge does not need to be individual experienced. Have you ever "experienced" that 2 + 2 = 4? No, such a thing is impossible, it is not something that you can experience. You can experience doing it but explain how you would experience 2 + 2 = 4? Also, by your "reasoning", colors do not exist since the blind cannot see them. This is the problem with poor reasoning - it leads to absurdity.

Luckily? Factually knowledge does need to be individually experienced otherwise it fails to be knowledge. Unless you can prove to me that I am you then that which you experience remains yours and that which I experience remains mine.

2+2=4 is experienced when it is brought into the experiential world because mathematics is more symbolism representing a truth, it is not knowledge or truth itself. I understand the basic mathematical process therefore I understand that 2 represents 2 units of something, it is not those 2 units itself.

And the colours thing has nothing to do with my reasoning. For a blind man colours do not exist. That does not mean that colours do not exist. For all who have normally functioning eyeballs colours can be experienced. Through reasoning and logic then each individual can determine that colours are objective. The objectivity of something though cannot be known (that is, known experientially) it can only be deduced through logical inference. I have no way of experientially knowing that 6 billion other people see colours. They could be all lying. Logically that seems improbable.

I am not trying to throw out the importance of logic and reason in all this. I'm simply trying to show the difference between true empiricism and logical inference.

Originally Posted by Adept

If you could support this I would be greatly appreciated. As far as I've every heard, empirical evidence is simply evidence that involves the senses. You can hear it, feel it, see it, taste it, or smell it. Does not mean that everyone much experience it separately.

I think I've already addressed this but just to emphasize no one else can do those things for you (hear, feel, see, taste, smell) so please explain how you can attain empirical evidence through someone else.

Originally Posted by Adept

Think back to like 3rd grade - the scientific method, in short, is to observe, hypothesize, be tested, and reach a conclusion. The catch is that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, it must be able to be tested by multiple sources and the same conclusions reach. This is objectivity. If you have trouble understanding objectivity I would actually recommend a philosophy or logic class rather than a science class, they go into it more in theory. If you tell me your general location I would be more than happy to help you find a local, cheap, community college class.

I could take that last part as being patronizing but, hey, I want to remain objective here so I'll simply thank you for your offer but respectfully decline.

Like I said, objectivity can only be deduced through logical inference, it can never be known. Unless it becomes possible to transfer consciousness to other people so I shouldn't say never.

Originally Posted by Adept

For the chicken example, yes, Bob would be claiming to have empirical evidence. This is not knowledge. But once many different scientists ran many different tests and falsified Bob's claim, we would have knowledge that Bob is a liar, or has some sort of hallucinatory mental illness. Meanwhile if they found the same consistent finding as Bob, it would be knowledge that feeding chickens candy allows them to walk on the ceiling. Objectivity.

You keep using the word "we" as if what is experience by another is experienced by you. Logically I doubt this is the case. If it is, perhaps you could give evidence of it but until then...

It would be knowledge but only for those who witnessed the experiments. Not for you. For you it would be a logical inference that the scientists are trustworthy and gave honest testimony to which you could logically and reasonably conclude that chickens when fed candy can walk on the ceiling.

Originally Posted by Adept

No, it is not. As explained there is a difference between knowledge and inference. The sky is what we call blue, what we call the earth does what we call orbit the thing we call the sun. Meanwhile, "consciousness" comes from the brain is a logical inference. We do not know it is true, we do not have the ability to currently discover it is true, but everything we do know suggests it is true so - logically - it is true.

I'm aware of your explanation of the difference between knowledge and inference but like I stated in another post we seem have different definitions of knowledge. Your knowledge allows second hand accounts of things. My knowledge does not. It would appear that this one semantical disagreement is giving birth to the rest for the most part.

~Naddread~

"For a blind man color does not exist". I stopped there, no point in trying to keep up with an absolute skeptic, nor with a solipsist, nor with an absolute subjectivist, whatever it is you are exactly. I could spend the next week pointing out why these positions are illogical, useless, unfalsifiable, etc, but honestly if I wanted to I would have finished my philosophy degree back in college.