the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are.

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are.
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »

Posted by Krypton on Sep-01-2005 23:28:

quote:
Originally posted by TheNobleEu
I'm quite willing to hear your arguments, please humour me by repeating them (please consider yours within the context of the documents I already posted).

And feel free to use the bible at length in its original language.

So you're saying you absorbed the close-to-a-dozen documents I referenced last week?

To some extent, yes indeed.

Of course I have. I have several colleagues that will teach a class in how the bible can't be used for anything resembling an historical source (or as anything other than a religious document) and then right afterward go to the shul.

Faith doesn't = stupidty. But in some cases it raises fundamental questions about someone's competences.

-N

finally, someone who is on my side.

oh man, the debates span lengths and lengths of pages and time. lets see what a search will do.

i suggest a look at this thread.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=oxygen

thats where i put the most effort into argueing and had the most time to research and post, as did my fellow debaters over the christmas break.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Sep-02-2005 00:31:

quote:
Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
finally, someone who is on my side.

oh man, the debates span lengths and lengths of pages and time. lets see what a search will do.

i suggest a look at this thread.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=oxygen

thats where i put the most effort into argueing and had the most time to research and post, as did my fellow debaters over the christmas break.

You might want to re-read his post.

And why link a post in which you had no valid argument pertaining to 02 levels to begin with?

A bit confusing.

Posted by Krypton on Sep-02-2005 13:02:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You might want to re-read his post.

And why link a post in which you had no valid argument pertaining to 02 levels to begin with?

A bit confusing.

invalid according to your view on things? because u say its invalid doesnt make it invalid. why is it invalid? you already have a preconcieved view on what your going to accept as true. because you choose to relegate god to a myth, whatever i say, no matter how convincing will mean nothing to you. but, still i argue.

Posted by occrider on Sep-02-2005 13:10:

quote:
Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
invalid according to your view on things? because u say its invalid doesnt make it invalid. why is it invalid? you already have a preconcieved view on what your going to accept as true. because you choose to relegate god to a myth, whatever i say, no matter how convincing will mean nothing to you. but, still i argue.

It's invalid because you have no scientific validity behind your arguments ... not even any empirical evidence to refute Drug_Tito's rebuttal. If what you had to say was backed by any legitimate studies people might take you more seriously. Instead you attempt to use science as far as it takes you, and then you abandon it when it starts to stray from your alternative hypothesis ... if it can even be considered one.

Or do you have a scientific case for oxygen not being as toxic at higher pressures? As a diver, I can tell you that that's really quite silly.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Sep-02-2005 13:58:

quote:
Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
invalid according to your view on things?

No, invalid according to a scientific standpoint to have valid evidence to support assertions. I just happen to merely share that view. I have used scientific reasoning to refute your points an endless number of times in the past, along with others.

Problem with validity?

quote:
because u say its invalid doesnt make it invalid. why is it invalid?

Logic and scientific rationale says you're quite invalid. Drug_Tito's statement is quite correct and you have posed no possible natural answer to his reply. As Occ stated, you only use science up to a point when it agrees with your statements, then discard or blatantly abuse it when it doesn't.

It's tedious and tiresome. If you want to discuss scientific reasoning, then do so. But stop abusing it now. It's not merely just an insult to me, but to every scientist who's devoted their lives to understanding the natural world around them.

If you're still not understanding me, think of it this way. Let's take an engineering company that's really good at building bridges. All of their bridges are structurally sound and very strong. They last for years on end. You come along and tell them that not only are their bridges made of Nerf, but that they've done it all wrong for years. You then try to tell them that they don't know what the hell they're doing, never thought of doing it differently, and are ignorant of looking at other possibilities of building a bridge.

So they ask you politely how else they could do it. But since you yourself have never built a bridge before, you show them some blueprints. They examine your blueprints and notice numbers and equations that do not add up in any manner - the structural integrity would fall instantly the moment a car drives over it. They build a model on a smaller scale in accordance to your numbers and show you just how unstable and invalid your calculations were, and show you just how easily the bridge collapses.

But you merely tell them it's bullshit, they're wrong and you're right. You run off telling them they are so ignorant of your views.

Now who the fuck do you think the logically-thinking man would believe here? This is your problem, along with every other creationist I have ever debated with. You search so desperately for answers that are congruent with your pre-conceived beliefs that have no scientific validity in the first place. How the fuck would you ever expect to have a scientifically valid notion hold water to a spiritual notion that can never have scientific validity in the first place?

I don't give a fuck what you believe in, Trance, nor do I want you to give a fuck what I believe in when it comes to scientific reasoning. This is not the place for belief. If you have no evidence to support your notions, it's invalid and cannot be science. Please try to understand this.

quote:
you already have a preconcieved view on what your going to accept as true.

My pre-conceived notion took many years with a wealth of evidence to support my conclusions. I would have no notion of any sort without valid evidence. You really should try and do the same some time in your life.

quote:
because you choose to relegate god to a myth, whatever i say, no matter how convincing will mean nothing to you. but, still i argue.

Argue all you want. The fact that you still argue does not entail any of your points prior to were scientifically rationale. Indeed, I think we've made a pretty obvious case otherwise over the years.

And whoever said God was a myth? I'm not an atheist. More of a deist, really. But whatever beliefs I have of the supernatural are unsupported and scientifically invalid, and I freely admit that at every given chance when someone asks me about my spirituality. To hold such beliefs in spirituality in methodological naturalistic philosophy would be erroneous indeed.

But by all means, keep trying to argue. I cannot help your shortsightedness. You still fail to grasp the simple fact that a supernatural deity of any sort cannot be tested, retested, observed, and falsified and can therefore not be held in a scientific view in any way. Until you understand this most obvious, basic point, you're still going to rant in utter silliness.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Sep-02-2005 15:45:

quote:
Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
finally, someone who is on my side.

Eheh, that doesn't really sound like he's on your side.

quote:
oh man, the debates span lengths and lengths of pages and time. lets see what a search will do.

i suggest a look at this thread.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=oxygen

thats where i put the most effort into argueing and had the most time to research and post, as did my fellow debaters over the christmas break.

Yes, I suggest everybody looks at the thread and sees how you've conjured up more nonsense than an average Macguyver episode and haven't responded to any objections raised regarding those nonsenses. Now that I read it your logic looks like a Monthy Python episode.

quote:
BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...

Posted by Subey on Sep-02-2005 17:29:

Tito,

Which do you think is the most inefectual? The War on Drugs or the War on Creationism?

I stopped keeping track a long time ago, but isn't this sortie number 43 against TvD? Good luck on your next drug interdiction flight, and don't forget to say hello to your wingmen for me.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Sep-02-2005 17:46:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
Tito,

Which do you think is the most inefectual? The War on Drugs or the War on Creationism?

I stopped keeping track a long time ago, but isn't this sortie number 43 against TvD? Good luck on your next drug interdiction flight, and don't forget to say hello to your wingmen for me.

Both are partly ineffectual regarding the fact that there will always be idiots who get overdosed and brainwashed wackos who wouldn't believe that the earth was round if it were written in the bible differently. But they are both effective in a way that they reduce the number of such people. You can just as easily say that police is useless because people are still killing each other and speeding on highways. But when you look at what sort of anarchy happens when the police force stops functioning, you see that such logic is incorrect.

Posted by occrider on Sep-02-2005 17:47:

Posted by Subey on Sep-03-2005 17:29:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
with the intent of achieving what exactly?

Freeing you.

But first you have see the prison before you can conceive of escaping it.

I'll use a simplistic example to illustrate the nature of the prison.

**
You need to make a choice. Your cursory examination of the choice suggests 3 potential conclusions. Thinking 3 heads are better than one, you enlist the aid of 3 people to help you.

The 3 logical people conclude 3 different things. We will label these conclusions a,b and c.

[key question] How do you choose between the three then?

[Classic answer] *you* evaluate them.
[Deflection] *you* already have, you are one of the three people, yours is b.
[Classic action] *you* you choose b.

[Personal Bias Fallacy] There is no reason to choose b over a and c. The fact that *you* came to that conclusion in no way makes it more valid than the other ones. If anything your conclusion 66% likely the wrong one.

The point of this example.
1) Recognize the Personal Bias Fallacy 2) Once you recognize it then you can figure out ways to escape it.

**
To hammer in the point in an example that doesn't *threaten* personal bias imagine the following example: Jerry Seinfeld, Donald Trump and Ralph Nader walk into a room. Each is asked what is the first thing that they see?

JS: Isn't it funny how...
DT: I could make money here if I...
RN: That's a dangerous use of...

Everyone sees different things. Old School Logic is a war where you argue "what I see is the most accurate because...", Prison Break Logic is "What do you see that I can't?"

Posted by Renegade on Sep-03-2005 18:17:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
Freeing you.

But first you have see the prison before you can conceive of escaping it.

Haha, oh man...

Subey, you seem to see yourself as occupying a higher intellectual plain than everyone else on the board, but based on the many senseless ramblings of yours that I've read, I'm not so sure that this arrogance is justified. Maybe you should try examining the merits of the opinions put forward by others instead of proffering the same knee-jerk, psuedo-philosophical tangents about the subjectivity of perception that you do in absolutely every topic you post in?

quote:
Everyone sees different things.

No they don't. We're discussing the merits of religious fundamentalism here and whether objective evidence supports such views. The evidence offered by the posters here against creationism and in favour of naturalistic science is evidence that is observable, demonstrable and repeatable for anyone willing to look into it. If you have a problem with any of the conclusions reached by any of the posters in here, perhaps you could draw upon your clearly masterful comprehension of scientific theory and explain why their conclusions are wrong and / or how the evidence they are deriving these conclusions from is flawed? What you seem to be forgetting here is that science is a philosophical doctrine whose epistemological basis is that of observable phenomena. If people genuinely see different things, then I wonder if you could explain how scientific consensus is ever reached? I wonder if you could explain how so many individuals, well-studied in the philosophy of empiricism, could have come to such uninimous agreements on the nature of the evidence on offer and of the conclusions that must necessarily be drawn from that evidence, if they're all seeing that evidence through unique, subjective, perception-contorting epistemological filters?

The notion that two ideas are inherently equal is bullshit. It's not a matter of two sides seeing different things, it's a matter of one side seeing the world for that which it is and the other side willfully ignoring any part of the observable world that doesn't conform to their own preconceptions as to how this world should, in their opinion, operate. If you want to debate the evidence or the conclusions reached in this thread on their own merits, then I'm happy to do that. If you want to debate the merits of the philosophy of science, then I'm happy to do that too. If you want to stand at the back berating us all with baseless, pseudo-philosophical platitudes, then don't expect a warm response. You are not tapped into a higher plain of consciousness, you appear to have an aversion to intellectual integrity and a genuine fear of knowledge.

Posted by Elroy79 on Sep-03-2005 18:38:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
...

Everyone sees different things. Old School Logic is a war where you argue "what I see is the most accurate because...", Prison Break Logic is "What do you see that I can't?"

BULL PUCKEY!

All you've succeeded in showing anyone is that you can't handle REAL logic so instead you depend on half-baked attempts to obfuscate the issue to disguise the fact that your point of view is usually based on NOTHING.

Yours is a common tactic used by liars, demagogues, con-artists and pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself to hide the fact that you're too lazy or too incompetent to properly justify your point of view. If all you have to contribute to this board is worthless muttering about real and imagined biases, I suggest you pack your bags and get out because that kind of nonsense isn't worth the bandwidth it took to upload your so-called ideas to the server.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Sep-03-2005 19:05:

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Sep-03-2005 19:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
Haha, oh man...

Subey, you seem to see yourself as occupying a higher intellectual plain than everyone else on the board, but based on the many senseless ramblings of yours that I've read, I'm not so sure that this arrogance is justified. Maybe you should try examining the merits of the opinions put forward by others instead of proffering the same knee-jerk, psuedo-philosophical tangents about the subjectivity of perception that you do in absolutely every topic you post in?

No they don't. We're discussing the merits of religious fundamentalism here and whether objective evidence supports such views. The evidence offered by the posters here against creationism and in favour of naturalistic science is evidence that is observable, demonstrable and repeatable for anyone willing to look into it. If you have a problem with any of the conclusions reached by any of the posters in here, perhaps you could draw upon your clearly masterful comprehension of scientific theory and explain why their conclusions are wrong and / or how the evidence they are deriving these conclusions from is flawed? What you seem to be forgetting here is that science is a philosophical doctrine whose epistemological basis is that of observable phenomena. If people genuinely see different things, then I wonder if you could explain how scientific consensus is ever reached? I wonder if you could explain how so many individuals, well-studied in the philosophy of empiricism, could have come to such uninimous agreements on the nature of the evidence on offer and of the conclusions that must necessarily be drawn from that evidence, if they're all seeing that evidence through unique, subjective, perception-contorting epistemological filters?

The notion that two ideas are inherently equal is bullshit. It's not a matter of two sides seeing different things, it's a matter of one side seeing the world for that which it is and the other side willfully ignoring any part of the observable world that doesn't conform to their own preconceptions as to how this world should, in their opinion, operate. If you want to debate the evidence or the conclusions reached in this thread on their own merits, then I'm happy to do that. If you want to debate the merits of the philosophy of science, then I'm happy to do that too. If you want to stand at the back berating us all with baseless, pseudo-philosophical platitudes, then don't expect a warm response. You are not tapped into a higher plain of consciousness, you appear to have an aversion to intellectual integrity and a genuine fear of knowledge.

Spot on, once again. Subey, you want to argue the merits of creationism/ID vs. evolution, then let's discuss the evidence supporting both NOW. Don't obfuscate, don't dodge, put forth evidence to support the assertions. Your rambling is cute, but it does not in any way support the notion that the argument of creationism has equal scientific validity with evolution.

Discuss the validity now, if this argument of creationism has merit. Science demands validity done with observed, tested, and repeated, and falsified results. Argue on this basis with creationism if you want both sides to hold equal merit in scientific terms. Otherwise, you're rambling.

Posted by Subey on Sep-04-2005 14:53:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
such logic is incorrect.

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I am starting to see the pointlessness of this debate.

Progress

The problem is that you are still too focused on the details.
You can sum up the creationist position with 6 words:

"They are anchored to the bible"

BUTT more importantly, instead of focusing on them, the important issue is to ask yourself why has it taken you so long to realize this?

Or to put it bluntly, could the mechanism that blinded you to this obvious truth be the same mechanism that blinds them?

Posted by Subey on Sep-04-2005 14:57:

quote:
Originally posted by Elroy79
BULL PUCKEY!

All you've succeeded in showing anyone is that you can't handle REAL logic so instead you depend on half-baked attempts to obfuscate the issue to disguise the fact that your point of view is usually based on NOTHING.

Yours is a common tactic used by liars, demagogues, con-artists and pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself to hide the fact that you're too lazy or too incompetent to properly justify your point of view. If all you have to contribute to this board is worthless muttering about real and imagined biases, I suggest you pack your bags and get out because that kind of nonsense isn't worth the bandwidth it took to upload your so-called ideas to the server.

You seem to have a problem with my View? I will infer that you disagree with my view on Creatonism. I will repeat it.

"Creationists are anchored to the bible"

Would you agree? If you do then you are apparently agreeing with a "liars, demagogues, con-artists and pseudo-intellectuals". I wouldn't want to keep company with them...

Posted by Subey on Sep-04-2005 15:08:

Renegade, I appreciate the Ram Blings remark, as an Aries there is no greater honour. Opus thank you for seconding it.

Renegade, please solve the following:

You are in a room, there is a mirror in that room. You look in that mirror and you think "I am fat".

Please provide me with a logic test that will determine if you are in fact fat or if you suffer from anorexia.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Sep-04-2005 17:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
Progress

The problem is that you are still too focused on the details.
You can sum up the creationist position with 6 words:

"They are anchored to the bible"

BUTT more importantly, instead of focusing on them, the important issue is to ask yourself why has it taken you so long to realize this?

Or to put it bluntly, could the mechanism that blinded you to this obvious truth be the same mechanism that blinds them?

Yes, but you see, it's not the problem of teaching a marginal group of fundamentalists that their worldview is incorrect, because that obviously won't have much success. The thing is that there are many people who are not die-hard creationists but give the idea of creationism some merit simply because of their lack of knowledge on the subject. Those people can be swayed if they're shown that one idea makes sense and the other one doesn't. Secondary, those people have children like TvD who have been convinced from their birth that the other side is wrong and will burn in hell. Hopefully some of those children who are more intelligent can be swayed if the very least to the point where they at least poise some scepticism about their current worldview. That worldview is largely based on bias and misinterpretation, so I feel the need at the very least to point out the errors in their thinking. If they still want to hang on to creationism, well, there's nothing more I can do, but I do think that it should be pointed out to them where and if their logic is faulty.

And finally, if we hadn't pressed this debate over and over, we never would have gotten to that hilarious ionized hydrogen explanation. When I read that it really made my day

Posted by Renegade on Sep-05-2005 07:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
Renegade, I appreciate the Ram Blings remark, as an Aries there is no greater honour. Opus thank you for seconding it.

Renegade, please solve the following:

You are in a room, there is a mirror in that room. You look in that mirror and you think "I am fat".

Please provide me with a logic test that will determine if you are in fact fat or if you suffer from anorexia.

Alright, first allow me - if I may - to break down the epistemological foundation you've espoused in this thread and countless others, then I will proceed to answer your question.

Firstly, you appear to have adopted a psuedo-Cartesian stance by positing a schism between the "world-in-itself" (that is, the noumenal world) and the "mind". From this ultra-skeptical, rationalist world-view, you're attempting to argue that there is no absolute epistemological foundation from which truth about the noumenal world can be obtained, because all knowledge of this world is, ultimately, filtered through our senses, which are demonstrably fallible. The subjectivity of these senses leads to "perception bias" where the mind of the observer subconsciously conceptualises the sensual information it receives to conform to pre-held beliefs, creating a "positive feedback loop" of sorts, where the observer sees, quite literally, only that which stengthens his own beliefs. Am I on the right track here?

The problem is, however, that in adopting this position, you're confronting the nature of truth from an "absolutist" position, that is the position that something is either "absolutely true" (white), "absolutely false" (black) or "neither absolutely true nor absolutely false" (grey). In essense, if a statement cannot be shown to be absolutely true or false, you're just lumping it all into the same "indeterminate" category, as though the colour grey only ever comes in one shade. This absolutist, epistemological trichotomy, however, is not particularly adept at determining the relative truth value of statements as it, by definition, dismisses all non-absolutist truth-values out of hand. Ultimately, within this framework, it is only meaningless tautological statements that can be considered "absolutely true" (all triangles have three sides, all bachelors are unmarried, 2+2=4 etc.) and direct logical contradictions that can be considered "absolutely false" (all triangles have four sides, all bachelors are married, 2+2=5 etc.), which means that you're lumping every other part of human knowledge into the same "indeterminate" category, ranking their truth-value, in essence, absolutely equally. This method of taking every statement which cannot be absolutely proven or disproven and suggesting that they have inherently equal worth because they cannot be proven to be absolutely true or false, however, lacks logical integrity. It is still possible to suggest that, in between the extremes of black and white, there are wildly varying degrees of grey.

So, to bring this back to the creationism / evolution debate, on the one hand we have a theory which has been created, over the space of 150 or so years, in reliance of objectively observed evidence compiled and verified by thousands upon thousands of men, each with a unique, perceptional vantage-point (if perception bias is such an issue, why have so many arrived at the same conlcusions independently?) and on the other hand we have a theory which posits, as its central tennet, a being whose existence has not and can not be demonstrated with any existing objective evidence, a text which makes claims that are either completely unverifiable or that are contradicted by evidence that has been obtained in a precise, demonstrable and repeatable manner and a clique of adherents who have a vested religious interest in skewing the evidence to conform with their own pre-existing belief systems. Now, in framing this question in this way, on what basis can you claim that evolutionary theory is not a far lighter shade of grey than creationism? What part of any of the objective evidence submitted in this thread do you have a problem with, and on what basis can you dismiss this evidence? Failing the deceptive nature of the senses, on what other epistemological basis can you claim that the evolutionary theory is inherently flawed and - ultimately - of an equal truth-value to that of creationism? Before hitting us with another one of your inane "Ram Blings", could you answer these questions please?

Now, as for the anorexic in the mirror, again you've framed an unjustified trichotemy. What you're implicitly asking - correct me if I'm wrong - is how one could determine, absolutely, whether one is fat or merely anorexic. The short answer is that one couldn't tell, absolutely, whether one was fat or merely anorexic, but there are objective steps that can be taken to decide that one of these outcomes is more likely (that is, a "lighter shade of grey") than the other.

Firstly, it's important to distinguish between "fatness" as a subjective, qualitative concept and "fatness" as an objective, quantitative concept. The axorexic, for instance, sees himself as being fatter than he'd ideally like to be. This, however, is a subjecive qualitiative judgement, a bit like preferring one piece of music to another, or one colour to another. The anorexic has an "ideal" in his mind about his preferential body-shape and sees his current body shape as being "fatter" than the ideal. Given that qualititive judgements are generally inherently subjective, a man alone in a room with a mirror would have no way of knowing whether he was fat or anorexic, as he has no objective frame of reference to compare himself with. He knows that he is fatter than he would ideally like to be, but - without any objective measure of "fatness" - how could he possibly know whether he was seeing himself as too fat because he is too fat or just because he's an anorexic?

So, in order to distinguish between the anorexic man and the fat man, we need an objective definition of "fatness". Medically, after centuries of objective, empirical research, we can now provide fairly objective values as to what a healthy weight range might be. If a man wishes to know objectively whether he is overweight or anorexic, he need only weigh himself, measure his height and then contrast the measurements against what medical science determines to be a healthy weight range for his height. Even after taking these measurements and being told by many of his friends, family and members of the medical profession that he is dangerously underweight and anorexic, he may still see himself as being more fat than he'd ideally like to be. His subjective assessment of his weight, however, is not an objective poisition, nor a position that corresponds to what we might call "the truth" of the matter. If fatness has an objective quality to it, on what grounds can the anorexic logically defend the position that he is, objectively, "fat"? If every measurement tells him that he is not fat, on what basis - other than deference to some subjective ideal - can he claim to be "fat"? For the anorexic to be right in suggesting, objectively, that he is fat, it would require a series of unlikely circumstances to be fulfilled (the measurements were completely wrong, the perception of everyone bar the anorexic is completely wrong, the findings of centuries of medical science are wrong, etc.), but for the anorexic to be wrong requires only one fairly likely condition to be fulfilled (he is suffering from an empirically demonstrable mental condition which distorts the way in which he views his own body). The first outcome is a very dark shade of grey (not likely to be true), the second outcome is a very light shade of grey (likely to be true).

Is there any part of this explanation you take issue with? If so, please address my argument directly rather than going off on another one of your tangents.

(I'm not sure what any of that had to do with the discussion at hand, btw, but there you go...)

Posted by Subey on Sep-05-2005 14:54:

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade

Excellent!

But your assesment of my position is wrong in this thread and countless others. Don't you remember, I told you to fire the guy at your waterfall station a long time ago!

You see traits in my argument and then match those to existing arguments that you are familiar with, and proceed as a chess game (tangent coming up... I'll identify the tangent parts so that you can ignore them easily )

[tangent parallel]a Chess player might say "ah a classic baroque opening, no doubt you will counter with a blah blah blah", these conversations are reduced to that: "ah a non-corporeal dragon in your garage how classic... I will counter with the Sicilian defense"[end tangent]

My position as you see it:

quote:
you're attempting to argue that there is no absolute epistemological foundation from which truth about the noumenal world can be obtained

[Chess tangent=on]We'll call this the "Foundationless Position"; looking it up in the great books of ESTABLISHED wisdom the preffered attack on such a position is the "Absolutist Absurdity Attack"[Chess tangeon=off]

quote:
In essense, if a statement cannot be shown to be absolutely true or false, you're just lumping it all into the same "indeterminate" category

But that's not my position. Obviously if you can't identify my position then you can't attack it.

Here is my position (in order to illustrate see how I must include all positions...)

Position 1: a,b,c
Position 2: d,e,f
Position 3: g,h,i

Bold points represent Truth.

The Holy Grail of Logic is to find a means of mining the truth.

Here is what the Grail says about Positional Logic:

Positional logic's purpose is to advance its current position. And the means by which it does that is to expose itself to attack.

Each succesful attack doesn't change the conclusion. But the subconscious mind sees the hole and rushes to fill it in. The conscious mind is of course never the wiser...

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
And finally, if we hadn't pressed this debate over and over, we never would have gotten to that hilarious ionized hydrogen explanation. When I read that it really made my day

The irony is that the issue isn't what you think consciously about anything I say. Rush to fill in the holes. It's all good from where i'm watching because the conclusion never changes...

That's why a poem that is over a 100 years has more to say about reality than the smartest empirical wizard.

Emily Dickinson - This World is not Conclusion

This World is not Conclusion.
A Species stands beyond --
Invisible, as Music --
But positive, as Sound --
It beckons, and it baffles --
Philosophy -- don't know --
And through a Riddle, at the last --
Sagacity, must go --
To guess it, puzzles scholars --
To gain it, Men have borne
Contempt of Generations
And Crucifixion, shown --
Faith slips -- and laughs, and rallies --
Blushes, if any see --
Plucks at a twig of Evidence --
And asks a Vane, the way --
Much Gesture, from the Pulpit --
Strong Hallelujahs roll --
Narcotics cannot still the Tooth
That nibbles at the soul --

are you any the wiser?

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Sep-05-2005 22:37:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
are you any the wiser?

Definitely. Now I can say I finally understand why LSD and ego trips are a bad combinaion.

Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-06-2005 00:28:

christ subey

the beauty of *real* intellectuals is their ability to condense and deconstruct complex ideas and put make them readily available to all those interested.

you rant and rave and make yourself look like a try-hard idiot. give up. you didnt make any headway into what renegade said. any person with any academic experience finds your \'thoughts\' ludicrous.

Posted by occrider on Sep-06-2005 04:52:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
Freeing you.

But first you have see the prison before you can conceive of escaping it.

I'll use a simplistic example to illustrate the nature of the prison.

**
You need to make a choice. Your cursory examination of the choice suggests 3 potential conclusions. Thinking 3 heads are better than one, you enlist the aid of 3 people to help you.

The 3 logical people conclude 3 different things. We will label these conclusions a,b and c.

[key question] How do you choose between the three then?

[Classic answer] *you* evaluate them.
[Deflection] *you* already have, you are one of the three people, yours is b.
[Classic action] *you* you choose b.

[Personal Bias Fallacy] There is no reason to choose b over a and c. The fact that *you* came to that conclusion in no way makes it more valid than the other ones. If anything your conclusion 66% likely the wrong one.

The point of this example.
1) Recognize the Personal Bias Fallacy 2) Once you recognize it then you can figure out ways to escape it.

**
To hammer in the point in an example that doesn't *threaten* personal bias imagine the following example: Jerry Seinfeld, Donald Trump and Ralph Nader walk into a room. Each is asked what is the first thing that they see?

JS: Isn't it funny how...
DT: I could make money here if I...
RN: That's a dangerous use of...

Everyone sees different things. Old School Logic is a war where you argue "what I see is the most accurate because...", Prison Break Logic is "What do you see that I can't?"

Wow, thanks for freeing me man. Everything makes so much sense ... except for one nagging tidbit: your argument seems to be getting bogged down with the details. Why don't we take a broader prospective towards your prison break argument? And to simplify this for you, I'll use a pedantic example to help you understand:

**
You need to make a choice. Your cursory examination of the choice suggests 3 potential conclusions. Thinking 3 heads are better than one, you enlist the aid of 3 people to help you.

The 3 logical people conclude 3 different things. We will label these conclusions a,b and c.

[key question] How do you choose between the three then?

[Classic answer] *you* evaluate them.
[Deflection] *you* already have, you are one of the three people, yours is b.
[Classic action] *you* you choose b.

[Personal Bias Fallacy] There is no reason to choose b over a and c. The fact that *you* came to that conclusion in no way makes it more valid than the other ones. If anything your conclusion 66% likely the wrong one.

The point of this example.
1) Recognize the Personal Bias Fallacy 2) Once you recognize it then you can figure out ways to escape it.

**
To hammer in the point in an example that doesn't *threaten* personal bias imagine the following example: Jerry Seinfeld, Donald Trump and Ralph Nader walk into a room. Each is asked what is the first thing that they see?

JS: Isn't it funny how...
DT: I could make money here if I...
RN: That's a dangerous use of...

Everyone sees different things. Old School Logic is a war where you argue "what I see is the most accurate because...", Prison Break Logic is "What do you see that I can't?"

So as you can see, what true value can we take from your argument when you and your arguments are inherently subjected to personal bias fallacies? Clearly you have chosen "b" and your arguments are as meritous as my misguided attempts to direct my piss into the center of the toilet bowl.

Not that I'm not enamored with your subjective analysis. As a matter of fact, I've created a template, so to speak, modelled upon your logic to refute any argument known to man:

Person A: (Makes any statement whatsever supported by everything or nothing.)
The logician: "Your statement is fallacious because you are human ... because you are human, it is unfeasible and impossible that your statement is not subject to personal bias fallacy. In conclusion your claims MUST be rejected." (Note: Be sure to avoid specifics such as what exact statement that they are making is guilty of personal bias fallacy. That would require subject matter knowledge which is a big no-no that requires effort.)
Person A: "But I provided credible evidence that maintains some semblance of logical and intellectual integrity ... my opponent just gave you a McDonalds napkin that he claims is the legitimate narrative on everything in life. "
The logician: "Ahhh but what do the believers in the napkin see that you can't??? What do the believers in everything but your own argument see that you can't?? The fact that you can't see what they see proves that you cannot comprehend EVERY single possiblity (be sure to avoid specifics at this point, that would only complicate things) ... and because of this, your argument is null and void."
Person A: "Wow you're right! Logic is only applicable at the general level! Because logic at the detailed level simply violates the philosophical paradoxes inherent in human nature. But when there are no details, the human nature magically leaves the equation which makes your entire argument sensical and logically valid unlike my argument! Thanks!"

Posted by Subey on Sep-06-2005 13:42:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Not that I'm not enamored with your subjective analysis. As a matter of fact, I've created a template, so to speak, modelled upon your logic to refute any argument known to man:

I'll edit it down so that Raistlin will understand it more clearly.

Square One.
Problem - Individual logic is flawed (Creationists the Crown Jewel Evidence of this)
My Solution - Mine individual perspectives for truth and arrive at new collective perspective.

Square Two.
Problem - My solution can only be expressed as individual logic, therefore we must return to Square One.
Your Solution (implied)- Delete Square One in order to escape the loop and proceed on the assumption that the individual logic we possess will take us forward.

I'm happy to end on your note...

marching my personal interpretation of the collective perspective forward.

because My Solution to Square Two is that it's kinda like the difference between a guy standing on Go and one arriving on it. The position may look the same, but I've got an extra $200 worth of perspective in my pocket that I've gathered from the 4 corners of the world.

And I'm gonna keep going round and round till I save up enough for a Hotel on Boardwalk for my dearest lady friend.

If you need to find me, i'll be where MONO theism meets POLY theism... sipping on a cola in the Kaaba.

Posted by Renegade on Sep-06-2005 17:07:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
You see traits in my argument and then match those to existing arguments that you are familiar with, and proceed as a chess game (tangent coming up... I'll identify the tangent parts so that you can ignore them easily )

[...]

Obviously if you can't identify my position then you can't attack it.

I'm not seeing "traits" in your argument, I'm seeing a series of tangential claims that you aren't making any attempt to justify or link together coherently. My responses so far have been attempts to tap into what may be the central tennets of your "world-view" and proceed to question the legitimacy of its foundation. If I've misrepresented your world-view in my posts, it's not because I'm deliberately misrepresenting your position to make my task of "attacking" it easier, it's because your not articulating your position clearly enough.

quote:
My position as you see it:

quote:
you're attempting to argue that there is no absolute epistemological foundation from which truth about the noumenal world can be obtained

But that's not my position.

It isn't?

From your earlier posts:

quote:
The 3 logical people conclude 3 different things. We will label these conclusions a,b and c.

[key question] How do you choose between the three then?

[...]

[Personal Bias Fallacy] There is no reason to choose b over a and c. The fact that *you* came to that conclusion in no way makes it more valid than the other ones. If anything your conclusion 66% likely the wrong one.

[...]

Everyone sees different things.

Your assertion here is that, as a result of our inherent perceptory biases, "there is no reason to choose" one conclusion (about the nature of an object or a subject) over another. Regardless of what we "perceive", our perceptions are congenitally clouded by personal bias, therefore our perceptions are not worth much when deciding to reach one conclusion over another. This, whether you want to call it something else or not, is the same denial of an anthropic espistemological foundation posited by Descartes about 500 years ago. While you'll be happy to know that Western Philosophy has never absolutely solved the ontological rift created by Descartes' bifurcation of body and mind, your qualms about the fallibility of the senses in determining the nature of the "noumenal world" are nothing new.

Do my arguments seem justified now, or will you just move the goalposts again?

quote:
[Chess tangent=on]We'll call this the "Foundationless Position"; looking it up in the great books of ESTABLISHED wisdom the preffered attack on such a position is the "Absolutist Absurdity Attack"[Chess tangeon=off]

I'm not treating this an exercise in intellectual masturbation, trying to "win" the argument by trotting out everything I've very cleverly read until I've cornered your king (see, I actually understand your tangential metaphor this time ), I'm treating this as an exercise where you and I can discuss epistemology with the hope of learning something new about ourselves and about human nature. Fact is, though, you've got to meet me half-way on this if we're actually going to get anywhere. It's hard to play a good, genial game of chess if you keep on moving the pieces round while claiming we're actually playing checkers.

quote:
Here is my position (in order to illustrate see how I must include all positions...)

Position 1: a,b,c
Position 2: d,e,f
Position 3: g,h,i

Bold points represent Truth.

Position with regards to what? Truth of what? When you post something like this can you please explain clearly and precisely what it is you're trying to say, so that poor students of "established wisdom" like me stand a chance of knowing what you're talking about?

quote:
The Holy Grail of Logic is to find a means of mining the truth.

I think I can agree with that.

quote:
Here is what the Grail says about Positional Logic:

Positional logic's purpose is to advance its current position. And the means by which it does that is to expose itself to attack.

Sorry, but what exactly is "positional logic"? Are you referring to the fact that we each hold a "position" on a certain argument and use post-hoc logic to rationalise that position? By "exposing itself to attack" are you referring to the use of skepticism and doubt in forming and assessing our "positions"?

quote:
Each succesful attack doesn't change the conclusion. But the subconscious mind sees the hole and rushes to fill it in. The conscious mind is of course never the wiser...

The irony is that the issue isn't what you think consciously about anything I say. Rush to fill in the holes. It's all good from where i'm watching because the conclusion never changes...

See, again, you're talking in esoteric riddles and I have no idea what you're trying to say. Neitzsche said "Good writers [...] prefer being understood to being admired" and that's a maxim that you could probably benefit from understanding. Even if you are the most skilled writer on these boards, espousing the most enlightened philosophy this world has ever seen, all these fantastic metaphors and platitudes count for nothing if people don't know what the hell you're going on about. Rather than gazing contempuously down upon us like an ubermensch from your lofty pedestal of enlightenment, condescendingly suggesting that we're all living in "intellectual prisons", could you try articulating your stance a little more clearly so that us poor denizens may some day, in the distant future, be able to embrace your ideas and rise up towards your transcendent, alogical glory?

If you want to communicate your ideas to us, do it properly. If you aren't interested in communicating your ideas to other people, then what are you doing here?

quote:
are you any the wiser?

Not yet, but I hold out great hope.

Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »