Quote:
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
I don't think you believe what you were saying in the sense that there wasn't really anything to believe in. I'll expand on this later...
|
I wasn't saying that there "wasn't really anything to believe in." I'm not sure where you've gotten this idea. Perhaps if you go and reread the things I've wrote without this little nugget of misinformation clouding your thoughts you might get a better grasp of what I've been talking about.
To be more clear about myself-- I'm a math guy who went engineering, but probably should have stayed math. I unconsciously attempt to fit the ideas I come across into the framework of mathematical proofs. I very loosely believe in everything, but I only act on beliefs when I think the evidence is sufficient to support those beliefs.
Quote:
|
My reaction at that time was that you seem offended at attempts to understand the world and would rather have people settle for an "anything can be true so lets just believe anything" sort of attitude. This is such a fantastic position that I don't actually believe that you hold it so I was hoping you'd clarify what your position really is...
|
See above, you've misread me. It's not something that really offends me anymore-- Jesus pushers used to offend me too-- I've gotten a thicker skin about things.
I do think that it's silly when folks confuse the inability to prove something for evidence that that something doesn't exist. I think that it is even sillier that many of these same people, people who seem to think that they are the sole arbiters of what constitutes "sufficient evidence," would frequently be so inept at using evidence to support their positions.
Quote:
|
I don't know what you mean by "theory of ghosts." People here have theorized that ghosts do, in fact, exist. While people may present theories that they don't personally believe in, the theories themselves assert claims and I may disagree with these. This has been the case in this thread...
|
No. No one has theorized in a scientific sense. That's what we're talking about, right? Science? For someone who presents himself as such a student of the scientific method, you could stand to nail the terminology a bit better. Perhaps folks have assumed ghosts as a possible explanation, but even then, they haven't hypothesized in a scientific sense. With respect to science, a hypothesis is testable-- has anyone in here proposed a testing scheme for paranormal activity? My apologies if someone has.
Quote:
|
While it's true that people couldn't live their everyday lives testing every hypothesis that comes their way, they do run their lives almost entirely on theories that are testable. They don't bother to test them 'cause not only do they not have the time but, as it so happens, the vast majority of what we tell each other just happens to be true so things run as smoothly as they do.
|
The fact that a particular presumption appears testable means that it's okay to just assume that it's true? Well shit. That makes everything so much simpler. How about this: I believe that ghosts exist, and that if they do exists, that their existence will manifest itself clearly to all of humanity within the next ten years. Boom. That "hypothesis" is testable-- we'll just wait ten years.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, while we can spend a great deal of time and energy discussing and even doing things motivated by untestable theories, the theories themselves don't describe anything that has anything to do with reality and, in that sense, are worthless. In other words, untestable theories may motivate us to do things and, in that sense, are worth something but the actual details of the theories don't convey any information that relates to the world we live in, in effect saying nothing at all.
|
What you seem to be saying is something along the lines of "Unverifiable statements aren't useful to someone who is primarily concerned with verifiable statements." This is a tautology. Thanks for the wikipedia link.
Quote:
|
Please detail this. What does my use of wikipedia links say about my opinions on evidence? How does my use of links to it even constitute any sort of "reliance?"
|
I'm just saying, you wouldn't want to do that in your peer reviewed paper on the species of dinosaur you just discovered. See below for and examples of the possible pitfalls of wikipedia use.
Quote:
|
Only in the most narrow sense can my comments be construed as an accusation of lying. My last post to you isn't even a result of my inability to understand you. In fact, it's quite the opposite of that. It's important to note that all I can understand about you is what you write.
|
I'm not going to link to the definition of "disingenuous," since I know you know how to use the internet. Don't worry, you haven't hurt my feelings.
Quote:
|
If evidence of ghosts or lack thereof only speaks about the evidence of ghosts and not of ghosts themselves then what does say anything about ghosts? To say that the evidence for ghosts only speaks about the evidence of ghosts is a tautology.
|
I know it was a tautology. That was the point: that sometimes there is no deeper meaning; it is important to not draw false conclusions.
Quote:
|
What do you think this link indicates now?! You didn't actually convey any meaning in this post but you posted it anyway, as if it did.
|
Here's the problem with linking to wikipedia: You read what I wrote, thought to yourself "A-hah!! He used a tautology!! I'm going to look that up on wikipedia and see what sort of ammo I can find." Then you went to wikipedia and saw that it said that tautologies add no meaning and thought "A-ha!! I'll show that filtherton. His tautology clearly added no meaning." But you were wrong.
That tautology doesn't exist in a vacuum. It was brought into existence as a response to a fallacious implication made by someone else. This gives the tautology meaning. See this example:
Person A: "The average daily temperature last winter was below historical average daily temperatures. This means that global climate change is not occuring."
Person B: "Actually, it isn't necessarily that simple. The best that we can say is that the fact that the average daily temperature last winter was below historical average daily temperatures just means that the fact that the average daily temperature last winter was below historical average daily temperatures."
Person A: "Oh, you're right. Sometimes I allow my personal beliefs to get in the way of my ability to infer proper conclusions from data."
Short version: if you're going to use wikipedia, don't just do the mental equivalent of ye olde cut and paste.
Quote:
|
What's up with that? My response was an expression of how I feel about this and my attempts to understand how this happens. You were free to clarify and I had hoped you would. All you did was frantically defend some vague accusation of lying and call me unreasonable. Well, I've been using nothing but reasoning. Come join me!
|
I disagree with all of your characterizations here.
Quote:
|
Explain the disingenuity. I welcome opportunities to see people's opinion of me...
|
I just have a hard time believing that you're here "to discuss issues honestly in an attempt to reach a mutual understanding."