Gee, tough question

Post #30,028 by drewk 2/27/02 3:06:51 PM Reply	Gee, tough question Now, if you are certain something is "true" (shall we say "a fact"?) then how are you going to react to data points that seem to contradict your certainty? Since this whole discussion is about an idea Marlowe presented, let's see what he had to say about it way back in the very first post of this whole thread: Some of us look at the evidence and infer a Truth that is independent of what we may wish to believe. Having done so, they then adapt their opinions to this Truth. Hey, look at that. Two lines in and it seems the whole point was to explain his view of the difference between well-reasoned opinions and unexamined ones. Wait, let me make sure I have that right. And having done this, it is a simple matter to back up one's opinions with facts and reason, having already come up with the facts prior to forming the opinion. "But how do you know they're really 'facts'?" Back to pragmatism. If you want to continue denying the validity of "facts" I invite you again to step out in front of what I believe is a speeding truck. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,031 by Brandioch 2/27/02 3:24:57 PM Reply	Ah, another "proof" of my point. If you want to continue denying the validity of "facts" I invite you again to step out in front of what I believe is a speeding truck. Now, in another of my posts, I addressed this very issue. In fact, it was in a REPLY to one of YOUR posts. Shall I quote your post back at you? I guess I have to. On the sidewalk, he instructed them to walk out into the street without looking right or left. They said, "But we'll be killed by the traffic!" My reply was: #1. Your senses filter what you perceive. #2. You senses are limited in what they can perceive. Therefore............... there is no reason to believe that your senses are revealing ALL of "Reality" to you. Not that they are not revealing a filtered portion of "Reality". So, you've already used the car illustration and it has been effectively refuted BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO KEEP REPEATING IT aren't you? You see, despite what you may WANT me to be saying, I'm not saying that we can't perceive parts of Reality. What I'm asying is that we can't perceive ALL of Reality. That the parts we can perceive are filtered and subject to interpretation based upon our previously held beliefs. You are an excellent example of such behaviour. Rather than reading and understanding my posts, you will filter them through your beliefs and then >THINK< you're saying something relevent to them. That is >EXACTLY< the behaviour the will confuse your >OPINION< with "The Truth". How many times have I asked you to post "The Truth" about people? But you won't do that. Because you CAN NOT do that. But you won't consider that you can not do that. Instead, you'll filter my posts through your beliefs. Just like you'll filter the "facts" through your beliefs to support your version of "The Truth". That which does NOT support your beliefs will be skipped. Just as you keep skipping over my question as to "The Truth" about people. So, Drew, given that you are exhibiting EXACTLY the behaviours that I am saying you will exhibit, how do you imagine that you are intellectually capable of determining what "The Truth" is (or even whether it exists)?
Post #30,038 by drewk 2/27/02 3:50:34 PM Reply	Your point is rather dull What I'm asying is that we can't perceive ALL of Reality. That the parts we can perceive are filtered and subject to interpretation based upon our previously held beliefs. So? No really, what exactly does that have to do with what Marlowe first posted and with which I've agreed? His point was exactly that theories which can by their nature have absolutely nothing to do with observable reality aren't worth debating. I haven't said anything to dispute your premise -- and BTW it is an unsupported premise[1] -- that we can't perceive all of reality. But anything we can't perceive[2] isn't worth discussing because, well, we can't perceive it. Is there something you perceive that you think I don't? Fine. Explain it in a way that I can perceive. Not a conclusion, a basic observation, like the fact that objects tend to attract each other. "But we don't completely understand how/why gravity works, ha ha!" No, but we know that it works. So, there's the premise I've layed out. Any discussion of something that can not be perceived can never be more than an intelectual exercise. While I accept the premise that what we perceive may have nothing to do with any objective reality, I conclude that this has no bearing on the usefullness of the conclusions I draw. [1] The one advancing a hypothosis is responsible for proving it, unless you want to classify it as a premise. If it's a premise, then we're still at the point where I ask, "So what?" [2] With the senses. Your supposed refutatin of the traffic story depends on refuting the evidence of the senses. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,043 by Brandioch 2/27/02 4:23:50 PM Reply	Re-read your posts. No really, what exactly does that have to do with what Marlowe first posted and with which I've agreed? Ahhh, >NOW< you're beginning to understand. It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with that. So why have you posted it TWICE? And now you're asking >ME< what it has to do with the ORIGINAL topic? That's right, ANOTHER data point about how your limitations will convince you that you're approximating "The Truth" when you're just assembling random "facts". His point was exactly that theories which can by their nature have absolutely nothing to do with observable reality aren't worth debating. Really? Well, that just doesn't seem to match with the discussion in Politics that started this. Something about one political party lacking the "truth" and so on. He says that one political party doesn't have it and that it exists, but then you're agreeing with him that, since it is unverifiable, it doesn't matter. Again, another data point showing how your beliefs filter Reality. Now, I >REALLY< wish they would teach >THINKING< in schools now. You're just too easy to rip apart. I haven't said anything to dispute your premise -- and BTW it is an unsupported premise[1] -- that we can't perceive all of reality. Unsupported? Well, skip back 200 years and tell me about xrays. Okay? Skip back 2000 years and tell me about viruses. Then tell me that we NOW can perceive EVERYTHING that exists. Wasn't there some quote by some patent admin about everything already being invented? Shall I put Drew's name up there, too? But anything we can't perceive[2] isn't worth discussing because, well, we can't perceive it. Cool. And following THAT "logic", we'd STILL not know anything about xrays or viruses. Is there something you perceive that you think I don't? Fine. Explain it in a way that I can perceive. And Drew requests that I hand him an xray. Or send him a pound of viruses. Ummmm, Drew...... you >DO< remember that you and Marlowe are the ones saying you can approximate "The Truth" and I'm the one saying that it doesn't exist, right? So why are you telling me >NOW< that it's the other way around? Ahhhhhhh, I get it. That bit about "The Truth" about people FINALLY sank in, right. But you can't admit that you were wrong. Don't worry. I won't mock you. So, there's the premise I've layed out. Any discussion of something that can not be perceived can never be more than an intelectual exercise. I will disagree with this as a general principle. See my above comments about xrays 200 years ago. On a more SPECIFIC topic, there is no "Truth". There is no tooth fairey. There is no tooth fairey's house. Telling me you can approximate the colour is stupid. [1] The one advancing a hypothosis is responsible for proving it, unless you want to classify it as a premise. If it's a premise, then we're still at the point where I ask, "So what?" Allow me to answer that with a quote from Marlowe. When Leftists ideologues say there is no real truth, the truth itself becomes politicized. But remember, truth was here first. So you can find it and check the context: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29298\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=29298] [2] With the senses. Your supposed refutatin of the traffic story depends on refuting the evidence of the senses. How so? If I am deaf and see a car coming at me, is there any reason to think that, just because I do not hear it, it doesn't exist? I can accept that my senses have limitiations ( I cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste xrays, but they exist) without thinking that things I see, hear, smell, feel and/or taste don't exist. Again, the classic refutation to your example. Because I do not believe I can perceive EVERYTHING does NOT mean that nothing exists. Again, another data point showing that "The Truth" will NEVER be understood by people. You continue to filter my posts through your beliefs. You >THINK< you're getting closer to "The Truth" but all you're doing is gathering "facts" that support your current opinions.
Post #30,050 by drewk 2/27/02 4:52:13 PM Reply	No need Ahhh, >NOW< you're beginning to understand. It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with that. That's right, you're the one who thinks talking about anything except the point you claim to be refuting is a reasonable rhetorical device. That's right, ANOTHER data point about how your limitations will convince you that you're approximating "The Truth" when you're just assembling random "facts". No. I've just collected another data point that you will spew intentionally random pronouncements in an effort to derail someone's position. I believe this leads nearer to certainty that you don't care about being reasonable. Well, that just doesn't seem to match with the discussion in Politics that started this. I didn't read that discussion or reply to anything in it. I replied to the one in here. Skip back 2000 years and tell me about viruses. Then tell me that we NOW can perceive EVERYTHING that exists. Do people get sick? Yes they do. Some people supposed this was the act of some malicious god. Some supposed that there might be some other mechanism at work. They developed ways to test for it. Sounds to me like they "perceived' something. [2] With the senses. Your supposed refutatin of the traffic story depends on refuting the evidence of the senses. How so? If I am deaf and see a car coming at me, is there any reason to think that, just because I do not hear it, it doesn't exist? You don't count seeing it as "perceiving" it? Well, if you don't know what "perceive" means either I guess that explains why you don't get it. You >THINK< you're getting closer to "The Truth" but all you're doing is gathering "facts" that support your current opinions. For about the fifth time, neither Morlowe nor I have suggested (in this thread) that we expect to approach "The Truth," but that we expect to approach certainty. And that this certainty is useful. Then tell me that we NOW can perceive EVERYTHING that exists ... I do not believe I can perceive EVERYTHING does NOT mean that nothing exists. Challenge me to assert an absolute position, then disclaim an absolute position for yourself. Nice. See, I'm arguing from a premise that ackowledges there may be some things that can not be perceived. That is not the same as the set of things that currently are perceived. And I am concluding that if there are things that can not be perceived, then those things are not worth arguing about. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,059 by Brandioch 2/27/02 5:22:43 PM Reply	Yes you do need to. That's right, you're the one who thinks talking about anything except the point you claim to be refuting is a reasonable rhetorical device. Nope. I just don't have any problem with quoting the ORIGINAL statements in the discussion. Which you seem to have a problem accepting. Why? If the discussion threads from the ORIGINAL statement, then why do you have a problem bringing the discussion BACK to that statement? Presumably AFTER all the definitions and clarifications have been worked out? I believe this leads nearer to certainty that you don't care about being reasonable. And, as has been pointed out in these threads "certainty" has NOTHING to do with "facts". You can be as "certain" as you like. I'll wait for the facts to present themselves. I didn't read that discussion or reply to anything in it. I replied to the one in here. Well, I guess that makes you just a little bit un-informed, doesn't it? You see, Marlowe used those terms in the Political threads. To say something COMPLETELY different than what he is claiming now. That is why I quoted his post from Politics. Which is something you had a problem with. "Certainty" again. You >KNOW< you're right and no facts to the contrary will convince you otherwise. And the FACT is that Marlowe used "truth" in that thread which led to this thread. Do people get sick? Yep. Germs. There. Problem solved. No need to dig further. It doesn't have any real world application. They developed ways to test for it. Yep. Because they weren't satisfied with "no real world" applications. You don't count seeing it as "perceiving" it? Well, since I gave an example of a deaf person SEEING a car, what would >YOU< think? Again, simply because I cannot "perceive" EVERYTHING does NOT mean that NOTHING exists. The classical refutation to your example (usually covered in phil101). Well, if you don't know what "perceive" means either I guess that explains why you don't get it. Again, you display your inability to understand NEW CONCEPTS. Instead, you'll just attempt to fit it to your pre-existing opinion. Read back through these posts and you'll see that the ONLY things I've said DO NOT EXIST are: 1. The tooth fairey (and her house and the paint on her house) 2. "The Truth". >YOU< are the one going on and on and on about how being hit by a car. Yes, it was >YOU< that posted it the FIRST time. I refuted it then (and also pointed out that it had NOTHING to do with my position) BUT YOU KEEP BRINGING IT BACK. Why? I never said that TRAFFIC didn't exist. I NEVER said that cars and trucks don't exist. >YOU< are the one that went on about your "example". >YOU< are the one who is intellectually incapable of evaluating new concepts (#1. I didn't say that traffic didn't exist). Which is ANOTHER data point in how >YOU< are incapable of determining what is "Reality" or "Truth" or even "fact". Keep going on about it. You're just generating more data points. For about the fifth time, neither Morlowe nor I have suggested (in this thread) that we expect to approach "The Truth," but that we expect to approach certainty. Great! But do you understand that this thread is borne from the previous thread? And that this certainty is useful. FOR WHAT?!? We've ALREADY established that such "certainty" is NOT based upon facts or evidence or ANYTHING! Elvis is ALIVE is a "certainty". Challenge me to assert an absolute position, then disclaim an absolute position for yourself. Nice. No. I'm challenging >YOU< to explain your current position IN RESPECT TO MARLOWE'S ORIGINAL POST. I'm saying there IS NO "TRUTH". ("Truth" used as in "The Truth). Never has been, never will be. Now, how is it possible for you to think that is anything other than an absolute? How? See, I'm arguing from a premise that ackowledges there may be some things that can not be perceived. And that is the FIRST intelligent thing you've posted in this thread. That is not the same as the set of things that currently are perceived. I hope that makes sense to you. It means nothing to me. And I am concluding that if there are things that can not be perceived, then those things are not worth arguing about. And my answer to that is.................... 200 years ago xrays

Welcome to IWETHEY!