Oh, and by the way, did you even read my post?

Post #29,934 by screamer 2/26/02 11:42:00 PM Reply	Oh, and by the way, did you even read my post? Because the answer you gave, "real life" is the reference point used to determine the "truth" is something that a primitive bot might post. I was alluding to the fact that our very notion of "reality" has been continually evolving - flat earth to Hubble... But Hubble only gives us a very limited and finite view of what lies beyond or beyond the beyond. We are an egotistical species but not real bright and scientific method can only go so far... We can't rightly reproduce something such as the "big bang" or a comet that killed the dinosaurs... Having said that, we approximate "facts" and "truth" from our limited understanding. This is an admission of my own limitations... Perhaps what you are getting in these fora is a taste of resentment for your not admiting your own limitations - the ones shared by every other poster here. Makes us worry that maybe we were shortchanged or something... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,947 by drewk 2/27/02 9:06:21 AM Reply	You realize you're agreeing with him? Having said that, we approximate "facts" and "truth" from our limited understanding. I believe this all started with him claiming that we are able to approach "truth" through observation. Not that we can know it, but that it is possible to come to a closer approimation of it. 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 #29,957 by Brandioch 2/27/02 10:34:36 AM Reply	To quote Professor Jones. "Archaeology is the search for FACTS, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Prof. Tyree's Philosophy course is right down the hall ... " You would be amazed at the number of people who do not understand the difference between "facts" and "truth". I believe this all started with him claiming that we are able to approach "truth" through observation. I will note the fact that you're using a "t" in that "truth" instead of a "T". To illustrate this, tell me the "Truth" about people.
Post #29,964 by drewk 2/27/02 10:56:10 AM 2/27/02 10:57:53 AM Reply	Too easy "Archaeology is the search for FACTS, not truth." Tell that to a creationist looking at Carbon 14 dating results. (edit) Which, yes, proves your point about "fact" depending on your preconceptions. But remember, I already acknowledged that the best (I think) we can hope for is a ever-closer approximation of the truth. 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. Edited by drewk Feb. 27, 2002, 10:57:53 AM EST Expand All History
Post #29,973 by Brandioch 2/27/02 11:29:02 AM Reply	Which brings us back to "The Truth" (please note the "T"'s) Tell that to a creationist looking at Carbon 14 dating results. I also believe that "Creationist" is spelled with a "C". Now, is there any Creationist that doesn't already know "The Truth"? So, the Creationist will accept or reject "facts" based upon how they fit with his/her preconceived notion of "The Truth". For example, any "facts" that cast doubt on C14 dating will be accepted. Any "facts" that validate C14 dating will be rejected. (or, at best, invalidated because of the "facts" mentioned in the previous line.) But remember, I already acknowledged that the best (I think) we can hope for is a ever-closer approximation of the truth. Hmmmm, I think the problem is that you don't understand that there is a difference between "truth" and "The Truth". "truth" == "facts" for sufficiently small facts and small truths. I have blond hair. That is a fact. That is the truth. Now, again, to illustrate this point, tell me "The Truth" about people. This is the SECOND time I've asked you to do this.
Post #29,978 by screamer 2/27/02 11:52:25 AM Reply	I'm affraid I can't give you that point entirely... The quote you posted is innocuous enough, but where I jumped in: For me, truth is boolean, while knowledge of the truth is probabilistic. And with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty. It may be an asymptotic convergence, but it's still useful in real life situations. There is a blatant incongruity with the statement "truth is boolean" and "with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty" and we can "approach the truth"... "We can converge on certainty Moohaahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... The assumption is that we have the ability to gather enough input and be intellectually honest to approximate truth or "the truth". I postulate that we do not have an adequate referent point to gather "enough input" on very fundamental physics, not to mention metaphysics. His pragmatic approach is fine - we have used fire for tens of thousands of years before we understood the mechanics of combustion, and I will give him that much. But I take exception to the notion (and terminology) that by applying scientific method and intellectual honesty we can approach CERTAINTY? Maybe I'm a tad skeptical but I feel that we're too biased to approach anything. Look at our (human beings) approach to the study of Biology or the study of "lower" life forms on Earth... Aren't we special? Our fables tell about how man is given "dominion" over the rest of the animals, etc"... Intellectual honesty? We are pompous assholes in the name of science. If I told you or Marlowe that we are simply a virus in something much larger in an infinite universe (from my own observations, using my own understanding of physics - which I actually believe, by the way), would your "intellectual honesty" allow you feel lower than the "lowest" forms of microbes in this dimension? And if you believed as such (like I do), where would that leave Marlowe's theories about "truth" and "facts" and "intellectual honesty"? What if I believe that the universe is actually finite? Prove me wrong using facts... Good luck, bucko... Can't be determined, don't have a reference point. Now, let's turn this to Politics :-), Republicans are good because they tell the truth. ? Prove me wrong... He is not even touching upon "t" truth, let alone "T" Truth... Of course, I could be wrong - which is intellectually honest. Something that is sorely lacking in these types of discussion. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,988 by drewk 2/27/02 12:26:46 PM Reply	Certainty != Truth But I take exception to the notion (and terminology) that by applying scientific method and intellectual honesty we can approach CERTAINTY? Why? Certainty just means that you have no doubt. It is unrelated to accuracy. Some pepople are "certain" that Elvis is alive. Read what Marlowe said carefully, and note when he says "true" and when he says "certain," when he says "prove" and when he says "believe." For me, truth is boolean, while knowledge of the truth is probabilistic. And with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty. It may be an asymptotic convergence, but it's still useful in real life situations. How I read that is that he is asserting a belief that there is some absoulte truth, but that we can not know it. And that even with "enough input and intellectual honesty" we can still only "converge on certainty," not achieve it, nor prove that this certainty has any relation to "truth." To me (meaning IMO) this is just a description of pragmatism. Essentially spelling out why denying the evidence of our senses or the validity of our experience makes for frustrating, pointless debate. Moreover, these are his premises. Feel free to disagree with them, but any argument he makes will assume them, and he'll discount any argument that doesn't. 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 #30,000 by screamer 2/27/02 1:13:29 PM Reply	Shame on me... Semantics 101 Basically then, if I assume that certainty (definition I like is [link\|http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath372.htm\|here]) just is another word for what Marlowe thinks, then I'll be fine... I get it now. But Drew, I have to ask you, am I just slow or are you being serious? Maybe we need to define some ground rules like Brandioch says... From Merriam... Truth (Truth) (?), n.; pl. Truths (#). [OE. treuthe, trouthe, treowpe, AS. tre\\'a2w\ufffd. See True; cf. Troth, Betroth.] 1. The quality or being true; as: -- (a) Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been; or shall be. (b) Conformity to rule; exactness; close correspondence with an example, mood, object of imitation, or the like. "Plows, to go true, depend much on the truth of the ironwork." Mortimer. (c) Fidelity; constancy; steadfastness; faithfulness. "Alas! they had been friends in youth, But whispering tongues can poison truth." Coleridge. (d) The practice of speaking what is true; freedom from falsehood; veracity. "If this will not suffice, it must appear That malice bears down truth." Shak. 2. That which is true or certain concerning any matter or subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of things; fact; verity; reality. "Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor." Zech. viii. 16. "I long to know the truth here of at large." Shak. "The truth depends on, or is only arrived at by, a legitimate deduction from all the facts which are truly material." Coleridge. 3. A true thing; a verified fact; a true statement or proposition; an established principle, fixed law, or the like; as, the great truths of morals. "Even so our boasting . . . is found a truth." 2 Cor. vii. 14. 4. Righteousness; true religion. "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John i. 17. "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." John xvii. 17. -- In truth, in reality; in fact. -- Of a truth, in reality; certainly. -- To do truth, to practice what God commands. "He that doeth truth cometh to the light." John iii. 21.Truth (Truth), v. t. To assert as true; to declare. [R.] "Had they [the ancients] dreamt this, they would have truthed it heaven." Ford. Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't see Marlowe as part of the definition. I edited my dictionary... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #30,005 by drewk 2/27/02 1:30:33 PM Reply	What I meant certain: assured in mind or action --synonym see SURE That's the fifth definition m-w.com. The first four all reference true in some way. Their definitions of "true" also seem to point to certain. They seem to be very similar. So to draw a distinction between them, as Marlowe did, is to focus on the nuances. The difference is that truth, and even moreso "Truth," is intended to refer to things which simply are. Can we know the Truth? That's the whole issue. So how is "certainty" different from this? It's a measure of the confidence people place in something. I can be certain that something is true. It would then be true that I am certain. And I could be wrong, but the fact of my certainty would still be true. BTW re: your link. Although certainty was mentioned in the title at the top, it isn't used anywhere else. That's confusing to me in an article that seems to seek to define terms. 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 #30,007 by Brandioch 2/27/02 1:39:04 PM Reply	It's good to see you finally joining me. So how is "certainty" different from this? It's a measure of the confidence people place in something. I can be certain that something is true. It would then be true that I am certain. And I could be wrong, but the fact of my certainty would still be true. 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? Will you even bother to look for such data points? If you do bother, where would you start looking? "true" == "fact" for sufficiently small values of "true" and "fact". I have blond hair. That is true. That is a fact. Now, Drew, tell me "The Truth" about people. Then we can discuss the "certainty" that there is a "Truth" in the first place. Can we know the Truth? That's the whole issue. Nope. The FIRST issue is whether there >IS< a Truth. Like I said before, you can argue all you want about how you >KNOW< what colour the tooth fairey's house is.... Or how you can come closer to knowing what that colour is through logical deductions and experimentation. Please refer back to my math example for an illustration on why this is a useless practice.
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
Post #30,016 by screamer 2/27/02 2:05:42 PM Reply	Fair. And the link I threw out there was more to give folks like Marlowe the kind of flavor the rigor in which "facts" are treated in the Mathematics and Physics community. (It was a nice coincidence that he brought up Newton and Einstein, no?) It was not meant as a definition but more as an example... Sorry, I blew the links... More intellectual honest? ;-) For what it's worth, I generally sit these things out because they are futile semantic exercises. The problem here is that the type of "logic" being used by Marlowe is in fact the kind of thinking that brought us nuclear weapons and power plants, long before we really understood the risks or philosophical implications. It also now presents us with cloning (again, perhaps innocuous, but capable of designs on master races), the repercussions of 100 plus years of burning fossil fuels and the effect it might be having on the environment. I do not doubt that we are clever animals, I just fear that sometimes we don't anticipate consequences very well. In essence, I have nothing against Marlowe except for what his type of thinking represents. A brain without a consciences. I'm not paralyzed by doubts, but I sure as hell don't dismiss them either. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #30,091 by Ashton 2/27/02 10:19:12 PM Reply	What we clever animals are up to Might glance at my note in News Picks: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moves the Doomsday clock up 2 minutes, to "7 minutes before.." And why. So much for our inextirpable (! love that word - it's about "plucking") Hubris.. homo-Huris is closer to an apt species name (?) Ashton
Post #29,995 by Another Scott 2/27/02 12:49:15 PM Reply	Recall the full quote. Hi Drew, I believe this all started with him claiming that we are able to approach "truth" through observation. Not that we can know it, but that it is possible to come to a closer approimation of it. I don't have a qualm with that. But that's not all of what he said. In the [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29408\|first post] in this thread. Some of us look at the evidence and infer a Truth that is independent of what we may wish to believe. A person's view of "Truth" will nearly always be colored by their beliefs no matter how objective they try to be. IMHO. That's my objection to his sweeping statement. More in my comment at the bottom of the thread ([link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29946\|here]). Cheers, Scott.
Post #29,996 by drewk 2/27/02 12:59:23 PM Reply	I don't see the problem Again, he's saying that some people "infer a Truth." I can read that either that they infer that there is a Truth, or that they infer what (they believe) that Truth to be. Either way, it's an inferrence. And if, as the rest of the quote says, that inferrence is at odds with what they would like to believe, isn't that evidence of not being a slave to their preconceptions? 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 #29,998 by Brandioch 2/27/02 1:08:11 PM Reply	So why can't you answer my question? What is "The Truth" about people? When you can answer that, you'll be able to see the flaw in your reasoning.

Welcome to IWETHEY!