Comments

  1. oreoman1987 says

    I don’t understand how The Atheist Experience and others can call themselves skeptics and yet still believe in science. Have they never heard of the problem of induction? Or even opened an introductory philosophy book?

  2. StonedRanger says

    So, here we are, all together on a computer/phone/device of some sort, yet you dont understand how we. as skeptics, can still believe in science? Is that about it? Personally, I couldnt give a shit less about philosophy. But Im pretty sure Matt Dillahunty could make you look sillier than the above post when it comes to philosophy.

  3. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Have they never heard of the problem of induction? Or even opened an introductory philosophy book?

    So, I’m pretty sure that this is a troll, but I’ll bite. What do you propose as an alternative? Do you have an alternative? Or do you expect us to curl up into little balls and die from thirst, sort of like the “logic bombs” that you see used against robots in bad scifi?
    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LogicBomb

  4. oreoman1987 says

    Just because science gives you useful things, doesn’t make it rational or true. The position of scientific realism has been shown to be very problematic througout the 20th century. Same goes for evidentialism, falsificationism, and verificationism. So many people dogmatically believe that science can give us knowledge but the problem of induction shows that they’re wrong. I recommend you check out David Hume, Thomas Khun, and Paul Feyreband.

  5. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, We don’t have a criterion for discovering truth or knowledge yet. Worst of all, we can’t even come up with a consistent system of logic, mathematics, or science. Check out Russell’s paradox and Gödel’s incompleteness theroms for more on that. Therefore, they all must be taken on faith.

  6. oreoman1987 says

    StonedRanger, If you give up on philosophy, you give up on everyting including logic, ethics, science, argument, debate, knowledge, truth, and so on. I’d recommend you at least read an introductory book to philosophy or about the history of it.

  7. Wiggle Puppy says

    Yeah, I think this may be a troll, but I’ll bite for now too.

    “Just because science gives you useful things, doesn’t make it rational or true.”

    Yes. But the fact that we’ve, you know, put people on the moon and build atomic energy plants shows that we know more about physics than humans did a few hundred years ago. The fact that we’ve developed antibiotics and vaccines shows that we know a whole lot more about biology, too. There seems to be a hidden appeal to absolute certainty in your posts – that if we can’t be absolutely certain that our methods of epistemology are leading to true conclusions, then they are unreliable. And the super easy answer to that is that we don’t need absolute certainty to function at all. If we can use testability and repeatability to incrementally increase our knowledge about the world around us, then we’ll probably be pretty okay.

    “We don’t have a criterion for discovering truth or knowledge yet.”

    Okay, yeah, you *are* making an appeal to absolute certainty. And if your argument is that our understanding of the world is useless unless it can lead to absolute certainty, then I have nothing further, because that’s absurd.

    “Therefore, they all must be taken on faith.”

    Yup, I don’t have time for kindergarten apologetics. Next, please.

  8. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, How is it an appeal to absolute certainty? I simply listed the many philosophical problems that exist for science and knowledge as a whole. My only wish is is that more people would be more skeptical than they are right now. We have to be willing to question everything and not just religion and mysticism. Since science is based on induction, it cannot give us any knowledge and therefore must be taken on faith.

  9. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Plus, if you don’t know anything with absolute certainty, then you don’t know anything.

  10. Wiggle Puppy says

    “Since science is based on induction, it cannot give us any knowledge and therefore must be taken on faith.”

    That’s an appeal to absolute certainty. How *else* are your defining knowledge in this context, other than as absolute certainty? You can use science to approach a given confidence level in a proposition, and if your only objection is that science can give us “reasonable certainty” in a proposition but not confirmation of “truth,” then you’re appealing to absolute certainty, by definition.

    “We have to be willing to question everything and not just religion and mysticism.”

    I would bet that most/all of the regular posters on this board do, but at the point when the burden of proof for a given proposition has been satisfied and someone still refuses to accept it, then what you’re talking about at that point isn’t skepticism, but something like nihilism.

  11. Wiggle Puppy says

    “Plus, if you don’t know anything with absolute certainty, then you don’t know anything.”

    Like I said before, don’t have time for kindergarten apologetics, troll.

  12. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, It seems you don’t understand what philosophical skepticism is. It’s a position that questions the existence of knowledge and the problem of induction is a problem for the scientific method. How do you know, for example, that scientific realism is true as opposed to solipsism? How can you use science to get past the skeptics when science itself isn’t even justified? It all depends on your starting point for reasoning. It’s the whole point of epistemology.

  13. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    [philosophical skepticism is] a position that questions the existence of knowledge and the problem of induction is a problem for the scientific method.

    Which is a position that no one holds; not even you. Why should we argue against a position that literally no one holds? To use a British colloquialism, you’re taking the piss.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss
    Loosely, you’re making a joke in a manner which is trolling everyone else.

    That, or you’re playing extreme semantic word games, and I think I can speak for everyone when I say “not interested”.

  14. Wiggle Puppy says

    “It seems you don’t understand what philosophical skepticism is.”

    I do. It questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, which I’ve conceded about three or four times now, and have also said isn’t relevant.

    “How do you know, for example, that scientific realism is true as opposed to solipsism? ”

    I don’t. But I seem to be stuck dealing with the world I find myself in, which includes the physical laws that apparently govern said world. These physical laws are discoverable by science. If someone else wants to throw up their hands and bemoan the fact that this entire universe could be a construct of their imagination and they decide that they simply can’t function in such a state of affairs, then that’s up to them. But like I said, I’m apparently stuck dealing with the world I find myself in as best as I can.

    “How can you use science to get past the skeptics when science itself isn’t even justified?”

    It produces verifiable and repeatable results. If that isn’t good enough for you, then I have nothing further.

    Could we cut to the chase already? Do you think that you have a way out of this epistemological dilemma, or are you just here to poke holes in science? Because if you’re just going to critique science for failing to produce absolute certainty, then I’m just going to tell you that a) you’re right and b) it’s completely irrelevant. Do you have a solution here?

  15. Loveromates says

    I admit that I am skeptical in certain areas that can be verified with replicable evidence and exercise faith in other aspects of my life.

    I think life would be cynical if I follow skeptical approach the way you propose.

  16. RationalismRules says

    @troll

    I don’t understand how The Atheist Experience and others can call themselves skeptics and yet still believe in science

    Because it works.

    Still waiting for you to answer EL’s question: what alternative do you propose?

  17. oreoman1987 says

    RationalismRules, Just because something works, doesn’t mean it’s rational. This is known as the pragmatic theory of truth which also has its share of problems since it can’t get past the skeptics. We don’t know of any alternative since we haven’t found a good theory of truth, logic, or knowledge. This is the point about the problem of the criterion.

  18. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, We don’t have a criterion for discovering truth or knowledge yet. Worst of all, we can’t even come up with a consistent system of logic, mathematics, or science. Check out Russell’s paradox and Gödel’s incompleteness theroms for more on that. Therefore, they all must be taken on faith.

    Your mistake is this: Your (implicit?) claim “taking something on faith is always irrational” is wrong. It is rational to use inductive reasoning “on faith”. Proper use of inductive reasoning and logic is practically the definition of “rationality”, and those things must be accepted “on faith” (or by circular reasoning). It’s epistemology 101: foundationalism, coherentism, or an infinite regress of justifications, or some combination thereof. Matt Dillahunty has previously expressed that he feels that the right answer is some combination of foundationalism and coherentism – have a small set of foundational beliefs which are self-reinforcing and which are open to revision based on application of the other parts of the foundation. Then, the vast majority of your beliefs are built up from that foundation plus experience aka evidence as input to inductive reasoning.

  19. Wiggle Puppy says

    You just came here to complain that science can’t produce absolute certainty? Seriously? Bye Felicia.

  20. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    “Which is a position that no one holds; not even you. Why should we argue against a position that literally no one holds?”

    Wrong! This guy does; https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz0n_SjOttTcyjg1s7mrBZSW-QKTSVLrB

    Ok. So it’s option 2: extreme semantic word games. Going from skimming the first few videos in that playlist, he’s drawing a distinction between “belief” and “attitude”. He says “I don’t have beliefs, full stop”, but from my skimming, he does imply that he has “attitudes” regarding the likelihood of the truth of certain boolean propositions. That’s the same thing as a belief. This distinction that he’s trying to draw between “attitudes” and “beliefs” is asinine. This is extreme semantic word games.

    To paraphrase a great joke by Frasier, at universities, they have the scanning tunneling electron microscope. With it, they can actually take pictures of one of the smallest units of our reality, the atom. It’s a breathtaking application of science and knowledge. I can say that even with this instrument, I would be unable to locate my interest in your word games.

  21. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS:
    I also tried to check out the link from the videos:
    https://carneades.org/
    but the page won’t load anything at all (except some useless “progress icon”) without enabling javascript on the page, and my Firefox + NoScript disables javascript by default, and I see no reason to enable it in this case.

  22. oreoman1987 says

    I’d encourage you to actually watch the videos. Skeptics may not habe any beliefs but they can have proclivities. Actions don’t require belief. And, even if you have justification for your beliefs, doesn’t mean you have knowledge. Check out the Gettier problem for more on that.

  23. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Skeptics may not habe any beliefs but they can have proclivities. Actions don’t require belief.

    Asinine semantic word games. Drawing this distinction adds no benefit to the conversation. I fully expect that the system that this playlist will describe is identical to the standard system of scientific foundationalism that it’s attacking – identical except for using different labels, i.e. using “proclivity” and “attitude” instead of “belief”, and using different meanings of standard terms, i.e. using a strawman definition of the word “belief”.

  24. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, How do you define word games? Do you have an understanding of the philosophy of language? Or have an understanding of analytic philosophy and clarity? This is important for debate and defending a position.

  25. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Give me one functional difference between the system that you propose and the standard system that I might briefly call scientific rational foundationalism (or more specifically the approach advocated by Matt Dillahunty which he calls foundherentism, see description above). As far as I can tell, there is no functional difference. Both will lead to the same behaviors, and also to the same internal thought processes, with the only difference being the choice of labeled employed, again i.e. “proclivity” instead of “belief”. Give me a counterexample. Explain to me the difference in behavior or in the internal thought processes other than arbitrary choices of the labels used to describe them.

  26. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, I’m not sure how you know that both can lead to the same behaviors or internal thought processes. I’m also not sure what type of internalist you are. What you consider a belief or a proclivity is clearly not for other people who don’t agree with your preconceived beliefs. Especially when some of them would take the existence of God as a fact instead of a belief. Plus, one does not have to believe that, for example, that they’re using a conputer right mow in order to use it. They might use it and interact with people just in case they are actually in front of them. They just don’t know either way. What you label something as, may not be labeled the same way as others who disagree with your position on certian questions.

  27. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    One, I asked you to describe the difference between your approach and the approach of standard scientific rational foundationalism, and specifically Matt Dillahunty’s foundherentism. When you bring up beliefs in gods, you’re talking about something else. Standard scientific rational foundherentism is currently not compatible with a belief in gods. Rather, that’s the result of some other epistemology.

    Two, you have thus far failed in my challenge to describe to me how anything I do or think would be changed, except for the choice of labels to be applied. I am again asking you for a concrete example to illustrate the difference between us, and to illustrate where you think I am doing “badly”.

  28. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, I’m not saying that your beliefs have to be compatible with gods. I’m simply seeing how exactly your position can get past the skeptics. Plus, I’m not really sure you can solve the big problems in philosophy when science itself is in trouble with many problems including induction and underdetemination. If you haven’t found a solutuon to the problem if skepticism, then most likely you can’t even know weather you’re thinking or not. This is the same problem for Rene Descartes axiom of the Cogito. It’s especially important when discussing the philosophy of mind.

  29. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    And you are still failing to describe any appreciable difference in behavioral outcome between me and you.

  30. RationalismRules says

    @troll

    Just because something works, doesn’t mean it’s rational.

    This is a non-sequitur. Are you trying to say “just because something works doesn’t mean it’s rational to trust it”?

    The fact that the scientific method consistently yields results that can be trusted as the basis for successfully predicting, to a high level of confidence, the outcomes of real world actions, is good reason to trust it as a methodology for increasing our understanding how the real world works.

    The fact that you are unable to offer any alternative, let alone a better one, means the scientific method continues to be the best available method for increasing our understanding of the real world.

    So what is your point?

  31. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To RationalismRules
    It’s worse than that. It looks like he’s taking the same approach that everyone else uses, but changes some sort of the words while keeping the same underlying concepts, then substitutes strawman definitions for terms used by us (i.e. “belief”), and then proceeds to argue against the strawman that he set up, all while using the same system that we’re using.

  32. oreoman1987 says

    RationalismRules, How is it a non-sequitur? I simply point out that pragmatism and practicallity are not good ways to look for truth. There is not now, nor has there ever been a link demonstrated between either simplicity, intution, or truth. Confidence and predictive results are not the same as knowledge. Just because you seem justified in believing something, doesn’t mean you know it. This is the point if the Gettier problem. How can you tell you’re in a real world if you haven’t found a solution to the problem of skepticism. There’s just as much evidence that you’re stuck in a global skeptical scenario as there is for scientific realism.

  33. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, How is it a strawman? These are actual philosophical problems for truth and science as a whole. I just have yet to see how you know anything with even 1 percent certainty.

  34. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Well, now it’s my turn to ask you: Do you even know what you’re talking about? It’s becoming quite apparent that you don’t. To know something with 1% certainty, aka 1% confidence, is the same thing as knowing its logical negation to 99% confidence. Boolean logic, do you know it?

  35. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS: See, Bayesian reasoning, which is an incremental improvement and refinement of naive inductive reasoning.

  36. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, How do you know that any of this can be effwctive against the skeptics, though? Confidence doesn’t equal knowledge. Most of the world is confident that there’s a god and yet you disagree with them. How can you tell that they’re wrong as oppsed to any other person who holds contradictory beliefs? The problem with Bayesian inference and Boolean logic is that statistics and deduction also have a degree of faith to them. Check out the problem of the criterion and the regress arguement on why.

  37. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Even worst for Boolean logic is that we can’t even justify the assumptions of mathematics die to Russell’s paradox and Gödel’s incompleteness theroms.

  38. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Sorry for multiposting. On the off chance that you’re not just trolling, let me explain it to you in simple terms.

    In order to function in this world, we need to have estimates of the likelihood of the truth of propositions. “The estimate of the likelihood of the truth of the proposition” is pretty wordy, and so people use shorthand like “confidence” and “confidence level”, and “amount of certainty” and “certainty level”, etc. They’re all different ways of expressing your epistemic confidence, aka the epistemic probability in a Bayesian sense. To assert that one’s confidence level in a proposition is only 1% is to make a bold assertion – it is to make the bold assertion that the proposition is very probably wrong.

    You see, the fundamental problem is that we want to know about the world. We know that we are in a world, and we have some idea about the different “values” that the world can take on. It’s alternatively expressed by saying that there are many epistemically-possible worlds, and the goal is to try to narrow down, in a probabilistic sense, which world we are in.

    We want to know more about which world we are in, so that we can do cost-benefit analysis aka risk analysis, in order to determine which plan has the “best” chance of accomplishing one’s goals, in order to carry out that plan.

    In order to do cost-benefit analysis, it’s a requisite of having estimates of the probabilities, aka estimates on the odds, of the various boolean propositions at play. Error bars on the probabilities are also common. Then, one cranks out the relevant outcomes as per Bayes’s equation, or as per suitable approximations to the circumstances.

    It does not matter whether you call it “knowledge”, “belief”, “attitude”, “proclivity”, etc. It’s all a description of the same thing – an estimate of the likelihood of the truth of a proposition. “To know” something is merely shorthand for very high confidence level. “To believe” something is merely shorthand for a lesser, but still high, confidence level. “To suspect” is again merely shorthand. Your usage of the words “attitude” and “proclivity” are the same thing.

    You’re describing the standard system that everyone else uses. Your “beliefs” about the standard system are misinformed, and you’re attacking a strawman.

  39. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Even worst for Boolean logic is that we can’t even justify the assumptions of mathematics die to Russell’s paradox and Gödel’s incompleteness theroms.

    You definitely have no idea what you’re talking about. This is one of those rare times that I can invoke my own expertise. I literally have college degrees in this shit, computer science and maths, specifically mathematical sciences: discrete and algorithmic methods. This is exactly my wheelhouse.

    The whole point of modern set theory, specific ZF set theory, is to avoid Russel’s set paradox. It’s not applicable. I don’t know why you think it is. Thus, I conclude you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    You were decently close to correct with your invocation of Goedel. Loosely, the argument goes “ZF cannot prove its own consistency, and you lack any other reason to believe it’s true, and therefore you shouldn’t believe it”. However, because I am a sort of foundationalist, I would simply dismiss this criticism out-of-hand, and I would also observe that you are also a sort of foundationalist, and therefore you are a hypocrite – or grossly confused about your own beliefs. I’m now leaning towards “grossly confused” instead of “troll”.

  40. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I suppose that I should correct myself and explain. I don’t hold that ZF theory is correct on faith. It’s not foundational for me. Rather, I observe that it works well, e.g. produces useful, correct, and testable results when creating models. I observe that it’s a useful tool to model reality, and also to model beliefs in the Bayesian sense that I have described above. In other words, I believe it’s true (for a suitable definition of “true” and “believe”) because of the application of inductive reasoning. Rather, my beliefs regarding the correctness of inductive reasoning is foundational, and I hold that belief on faith (possibly with a bit of circular reasoning aka coherentism mixed in).

  41. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Just because you feel something is likely the case, doesn’t mean you should believe it. Your ignorance of soemthing should not be a reason for you to dismiss something. Labeling someone as a troll or grossly confused is the type of reasoning that leads to faith and close-mindedness instead of honest debate. Plus, I have mever once used a foundationalist principle because I don’t use basic beliefs to refite what you’re saying. I simply ise your own stamdards against you in order to show that theycare problematic. Plus, the fact thatcyou have degrees in something, doesn’t follow that you’re an expert or have a full understanding of them. This is especially true when your stuck with the many unsolved problems in philosophy. Instead of using ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and appeals to ignorance, you need to acknowledge the philosophical problems that you’re stuck with and actually engage with them by putting all of your beliefs and biases against them to see if they can stand up to scrutiny against them.

  42. oreoman1987 says

    Just because you feel something is likely the case, doesn’t mean you should believe it. Your ignorance of soemthing should not be a reason for you to dismiss something. Labeling someone as a troll or grossly confused is the type of reasoning that leads to faith and close-mindedness instead of honest debate. Plus, I have mever once used a foundationalist principle because I don’t use basic beliefs to refite what you’re saying. I simply ise your own stamdards against you in order to show that theycare problematic. Plus, the fact thatcyou have degrees in something, doesn’t follow that you’re an expert or have a full understanding of them. This is especially true when your stuck with the many unsolved problems in philosophy. Instead of using ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and appeals to ignorance, you need to acknowledge the philosophical problems that you’re stuck with and actually engage with them by putting all of your beliefs and biases against them to see if they can stand up to scrutiny against them.

  43. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Just because you feel something is likely the case, doesn’t mean you should believe it. Your

    Once more please, but this time pay attention.

    You are using the word “belief” in a way contrary to the majority of the population. You are using a non-standard definition in order to attack something that does not exist, e.g. attack a strawman.

    Words do not have intrinsic definitions. English is a creation of the last few centuries. Before that, the English word “belief” did not even exist. The meaning of words is set by consensus, and I’m telling you that you’re using the word contrary to the consensus, and consequently you misunderstand the standard scientific epistemology, and consequently you’re attacking something that does not exist, e.g. a strawman.

    I simply ise your own stamdards against you in order to show that theycare problematic.

    You are not using my own standards against me.

    For example, you keep bringing up the problem of induction as though it’s a problem for me. It’s not. I explained this already, many times. I’m a foundationalist (with a little bit of coherentist mixed in), which means that for some propositions, I freely assert that they are true for no reason, with no justification given, and with no known justification. I do not justify my use of inductive reasoning. I assert its use by fiat. You are attacking something, but the think that you are attacking is not what I actually believe. You are attacking a strawman. Engage with what I actually say I believe, instead of your own (incorrect) preconceived notions.

    Plus, the fact thatcyou have degrees in something, doesn’t follow that you’re an expert or have a full understanding of them.

    It’s a pretty good indicator. Can you even prove either of Goedel’s incompleteness theorems? Can you even provide a proof for the Halting problem (which is a simple precursor to one of Goedel’s incompleteness theorems)? I suspect not.

    You demonstrate your own cluelessness by citing “big words” like “Russel’s set paradox” in a way that’s wholly nonsensical. I’m not saying “I’m an expert, believe me because I say so”. I said “I am an expert, and you are not, and so maybe you should take an extra moment to consider what I’m about to tell you. You’re wrong because […]”. I gave a rather clear description of why your invocation of Russel’s set paradox was nonsensical in the context. If you were a reasonable person instead of an asshat, this is where you would recognize your clear error, and apologize for making it. Instead, you’re doubling down and tone-trolling
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tone%20Troll
    which is a good indicator of being an asshat.

    PS:
    Also, your spelling dropped substantially. Are you having a problem?

  44. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, No. Since I read a lot about the philosophy of religion, I take a neutral approach to th question of the existence of god. I tend to lean toward atheist, though. Yes, I do think it’s possible to know some propositions.

  45. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, the problem is is that you’re assuming that words and numbers exist. I also find it ironic that you criticize me for bad spelling considering you’ve spelled Gödel’s name wrong several times. Gödel’s theroms demonstrate that any system of mathematics is always going to have inconsistencies and that every axiom in mathematics, no matter how consistent, is always going to lead to a contradiction. Plus, I’ve never once gone after your foundational beliefs because I don’t know all of them you hold nor do I know what your position on every philosophical question is. Plus, Russell’s paradox is just one of many paradoxes for math and logic. The laws of logic themselves lead to contradictions. If they lead to contradictions, then any belief can be verified. I’m just not sure how tou as a foundherentist can get past this problem.

  46. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, the problem is is that you’re assuming that words and numbers exist.

    Oh lols.

    Gödel’s theroms demonstrate that any system of mathematics is always going to have inconsistencies

    No, they do not.

    Plus, Russell’s paradox is just one of many paradoxes for math and logic.

    Only some versions of math and logic. We fixed that like 100 years ago with the creation of ZF set theory.

    The laws of logic themselves lead to contradictions.

    No, they don’t. At least not all of them. Again, for example, ZF set theory (so far as we know).

    If they lead to contradictions, then any belief can be verified. I’m just not sure how tou as a foundherentist can get past this problem.

    I accept the logical validity of this argument. Its structure is sound, and if the premise was true, then the conclusion would definitely be true too. However, the argument is not sound. The premise is false.

  47. t90bb says

    49. OREO…

    WELL I’m interested in whether its reasonable or justified to believe a god or god exist(s)….do let me know if you find sufficient reason to believe.
    I ‘believe” in science only to the degree that it seems a useful tool in exploring what appears to be reality. Thats how I understand most of my friends here “believe” in science. No one I know claims that science or the scientific method is infallible. But….if you don’t think science has legitimate value or is reliable I invite you to the tallest building in a city near you and jump unaided. Science predicts injury. Let us know how it turns out. Have a nice night!

  48. oreoman1987 says

    I’m not so sure how you can use ZFC to have any justification to use mathematics against the skeptics. Epecially due to the many criticisms that have been raised agianst it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory#See_also
    Plus, the statement “This sentence is false” is a serious problem for the law of excluded middle. The law of identity is also problematic because identity is a very questionable concept considering the problematic idea of personal identity. And, the lw of non-contradicion also can’t seem to escape paradoxes including the liar paradox.

  49. RationalismRules says

    @oreoman
    You seem to be talking about some ultimate philosophical ideas of truth and knowledge. The scientific method doesn’t claim to address those. You do know that, right?
     
    Back to basics…
    Your first post:

    I don’t understand how The Atheist Experience and others can call themselves skeptics and yet still believe in science.

    By “believe in science”, I assumed you meant ‘have confidence in the scientific method as a method for gaining greater understanding of the world we experience”

    I’m now thinking you maybe meant something quite different. Can you please clarify, what exactly do you mean by “believe in science”.

    Also, while you’re about it, can you also please specify what you mean by ‘truth’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘skeptic’.

  50. oreoman1987 says

    RationalismRules, Confidence doesn’t mean justified or knowledge. Most of the world is confident that god exists but that doesn’t mean they’re right. There are a great many theories of truth, knowledge, and justification. Philosophical skpeticism questions absolutely everything.

  51. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-issue8/Version-1/N01981102105.pdf

    Will’s Criticism

    Only historical and naive versions of scientific foundationalism require perfect knowledge of current sensory experience. It’s borderline trivial to extend the classical version to include the possibility that one’s memory or senses can be faulty.

    Lehrer’s Criticism

    I spent like 10 minutes trying to research what this is, and failed. From that research, it seems like Lehrer is a coherentist and advocates that proper epistemology should not structure beliefs in a strict justification graph, and instead should adopt a fuzzy, whollistic approach to justification. Regardless, I don’t see how this intends to show that foundationalism always leads to logical contradictions, or whatever claim you made.

    Fallibilistic Attack
    The Fallibilistic attack on foundationalism is the denial of the possibility of direct, non-inferential
    knowledge. Because such knowledge is supposed to be the result of pure observation and observation is pure if it involves no interpretation.

    Another attack on a particular version of naive, classical foundationalism. See the response I wrote above concerning Will’s criticism.

    Evaluation and conclusion
    Foundationalism as a theory of justification has tried to hold the position that our personally held beliefs should serve as foundations for all our knowledge claims. In as much as any claim to knowledge must be anchored on a source or on a foundation which are dependent on an individual’s sense perception. For me therefore, it suggests that our claims to knowledge would be subjective and relative. For instance what holds to be true for A might not be true for B, in so far as A and B hold individual basic beliefs. Like John Locke holds that:

    A person is directly aware only of the nature of his or her own ideas; everything else is known indirectly if at all. We know the nature of our own sensory states perhaps, but how can we build from there to gain knowledge of a past, a future, or the sensory state of others which in itself should also constitute knowledge.

    I agree that as a brute factual matter, some other people have different foundations. However, I also typically assert that their foundations are incorrect, and I make this assertion by fiat. Note: I am willing to hear out challenges to my foundation where the challenges are made in terms of my foundation (that’s the coherentist part coming in), but I will simply reject out-of-hand any challenge to my foundation that is made from the perspective of another foundation.

    Yes, an accurate but pithy description of what I am doing is “I am right because I say so”. That is the foundationalist position. Of course this will lead to some situations where two foundatioanlists with different foundations will be unable to persuade the other that the other’s foundation is incorrect. It’s what happens when a scientist argues with a person with a strong faith belief that Yahweh exists. It doesn’t mean that the religious person is right, or that the religious person is equally correct, and again, what justification do I have to make such assertions? Very succinctly, because I say so. I assert that it’s reasonable to trust inductive reasoning, and I assert that it’s not reasonable to believe that the Bible is an accurate historical record as a foundational belief.

    My conclusion:

    I fail to see even an attempt to show that any form of foundationalism leads to logical contradictions. You cited this paper and implied that the paper would defend that proposition. I admit that I skimmed the paper, but I fail to see where the paper even attempts to defend any sort of proposition like that. Please point out where the paper makes that argument, because I did not see it.

    Are you going to actually try to defend your assertion that all forms of foundationalism lead to logical contradictions?

  52. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Simply look through the many criticisms of it. The biggest problem for foundationalism for me is that it can’t seem to avoid the infinite regress problem.

  53. oreoman1987 says

    Plus, how can you tell weather the religious person is right or weather the scientist is right about his basic beliefs? This is the point of the problem of the criterion and the infinite regress argument.

  54. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Regarding:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBlDGTZUOek&feature=youtu.be
    Note, I’m extending the last bit of my courtesy towards you regarding youtube videos, and I was particularly unimpressed, and therefore I won’t be watching any more video links that you give me. I might still skim any papers or articles that you link to, but watching youtube is more tedious because I cannot skim as easily.

    So, around 1:30, he uses the liar paradox. We already discussed this. This sort of self-referential logic problem was dealt with 100 years ago with the creation of ZF set theory. He’s 100 years out of date on philosophy, and so are you.

    Regarding 2:41, knowledge is defined as “justifiable true belief”. This is a historical definition, and no one today really uses this definition except as a temporary approximation in an introduction where it will be replaced later with a better definition, such as the one that I gave above in post #41.

    Regarding 3:04, “P3): The justification for [a belief] cannot come from itself or another self-justifying belief as such a belief would be arbitrarily justified”. As a proper foundationalist, I do not accept this premise, and moreover, I assert that this premise is false.

    Around here, I started skipping ahead because he’s not saying anything terribly interesting. I saw nothing more of value, except around 12:16, which seems to indicate that this person never heard of ZF and the motivations behind ZF, which means that they’re 100 years behind on modern philosophy, again, just like you.

    PS:
    Let me try it like this. I take out a gun, and say that I will shoot the person next to you in their head in 5 seconds, and then I shoot them in the head. I then point the gun at you, and say that I will shoot you in the head in 5 seconds. Presumably, you will take some action to avoid being shot in the head.

    Why will you move? On my explanation of the world and your reasoning, using my terms, that’s because you don’t want to die, and you have the belief that if I shoot you in the head, then you will likely die. I would further say that your belief “if one gets shot in the head, then one is likely to die” is derived from experience and inductive reasoning.

    Consequently, you started evaluated possible futures, and you don’t like the futures where you get shot in the head, and you suspect with good reason that I’m likely to try to shoot you in the head, and therefore you start evaluating possible futures where you take some actions (or inaction) to see which futures lead to worlds where are you are less likely to be shot in the head in the next few seconds. Then, after evaluating which plan of action is most likely to leave your head (and body) without bullet holes in it, you employ that plan of action.

    For example, perhaps you decide to run out a nearby door, because of all of the possible plans and possible worlds that you evaluated, the one with the highest likelihood to avoid being shot in the head is to run as fast as you can outside the door to break my line of sight, and also because the wall may impede the progress of bullets to some degree. This plan itself is based on the beliefs that I am less likely to hit you if I cannot see you, and the belief that I cannot see you if there is a wall between us, and it’s also based on the belief that solid objects like walls tend to impede the progress of traveling objects, such as bullets, and so on and so forth.

    I fail to comprehend any other possible explanation of what is going on in this hypothetical story. Again, at best, it seems that you simply want to replace some terms with other terms, while leaving the structure of the story the same. It seems that whatever story you want to tell about what happens in this hypothetical scenario, you have to resort to the same structural thinking, no matter whether you call it “belief” or “attitude” or “proclivity”.

  55. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Simply look through the many criticisms of it. The biggest problem for foundationalism for me is that it can’t seem to avoid the infinite regress problem.

    I don’t understand. Foundationalism doesn’t suffer from the infinite regress problem because it doesn’t use an infinite regress of justifications. What are you talking about?

    Plus, how can you tell weather the religious person is right or weather the scientist is right about his basic beliefs? This is the point of the problem of the criterion and the infinite regress argument.

    God you’re bad at reading. I discussed this already in great detail. See what I already wrote on this topic.

  56. oreoman1987 says

    Actually, ZFC predates Gödel and Russell (1870s) and mathematics and set theory still manage to be incomsistent today. Plus, just because I act in a certian way towards particular cituations, doesn’t mean I have to believe that it’s going to occur. This is the point about proclivities. I’d highly recommend you watch the other videos in the playlist and check out other series that channel has on many other topics. Also, this guy has a long series on set theory that he did not too long ago.

  57. oreoman1987 says

    Also, foundationalism runs into a regress problem because someone could keep asking a justification for each of your justifications. In other words asking “why” to every response you give. Plus, there no such thing as being behind in modern philosophy. Many ancient schools of philosophy are still being taught and used today. Especially Aristotle’s syllogism and classical logic. The fact that something is old doesn’t mean it’s outdated. You need to actually watchcthe entire video and understand what problems knowledge faces today.

  58. RationalismRules says

    @oreoman

    Confidence doesn’t mean justified or knowledge.

    This is completely irrelevant. What I asked you to clarify was what exactly you meant by “believe in science”, as you used it in your original post:

    I don’t understand how The Atheist Experience and others can call themselves skeptics and yet still believe in science

    Are you able to be specific about what you meant, or does the point fall apart as soon as we examine it more closely?
     

    Philosophical skpeticism [sic] questions absolutely everything.

    I would say most AXP’ers don’t consider themselves philosophical skeptics by your definition. What we tend to mean by ‘skeptic’ around here is someone who doesn’t believe in things without good underlying reasons/evidence.

    I don’t question the nature of truth, or whether we are living in a computer simulation, or [insert philosophical issue du jour], because none of these make a smidgeon of difference in how I live in the world. So I’m not a philosophical skeptic in your terminology, but I am a real-world skeptic in mine.

    Perhaps this inability to understand, that you refer to in your OP, is simply because you’re misunderstanding how we are using the term?
     
    Also still waiting on what you mean by ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’. You keep talking about science not being a path to those things, but as I said in my previous:

    You seem to be talking about some ultimate philosophical ideas of truth and knowledge. The scientific method doesn’t claim to address those. You do know that, right?

    Do you actually understand that point? Science is about increasing our understanding of the natural world. It makes no claim to ultimate truth or ultimate knowledge.

  59. paxoll says

    Seriously, was this 65 posts that boil down to fucken hard solipsism? Oreo. If I ask you to hand me a brick. That brick is heavy and hard to the touch. I now throw that brick at your head. A “Skeptic” would stand there and be beaten senseless. This is NOT how skeptic is defined and used in modern parlance, and no one actually lives this way, it is a philosophical masturbation of juvenile philosophers. A skeptic is someone who is (according to Hume) “In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.” Unless someone is too slow of thought to react, or is able to alter their belief system in a fundamental way, they are going to believe that brick is going to hurt when it hits them in the head. This will “solve” the problem of “Skeptics”.

    You seem to simply be spewing out any and all “problems” of epistemology without actually knowing or understanding what they mean and simply quoting “criticisms” by other people without understanding what those mean either. Yea I can google criticism of science too. No one needs to prove the consistency of the laws of nature, or math. We have justification in that presupposition because ALL our experience confirms that conclusion, while none of our experience contradicts it. And a silly word game is not going to change the fact that every single person, that is not brain damaged in some special way, is going to wake up tomorrow believing that gravity is going to make their feet hit the floor when they roll out of bed with no conscious thought.

    Yes ALL actions are based on beliefs, and beliefs are involuntary. You cannot move your arm if you do not believe you have an arm or if you believe your arm cannot move. This is why proportional beliefs is the best description of how our brain interprets reality. Even if I did a magic trick and made the brick I’m going to throw at your head turn into a balloon. Your initial belief would be that a brick was going to painfully hit you, even after I did the trick multiple times there would be a smaller proportioned belief that it was going to hit you. This is not just what would happen, it is the most rational thing to happen. Why? Because out of all the possible responses it is the most consistent with the evidence available.

    Good luck RR & EL

  60. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I feel like I should give this a better treatment.

    A formal system S is composed of three things: a language of discourse, a list of axioms, and a list of derivation rules.

    A language of discourse is an enumeratable set of finite-length strings, where each string is composed of symbols from a finite-size list of indivisible, atomic symbols (aka characters). The set of symbols is also known as the alphabet. The domain of discourse might be equal to the set of all finite-length strings over the alphabet, but frequently the domain of discourse is a well-defined strict-subset. For example, “1+1=2” and “1+1=3” might be in the language of discourse, but “++1” and “I am a teapot” might not be in the language of discourse.

    A list of axioms is an enumeratable list of finite-length strings from the domain of discourse.

    A list of derivation rules is an enumeratable list of unambiguous, “mechanical”, computable functions, where each derivation rule takes as input a finite list of strings from the domain of discourse, and deterministically produces as output one new string in the domain of discourse. For example, a derivation rule might be “wherever you see the substring ‘(1+1)’, you may replace it with the substring ‘(2)'”.

    A proof of a string, G, in the language of discourse of a formal system, S, is a finite list of applications of single derivation rules which starts with only the axioms of S and which ends with the string G.

    A string, G, in the language of discourse of a formal system S is said to be provable in S iff G is in the language of discourse of S and there exists a proof of G in S. G is also said to be a theorem of S iff G is provable in S.

    A formal system is consistent iff there are no strings G in the language of discourse so that G is provable and ¬G is provable.

    Notice that I did not use the words “true” or “false” in this description of a formal system. I simply used the unambiguous terms like “provable”, “computable”, and “enumeratable (in the usual sense of computation theory)”.

    What Goedel did is discover a way to construct a particular string G in the language of discourse of a particular formal system S so that he could, using the derivation rules of basic logic and S, prove that G is not provable in S and ¬G is not provable in S. Moreover, the proof applied to not just one formal system, but all formal systems that are consistent and that can express certain basic “facts” about natural numbers and arithmetic. One can understand and prove Geodel’s first incompleteness theorem just fine without ever having to resort to the words “true” and “false” (although it might make it tedious to write).

    The core point of this post is:
    “This sentence is false”
    is not the same thing as
    g := “g is not provable in S”

    The first is imprecise English language. The second can be made formally precise in a particular formal system. While at first glance it appears that they’re close enough that it appears that Goedel proved all formal systems which contain enough basic “facts” about natural numbers and arithmetic must contain liar paradoxes, this is not true. “This sentence is false” is paradoxical. “This sentence is not provable in S and the negation of this sentence is not provable in S” is not paradoxical.

    For further reading, I strongly suggest
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/

    and especially this book (although I have a few minor quibbles with the presentation)
    “Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse”
    by Torkel Franzén

  61. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Regarding oreoman1987 in posts 63, 64, and 65
    Ok, now he’s just trolling, or he’s deluded or something.

    I have no idea what he might possibly mean when he says that ZFC predates the 1870s because in order to even coherently write down the continuum hypothesis, the “C” in “ZFC”, you had to already know the original work of George Cantor which was published circa 1878.

    As for post 64, I don’t even. It’s like he doesn’t understand what foundationalism is. Foundationalism ends the infinite regress of justifications by refusing to give justifications for certain beliefs.

    I already said that I’m not watching any more videos of his, so I’m ignoring his video in 65. If he wants to make an argument here in text, I’ll read it.

    I also see that the “royal we” is coming out, or something. That’s a good sign of an actual crackpot. Is there a PC way of saying that I think this person should actually seek counselling? I’m starting to become concerned for their well-being, just like I am for the author of Time Cube.

    PS:
    I see no response to my “shooting” hypothetical challenge in post 61. I think I’ll just hammer on that point until I get an answer. I think that’s the most likely way to be productive at this point.

  62. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS:
    Fuck my life. I confused the “C” in “ZFC”. There, the “C” stands for “axiom of choice”, and not the “continuum hypothesis”.

  63. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, It seems you’ve taken a dogmatic stance on debating by appealing to ad hominem attacks. Refusing to give justificarions for foundationalism or not watching videos that people link to you is the type of reasoning that leads people to fights instead of debate. If you had watched the video, you’d understand that your accusations of us not being informed of ZFC was incorrect.

  64. oreoman1987 says

    RationalismRules, I’m defending skepticism. Not solipsism. My point was to see how you know that solipsism is false.

  65. Wiggle Puppy says

    I woke up this morning and checked the board and feel very vindicated in my decision to step out of the conversation early. Oreoman is still bringing up questions in post 74 that I answered back in post 14. This person is either a) a troll or b) someone who just finished a freshman philosophy course and has fallen heads-over-heels in love with the idea of questioning epistemological foundations for no apparent reason. Good luck.

  66. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Labeling soeone as a troll is no more effective than a theist calling atheism a religion. If you have a consistent belief system, you should be able to defend it against all crticisms and ot resort to ad hominems.

  67. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, I didn’t say ZFC predates the 1870s. I said it predates Russell amd Gödel. Even after ZFC and other set theories were established, mathematics still ran into trouble with Russell amd Gödel. This is especially true of the abandonment of the Hillbert program.

  68. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ troll 76:

    “If you have a consistent belief system, you should be able to defend it against all crticisms and ot resort to ad hominems.”

    Thanks for your concern, but I feel no need to defend my belief system against someone who offers no alternative for consideration.

  69. oreoman1987 says

    Plus, I also never said you used the words true and false in your sentences. But if you can’t know a statement is acurate either way, it would seem that you’re still stuck in a paradox or ancontradiction one way or the other.

  70. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Saying you’re going to stick to a belief system be ause your opponent hasn’t offered an alternative is an appeal to ignorance. Your ignorance of something shouldn’t be a reason for you to believe it or dismiss it. Instead you should be able to know weather you can defend it against the skeptics.

  71. Wiggle Puppy says

    “Saying you’re going to stick to a belief system be ause your opponent hasn’t offered an alternative is an appeal to ignorance.”

    No, it’s an appeal to practical reality.

    “Your ignorance of something shouldn’t be a reason for you to believe it or dismiss it.”

    Sure, but its continued usefulness is, tautological, a good reason to rely on its continued usefulness.

    “Instead you should be able to know weather you can defend it against the skeptics.”

    If they don’t offer an alternative that works better, then I’m stuck dealing with the best option available in the given moment.

  72. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, What do you mean by paractic reality? So many people have held different views of reality. This is the point of metaphysics. Plus. useful doesn’t mean true. Religion may be useful for most of the world but yet some don’t agree with it. The idea of something working also has its share of problems. Especially when pragmatism has its own share of criticisms.

  73. Wiggle Puppy says

    “So many people have held different views of reality. This is the point of metaphysics.”

    So many people have held different views of which movie is best. This is the point of movie criticism. Some people say that The Godfather is the best movie, but there are criticisms of this position. Some people say that Citizen Kane is the best movie, but there are criticisms of this position too. I’m not going to tell you what movie I think is best, but whatever movie you pick as the best, there will be other movies that have better dialogue, cinematography, pacing, or other factors, so there is going to be a problem with whichever movie you think is best. There have been many film critics and they all offer their opinions about movies. I can direct you to some Wikipedia pages and Youtube videos about movie criticism. I’m not going to tell you what movie is best, but if you’re going to pick a favorite movie, then you should be able to defend it against criticism.

    x 100

  74. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Foundationalism is based on the belief that a belief system should start with an unprovable starting point (axiom/assunption) which is self-justified and is in no need of further justification. The problem is, many foundationalists positions are contradicotry from others.

  75. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, I think film criticism and greatness is also very subjective. Plus, I’m not sure this analogy really works as an analogy in the discussion of metaphysics because the whole point is is that there are so many theories of reality that are in total opposition to others. I just have yet to find one that has yet to have justification.

  76. Wiggle Puppy says

    “I just have yet to find one that has yet to have justification.”

    Tell me when you do and then maybe we can have a useful discussion.

  77. oreoman1987 says

    paxoll, Just because you can act out on certian situatons, like avoiding getting hit by a brick, doesn’t mean you have to believe it. You can however have proclivities.

  78. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, I’d be curious to see what metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical theory you hold to be true.

  79. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, I’m also curious if any of you have read Russell’s proof of 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica.

  80. Wiggle Puppy says

    “I’d be curious to see what metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical theory you hold to be true.”

    The other commenters are right – you rely on straw manning like nobody’s business. I’ve said multiple times now that my epistemological approaches aren’t necessarily “true,” but, as far as I can tell, they seem to provide me with the most reliably accurate methods for understanding the world I find myself in, and I’m therefore by necessity stuck with them until someone offers me a *better* way of coming to an accurate understanding of the world around me.

    I’m not answering your actual question until you can get this right, because it’s critical.

  81. Smattering_@sdf.com says

    This has been… The least interesting, troll-hijacked thread in history.
    A suitable trophy is being fashioned, from a pile dreck.

  82. t90bb says

    Oreo…….

    I am glad you found the board. This was going to be a long week without someone raising something to chew on. Of course your very first post was a strawman which has been pointed out by at least four of us. EL and myself as well as RR have asked you repeatedly to specifically define what you meant by “believe in science” in your opening post. If you are using “belief in science” to mean a pathway to absolute and unquestioned KNOWLEDGE……you are strawmanning us in the group. Few, if any I know make such a claim. This has been pointed out repeatedly to you…and it seems you want to ignore it so you can pontificate. You do recognize that if you are using “belief in science” as I characterized you are strawmanning right?? Unless you are willing to acknowledge this there really is no point in further engagement with you as you are not dealing in good faith. Most of us are skeptical of all things including conclusions made by the scientific method. Thats why these conclusions are titled “theories”. They are characterized as the current and best known explanations..open to further revisions. Science has skepticism built into the scientific method…hence the process allowing for challenge and peer review. But even those theories that pass peer review….still remain the best known explanation on the basis of the data submitted and analyzed AND is always subject to further review and challenge. This idea that those that find science a useful tool ALSO always assert science establishes absolute knowledge is simply wrong. And you are smart enough to realize this which makes me think you may have ab undisclosed motive. Honestly many of your arguments often mimic those raised by a presuppositionalist apologist.

    Also….
    Under the definition that a theist has a belief in the existence of god or gods….and atheist lacking a belief in the existence of god or gods…..are you a theist or an atheist???…..(I would like you to clarify your earlier statement of being neutral on the question of gods existence but “leaning toward atheism.”) You either believe a god or gods exist or you lack a belief that a god or gods exist. Which one characterizes your condition?

    and finally….
    Can you tell us why you “lean towards atheism”? Please be specific.

    So again and finally:

    1. Tell us specifically and in detail what you meant by the phrase “believe in science” in your opening post
    2. Using the definitions that an theist has a belief in god or gods and an atheist lacking belief in god or gods, which are you?
    3. Why did you say earlier that you “lean toward atheism”?? Can you briefly summarize the basis for this?

    Many of us will be out visiting family over the next few days so be patient if we are not quick to respond. Hope you have a great holiday man.

  83. t90bb says

    Hey guys…..

    Quick shout out to Mr Atheist for doing a great job. Hes incredibly smart, clever, and likeable. I am a huge fan.

    And wanted to thank all associated with TAE for all they do.

    Finally I wanted to wish all associated with this board a happy and healthy holiday. You guys teach me stuff all the time and I really appreciate it. Many of you guys amaze me on the regular.

    Much love….

  84. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, The reason I bring up the philosophical problems for science is because so many people believe it can give us truth. And so many use it because they find it the most useful tool. So, it’s not a straman to use them against people who happen to be scientific realists. Also, these are not the arguments of presuppositionalists, they’re the arguments of ancient and modern philosophers. Go to the wikipedia page on epistemology to get a quick glance at what the issues are for knowledge and every belief and justification.

  85. t90bb says

    95. Oreo……you sidestepped all my questions again….you are done. see ya……

    96. Monocle….love you man:::…..yea he is strawmaning, Again, if he finds science without merit, reliability. and value he could jump from a skyscraper. But he wont. You know why// ? He trusts science, thats why. The next time he posts he will write a message and press xmit trusting his communication will be delivered to the board YOU know why>>?? because he trusts science. OREO us truing to equate confidence that water will freeze at approx 32 degrees with the confidence of some that pixies and santa exist. I suspect hes a closet theist. I have since the first post. I could be wrong, but I have lost interest regardless. I do wish him a happy holiday.

  86. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreoman “scientific realists”…

    What the heck is that??? And why do you think being a REALIST is a bad thing??? What have you got against reality or KNOWLEDGE… you do know that science means knowledge… no???

    Do you think philosophy can be superior to knowledge about reality???

    Did philosophy help you avoid getting Polio or Small Pox or to die from a simple cut while you are playing out in the yard as a child?????

    Did philosophy create the hospitals, the supermarkets, the cars, the planes, the electricity, the sewers the roads the cell phones the computers the houses and the roads that surround every bit of your existence and help make your life meaningful and enjoyable and healthy and well fed and able to GAZE UPON YOUR NAVAL in your spare time and call it philosophy????

    YOU INGRATE… if it were not for science and scientists and people who are willing to investigate REALITY and be realistic about their findings, you would not be able to spew the poppycock out of your mouth that you have done in the above posts.

    You know what is the remedy for INGRATES of your kind….. is to put you in some third world backwater village and see how quickly you stop your naval gazing claptrap and start begging for clean running water let alone a comfortable mattress.

  87. Ronald Kyle says

    Seeing that the theocratic hold on society is increasingly being eroded by the success of science and scientific contributions to society’s general well being, PROFESSIONAL theists are relentlessly trying to UNDERMINE the confidence of the recipients of the benefits of science.

    No honest, right in the mind person who is not a PROFESSIONAL liar for his sky daddy would attack science and people who appreciate science. The moment you see one of these people who try to do that you are guaranteed a theist zealot for his version of whatever sky daddy delusion he thinks is reality.

    Accordingly, brace yourself for a mercurial disingenuous inveigler trying by hook or by crook to peddle his deadbeat sky daddy with specious semantic skullduggery and syntactic chicanery and linguistic legerdemain and sophistic smoke screens to obscure the shoving of his deadbeat sky daddy through illogic trap doors and by magical sleights of the tongue.

  88. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I’m still waiting for a proper response to my hypothetical challenge that is the second half of my post #61.

  89. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, so many people dogmatically believe that science can give us truth or knowledge but the problem ofninduction amd underdetermination shows that this is false. Scientific realism is a philosophical position that believes science accurately describes reality. Science came from philosophy and without it, science wouldn’t be the way it is right now. Science doesn’t look for truth. Philosophy does. The branch of philosophy known as epistemology is the study of knowledge and how or if it exists. Keep in mind, I’m defending philosophy. Not an invisible sky daddy as you assume.

  90. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, you can find so many responses and criticisms to foundationalism throughout many books and online sources. Same with coherentism and infinitism. If foundationalism actually was successful, I don’t think we would still be stuck with the regress problem or Agrippa’s trilemma.

  91. RationalismRules says

    @oreo

    The reason I bring up the philosophical problems for science is because so many people believe it can give us truth.

    Science does not address ‘philosophical truth’. The philosophical problems that you are so worried about are not relevant to the only type of ‘truth’ that science actually addresses ie. propositional truth.

    This point has been made to you repeatedly, yet you continue to argue that ‘so many people’ believe it does, when clearly no-one in this conversation does.
    This is exactly why people accuse you of strawmanning.

    To put it another way, your entire argument here is founded on a equivocation fallacy on the word ‘truth’.
     
    Before I go, a point that’s been niggling at me. In post #48 you said:

    I take a neutral approach to th question of the existence of god. I tend to lean toward atheist, though.

    I have news for you: you are an atheist. “I take a neutral approach to the existence of god” means you neither believe nor disbelieve. Unless you actually believe in a god, you are an atheist – you don’t need to disbelieve in gods, you just need to not believe in them. Which you don’t.

    t90bb explicitly questioned you on this in post #93. You avoided answering any of his questions. As you have avoided answering almost all the questions that have been addressed to you. You have a bad habit of avoiding any questions/responses you find too challenging and diverting to territory you find more comfortable. You need to get over this if you ever want to make progress in your own thinking. If you’re so enamored of your own argument that your response to challenging counterpoints is to simply block them out of your mind, you will never learn anything.
     
    I’m done. I’ll leave you to argue your strawman with whoever is sufficiently bored at Xmas…

  92. twarren1111 says

    Oreoman, thank you. You are the best present I’ve had in years. You are so fallacious, you’re more than Sarah paling for Tina fey. I adore your word salad. I adore your isms and ists and ologies. You are either the Will Ferrell of trolls or need to be banned. Regardless, thank you for a serious chuckle on Christmas Eve. Oreo!

  93. indianajones says

    @ Oreo. I have tiled a bathroom floor using classical greek geometry. I assert that I can do this to any sufficiently standard bathroom floor. I know that geometry on a flat plane doesn’t work without some heavy duty modification for say a soccer ball and therefore geometry itself has limitations.

    Now, instead of ‘oh see this video’ etc, as has been asked repeatedly, how about an easy to follow 3 sentence (or so) answer running along those lines?

  94. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreoman “Science came from philosophy and without it, science wouldn’t be the way it is right now“…. yes indeed… but what you are doing is not philosophy… what you are doing is hijacking of philosophy in order to UNDERMINE one of her children.

    What you are doing is SOPHISTRY not philosophy!!

  95. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreoman “many people dogmatically believe that science can give us truth or knowledge but the problem ofninduction amd underdetermination shows that this is false.“….

    The knowledge that science has given us enabled us to land on the moon and send probes to the outer reaches of our solar system and to understand the nature of reality and to be able to peek at your innards and to see the minuscule and the unreachable and to create new species of food providing plants and to soar above the planet and see as if we were gods and to give hearing to the deaf and mobility to the disabled and to communicate across the planet in an instant etc. etc.

    If you see no truth in this knowledge then you are an UNGRATEFUL PISSANT.

    The mother is loved for her contributions as a doting housewife and valued for her good nurture and good genes ….but when her daughter grows up to be a Neurobiologist we must acknowledge that the daughter has surpassed the mother and the mother should be proud and satisfied with her role in advancing humanity and make ready for a good quiet retirement to make way for her child to now be in the fray of things.

    If you deny that science provides us with much better tools and methodologies to approximate reality than any philosophical claptrap has ever done then I suggest that you sir, have little understanding of both philosophy and science.

    OR… your goal is something more insidious??? Hmmmm???

  96. Wiggle Puppy says

    May I sum up?

    Q) Okay, if most major epistemological approaches can be subjected to criticism, what is your solution? How should we approach the world around us?

    A) Science has flaws.

    Q) Are you theist or atheist?

    A) Science has flaws.

    Q) How are your using the terms “belief” and “knowledge”?

    A) Science has flaws.

    Bye.

  97. t90bb says

    to RationalismRules, EL, Wiggle,RK,Monocle……

    OREO added absolutely nothing to this board…..from his first post that strawmanned us as a group until now. We have repeatedly corrected him on our positions but he seems to like to flex his pretend muscles against the strawman! He appears a one trick pony. Like so many that show up here….they flame out quick. Honesty wins out.

  98. StonedRanger says

    Happy, er I mean, Merry Christmas to everyone here at the blog and those on all the AXP shows both in front of and behind the scenes. Thanks for the fine shows this year and cant wait for next years. Happy new years to everyone too.
    Oreoman, hehehe, you crack me up dude. How did I ever manage to live nearly 64 years without ever reading any philosophy books? Still waiting to see you provide any actual answers to peoples questions, but Im not going to hold my breath.

  99. Ian Butler says

    Oreoman brings to mind a quote of which I’m rather fond, which states, “knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.”

    I’d update that to, “knowledge is knowing the meaning of big words, wisdom is knowing not to put them in a word salad.”

  100. oreoman1987 says

    It seems all of you have not looked ito philosophy very much. Let alone the philosophy of science. Just because science lands us on the moon and stuff, doesn’t mean it gives us knowledge.

  101. oreoman1987 says

    I’d recommend all of you start questioning science and look into philosophy and the impact it’s had on science and everything else. I only wish for everyone to put foward the same skepticism towards other things a s they do religion.

  102. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, Yes. Without philosophy science wouldn’t exist and therefroe would never had been able to build hospitals. To say things like scientific evidence and science is true because it gives us good things is simply begging the question against the skeptics.

  103. oreoman1987 says

    StonedRanger, Just because you’ve never read or heard about something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or is irrelevant. Without philosophy, it’s impossibke to argue for anything. Especially when Aristotle isnthe one who invented science, logic, and syllogism.

  104. twarren1111 says

    Oreo,

    I see you’re double stuffed.

    Have you noted that every, and I think that term is correct, scientific claim Aristotle had was wrong. And it was his authority that prevented scientists for almost two thousand years to finally progress beyond him.

  105. oreoman1987 says

    Secular Strategy, The reason why people earn PhD’s (Doctor of Philosophy) from universities is because everything that you study came from philosophy. This is especilly true regarding science. Albert Einstein himself can tell you about the credit science owes to philosophy.

  106. oreoman1987 says

    twarren1111, The difference is is that Aristotle lived in an age where science had only just started being invented and therefore had an excuse for ignorance. Science however is still having trouble coming up with true infallable knowledge. People like Lawrence Krauss and Neil Degrasse Tyson have completely missed the point of the importance philosophy has on science. Daniel Dennett, on of the four horsemen of the new atheism, can tell you why science needs philosophy as well.

  107. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ troll 115:

    “It seems all of you have not looked ito philosophy very much.”

    Thanks for one of the most hilarious examples of Dunning-Kruger I’ve ever seen in my life.

  108. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, How is that an example of bias? I simply stated several times on how science can’t operate without philosophy.

  109. oreoman1987 says

    Secular Strategy, This is an example of the problem of induction. It asks how you can be sure that the boiling point for water or the meltong point for things is always going to be the same in the future.

  110. Monocle Smile says

    Oreo, why do you eat when you’re hungry? Clearly the hunger isn’t infallible knowledge, so surely it’s just an illusion that can be safely ignored, right?
    If you disagree, you’re a hypocrite. If you agree, you’re a liar. Troll elsewhere.

  111. oreoman1987 says

    Secular Strategy, 212 F but there’s no guarentee that it’ll continue to stay like that due to science being unjustified by philosophy.

  112. oreoman1987 says

    Monocle Smile, Just because peopleeat due to hunger and need it to survive tells you nothing about what they believe. To take action doesn’t require a belief but maybe proclivities. The fact that you have eaten everyday in the past due to hunger doesn’t guarentee that it’ll continue that way in the future due to the problem of induction.

  113. Mobius says

    Jeez. One long thread from Oreoman about how science isn’t absolute knowledge, so we should throw the whole thing onto the trash heap of history. Talk about black-and-white thinking. Oreoman should look into one of the concepts introduce in beginning calculus…limits. We don’t have to get to the absolute point. We can get close enough. Is 3.14159265 equal to Pi? No. Certainly not. But it is danged sure close enough for any engineering project you care to name.

    And that is what the inductive process of science does, get us ever closer to what actually happens in the universe. Was Newton’s Law of Gravity the last word on gravity. No. Einstein came up with a better, more encompassing theory. And his is surely not the last word on gravity since we know it fails on the scale of the very very small. Yet Newton’s equations allow us to navigate space probes to Pluto with amazing accuracy.

    So Oreoman deserves on huge [FACEPALM].

  114. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ troll #124:

    “Wiggle Puppy, How is that an example of bias?”

    You don’t know the difference between “bias” in the colloquial sense and “cognitive bias.” Seems that my diagnosis of Dunning-Kruger was spot-on.

  115. oreoman1987 says

    Mobius, If all your beliefs could be wrong, then you don’t know anything. Science is a very fallable way of trying to get to knowledge even if the problem of induction didn’t exist. Just because someone comes along with a so-called better theory doesn’t make science anymore valid or sound. The problem of underdetermination demonstrates that science can never know when it has it right and when it doesn’t David Hume demonstrated that belief in scientific reasoning is circular because it relies on inductive reasoning.Thomas Khun pointed out that scientists actually tend to ignore facts that contradict their theories. Just because science changes it’s mind, doesn’t make it rational or true. I recommend looking into the philosophy of science.

  116. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Basically everyone I’ve responded to here have demonstrated bias and dogma when defending science.

  117. oreoman1987 says

    Monocle Smile,What you’re doing is the tu quoue fallacy. Just because your opponent doesn’t present a standard doesn’t mean you have one. If you have a soulution to the problem of skepticism, please present it. Otherwise, you’re stuck with faith.

  118. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Oreo is demented, or just a troll. Either way, I suggest you leave them alone. PS: The most ironic part still is that Oreoman practices the same scientific epistemology as the rest of us, but instead this entire argue is about semantics, e.g. this entire argument is about what terms to use, and his esoteric definitions of some terms that lead to strawmanning of the standard position.

  119. davecampbell says

    Dear Mr Atheist.
    Thanks so much for the great end-of-the-year clip show. It was fun to relive all those moments from the past year.
    And congratulations to ACA for such a successful expansion of programming and activities. Keep doing so much good. You are an inspiration to us all.

  120. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreoman “Otherwise, you’re stuck with faith”….

    AHA… you now reveal your true nature as a LIAR FOR JESUS (or whatever your sky daddy is) … one of the most pursued ruses that Liars For Jesus keep relentlessly trying to use is the “science is faith” poppycock.

    The idea is that if science is faith then their faith is just as valid and we all have to have faith and poppycock and gobbledygook.

    Lying For Jesus is a well cherished and long held tradition in the Christian Proselytizing profession … and it is a fulltime career for some well trained and funded LIARS like this Oreoman has just revealed himself to be.

    Some of their favorite targets are forums and sites like this one.

    It is also a Muslim pursuit too… but I have not encountered many Muslims doing it… Christians must be much better at it.

    Their relentless pursuit is to undermine science and to sow the seeds of doubt about the validity of science by utilizing all sorts of “epistemology is not certain” hogwash.

    Your jig is up Oreoman… you exposed yourself with your very own words.

    I suggest you skedaddle on to the next place you may have better luck spreading your lies there.

  121. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, I’m defending philosophy. Not Christianity. I don’t believe in any religion either. The point I’m making is the fact that science is unable to justify itself due to its use of inductive reasoning. My only wish is for more atheists to be more skeptial than they are.

  122. Bluestar says

    I hate philosophical woo as much as I hate religious woo. ” How do we know that knowing is really knowing”. The argument for the rabid eel postulated in the 4 th century bce verifies this…..My experience has taught me that life is much too short to wallow in such things…..

  123. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Wrong! It does not require one to believe in science in order to use it. This is lnown as scientific instrumentalism. You din’t have to believe in science in order to use it. I’ve never once said stop using science. Just to not expect it to give you knowledge. So far, you cannot let go of your faith in science and math.

  124. oreoman1987 says

    Bluestar, That’s the point of epistemology. Philosopher are still trying to come up with a solution to the problem of skepticism and to defend the idea that knowledge is possible. Science can’t even begin to do this. Philosophy does attempt this.

  125. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I’m still waiting for a proper response to the challenge and hypothetical that is the second half of my post #61. Please answer the specific questions. Here, let me ask them again:
    Do you agree with my story about how you would react in that situation, except for the choice of word “belief” instead of “proclivity”? Please explain in clear detail what you need to change to my story in order for it to be applicable to you.

    Thus far, I have been unable to determine any actual difference between my position and your position, except that you really don’t like certain words, and the consequent misunderstand that you have regarding my position. It really would help the situation if you answered the damn questions already.

  126. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreoman “demonstrated bias and dogma when defending science”…

    Everyone is just pointing out your mercurial disingenuous SOPHITRY trying to peddle your sky daddy delusion with semantic skullduggery and sophistic smoke screens to obscure the shoving of your delusion back onto the stage of reality through illogic trap doors.

  127. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, The difference is is is that I’m a scientific instrumentalist and you’re a scientific realist. you hold on to your faith and science despite the philosophical problems that are a threat to the scientific method . Just because I use science every day doesn’t mean I believe in it. just because I use science every day doesn’t mean I believe in it when I say proclivity I meant to say a reasonable expectation based on the probability of what I’ve experienced so far . it may or may not be the case that something will happen to the end based on probability but that does not mean that I believe it . if you truly believe that science can give you truth I have yet to see any justification for this belief. this is especially problematic when you run into problems like Aggrpas trilemma which is a problem for all theories of justification. How can you use science to refute something like solipsism or the brain in a vat hypothesis? Science is a very weird way to find any truth or knowledge even if there were no philosophical problems that threaten it .

  128. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I’m still waiting for a clear answer to my actual question, instead of the question that you chose to answer. Is there anything that you disagree about my story, except for the choice of word “belief” instead of “proclivity”?

  129. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreoman “To say things like scientific evidence and science is true because it gives us good things is simply begging the question against the skeptics”

    No you fool… no one said that… you are strawmanning and that is another TELLTALE of your casuistic nature.

    Scientific evidence and science is as true as we can currently get to REALITY because the verifications of the theories have succeeded so far and the PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING.

    Do you know anything at all about the scientific method… I suggest you educate yourself… or go back to the seminary school at which you learned your lying for Jesus tricks and ask for you money back because you are an abject failure at it.

  130. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, How can you tell the difference between a delusion in reality if you haven’t yet solved the problem of skepticism? there’s just as much evidence that you’re a brain in a vat as there is for everything that you see in science . how do you know someone like a solipsist it’s wrong ? if you can’t tell the difference between something like a dream or a solipsistic world from reality then it’s likely all your believes are completely false . this is the point of the theories of justification in the study of epistemology . Without it science can’t even start to get off the ground. neither can logic or mathematics .

  131. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, wrong again! people on the atheist experience and other sick or groups always put forth the terms scientific method in scientific evidence . The issue is is that Santaland can’t even solve any basic scientific problem is that it faces . In fact, physics itself has many unsolved problems that it has been unable to solve for a long time.

  132. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreoman “Science can’t even begin to do this”

    So you create a pathetic meaningless pointless “problem” that no one even cares about and then you tell us that science cannot solve it just because you say so and then again just at your own word you declare that you can solve it MAYBE one day and then you want us to believe you that science is useless and that your DELUSIONS of maybe one day you might give us the solution to the problem YOU CREATED and that no one gives a tittle of crap about.

    WOW…. sounds to me like some stuff peddlers of religious delusions do…. ah… yes… but that is exactly what you are.

  133. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    And I read them, and nowhere in those comments do you clearly answer my question “Do you find anything objectionable about my story if I replace the word ‘belief’ with ‘proclivity’?”. I am not going to go any further, and I’m going to encourage everyone else to also not engage with you any further, until I get a clear answer to this specific question. If you persist in dodging the question after I’ve answered so many of yours, then I’ll also ask for you to get banned. (My voice probably carries only very little weight in this manner.)

  134. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, This sort of reasoning that you use is what leads people to faith instead of honest debate. You need to actually read my comments carefully. Something may or may not be “objectionable”. We just don’t really know because of the problem of he criterion. Encouraging people not to engage with someone is what also lead to faith. Plus, how excatly am I dodging any questions?

  135. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Ok. I move to ban the guy. He’s not actually engaging and answering questions.

    Everyone else, please don’t engage with him in any way, except to direct him to the question that I asked way back in the second half of my post 61.

  136. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Your question seems nonsensical. I don’t even know wht you mean by “objectionable”.

  137. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Plus, I or no one else is replacing terms. I think you haven’t read much of he philosophy of language.

  138. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Plus, I or no one else is replacing terms. I think you haven’t read much of the philosophy of language.

  139. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ EL 153:

    I would like to see a ban too – not necessarily because he won’t answer specific questions (although he won’t), but because he just keeps saying over and over and over and over and over that science can’t provide knowledge, and at least six different people have tried to explain that under the definition of knowledge he’s using, we agree with him, and it also isn’t relevant to anything.

    If Tracie can hang up on people like Luke from Arizona for repeatedly misstating and mischaracterizing things she says on a call, then surely someone who does the same on a comment board deserves a ban.

    It’s a troll.

  140. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreoman “How can you tell the difference between a delusion in reality if you haven’t yet solved the problem of skepticism”

    🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂

    See I told you… this is all nothing but skullduggery in the service of Lying for Jesus… but you are really bad at it man… you need to request a refund from the seminary school at which you were trained in the art of lying for Jesus.

  141. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, The main problem is is that you seem to have just avoided trying solve the problems of philosophy. That’s why I would encourage you to actually look into it deeper.

  142. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, Clearly you didn’t read my comment about not defending or believing in religion.

  143. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To WigglePuppy
    I can’t tell if he’s trolling or merely if his head is so far up his ass. Like, right now, he’s making objections to our arguments, and when I ask him to explain what might be objectionable about my hypothetical, he goes all “well, that depends on what you mean by objectionable”. Either he’s a troll or a tool.

  144. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, It’s also clear you didn’t check out the links I posted. This is no more effective than a theist ignoring evolution and other sciences. If you want to actually respond to someone, them you need to actually respknd to what they’re saying in a clear and analytic way.

  145. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ EL 164

    “Either he’s a troll or a tool.”

    At a certain point, this becomes a distinction without a difference.

    In post 149, we’re back to “you can’t disprove hard solipsism so you can’t know that any of your beliefs are true.” Whether troll or tool, it’s time to go.

  146. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, There actually is a position in epistemology that uses “Well, that depends what you mean by ‘blank’ “. It’s called contexualism.

  147. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, I never said you can’t disprove something like solipsism. I was asking how you know that it’s false if you’re using science.

  148. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 167:

    “There actually is a position in epistemology that uses “Well, that depends what you mean by ‘blank’ “. It’s called contexualism.”

    There actually is a position in football that throws the ball or hands it off after it is snapped. It’s called quarterback.

    Hey, trolling is kind of fun! I get the appeal.

  149. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Maybe you should look up epistemology and contexualism?

    The reason I made that point is because ElightenedLiberal seems to not be aware of it.

  150. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 168:

    “I was asking how you know that it’s false if you’re using science.”

    Because if I was a brain in a vat and I was constructing my own reality, I never would have created this discussion. I have just disproved hard solipsism.

  151. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 171:

    “Maybe you should look up epistemology and contexualism?”

    I did. They look like they would be tasty with a little mashed potatoes on the side.

    Trolling is fun!

  152. says

    I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but I have to say I find Ronald Kyle’s responses not properly engaging oreoman1987’s posts appropriate, since oreoman1987 has spent the entire thread failing to properly engage with other people’s posts. But perhaps that’s just because oreoman1987 is unable to do so, since they don’t know if they can believe their senses about what the posts say.

  153. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreoman “It’s also clear you didn’t check out the links I posted”

    I have studied philosophy 50 years ago and that claptrap has been around for centuries and millennia and yet they are still repeating the claptrap without solutions to anything because the reality of it is that there will never be an answer because the questions are claptrap in the first place.

    In the words of the all knowing Deep Thought… the problem is that you do not know what the question is.

    And there my dear chump is where science will always surpass philosophy… science knows how to ask the questions and knows when the answers gleaned from impirical experiments are pertinant to the questions….

    Unfortunately for you… yet again… all this effort you are expending at reviving claptrap problems that no one gives an iota of fecal matter about (except sophists) does nothing to alleviate the telltale signs that you are a seminary school graduate in the art of lying for Jesus.

  154. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    And to everyone else, I got a real good laugh out of him citing instrumentalism and saying that I’m a realist and he’s an instrumentalist. Rather, I’m actually an instrumentalist too. Apparently, so too are most scientists, well at least most physicists.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

    Initially a novel perspective introduced by Pierre Duhem in 1906, instrumentalism is largely the prevailing theory that underpins the practice of physicists today.[2]

    Again, the troll / tool is attacking a strawman of his own creation. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

  155. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, The problem is is that a skeptic can turn the argument around and ask you how you know that it’s not just your own mind that’s creating everything you’re seeing and experiencing. Pointing at your discussion on a computer is no more effective than a theist waving a bible around or pointing at a cross. It simply begs the question against the skeptics because you’re still assuming that the external world and other people’s minds exist.

  156. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 178:

    “The problem is is that a skeptic can turn the argument around and ask you how you know that it’s not just your own mind that’s creating everything you’re seeing and experiencing.”

    You’re just mad that I came up with a solution for hard solipsism and you didn’t.

  157. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal Actually, people like Lawrence Krauss, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, amd many other scientists firmly believe that science is a key to truth. And they have also flat out dismissed philosophy without understanding it. Plus, you should see how many people that have responded to me have defended science as if it holds any water to truth.

  158. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreoman “how you know that it’s false if you’re using science”…

    Because science says that you need oxygen to live and thus another thing other than you exists… QED … if you do not believe me try holding your breath.. see how long your solipsism lasts…. see science proved your claptrap is just claptrap with a very simple empirical experiment.

  159. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Oreotroll, still waiting for a proper answer to what you find objectionable about my hypothetical that is the second half of my post #61. That, or for one of the mods to come around and ban you.

  160. oreoman1987 says

    “You’re just mad that I came up with a solution for hard solipsism and you didn’t.”

    How? How does this in anyway get past the skeptic or solipsist? How can you tell that your mind is actually not the only one? The problem of other minds is another problem that has existed in philosophy for a long time and has yet to be solved. Proving that other people’s minds exist seems to be a very difficult task even if the term solipsism didn’t exist.

  161. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 180:

    You diverted the topic away from me because you’re just upset that I proved hard solipsism false.

  162. oreoman1987 says

    You’re just mad that I came up with a solution for hard solipsism and you didn’t.”
    How? How does this in anyway get past the skeptic or solipsist? How can you tell that your mind is actually not the only one? The problem of other minds is another problem that has existed in philosophy for a long time and has yet to be solved. Proving that other people’s minds exist seems to be a very difficult task even if the term solipsism didn’t exist.

  163. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 183:

    “The problem of other minds is another problem that has existed in philosophy for a long time and has yet to be solved.”

    Except that I just solved it and now you’re mad about it.

  164. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, if you can actually defend your beliefs, you wouldn’t have to ban anyone.

  165. oreoman1987 says

    How did you solve it exactly? Where does our solution get past your own mind to the external world? It seems you’re still assuming the external world and pressupposijg that every other view of reality is false. You need good clarity and an understanding of the concepts of the philosophy of mind.

  166. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 187:

    You’re just changing the topic again because you’re mad that I disproved hard solipsism.

    Why are you such a sore loser?

  167. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Hey Oreotroll, what’s your address of residence so I can come in uninvited and pester you about something mostly meaningless and inane? You won’t call the cops, right? You’re ready and able to defend your own assertions about skepticism for however long I want, right?

    /sarcasm I won’t actually trespass into your residence

    See also, sealioning:
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sealioning
    https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

    I should whip out my troll bingo card. I could have gotten several lines already.

  168. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 188

    “How did you solve it exactly?”

    You clearly haven’t been reading my posts, as it is clearly apparent how I did so. I can also direct you to some Wikipedia pages on philosophy of mind. You are just upset that I disproved hard solipsism.

  169. oreoman1987 says

    “Because science says that you need oxygen to live and thus another thing other than you exists… QED … if you do not believe me try holding your breath.. see how long your solipsism lasts…. see science proved your claptrap is just claptrap with a very simple empirical experiment.”

    How can you tell or even know that every person or species needs oxygen? How do you know were going to need it 5 minutes from now? This is the point of the problem of induction. Plus, I find empericism another problematic position due to the senses sometime being decietful. Sam goes for reason. Reason itself is going tocrequire a degree of faith in order to put stock into it.

  170. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Hmm… surprising that it’s the third entry on urbandictionary that has the right meaning – basically, pestering someone who doesn’t want to be pestered, and when they ask to be left alone, then the sealion accuses them of dishonesty or lack of integrity or something for not wanting to engage. Suppose I should have read before I posted to ensure better correctness. C’est la vie.

  171. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, I just don’t see how you’re going to be able to cinvince a skeptic on how you know your belief about reality is any superior to anyone else’s. Especially when you haven’t seemed to be able to demonstrate the external world or that weather the external world is material or not.

  172. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 192:

    Now you’re just dodging. Stop getting upset that I disproved hard solipsism and just deal with it.

  173. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 194:

    “I just don’t see how you’re going to be able to cinvince a skeptic on how you know your belief about reality is any superior to anyone else’s.”

    You just haven’t read enough. I can suggest some readings on philosophy of mind.

  174. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Who? Daniel Dennett?
    Because I’ve read several books from him and even he is having trouble getting past the skeptics.

  175. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 194:

    “Especially when you haven’t seemed to be able to demonstrate the external world or that weather the external world is material or not.”

    I did this already, but you weren’t paying attention.

  176. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, I also have yet to see anyone in the philosophy of mind actually solve the problem of other minds.

  177. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 199:

    “Who? Daniel Dennett?
    Because I’ve read several books from him and even he is having trouble getting past the skeptics.”

    No. There are more readings in philosophy of mind that you should consult.

  178. oreoman1987 says

    “I did this already, but you weren’t paying attention”.

    Except your argument still assumes the external world and other minds.

  179. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 201:

    “I also have yet to see anyone in the philosophy of mind actually solve the problem of other minds.”

    I just did and you’re upset about it.

  180. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreoman “How can you tell or even know that every person or species needs oxygen”….

    I do not need to do so… O2 is something… and you need it … and the proof is that you cannot exist without it and thus you are not the only thing in existence since you need oxygen and oxygen is an existing something other than you. QED!!!

  181. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, This was especially a hard problem for Bertrand Russell who was also unable to gey past the problem of skepticism with his proposed solution. He even acknowledged that the problems presented by David Hume against science were really hard to refute and never was able to answer them.

  182. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 203:

    “Except your argument still assumes the external world and other minds.”

    You just haven’t read enough about philosophy of mind.

  183. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 206:

    “This was especially a hard problem for Bertrand Russell who was also unable to gey past the problem of skepticism with his proposed solution. He even acknowledged that the problems presented by David Hume against science were really hard to refute and never was able to answer them.”

    Yes, but I solved it.

  184. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, It was a bit short to be any sort of answer or refutation. It seemed more like a shift on the skeptic.

  185. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 209:

    “It was a bit short to be any sort of answer or refutation. It seemed more like a shift on the skeptic.”

    You just haven’t read enough about philosophy of mind.

  186. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy. Just because you believe that you’re interacting with people from a computer tells you nothing about weather it’s actually happening or that it’s real. The skeptic could say that maybe it’s just an evil scientist controlling your mind or that the universe is only 5 minutes old. The universe being 5 minutes old was a problem invented by Bertrand Russell himself and doesn’t seem to lead to any contradictions at all. Which makes this even more problematic for knowledge.

  187. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 211:

    “Just because you believe that you’re interacting with people from a computer tells you nothing about weather it’s actually happening or that it’s real.”

    I disproved hard solipsism and now you’re mad. You just need to read more on philosophy of mind.

  188. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, How exactly do you know how much philosophy of mind I’ve read? Because as far as I’ve seen, none of the large books I’ve seen on the topic say anything about there being a solution to solipsism or skepticism. I think you need to clarify what I haven’t read in the philosophy of mind.

  189. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 213:

    “How exactly do you know how much philosophy of mind I’ve read?”

    Because if you had read enough, you would understand how I disproved hard solipsism and you wouldn’t be having all of this trouble.

  190. Ronald Kyle says

    @Jared “I don’t know if it’s intentional or not”

    I know that seminary school students study all this sophistry claptrap about the so alleged problem of knowledge in their apologetics courses.

    The idea is for them to learn how to use sophistry to undermine the validity of science in daily life and equate reliance on it as JUST ANOTHER FAITH.

    So then they argue if science is just another faith then their DELUSIONS are also faith and why then not also rely on their delusions just as much as on science.

    When I spot one of those professional LIARS (i.e. seminary school trained apologists) I do not try to engage their CASUISTRY… they are not here to engage… they are here to proselytize for their sky daddy to earn brownie points in heaven.

    The more souls they can “save” whether by lying for Jesus or any other means the more brownies they get in heaven

    It was started off by the alleged words of the purported Jesus himself in the fairy tales
    ⬛ Matthew 4:19 And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

    And Paul taught them how to dissimulate being philosophers to better inveigle scientists….
    ⬛ 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

  191. oreoman1987 says

    “I do not need to do so… O2 is something… and you need it … and the proof is that you cannot exist without it and thus you are not the only thing in existence since you need oxygen and oxygen is an existing something other than you. QED!!!”

    The problem is is thaf you’re still assuming the external world amd other’s minds to make this anecdotal proof.

  192. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 213:

    “I think you need to clarify what I haven’t read in the philosophy of mind.”

    I think you need to take more initiative and stop trying to get me to do your work for you.

  193. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy , How so? Where does it say anything about the problem of other mind, skepticism, or solipsism being refuted?

    Where does any philosophy book say this?

  194. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 218:

    “How so? Where does it say anything about the problem of other mind, skepticism, or solipsism being refuted?”

    I just disproved hard solipsism. You must have missed it.

  195. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, I read all of your short posts and pointed out that your responses all assume the external world and other people’s minds without any way of proving any of them existing. You also didn’t axknowledge the 5 minute universe problem that I raised. Even if other minds amd the external world exist, the problem of other minds still seems very hard to refute.

  196. says

    And oreoman1987’s failures to engage aside, the common theme seems to be something like a desire to have certainty that what they are experiencing reflects an external fundamental reality directly supplying their mind with information that accurately conveys the nature and occurrences of that fundamental reality, without risking having beliefs that do not accurately reflect such a fundamental reality. They seem to hope to do so with an argument they can use that will satisfy any mind, no matter how skeptical.

    This may be resulting in a desire to avoid using terms like ‘belief’, which they probably view as risking admitting inaccuracies into what they want to establish as a protected sanctum of ‘true’ beliefs, thus wanting to use another term, as if changing the label would preserve the purity of the sanctum by creating an antechamber for their current ‘proclivities’ which haven’t been verified as pure yet. That’s my guess as to what is leading to their odd behavior.

    But even if you are experiencing an external, fundamental reality accurately, all investigations and metacognitive analysis thus far have only seemed to confirm that certainty that you are getting accurate information about fundamental reality is not attainable. Thus a catch between desiring to escape doubt, but not wanting to allow the admission of unverified beliefs, resulting in an unhappy cycle of seeking undoubtable truth and doubting.

  197. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreaoman “Reason itself is going to require a degree of faith in order to put stock into it.”…

    See.. QED!! It is exactly the statement they taught you in seminary school to make.

    So abjectly transparent… I would bet money on you being a C++ student at some 2nd rate seminary school.

  198. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 220:

    “Even if other minds and the external world exist, the problem of other minds still seems very hard to refute.”

    I just did. You need to read more in philosophy of mind.

  199. oreoman1987 says

    “This may be resulting in a desire to avoid using terms like ‘belief’, which they probably view as risking admitting inaccuracies into what they want to establish as a protected sanctum of ‘true’ beliefs, thus wanting to use another term, as if changing the label would preserve the purity of the sanctum by creating an antechamber for their current ‘proclivities’ which haven’t been verified as pure yet. That’s my guess as to what is leading to their odd behavior.”

    I’m not really sure why you believe skeptics avoid using terms like belief in order to escape inaccuracies. The whole point of the philosophical skeptics is to question everyone’s basic beliefs and to see if they actually have a cosnistent and justified position.

  200. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ RR 223:

    I take back my accusations of trolling. It’s clearly just the least self-aware person ever.

  201. oreoman1987 says

    Again I ask you, what parts of philosophy of mind have i yet to read? What excatly am I missing in your supposed response to the problem of other minds. Are you arguing for dualism, beahviorism, or some other position for your beliefs about the mind?

  202. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreoman “still assuming the external world amd other’s minds”

    Not at all… the experiment is that YOU hold your breath… and if you can do it indefinitely then yup you are the only thing that exists since you do not need anything to exist other than you…. but if you cannot hold your breath indefinitely then there was something that compelled you to breath again and that something s the lack of O2 and thus you are not the only thing that exists since O2 must also exist for you to be able to exist and be compelled to breath it or else perish.

    No other people are neede and no external world is need …. just YOU and if you are indeed in need of O2 since you cannot hold your breath indefintely then QED!!!!

    But the fact that you cannot understand the nuance of this argument is the reason I think you are a C++ student in a 2nd rate seminary school…. QED!!!!

  203. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, The problem is is that you’re relying on induction to prove your beliefs about these things. Induction never guarentees the conclusion of any argument.

  204. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 227:

    “Again I ask you, what parts of philosophy of mind have i yet to read? What excatly am I missing in your supposed response to the problem of other minds. Are you arguing for dualism, beahviorism, or some other position for your beliefs about the mind?”

    I would start with getting outside and getting some fresh air once in a while.

  205. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, “I would start with getting outside and getting some fresh air once in a while.

    Are you sure you’ve read about the philosophy of mind?

  206. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Wiggle Puppy
    Indeed. If this is a troll, they’re rather persistent. I’m going to go with my earlier hunch, and that they might benefit from counseling and talk therapy.

  207. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 231:

    “Are you sure you’ve read about the philosophy of mind?”

    Yes. Maybe? No. I don’t know.

    Are we really still doing this?

  208. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Pupp, Yes, because you didn’t respond to my question about what position on the mind you take from behaviorism or dualism.

  209. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, “Indeed. If this is a troll, they’re rather persistent. I’m going to go with my earlier hunch, and that they might benefit from counseling and talk therapy”.

    How can you tell you’re not one of these people? Especially when there’s people who have mental diseases that rheh’re not even aware of and still consider themselves rational? This is troubling for any person who believes they are rational or that they have all the correct answers to the big questions in philosophy.

  210. says

    Ronald Kyle, yep, I have seen plenty of that sort of argumentation. It’s pretty common for someone who is in an argument where they can’t support their position to try what I’ve called the ‘Retreat from Epistemology’. Basically saying, “Sure, I don’t have any good evidence that my claims are true, but how can we really know anything at all? I can’t back up my claims with observed evidence, but you can’t be sure your observed evidence is even true, so we’re all even”. It’s like a sort of scorched-earth tactic executed during a retreat in an argument.

    Considering that it comes after someone was just trying to convince you of something being true, it’s clear that it’s disingenuous. Then you consider what the people making it hope to accomplish next. Even if it were convincing, where would that leave people? They’d just not believe anything at all? It’s like if there was only one tree, and you wanted to build a treehouse in it, but there is already a treehouse there, so you decide to burn the whole tree down so that you can build your own treehouse in it, except now there is no tree.

  211. oreoman1987 says

    Jared, The point is not to convince someone to not believe in something. It’s to question and put their beliefs to the test. The inportant part is is if you can get past the skeptics.

  212. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreoman “The problem is is that you’re relying on induction to prove your beliefs”….

    🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂

    I love the way you snuck in the words “your beliefs” there… I will give you extra 5% for that on your class grade.

    But I am going to reduce 10% due to you using a term that you do not know the meaning of and thus revealing your C++ level.

    Do you even know what induction is??? You are ONE thing… there is no other… the proof is about JUST YOU…

    But of course it is futile to explain to you… you are not here to understand you are here to PROSELYTIZE… I hope you get a good grade but my dear chump, you ought to get only D for this assignment of harrasing this forum…. unlucky for you, your jig is up.

  213. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, The problem is is that induction cannot be justified deductively. To say that the sun will rise every day because it’s risen everyday in the past or that every fire you touch is going to be hot is circular reasoning because you’re using the very conclusion into one of your premises to prove these beliefs.

  214. Ronald Kyle says

    @Jared “Even if it were convincing, where would that leave people”

    Ah… but they have that covered… God/Jesus… he is the source of all knowledge and although you are not worthy and not able to have knowledge of anything the Holy Casper will help you and make you know what is worth knowing… do not fret Jesus is the Gnosis and the Logos and all you need is to put your faith in him.

  215. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreoman “To say that the sun will rise every day because it’s risen everyday in the past or that every fire”

    There you go again exposing your ignorance of what you are talking about… just regurgitating crap you swallowed in your lectures at the 2nd rate seminary apologetics classes does not do you any favors.

    I could explain to you how you are exposing your ignorance… but then you will have to pay me… I am done with exposing your nature as a LIAR FOR JESUS… you are thoroughly exposed and your jig is well and truly up my dear chump… QED!!!

  216. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, The point is, how do you know that the sun will rise every day in the future or that every fire you touch is going to be hot? These beliefs are based on induction and it’s the weakest form of reasoning. David Hume demonstrated this before the dounding of America and it’s been a problem for science ever since.

  217. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Let me poke the troll while I’m in this status meeting.

    [problem of induction] it’s been a problem for science

    No, it is not, and it has never been a problem, and it never will be a problem.

  218. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Some people say it’s a problem. I say that it’s not a problem. Why should I accept the argument of people that it’s a problem when I have the proclivity that it’s not a problem?

  219. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Because if you cannot justify induction deductively, then you don’t know anything with any certianty. If you have a solution to the problem, please present it. Otherwise, you’re stuck with faith in science.

  220. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Because if you cannot justify induction deductively, then you don’t know anything with any certianty.

    1- That’s a naked assertion. Why should I be persuaded by your naked assertion? Do you have any reasons or justifications or any other reason why my proclivity should be changed? Rather, I have the proclivity that I inductive inference, when properly filtered through modern scientific methods, is reliable enough for use.

    2- I know nothing (or almost nothing?) with 100% certainty. Consequently, you’re not attacking my position. You’re attacking some other position, e.g. a strawman.

  221. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, These aren’t assertions. They are actual philosophical problems for knowledge amd science. If you don’t know if every fire is hot or not, then you really can’t be comfortable with any certainty if anything since all of your beliefs could be ckntradicted. Plus, just because you have a proclivity, doesn’t mean you should live by it or never change your mind about it. Plus, the problem of the criterion shows that it’s likely that you don’t know anything with even 1 percent certainty. If you have no certianty if anything, how can you even begin to respond to arguments with any justification for your beliefs?

  222. Ronald Kyle says

    @Oreomoron “The point is, how do you know that the sun will rise every day in the future”

    The day the sun does not rise will not be part of your future… because if you understood anything about physics… that means that you have been vaporized before you even realized that the sun did not rise… so if you had a tittle of understanding you would know that induction will not ever be a problem in this case since as far as it worked it stayed working and when it did stop working you were not around to know it.

    BUT… yet again… you are STRAWMANNING… you are not addressing the points I made in my scientific experiment to prove that you are not your own empty universe. The experiment had nothing to do with induction and nothing to do with assuming anything about the future or past… it was about you being your own empty universe with nothing else other than you…. no future no past no induction.

    You strawmanned the experiment TWICE and pretended that you were responding to the experiment…. YOU WERE NOT… the experiment proves that you are not alone in your empty universe because you could not continue to exist while holding your breath… and that proves that you needed something else to continue to exist and that something else is something other than you since you needed to breath it in and without it you would cease to be…. so something else exists in your universe other than you and thus you are not the only thing.

    And all this was in response top your RUSE that science cannot prove that you are not alone in the universe and as I have just shown you it has.

    No induction…. not future no past…. you proved for yourself that you are reliant on something other than you to exist and that proves that you are not the only thing that exists….QED!!!!

    The fact that you keep strawmanning the experiment and then regurgitating flimflam from stuff you swallowed at seminary school apologetics classes is PROOF that you are a TRAINED LIAR FOR JESUS and not an honest fool… a fool nevertheless…. but a devious insidious one.

  223. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, The issue is is that if you don’t have justification for induction, you can’t even begin to justify anything jn science since all of science including physics relies in induction. Plus, it’s not a strawman at all to say that many people strongly hold on to science as truth because many people who have responded to me have argued for science as if it holds any water to philosophical problems.

  224. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    These aren’t assertions.

    See:

    Because if you cannot justify induction deductively, then you don’t know anything with any certianty.

    I have a pretty strong proclivity that the second quote is, indeed, a naked assertion. For one, it appears to have the grammar of a statement, as opposed to a question or command, and thus I have a proclivity that it’s a statement, aka an assertion. Second, I don’t see anything that looks like an argument or an appeal for why I should change my mind and create a proclivity for the assertion, and thus I have a proclivity that it’s a mere naked assertion, aka an assertion made without justification.

    Of course, I also have no idea why you seem to have a proclivity about justifications at all. You sound rather dogmatic right now about what I should and should not have proclivities about, and about what should and should not persuade me.

    If you don’t know if every fire is hot or not, then you really can’t be comfortable with any certainty if anything since all of your beliefs could be ckntradicted.

    But of course. I usually create backup plans because I often experience that my expectations and deductions about the future are incorrect.

    Plus, just because you have a proclivity, doesn’t mean you should live by it or never change your mind about it.

    I typically also agree with this.

    Plus, the problem of the criterion shows that it’s likely that you don’t know anything with even 1 percent certainty. If

    That’s fine. I don’t make any claims to having any sort of knowledge at all (at least according to your definition of the word “knowledge”).

    If you have no certianty if anything, how can you even begin to respond to arguments with any justification for your beliefs?

    For the moment, I’ve decided to adopt your terminology. I don’t have any certainty, nor claims to knowledge, and I don’t have any beliefs either. I just have proclivities. I have the proclivity that this adjustment of terminology won’t affect my life in any noticeable way, but you have persuaded me that I was incorrect to use those other terms. Now, I too can be an asshole by persuaded others that they’re using words incorrectly, without substantially altering their real-world behavior in any way!

  225. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Also, these aren’t assertions because these are problems that demonstrate that science is unable to justify anything with even 1 percent certianty since it has to rely on faulty reasoning in order to draw conclusions that are neither verifiable or falsifiable. Also, Nelson Gooman in the 1950s demonstrated that we cannot tell when induction is working and when it’s not. This presents a problem for deductive reasoning as well. Nelson Goodman with the New Riddle of Induction showed that there are no predicates that we can use to show that induction is working.

  226. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Oreoman
    No no, that’s fine too. Because I have adopted your terminology, I don’t use “justifications” either. Instead, I merely have proclivities, and I have a a casual, unreliable, – and tentative! – set of derivation rules which I can use to derive new unreliable proclivities from my previous unreliable proclivities and from my unreliable personal experience.

    Wow. What a relief. I’m so glad that I’m using the correct terminology now. I still don’t understand how this changes anything regarding how I approach life though.

  227. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Having proclivities doesn’t mean you adopt a particular behavior. It simply means you choose a certian move based on what you may feel is the correct on to take on a certian instance. For example, if you decide to junp out of the way of a moving vehicle, you don’t have to belive that it’s going to hit you or that you’re going to move out of the way. Plus, if you only have proclivities and not beliefs, this sort of contradicts the position you held earlier in the thread when you were defending science as if there were no alternative.

  228. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, How is it my terminology? Words and definitions are very debatable among philosophers. Philosophers like a good definition and if you’re unable to define something in debate, you’re going to have a hard time with analytic philosophy amd clarity.

  229. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Oreoman
    As I said, you persuaded me that you are right and I was wrong, and that I should adopt your terminology. /s I still don’t understand at all why it’s beneficial to do so, and I still don’t understand at all how it will change my life apart from my vocabulary, but you convinced me! /s

    I have an unreliable proclivity that the scientific method is the most beautiful method for deriving new unreliable proclivities, and I have the proclivity to look down up, and to scoff at, and to make fun of, anyone who uses an alternative method to derive their own new unreliable proclivities. People do have their other proclivities concerning their own rules for creating new proclivities, and I am free to make fun of them for it. I don’t see anything contradictory about this position.

  230. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, You don’t have to use anything as a method in order to have proclivities. You also don’t have to view anything as beneficial in order to have them either. It’s just simply a matter of choosing what you do in your daily life.

  231. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    You don’t have to use anything as a method in order to have proclivities.

    Sure, but I also have a proclivity towards using a certain method, and I also have a proclivity towards making fun of anyone who doesn’t also use this method.

    It’s just simply a matter of choosing what you do in your daily life.

    Yes. In some sense, I choose to have these proclivities.

  232. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Already said I’m not watching any more of your videos because I have the proclivity – not belief, but proclivity – to call you an ignorant fool and a tool, and the proclivity that my time would be better spent watching paint dry.

    And I still don’t see how anything I do in my daily life is changed one iota by agreeing with you and using the word “proclivity” instead of the word “belief”.

  233. Monocle Smile says

    Yes, let’s replace useful and clear terminology with messy bullshit!
    Troll away, Oreo-ass.

  234. t90bb says

    This is all a game…..it has been since post numero uno!

    Oreo “If there is no absolute knowledge then everything is unknowable and all ideas are equally unjustified!”

    The only thing missing now is a theist to tell us that the magic genie whispered absolute truth in their ear and now they know, and because they now have absolute truth that god exists, they cannot be wrong and.they win!

    250 plus posts…and still no closer to establishing that a god exists…..fun times!

    Most theists are satisfied with just muddying the water enough to make their pet stories sound equally valid as other claims. They need to do this since they lack any solid positive evidence. Its THE BEST THEY HAVE. Speaks to their case, no?.

    Most of us are completely open to the idea of a god or gods. The theist loves to discredit science…for it created more mystery for their cosmic pa pa to hide in.

  235. says

    Just this week. Hopefully only for this week. They basically recognize that they have no way to be certain that their experiences accurately reflect the nature of a fundamental reality, but apparently find that to be unacceptable, and it seems they are looking to alert everyone about this apparently unsolvable ‘problem’, even if they can’t be sure there is anyone else to alert.

  236. indianajones says

    @Wiggle Puppy. I have seen puppies attempt to fight with mirrors before. I have never seen the Puppy become the mirror. Bravo!

    @Jared ‘a desire to have certainty that what they are experiencing reflects an external fundamental reality directly supplying their mind with information that accurately conveys the nature and occurrences of that fundamental reality’

    Exactly! It’s why I went with the geometry example above. See, Euclid came up with 6 (I think?) rules for Geometry essentially out of whole cloth. They can indeed be absolute just cos I say so. And whilst I would be wrong, they have problems even before Godel is a soccer ball heralding wisp of cloud on the far distant mathematical horizon, still they describe reality well enough to tile a bathroom. And to do other things. To describe an external reality to some very useful if grantedly limited extent.

    And, because they are made of whole cloth, I can define them to be eternally true if I acknowledge their limitations. No philosophy required. Which, if my reasoning is correct, knocks Oreo and his ‘how do I know that what I know now will be true later on’ stuff (Pretty sure I am not mis-stating) into a cocked hat.

  237. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, I’m also not trying to establish the ezistence of a god. I’m just as skeptical of relgikn as I am if science. Read my comments carefully.

  238. oreoman1987 says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, Then you’re not really open-minded as you claim and are relying on appeals to ignorance and ad hominems.

  239. oreoman1987 says

    Jared, How do you know these problems are unsolvable? Finding a problem dofficult to solve shouldn’t be a reason for you to give up looking for a solution.

  240. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 255 (and everyone else):

    “this sort of contradicts the position you held earlier in the thread when you were defending science as if there were no alternative”

    Just my two cents that at this point, any further time spent on this fool (except for entertainment purposes) will be wasted. Multiple people have made the point that, in the absence of absolute certainty, we still have to make decisions about the world in which we find ourselves, and have asked the question: yes, science is imperfect, but it seems to be the best method we have at the moment for coming to an accurate understanding of the world in which we find ourselves, so if there is a better method, what is it?

    Instead of answering this question, this fool seems content to 1) straw man everything we say in order to imply that we have some unwavering allegiance to the infallibility of science and 2) direct us to various online sources about various problems with various epistemological approaches.

    In a thread a while back, Tracie said that while talking to the caller Luke from Arizona (the divine command proponent who seemed baffled by the idea that humans have developed various moral tendencies in order to share space without destroying each other), she felt as if she were talking to some kind of alien who was trying to understand humans but was simply incapable of doing so. Now I know how she feels.

  241. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, How is anything I said a strawman? Everyone who has responded to me has defended science as if it holds any water in helping us find truth. Which it doesn’t . Just because you find science a reliable method and have yet to find better ine, doesn’t mean you should believe in it. This is simply an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Tracie Harris also commits a fallacy known as personal incredulity. Just because you find something difficult to understand, doesn’t make it false. The online sources I’ve given are very real unsolved problems in philosophy that are a threat to science, truth, and knowledge and have been for centuries. Being unwilling to examine the sources and actually engage with them is a sign of close-mindedness. The scientific method is a very bad way to find knowledge of anything even of there weren’t any philosophical problems against it. While you and many others may find science a useful tool, it doesn’t change the fact that science is in trouble with several unsolved problems jn philosophy. Because of that, you can’t even be sure that science is a reliable method to begin woith.

  242. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreopissant “science as if it holds any water in helping us find truth. Which it doesn’t”…

    This is a statement that only an imbecile or LIAR for his sky daddy delusions would make…. so which one are you??

  243. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 273:

    “How is anything I said a strawman? Everyone who has responded to me has defended science as if it holds any water in helping us find truth.”

    Hey idiot, everyone here has pretty much conceded that science can’t help us to find absolute truth, whatever that might mean. We presuppose that the world is real and that it seems to conform to predictable physical laws and then proceed from those presuppositions to discover those physical laws and then live our lives accordingly. The alternative is to live my life in abject terror, not knowing if the world will suddenly cease to exist, or if I will spontaneously burst into flames, or if thieves will suddenly materialize in my apartment and steal all of my hard-earned ice cream. I’ve admitted that I can’t justify those presuppositions beyond the process of induction, and although induction has its own foundational problems, the fact that pretty much everybody relies on it every day and humanity hasn’t gone extinct is evidence for its usefulness. And although, as you point out, its usefulness doesn’t imply its “truth,” its usefulness is evidence that it helps provide us with a better understanding of the world around us, which is the freaking point.

    You must be a hit at social gatherings.

    Please ban this moron.

  244. paxoll says

    Can I tear you all away from the petting zoo for a moment.

    How does this in anyway get past the skeptic or solipsist?

    Does anyone here care about convincing or persuading some seminary (liar for jesus), or freshman level philosopher vigorously masturbating to the problem of hard solipsism?

    Does anyone here believe absolute knowledge is possible, let alone obtained through science?

    Does anyone here believe the baseless assertion that you act without belief? Or that “proclivities” is anything other than some douchebag attempting to move the goalpost?

    Is anyone here gullible enough to accept the conflation of “faith” in religion with trust in the scientific method?

    The scientific method is a very bad way to find knowledge of anything even of there weren’t any philosophical problems against it. While you and many others may find science a useful tool, it doesn’t change the fact that science is in trouble with several unsolved problems jn philosophy. Because of that, you can’t even be sure that science is a reliable method to begin woith.

    Does anyone believe this person is not as Ronald Kyle puts it, a “liar for jesus”?

    If your answer is “no” to these questions, than Oreo has continually straw-manned our position and has dishonestly argued in bad faith. I would like to ask yall at this point to stop engaging until our little philosophical masturbater stops pleasuring himself and has a real conversation.

  245. t90bb says

    If being a theist is to believe a god or gods exist….and being an atheist is to lack a belief that a god or gods exist……Which of the two do you identify as??

    Whether you believe a god exists is really my only interest at this point…..and its merely a curiosity as I do not respect your intellectual honesty or ability.

    Do you have a belief that a god or gods exist?? yes or no…..

    If she fails to answer directly I move for a block…..we have given her every opportunity to make a point. She continues to argue against a position few to none hold here…..and thinks shes bringing something to the table. I suspect a not so hidden agenda..or possibly even a mental illness at this point. Its been a slow week and we have given her lots of attention….She seems lonely.

  246. t90bb says

    Oreo…..saying that you are not arguing for religion does not clarify your position on the existence of a god or gods….

    If being a theist is to believe a god or gods exist….and being an atheist is to lack a belief that a god or gods exist……Which of the two do you identify as??

    Whether you believe a god exists is really my only interest at this point…..and its merely a curiosity as I do not respect your intellectual honesty or ability.

    Do you have a belief that a god or gods exist?? yes or no…..

    If she fails to answer directly I move for a block…..we have given her every opportunity to make a point. She continues to argue against a position few to none hold here…..and thinks shes bringing something to the table. I suspect a not so hidden agenda..or possibly even a mental illness at this point. Its been a slow week and we have given her lots of attention….She seems lonely.

    Lets see if the poor “soul” can actually answer the question directly…..belief in god or gods?? YES?? or no. A single word will suffice.

  247. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Useful diesn’t mean rational or true. I rdcommend you look into the theories of justification and the problem of the criterion.

  248. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Useful doesn’t mean rational or true. I recommend you look into the theories of justification and the problem of the criterion.

  249. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, How can ypu know you’re not one of those people with a mental illness? What criterion can you use that doesn’t run into an infinite regress problem? No, I don’t believe in any religion or gods, and have yet to see justification for those beliefs as well.

  250. oreoman1987 says

    paxoll, If you give up on philosophy, you give up on everything including, logic, debate, ethics, reason, morality, reality, and so on. All of these concepts are what philosophy studies and tries to find answers to. Accusing someone of strawmanning people doesn’t firther debate but is an attempt to end a debate. This is the same thing Dillahunty and Glasser do whenever someone accurately corrects them on important issues including the threat of Islam.

  251. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ paxoll 276:

    I agree, but this whole conversation has just been so baffling in its stupidity. It’s kind of like:

    Oreo: You should stop relying so much on the pen you’re holding, because it won’t help you think of a storyline for the novel you want to write.
    Wiggle: Huh? I’m not relying on the pen to help me come up with a storyline for my novel. It’s just a tool that I use to write things on paper.
    Oreo: You’re relying on the pen even though it won’t help you think of a storyline. Here are some online articles that explain why the pen won’t help you come up with a storyline.
    Wiggle: I fully concede that the pen won’t help me come up with a storyline. I just use it to write things on paper. It’s useful for that.
    Oreo: There’s no guarantee that just because the pen has helped you write things on paper in the future in the past, that it will continue to do so in the future.
    Wiggle: Sure, if the pen stops working correctly, then I will find another thing to write with. But until that point, the pen has performed well the task of writing things on paper.
    Oreo: You have no theoretical grounding for establishing that pens write on paper.
    Wiggle: Okay, I concede that, but I tried it, and it works, and it continues to work.
    Oreo: But you have no 100% guarantee that it will work in the future, either tomorrow, or next week, or next month.
    Wiggle: I already conceded that. Do you have something that will work better?
    Oreo: The pen won’t help you come up with a storyline for the novel you want to write.

    Please ban this idiot.

  252. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 280:

    Please Venmo me all of your money. There’s no absolute guarantee that it will have any value tomorrow, so why do you need it?

  253. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Your money analogy is faulty due to the problem of words and numbers still being debatable concepts. The debate about what numbers and words are and how they work is a topic in which philosophers are trying to figure out weather numbers amd words are created or if there just merely Platonic in a sense. Just because you might have an ability to count, spend, and use money tells you nothing about what you should do with it or weather it gives you knowledge about certain areas of life. I’d recommend you check put Russell and Whiteheads “Principia Mathematica, Vol 1-3” to get a glimpse on how difficult it really is to even prove anything with numbers, words, or mathematics. Plus, be careful on how you strawman people’s position and arguments.

  254. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, To assume that things like pens and money are always going to be useful tools is simply an appeal to ignorance and begs the question against the skeptics. This is especially troubling when there has never been a link demonstrated between either simplicity, intution, or truth. And due to there not ever being an objective merit established for determining a should and an ough..

  255. Monocle Smile says

    English appears to be Oreos first language, but they write like a middle school dropout. Blathering about words and numbers is a sure sign of trolling. Yes, there are trolls this persistent, and it’s because antagonizing strangers on the internet is the closest thing to an achievement they’ve ever experienced.

  256. oreoman1987 says

    Monocle Smile, Be careful! The fact that someone messes up on writing or grammer tells you nothing about weather they’re intelligent or not. It also tells you nothing about what they’ve achived in life. Labeling someone as a troll or making speculations about their achievments is an example of an ad hom fallacy.

  257. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreomess “making speculations about their achievments is an example of an ad hom fallacy”

    I am willing to bet money that your highest achievement is B+ in one of the Evangelism courses you took at your 2nd rate Seminary College.

    Ad hominem is not a fallacy when it is appropriately used….. e.g. when a Liar For Jesus tries to PRETEND that he is a philosopher defending philosophy and all he is concerned about is to make skeptics understand that they are just as much faithheads as the theists…. in this case calling you out as a transparent Liar For Jesus is a very apropriate ad hominem but it is not at all a fallacy in this situation.

  258. Ronald Kyle says

    @Wiggle Puppy “but this whole conversation has just been so baffling in its stupidity”

    🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂… your narrative is EXACTLY right… very well done!!! 👏👏👏

  259. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreoconman “I don’t believe in any religion or gods”…

    Do you really expect us to fall for that lie…. we already know you are a seminary school student (or graduate???) … and the first thing they taught you is to DISSIMULATE being all things to all people so that by all possible means you might more effectively PEDDLE Jesus….
    ⬛ 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. 🔹🔹🔹I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

    And we know that you read Martin Luther saying this
    ⬛ What harm would it do, if a man told a 🔹🔹🔹good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a 🔹🔹🔹useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

  260. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreomagsman “If you give up on philosophy, you give up on everything including, logic, debate, ethics, reason, morality, reality, and so on”

    Seriously… it seems you are confusing philosophy for your Sky Daddy… maybe you are making philosophy your sky mammy???

    Another TELLTALE testimonial to your shenanigans is that “morality” bit that you dexterously snuck in there….

    If I had a penny for every time a theist told me that without their sky daddy delusion there would be no morality I would be able to start my own church (for tax evasion reasons).

    So now you YET AGAIN EXPOSE your true nature as a Liar For Jesus…. QED for the umpteenth time…. how many times are you able to unashamedly withstand being exposed by your own FLIMFLAM… do you have no shame boy???

    Your Jig Is Up for the umpteenth time … bow your head in shame and scurry off to study somemore on how to huckster from your seminary school courses.

    I will give you A+ for shameless persistance… C- for ability to hawk effectively… D on dissimulating ala Paul.

  261. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, What you’ve donethrough most if your reaponses is known as the appeal to ridicule fallacy.

  262. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, What you’ve done through most of your reaponses is known as the appeal to ridicule fallacy.

  263. t90bb says

    oreo…..

    so you argue that science is completely unreliable….and offer no alternatives to determine aides that contribute to predictability….so what does that mean to you personally?? how do you function?? I assume you will not jump off skyscrapers unaided right?? why not??? what has guided or influenced your day to day decision making??? why do you even post with the EXPECTATION it will appear on this board and translate a message to others on the board when you claim an inability to “know” anything???, and that appears to be the threshold of any value for you??………it seems you are.contradiction,
    Your actions make it appear that you place similar values on things as all the rest of us……
    You seem to be justifying your actions based on your perceptions just like the rest of us……
    You probably dont rule out the existence of a god or gods, just like the rest of us…..
    You probably allow science (based on its tentative conclusions) to guide at least some of your actions just like the rest of us…..

    So was their an actual point you have been trying to make?? .It seems like you have spent a week trying to convince us of something we all agreed on before you got here. Did you get something out of the experience?? And how do you know??

  264. bluestar says

    Man this oreo idiot sure has gotten a lot of mileage on this thread. Almost 300 posts. And with all the back and forth, not one thing has been made relevant to my life. My guess is that not one opinion has changed either. I’ll be back in about 2 weeks. Picking up a schooner for BB charter in Mayaguez……Happy New Year to ya’all.

  265. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, The problem is is that you can’t be certian that you’ll fall of a building or not because you’re relying on induction to come to that belief. Induction is the weakest form of reasoning and it’s viciously circular to assume that you and any other object will fall because you’re assuming it will happen based on the very thing that you’re trying to establish.

  266. oreoman1987 says

    bluestar, It basically demonstrates that many “skeptics” hold in to their faith in science, logic, and math despite the contradicitons and problems raised against them in philosophy.

  267. Monocle Smile says

    Fine, then jump off a building and prove us the fools that we are. You won’t, because you’re a coward, a liar, and a hypocrite, but I invite you to practice what you preach.

  268. t90bb says

    302. Monocle 300 Oreo…..

    Yup thats my point Monocle. Oreo wants to discount the value of science….but lives in accordance with its predictions. Certainty aside…oreo knows the general reliability and contributions of science.

    Oreo says….”Induction is the weakest form of reasoning and it’s viciously circular to assume that you and any other object will fall because you’re assuming it will happen based on the very thing that you’re trying to establish.”

    YET HE WOULD NEVER DARE JUMP…FROM A BUILDING UNAIDED .lol…………is it possible to expose this fool any more directly??? Apparently he cannot see the disconnect between his words and his actions. I truly suspect mental illness… This may by the reason he cannot seem to feel shame as he has been laughed at all week.

    But Oreo..you have the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. Have someone video you jump off the tallest building you can find. After all, its viciously circular to assume you will be injured. I bet you wont do it. If you dont, ask yourself why not. Ill tell you why…SCIENCE BITCH!

  269. oreoman1987 says

    Monocle Smile, I’m not sure how this supports your belief in science and induction. What you’re doing is a fallacy of ad hom and ignorance. And, what do you think I’m “preaching”?

  270. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, Just because someone decides to do or not do something like jumping off a building, doesn’t mean that they have to believe or disbelieve it. Actions don’t determine what you believe or disbelieve. Still, you’re relying on induction to hold this dogmatic belief. For example, how exactly do you know
    gravity is an actual force or that it’s going to continue to exist 5 minutes from now?

  271. t90bb says

    AS previously stated….EVERY TIME Oreo writes a post and hits the transmit button….he attests to his confidence in the reliability on science and inductive reasoning………..but go ahead deny it lololool…….

  272. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, Using something to get something done is not the same as believing in it. The reason I deny science is becuase it’s an unjustified tool based on unsupported assumptions like the uniformity of nature. We still can’t even come up with a consistent system of logic, mathematics, or science. To understand why these things are based on faith, check out the problem of induction, Gödel’s incompleteness theroms, and the problem of underdetermination.

  273. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, To say that all these tools including the computer is an example of science and its validity is simply begging the question against the skeptics.

  274. t90bb says

    Well Oreo…you seem extremely VESTED in making your point……I would think you would be all too pleased to show us all the lunacy of induction and science…….so…..let me know when you are ready to jump. Until then I am done with you. I cant imagine any better way to expose your silliness than we just have. Let me know when you plan the jump…I may want to be in attendance. You are dismissed..

  275. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, The assunption you need to justify is; how do you know that everyone who junps is going to fall?

  276. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, don’t know weather or not I would fall if I were to jump from somewhere. Gravity is also a questionable force and is still only a theory. Because if the problem of underdetermination, a scientific theory can only be a theory.

  277. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, don’t know weather or not I would fall if I were to jump from somewhere. Gravity is also a questionable force and is still only a theory. Because of the problem of underdetermination, a scientific theory can only be a theory.

  278. t90bb says

    310

    OREO, dummy….you said…
    “t90bb, The assunption you need to justify is; how do you know that everyone who junps is going to fall?”

    No…i dont. I, like everyone else here has told you that we dont claim ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY about anything!! How many times will you ignore that?? What I will do is apportion my level of confidence to the evidence. You “claim” to will dismiss my level of confidence based on the evidence…….AND YET YOU STILL WONT JUMP….PUSSY!

    I have rarely seen anyone lose an argument so badly and repeatedly. I sure hope you do not do anything important for a living. After all pointing a loaded gun at another human and pulling the trigger has utterly unpredictable results in your world. You could be seriously dangerous in many settings if you actually believe your drivel.

  279. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, Your argument about jumping off a building is a sign of absolute certainty. If you don’t know anything with absolute certainty, the how do you even know that science works or that gravity exists? You just contradicted your own arguments and position.

  280. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, If you don’t know anything with absolute certainty, then you don’t know anything.

  281. t90bb says

    Oreo….just admit you rely on science and induction just as much as we do. We all agree science and induction is fallible but its the only practical way forward until and unless something better comes along to guide our actions. They fact that your actions CLEARLY conflict with your words should give you pause to see that you are in conflict. Your philosophy tells you nothing is knowable in an absolute way….I think we all agree. But the practicality and application of science has demonstrated what appears to be “reliability”….that allows us to function. Its why you wont jump off a building.
    To dig your heels into this issue as you have makes little sense. I have some ideas as to why you have (some stated and some not). Its been a very slow week for most of us and we have been more than generous with our patience and our time with you. I hope your not a “one trick pony” and may actually have an actual contribution to the blog at some point.

  282. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, Actions don’t determine beliefs. Nor do they reveal what you live by. The fact that you rely on science and induction tells you nothing about weahter or not it’s true. Science being useful or evident doesn’t make it true or rational. Science is still in trouble with philosophers and has yet to be justified. If you don’t know something with absolute certainty, you should be skeptical of it like I am. There’s just as much evidence that you’re a brain in a vat as there is for everything in science. How can you tell that your perspective of reality is anymore true than another persons? How do you know your interpretation of what counts as evidence as opposed to what other’s count as evidence?

  283. Ronald Kyle says

    @oreomefitic “The reason I deny science is becuase ”….

    Because you are abject pissant … that is why.

  284. t90bb says

    Oreo….

    I assume you brush your teeth once a day (at least). And I assume you wipe your ass after you shit. Why? why do you??

    You dont even know you have teeth right?? LOL… why brush them.?? Maybe shit actually smells like roses….why wipe??

    Couldnt resist………actions dont determine beliefs?? So you are telling us that you brush your teeth but dont believe you have them????

    At least you have admitted you live by science and induction. Good for you.

  285. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, While it’s possible to live without beliefs, you can still have proclivities. Since you don’t know anything one way or the other, the best thing for you to have is proclivities. Plus, I thought you were done with me?

  286. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, While you may have strong beliefs or proivites about what you do in life, the problem of skepticism shows that knowledge probably doesn’t exist.

  287. t90bb says

    322…in an absolute sense yes….about all 15 of us agreed on that long ago. Oh, btw..i was not advocating for you to stop brushing your teeth or wiping your ass.

  288. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, I never said you advocated anything. Plus, be careful with what you consider absolute.

  289. Ronald Kyle says

    @Monocle Smile “The troll thinks that 99=0 because both are less than 100”

    Nicely expressed… that is what he wants us to agree to… he does not “think” that… it is only part of his incessant attempts at subverting knowledge with his relentless lies for the sake of his sky daddy.

    He has been taught to UNDERMINE and then offer Jesus as the SOLID FOUNDATION…. this is a technique that has been used for centuries by the LEGIONS of apologists before him and now.

    He is a very obvious casuist and hawker for his beloved ill begotten son of a celestial slave monger… he fancies himself as a “fisher of men” and he is ANGLING in this pond, using whatever angle he can get away with.

    ⬛ Matthew 4:19 And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

  290. t90bb says

    Yes Ron……Monocle found yet another way to capture the all or nothing thinking expressed by our friend.

    I have strongly suspected from very early on that Oreazzz has a hidden agenda. The line of thought that you cannot KNOW anything is in line with the presup crowd….Once attempting to convince someone that knowledge is impossible…ALL IDEAS, all evidences are to be equally weighted. This makes the existence of the talking snake as equally as knowable and valid as the temperature at which water freezes. (“you have just as much reason the think water freezes around 32 degrees F…..as you do that the stories in the Bible are literally true!”)

    Either hes got a really weird relationship with philosophy…or hes a closeted theist (possibly allowing himself to say that he lacks belief in god or gods…perhaps because he may claim that he has been gifted with actual knowledge of Jezass). Thats SYE’s schtict..

    Its been pointless really but it has been fun to watch him swing and miss over and over. According to him science and induction are worthless yet we have gotten him to admit time after time he lives in accordance with predictions made by science and through induction as much as we do. Why?? Because he has confidence in science and induction. Duh!

  291. oreoman1987 says

    Ronald Kyle, I don’t think you understand my position. I also recommend you look into the philosophy of mathematics, science, and religion to understand why all of these require faith.

  292. t90bb says

    330////..oreazzzzz

    Can you quote me where i said you believe in science?? I said you live in accordance with the predictions of science and induction,,,just like the rest of us. Remember you dont jump from skyscrapers, you brush your teeth, and you wipe your asshole? Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

    Ron understands your position fine. you are just playing semantic games with words like knowledge, faith, belief…….which has been your game all along. You strive to put the claims of religion on par with science. We understood that quite well.

    As long as you admit you live in accordance with predictions of science and induction I think I have made my point. Some say actions speak louder than words.

  293. twarren1111 says

    t90bb

    Thank you so much for the YouTube link #327

    It demonstrates how the artistic process can teach so well. I had never heard of Tim Minchin. His performance is beyond beautiful. And he expresses exactly what oreoman the double stuffed is trying to do.

    It was the ending that totally destroyed me. He’s so correct. And notice how Oreo demonstrates this so well: if you have already made up your mind, and decided to never change it, well then, why try?

    And while I have been only participating on this board for a few months, it has been a joy seeing how everyone’s mind and voice works. Monocle smile with their short, pithy stabs into the truth, Ronald Kyle with their shouts of biblical flavored swords of truth, and Wiggle Puppy’s satirical slams; how all of you have each reached the same conclusion about Oreo.

    And that’s why the performance of Tim Minchin worked so well for me: it summed everything you all have been trying to say to Oreo and why, ultimately, it won’t work. Oreo is a fundamentalist in their faith.

  294. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, The problem is is that you use those examples as if they favor science in some way. They don’t. Especially when we have the problems of induction and underdetermination.

  295. oreoman1987 says

    twarren1111, The issue is is that to defend something like science and reason, it only ends in circularity.

  296. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, Plus, your linked video is a strawman to all the points I’m making. I never once argued that know ledge was opinion, nor did I ever say that it can’t be found. I just have yet to see anyone demonstrate that they have any. I also have yet to see any of you get past the problem of skepticism and induction. Even critical thinking is a problematic way of finding truth because people use it very differently.

  297. t90bb says

    333. twarren1111….

    You are most welcome! Yea…i saw oreoazz all over that!!!. Glad you enjoyed it! Of course OREAzz will not see any of himself in that video….predictably he did not..lol. Glad you got something out of it TW…and thanks for all you do here.

  298. t90bb says

    333…TW1111……and I do agree this forum is pretty amazing. I have come to appreciate all the regular and semi regular posters…….I even appreciate the peeps like oreoazzz. They drop in…..and disappear just as quick. If you not on your game as a theist….you dont last long here. Way smarter minds than mine can pick apart the bullshit that shows up here. Its the same reason you dont see many high profile theists call in to the show. They know they dont hold a winning hand. At best they hope to stay on level ground with the hosts. There is more downside to upside in calling in the show if you are a well known and established/respected theist. Ofcourse with gawd on their side you would not think that would be the case (smirk).

  299. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, I’m defending philosophy. Not theism. You need to actually look into philosophy to understand where I’m coming from. Dillahunty himself could tell you this. Because of you not examining what I’m arguing and studying philosophy, you’ve strawmanned my position. I don’t believe in any theistic positions. I’m highly skeptical of everything. I think you should be too since you have already said that you don’t have absolute certianty of anything.

  300. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, Plus, I’ve not imonce disappered from this blog but have continued to respond to every response I’ve recieved. If I were to call into the show, I don’t think they would take my call because I’m not a theist. Even if I was, the people on TAE don’t really seem to engage with people’s argumemts very well but rely on yelling, strawmanning, and appeals to ridicule. This is especially true when they get confronted about the issue of Islam. They are pretty much regressives.

  301. oreoman1987 says

    twarren1111, Plus, changing people’s minds is one of the factors of winning a debate. I’m also not really sure if Tim Minchin has delved much into philosophy or philosophical skepticism as he doesn’t seem to take knto account that only the academic skeptics are the ones who argue that knowledge is only opinion. Also, how exactly do you know his reaoning is valid kn this issue? You need to examine his assertions more critically.

  302. RationalismRules says

    @oreotroll

    I’ve not imonce [sic] disappered from this blog but have continued to respond to every response I’ve recieved.

    Liar!

    You have not responded to every response you’ve received. From the beginnings of the thread you have avoided responding to multiple issues raised by various posters.

    For example, you have been asked multiple times by myself and others exactly what you mean by “believe in science”, yet you have not once in 150+ posts given a response.

    You have been asked what definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ you are using. No response. Yet, of course, you continue to use the terms constantly.

    I also asked you explicitly and directly whether you understand that science makes no claim to ultimate truth or ultimate knowledge, in the sense that those terms are considered in philosophy, and is simply about increasing our understanding of the natural world. Again, no response.

    You are a liar.

  303. oreoman1987 says

    RationalismRules, Where did I not give a response? I don’t recall you or anyone else ever asking me to define anything. Just because you don’t like the reponses, doesn’t mean I didn’t give any. The big problem is is that you and everyone I’ve responded to has ignored the philosophical problems against science I’ve brought up. And, you’re wrong about nobody making absolute knowledge claims with science. Check out scientific realism. Appealing to science and ridicule isn’t going to get you anywhere.

  304. oreoman1987 says

    RationalismRules, Also, are you sure you ever even opened a philosophy book or even understand what epistemology is?

  305. RationalismRules says

    @oreo

    Where did I not give a response?

    Why would you ask a question for which I have already given three examples in the post you are ‘responding’ to?

    I don’t know (or care, particularly) whether or not you are simply a troll or a misguided true believer. However, what I do know for certain is that you are not engaging honestly. The above question is just one more example of this. Your tactics are all about dishonesty, from the initial strawman/equivocation on which your entire argument is founded, to your go-to response to any difficult counterpoint: ie. distraction.

    Your repeated deployment of the word ‘faith’ is another example – ‘trust’ or ‘confidence’ would be perfectly good substitutes in this context, but you choose to use ‘faith’ every time, because you want the implied equivocation to ‘religious faith’. It’s amazing, isn’t it, that something as small as word choice can provide a clear sign of dishonest engagement?

    I have no interest in pursuing the conversation with you any further until you actually address the issues I have already raised. If you are able to do that, we have a basis for continuing a conversation. Until then, and until you begin to engage with some level of integrity, I don’t see any point in debating with you about anything.

    I returned briefly to catch you out in a blatant lie. Your response is to attempt further distraction and dishonesty. That, right there, says it all.

  306. oreoman1987 says

    RationalismRules, Except your “examples” had no clarity nor evidence to support them. Also, how am I not engaging honestly if you haven’t even found a way to reapond to the problems I’ve presented to all of you? I already addressed the “issues” you and the others have brought up and you still have yet to respond to the unsolved problems in philosophy that are a problem for science. Also, you’re going to have a hard time catching anyone in a lie if you appeal to ridicule and ad hominems. You also clearly have no understanding of the point of philosophy and the inpact it has on science and everything else. Your sort of resppnses is what leads people to fights instead of debate. You also clearly didn’t watch the video I linked.And you actually accuse me of dishonesty?

  307. RationalismRules says

    @oreo
    Repeating:
    I have no interest in pursuing the conversation with you any further until you actually address the issues I have already raised. If you are able to do that, we have a basis for continuing a conversation. Until then, and until you begin to engage with some level of integrity, I don’t see any point in debating with you about anything.

  308. t90bb says

    For shits and giggles I watched your 4 minute video you recommended that ended in “when you assume, you make an ass of you and me”…….

    I learned absolutely nothing in that video. It was a tutorial on the obvious. That video impressed you? really?

    And then I realized its ironic of you to tell us that we do not understand philosophy based on this “high school four minute video production”….when its clear that we understand philosophy just fine. Rather it, it seems, it is you that does not understand the nature and claims of science. Science attempts to create predictive models based on testing and evidence. As I understand science, ALL of its predictive models and conclusions are tentative and open to revision based on further study and evidence. Science has no goal or expectation of creating the knowledge (absolute certainty) you seem to jerk off about. What exactly is your understanding of the goals and purpose of science??

    Please, no more kiddy videos….like you, that producer of that 2013 four minute masterpiece likes to pawn off the obvious as GENIUS.

    So, again….WHAT is your understanding of the goals of science? And what is your understanding regarding the nature of scientific claims (theories, laws)?. Do you think science makes absolute knowledge claims??? You like to ask many of us if we have opened a philosophy book, so I will take the opportunity to ask you if you have ever opened a science book??

    I have asked several VERY specific questions in this post. You can identify them by the punctuation mark ending with (?) Be sure to address each of them in your reply. I think a great deal of this dialogue is based on your false understanding of the goals and nature of science…..and how its tentative conclusions are perceived by the members of this board. I really don’t think you understand the nature of scientific inquiry. Science is internally and externally skeptical by nature. This is why ALL of its predictions and explanations are tentative. Did someone tell you otherwise as a boy??

  309. Honey Tone says

    Oreo, I think you’ve just been yanking everybody’s chain all along, Gish galloping from one philosophical subject area to another and throwing in the occasional Sy Ten “everything you know could be wrong” bs. Wiggle Puppy had you 300 posts ago. Your crap is a mile wide but just an inch deep.

    You keep saying: we misunderstand your position, that it’s been strawmanned, that we need to look into philosophy. Brilliant – let’s all take a couple of years to poke around philosophy in general and epistemology in particular, and THEN we’ll understand, eh?

    IF you truly want to engage, then quit stalling and simply state (a) what exactly your position is and (b) why you hold that position, with thoughtful exposition of salient points in support. And not by reference to YouTube vids.

    Another alternative: invite us to join a discussion on your blog or on some philosophy forum (such as The Philosophy Forum).

    Otherwise, it is less than useless for you to come into this forum and *merely* declare that ONE of the tools we find helpful in combating the craziness of being atheists in a world of theists isn’t *perfect*. BFD. We know.

    Do you actually want to help? Suggest a better tool or propose a way to achieve the perfection you think is required. If you can’t or won’t, then please just go away.

  310. t90bb says

    354.. RR….

    I think you have made a fair request of Oreotroll. Unless and until he answers the questions you laid out in your last exchange as well as the ones I just raised…..I think we can let him masturbate to “absolute certainty”////…..

  311. indianajones says

    And in direct response, I would say geometry as made up out of whole cloth and yet I can still tile a bathroom which was never responded to.

  312. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 352:

    “Also, how am I not engaging honestly if you haven’t even found a way to reapond to the problems I’ve presented to all of you?”

    We have responded, over and over again. We’ve rejected your concept of “knowledge,” which seems to be tied up with the idea of absolute certainty and therefore hard solipsism, because it’s nonsense that’s completely irrelevant to how anyone actually goes about their daily lives. You have repeatedly ignored this and refused to address the positions we actually hold.

    “I already addressed the “issues” you and the others have brought up and you still have yet to respond to the unsolved problems in philosophy that are a problem for science. ”

    I asked about 350 posts ago: we all have to figure out some way to interact with the world in which we find ourselves, so if science is inadequate, then what should we do? Put more directly, how do YOU – oreoman1987 – interpret the world around you on a daily basis if not through induction, inference, empiricism, or reason? You haven’t come close to answering that. You’ve accused us of not being open minded because we aren’t open to your critiques of science, and we’ve responded by a) in some cases, conceding that the critiques are valid but perhaps not as fatal as you seem to think and b) asking you for your thoughts on how we should proceed in the face of these critiques. You have offered nothing.

    We’ve responded to the “unsolved problems” (like the problem of induction) by stating that, yes, these methods don’t seem to have perfect epistemological grounding, but they do seem to allow us to attain repeatable, verifiable results that help us to build general models of how the world around us works, which seem to hold up over time. It doesn’t matter whether I’m ultimately a brain in a vat, or whether we’re all in the Matrix, or whatever – I’m stuck dealing with the world in which I find myself until someone shows me a way out of it. If you don’t accept this, then again, what other method should we use to go about living our daily lives?

    “Also, you’re going to have a hard time catching anyone in a lie if you appeal to ridicule and ad hominems.”

    I have no problem ridiculing that which is ridiculous, and it seems that many others feel the same way.

    “You also clearly have no understanding of the point of philosophy and the inpact it has on science and everything else.”

    Some of us *have* studied philosophy, and know that providing clear and understandable definitions of concepts deployed is key to a productive discussion. If you’re going to throw around terms like “knowledge,” “truth,” and “faith” without making clear how you’re using them – and, almost more importantly, understanding that other people might use these terms differently and therefore that some agreement on definitions is essential to facilitating productive discussion – then discussion probably won’t get very far, and people will just end up going around in circles. We’ve pointed out to you over and over again that if you’re going to tie up the term “knowledge” with the concept of absolute certainty, then it isn’t relevant to a discussion about science at all. And if your response is to talk about some other “scientific realists” somewhere who *do* believe that science leads to absolute certainty, even when everybody here is going to great lengths to explain that they don’t hold that position, then yes, you’re straw-manning, and yes, it’s extremely dishonest.

    “And you actually accuse me of dishonesty?”

    Yes.

    Please ban this idiot.

  313. oreoman1987 says

    RationalismRules, I didn’t see any issues that you’ve raised. Why would you wsnt people to respond to your “issues” if you don’t respond to the unsolved problems against science in philosophy?

  314. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, How can you tell what’s absurd or irrelevant if you haven’t flund a way to solve the problem of skepticism? How do you know a solipsist or idealist is wrong as opposed to a scientific realist? I don’t argue for any position because I have yet to see a justified one.

  315. oreoman1987 says

    larpar, I’m defending philosphy. Not solipsism.

    Not once have I argued in favor of it. I’m simply asking how you or anyone else knows that it’s wrong. Jeff and Matt can run from it all they want but their tactic is no more effective than a christian telling you to just have faith.

  316. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, So, you’re against having knowledge and certainty?

    Why would you not want to know if you have knowledge or not? Is your option just to ignore philosophical problems like Matt and the rest of TAE?

  317. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, Science revising its views is actually another problem for science because it shows that it can never know when it has it right. The problem of underdetermination shows that science can never tell if it has the right answers or not. Plus, the guy was making a joke at the end of the video. The point is is for you to actually justify all your beliefs that you take on faith. For example, how do you know your science teachers were honest? Or, how do you know that you’re not stuck in a global skeptical scenario? Using science to justifiy these beliefs is only going to lead you into circularity because you’re using science to justify science.

  318. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Is your claim about nobody taking science as completely true absolutely true? Because if so, this contradicts what you’ve been saying. If you don’t know anything with absolute certainty, then how do you even know that science is useful or that you’re experiecing any reaity at all?

  319. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 361:

    “I don’t argue for any position because I have yet to see a justified one.”

    You HAVE to have some way of interacting with the world you find yourself in, because you’re not dead. All I was asking a week ago (and have been asking since) is: if not induction, inference, empiricism, and reason, what is the method that YOU – oreman1987 – use? That’s it.

    @ oreo 363:

    “larpar, I’m defending philosphy.”

    You’re doing a poor job of it.

    @ oreo 364:

    “Wiggle Puppy, So, you’re against having knowledge and certainty?”

    No, but I don’t believe that absolute certainty is attainable, so there’s no point in spending lots of time discussing it. I still have to make decisions about the world I find myself in.

    “Why would you not want to know if you have knowledge or not? Is your option just to ignore philosophical problems like Matt and the rest of TAE?”

    Not all philosophical problems are created equal. Some are useful, and others are useless. I’ll let you guess which category yours fall under.

    @ oreo 365:

    “Using science to justifiy these beliefs is only going to lead you into circularity because you’re using science to justify science.”

    Yes, much like using a pen to show that it works, and then pointing to the fact that the pen works as evidence that the pen works, is circular. You seem to finally be getting it.

    @ oreo 366:

    “Wiggle Puppy, Is your claim about nobody taking science as completely true absolutely true?”

    No.

    I didn’t say that “nobody” considers science to prove absolute truth, just the people on this blog. If you want to get in a discussion with people who think that science produces absolute certainty, go find them and argue with them.

    You know, I didn’t think that you were a religious apologist when this all started, but I’m having doubts. This is such a common tactic – try to say that in the absence of absolute certainty, every claim is equally suspect, and then when people point out that we can hold beliefs to varying degrees of certainty, start playing word games.

    “If you don’t know anything with absolute certainty, then how do you even know that science is useful or that you’re experiecing any reaity at all?”

    You DO sound like a presuppositional apologist.

    @ oreo 365:

    “t90bb, Science revising its views is actually another problem for science because it shows that it can never know when it has it right.”

    Okay, now you sound like a kindergarten apologist again.

    Please ban this idiot.

  320. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, “You HAVE to have some way of interacting with the world you find yourself in, because you’re not dead. All I was asking a week ago (and have been asking since) is: if not induction, inference, empiricism, and reason, what is the method that YOU – oreman1987 – use? That’s it.”

    We don’t know if any method works becuse we’re stuck with the problem of the criterion. There has yet to be a method that’s justified for finding truth.

    “You know, I didn’t think that you were a religious apologist when this all started, but I’m having doubts. This is such a common tactic – try to say that in the absence of absolute certainty, every claim is equally suspect, and then when people point out that we can hold beliefs to varying degrees of certainty, start playing word games.”

    Why would you not be skeptical of anything and just take things on faith? Plus, what are these “varying degrees” you speak of? What percentage of any propositiondo you know with certianty? Therefore, be skeptical of everything?

    “You DO sound like a presuppositional apologist.”

    These problems and arguments existed long before presuppositionalism. This is a sign of your bias towards opposing views. If you want to know why I’m also skeptical of presuppositionalism, check out these videos; https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz0n_SjOttTdN8F0zmt0Iz6cUq8FPGYib

    “Okay, now you sound like a kindergarten apologist again.”

    This is not a response to an argument but a fallacy of appeal to ridicule. You need to actually engage with people who disagree with you in debate and not rely on insults as this only results in close-mindedness and faith.

  321. indianajones says

    @Wiggle Puppy: You ok pal? I admire the energy, but please look after your self ok?

    @Oreo Geometry something something along with why do you argue with people that, according to you, you have no justification for thinking exist?

  322. oreoman1987 says

    indianajones, The problem is is that mathematics is also based on faith. Check out Gödel’s incompleteness theroms and Russell’s paradox.

  323. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ oreo 368:

    “We don’t know if any method works becuse we’re stuck with the problem of the criterion. ”

    I asked you the straightforward question of how YOU, oreoman 1987, interact with the world around you on a daily basis. It’s possibly the simplest question ever.

    Please ban this idiot.

    @ indianajones 369:

    See above.

  324. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Plus, there is not now, nor has there ever been a link demonstrated between either simplicity, intuition, or truth. Simplicity is a very questionable concept.

  325. t90bb says

    371 Wiggle…..You have asked him and all of us has asked him what method he uses to interact on a daily basis….and he fail/refuses to answer over and over////….MODS…..ban this poor fool., put him out of his misery.

    SERIOUSLY someone that has ties to the mods….do it. I cannot stand a dishonest coward. He selectively answers the questions hes willing and ignores those that show him in conflict with his claims.

    BAN BAN BAN him……this is a forum for honest dialogue.

  326. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, The problem is is that there has never been a justified method found to determine truth. If you have one, please present it.

  327. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ t90bb #374:

    Q: What’s your favorite color?

    A: Aesthetics is a very subjective field of philosophical thought. There is no objective standard for determining which color is best.

    Q: But what’s YOUR favorite color?

    A: The problem is that there is no objective method for determining which color is best. This is the same reason that there is no objective standard for determining the best song in the Top 40 on the radio.

    Q: (sigh)

    A: You aren’t engaging with what I’m saying.

  328. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, I think you need to look into the philosophy of color. That may help you understand the idea of color.

  329. oreoman1987 says

    Wiggle Puppy, Plus, this is not at all what I’m arguing. You’ve missed the point about philosophical skepticism and the unsolved problems it presents.

  330. t90bb says

    381..oreo….

    I watched your 4 minute video that you recommended in 345,,…it was juvenile and I learned NOTHING…….It stated the obvious and you seem to pawn this off as valuable to me (us). It was embarrassing in fact. !!!!

    YOU WHERE IMPRESSED BY THAT VIDEO???

    MODS ban him!

  331. t90bb says

    378…wiggle…….pretty much.

    He knows his actions conflict with his words…….and that makes him uncomfortable so he avoids certain questions altogether/////….and to avoid more more uncomfortabiity…he denies the questions were even asked AND/OR pretends he had answered them!! lolololoo,,,,,its pretty sad in fact….

    Hes tied himself into a knot and is too cowardly and intellectually dishonest to admit his own inconsistencies…..

    I AM DONE WITH THE THREAD…time to move on!!!! See ya on the next thread fellas! HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!

  332. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, I don’t think you paid close attention to the video or you simply don’t want to be skeptical of science.

  333. oreoman1987 says

    t90bb, What questions have I avoided, exactly?
    Plus, you seem to be engaged with personal incredulity and projection.

  334. says

    We don’t know if any method works becuse we’re stuck with the problem of the criterion. There has yet to be a method that’s justified for finding truth.

    You weren’t asked to provide a method for finding truth. You were asked how you interact with the world you find yourself in. Never mind the nature of the world. That’s not the question. The question is how you deal with it. You are, after all, dealing with it right now, by posting here, so you must have some method or other, right?

    Or maybe you’re just randomly hitting the keyboard, with no rhyme or reason? That might explain a thing or two.

  335. Lyndale says

    (not my fault you can’t believe your eyes)..get over it and wake up world! God is REAL and I’ve proven it.

  336. Ronald.kyle says

    @Lyndale…

    I asked you a question many times and you still have not answered it… either you cannot and are too dishonest to admit that… or you are too dishonest to admit that it is proof that all your belief is nothing but flimflam….

    So before you argue with us about a sky daddy… FIRST … prove to us that you are honest enough to admit that your Jesus is an absolute claptrap… then we can argue about his deadbeat sky daddy after that.

    Can you explain why would a god who said the words in 2 Chronicles 7:14 (see below) and who KNEW the words of Luke 16:29-31 (see below) feel the need for all that rape and committing adultery with a 13 years old girl and then go through the FARCICAL HOAX of a weekend of BDSM with muscly men in domineering uniforms????

    ⬛ 2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin…

    As we see in the above verse… the very sky monster himself in the fairy tale gave us a FORMULA for how to be redeemed… and as you can see it has no rape of little girls and no ill begotten sons and no human blood sacrifice….

    Can Christianity explain why their god who once said the words of 2 Chronicles 7:14 (above) would all of a sudden feel compelled to have to rape and commit adultery with a 13 years old girl so as to impregnate her with a third of himself and then sit inside her for 9 months twiddling his thumbs and then ooze out from between her legs to YET AGAIN do nothing for thirty more years and then go entice 12 men away from their work and their obligation to provide for and protect their families so as to go hoboing about with him having naked feet washing orgies and then help him annoy some fanatics so as to induce them to give him a weekend of BDSM so as to achieve (and fail to do so) what he has already explained how to achieve without any raping or adultery with a little girl and without any BDSM or torture or bloodshed or HUMAN BLOOD sacrifice????
    And the pathetic idiocy of it all is that even in the NT we have Christianity admitting that it was a pointless human blood sacrifice in the first place ….

    ⬛ Luke 16:29-31 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them… but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent… he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

  337. dontpanicdent says

    @ oreoman1987 (re: #164-182)

    Since ‘science is the daughter of philosophy’ and ancients found ‘problems in philosophy,’ as you say, maybe people just went on to something a little more useful in exploring the world we live in. That, in your opinion, this new thing, science, is flawed in some ways, doesn’t justify your assumption that its conclusions aren’t any closer to “truth” or reality or real knowledge than philosophy might come to find.

    Everything has problems with it. Nothing is perfect. But, because we moved on from philosophy– and into realms that philosophy created, like the sciences– this kind of shows that philosophy had insurmountable problems at the time and wasn’t offering avenues of discovery that were very useful to us any longer.

    Controlling nature, debunking superstitions and gods, improving agriculture and husbandry, getting to the moon– all are results of the pursuit of skepticism and science. A philosopher would ruminate on on the morality of such endeavors (should we control nature, should we question God, is it good we go to the moon) without providing solutions to get there.

    In other words, the philosopher would have their head in the clouds while the rest of us break through them.

  338. dontpanicdent says

    @ Wiggle Puppy (#174-212)

    I don’t think I’m spilling the beans at this point in saying I really enjoyed the way you handled oreoman1987’s obfuscating posts. You really used their own tactics against them by repeating incessantly ‘I disproved hard solipsism and now you’re mad’ and ‘You just haven’t read enough about philosophy of mind.’

    You really turned the table on them, giving them a bit of their own medicine and I loved it!

    Kudos!

  339. dontpanicdent says

    @ oreoman1987 (#302)

    You admit that ‘induction is the weakest form of reasoning’ due to it being ‘viciously circular.’ By your own words, though, it is still a form of reasoning.

    So, induction is still a means of proving the validity of something– just not the most reliable.

    Is that the real point you’re trying to make?

  340. dontpanicdent says

    @ t90bb (#329)

    Regarding the Tim Minchin video you uploaded, thank you. It was just the apropos thing to lighten the mood so I can finish this gd thread.

    Very thoughtful. Thanks.

  341. dontpanicdent says

    @ t90bb (#329)

    Regarding the Tim Minchin video you uploaded, thank you. It was just the apropos thing to lighten the mood so I can finish *reading* this gd thread.

    Very thoughtful. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *