You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

And I don't see much point in a discussion using terms with no definition. Imagine attempting to build a building using drawings wherein the units of measurement haven't been first defined.

Which term(s) in your assertion below do you feel is ill-defined, misrepresented or otherwise ambiguous?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment. Its how anyone knows anything ultimately.

Don't believe me? Then try show me how you know anything that isn't based, ultimately, on self assessment.

So. Tell me something you know and we can quick fire our way down the chain to self assessment

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Which term(s) in your assertion below do you feel is ill-defined, misrepresented or otherwise ambiguous?

Self assessment? Know? Believe? The assertion will stand or fall on the meaning of such words.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment? Know? Believe? The assertion will stand or fall on the meaning of such words.

The assertion remains specious for any well understood definitions for those words though when tested against the example I provided. If you disagree, please illustrate how the following example derives from self-assessment.

I know that a geodetic network that I helped develop for a client today is robust and fit for purpose.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

The assertion remains specious for any well understood definitions for those words

But wasn't it yourself who introduced the notion of subjective (S2) as lone observation? That is, observing something on your own

There was nothing in the definition, that I recall, regarding the objectivity (where that is tentatively defined as not arising from personal feelings or emotions) or otherwise of the lone observation.

You are handwaving. 'Well understood'. But when unpacking what is well understood it's not quite as simple as you'd like it be.

Since you rest on well understood and you apparently don't understand so well, well, doesn't that which relies on it falter?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

But wasn't it yourself who introduced the notion of subjective (S2) as lone observation? That is, observing something on your own

There was nothing in the definition, that I recall, regarding the objectivity (where that is tentatively defined as not arising from personal feelings or emotions) or otherwise of the lone observation.

You are handwaving. 'Well understood'. But when unpacking what is well understood it's not quite as simple as you'd like it be.

Since you rest on well understood and you apparently don't understand so well, well, doesn't that which relies on it falter?

Your specious assertion doesn't use the term subjective nor rely on it, so this is beside the point. How about you address that first? Fourth time of asking now.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Your specious assertion doesn't use the term subjective nor rely on it, so this is beside the point. How about you address that first? Fourth time of asking now.

You is a critical element in an examination of what YOU say YOU know. Subjective is unavoidably involved given it comments on YOU.

smacl earlier in proceedings wrote:

Subjective means deriving from a single point of view.

"B..b..but you never mentioned the word subjective."

Pathetic.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You is a critical element in an examination of what YOU say YOU know. Subjective is unavoidably involved given it comments on YOU.

"B..b..but you never mentioned the word subjective."

Pathetic.

Right, so my example is "I know that a geodetic network that I helped develop for a client today is robust and fit for purpose." Lets have a quick look at the components of this example shall we;

The geodetic network in question was observed out by a team of qualified and highly experienced geosurveyors with calibrated equipment using a rigorous method of measurement and a large number of redundant measurements. We adjusted using a least squares method comparing an a priori stochastic model to the a posteriori computational results and checked error ellipses of every point at 90%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals, and also investigated all observation residuals and chi-squared statistics for any possible outliers. Myself and my client did this independently based on a different subset of observations before comparing results.

Remind me which part of the knowing the above is robust and fit for purpose is based on self assessment or in any way subjective?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Right, so my example is "I know that a geodetic network that I helped develop for a client today is robust and fit for purpose." Lets have a quick look at the components of this example shall we;

The geodetic network in question was observed out by a team of qualified and highly experienced geosurveyors with calibrated equipment using a rigorous method of measurement and a large number of redundant measurements. We adjusted using a least squares method comparing an a priori stochastic model to the a posteriori computational results and checked error ellipses of every point at 90%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals, and also investigated all observation residuals and chi-squared statistics for any possible outliers. Myself and my client did this independently based on a different subset of observations before comparing results.

Remind me which part of the knowing the above is robust and fit for purpose is based on self assessment or in any way subjective?

We haven't got a definition of subjective in order to wonder whether. And we know whose wriggling wildly to grt off that hook.

"Words are well understood" (a.k.a. whatever smacl likes it to mean - except when reminded of what he has said)

"Subjective wasn't mentioned and isn't involved" (although mentioned by you now as a counter point to your knowing).

You might as well just say 'I don't agree that you can show knowing arising from self assessment" and kick to stalemate. Better than all this ducking and diving.

Save us all some time we can't get back.

Enough. The horse will only drink at a trough of his (somewhat self confounding) choosing.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Words are well understood" (a.k.a. whatever smacl likes it to mean - except when reminded of what he has said)

Nope, words are well understood as in their meanings are defined in dictionaries. The dictionary definitions for subjective for example have already been provided by Mark Hamill on this thread. What you might like words to mean aren't really of much consequence unless that concurs with what they actually mean.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

We haven't got a definition of subjective in order to wonder whether.

On the contrary, you'll find that my observations previously certainly constitute something which some might term "Notes Towards a Definition of Subjectivity". Did you not read them, or if you did read them, did you not understand them?

I'm a little shocked to be honest with you as I tried to keep them as clear and concise as possible.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Nope, words are well understood as in their meanings are defined in dictionaries. The dictionary definitions for subjective for example have already been provided by Mark Hamill on this thread. What you might like words to mean aren't really of much consequence unless that concurs with what they actually mean.

I gave you your quote. Your quote. As to what subjective involves. Mark?? You're flailing around to consider anything but what you say.

As if it would help. You would still have to say what lone observance involved (your own introduction to the mix). Is there no word for it?

So what if a definition said 'from from own feelings and emotions'? Does that mean all lone observance stems from 'feeling and emotion'? You would have to say .. and quickly face the consequences of such stupidity were you to say yes..


A person faced with an assertion that knowing is sourced in self seeks to dodge and duck and dive amy idea of establishing what subjective is. Subjective pointing to self.

That is the target to drag you kicking and screaming to. What better than duck and dodge and dive any attempt to define the target.

That's Infantile level stuff. Transparently so.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

That is the target to drag you kicking and screaming to. What better than duck and dodge and dive any attempt to define the target.That's Infantile level stuff. Transparently so.

Thing is, your specious assertion that self assessment is ultimately how anyone knows anything fails on the very simple basis that most knowledge is not subjective. People share common knowledge arrived at by consensus. Sometimes they even write it down in things like dictionaries. This works for any definition of subjective.

I'm also rather surprised you would make an assertion broad enough to include what anyone knows about anything. Or does having direct contact with your god also confer omniscience?

Also still waiting for how my example amounts to self assessment.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Thing is, your specious assertion that self assessment is ultimately how anyone knows anything fails on the very simple basis that most knowledge is not subjective.

There you go again! Using a word, which you've spent 2 days avoiding establishing the definition of, to make a counter assertion.

If you are hell bent on avoiding settling on what subjective entails, how can you say most knowledge isn't subjective?

It's beyond bonkers!

smacl

I see I'm going to have to make this simpler, as you seem to be struggling with basic English here. You asserted the following in bold.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment. Its how anyone knows anything ultimately.

Don't believe me? Then try show me how you know anything that isn't based, ultimately, on self assessment.
So. Tell me something you know and we can quick fire our way down the chain to self assessment

Self assessment is defined as "the act or process of analyzing and evaluating oneself or one's actions : assessment of oneself"

To know anything has a number of definitions, such as "to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of" and "to perceive directly : have direct cognition of"

Using anyone and anything implies your assertion holds for every person and every thing. For the person I took myself as requested in your post. For the thing I knew, I took the fact that a piece of work I'd done that day was fit for purpose. This work was done collaboratively with others and the results rigorously tested before being signed off.

So your assertion, with the terms you considered required further definition expanded, and specific values plugged in reads

"The act or process of analyzing and evaluating myself or my actions is how I became aware of the truth or factuality that the work I did earlier was fit for purpose"

This is of course rubbish. I know what I did was fit for purpose as it was tested by myself and others as being fit for purpose using rigorous methods. No self assessment involved.

You seem to struggle to discern between knowledge and belief, as evidenced all the way back to the title of this thread. You also make a mistake in thinking your personally held beliefs constitute objective truth, which they clearly do not.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I see I'm going to have to make this simpler, as you seem to be struggling with basic English here. You asserted the following in bold.



Self assessment is defined as "the act or process of analyzing and evaluating oneself or one's actions : assessment of oneself"

To know anything has a number of definitions, such as "to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of" and "to perceive directly : have direct cognition of"

Using anyone and anything implies your assertion holds for every person and every thing. For the person I took myself as requested in your post. For the thing I knew, I took the fact that a piece of work I'd done that day was fit for purpose. This work was done collaboratively with others and the results rigorously tested before being signed off.

So your assertion, with the terms you considered required further definition expanded, and specific values plugged in reads

"The act or process of analyzing and evaluating myself or my actions is how I became aware of the truth or factuality that the work I did earlier was fit for purpose"

This is of course rubbish. I know what I did was fit for purpose as it was tested by myself and others as being fit for purpose using rigorous methods. No self assessment involved.

You seem to struggle to discern between knowledge and belief, as evidenced all the way back to the title of this thread. You also make a mistake in thinking your personally held beliefs constitute objective truth, which they clearly do not.

This work had collaborative sign off. We'll leave aside the fact that Windows 8 most certainly had collaborative signoff and it didn't prove robust and fit for use.

Collaborative sign off amongst other elements enables your knowing the product robust and fit for purpose.

From where the authority granted to these various processes such that they are considered to reliably tranlate into knowledge? I'm not so much interested in a ladder diagram showing the route. Rather, I am asking who grants authority that the route works.

In other words: if the product passes this and that test and these and those persons sign off on those tests .. then robust and fit. Who grants authority to the test. Who grants authority to persons signing the tests, such that the combination: authorative tests passed, as confirmed by authoriative people signing off = robust and fit.

You might point to external standards bodies who assemble tests.To which the same question. Who grants these bodies authority?

Things will boil down to 'lots of others agree with my view. It is the mass of same opinion which gives me certainty"

Who granted authority that a mass of same opinion confers certainty? I am not interested in why granted so much as I am in who granted. The why, will of course, stem from an observation and assessment of self.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Collaborative sign off amongst other elements enables your knowing the product robust and fit for purpose.

From where the authority granted to these various processes such that they are considered to reliably tranlate into knowledge? I'm not so much interested in a ladder diagram showing the route. Rather, I am asking who grants authority that the route works.

In other words: if the product passes this and that test and these and those persons sign off on those tests .. then robust and fit. Who grants authority to the test. Who grants authority to persons signing the tests, such that the combination: authorative tests passed, as confirmed by authoriative people signing off = robust and fit.

Doesn't matter. The agreed definition of "fit for purpose" in the context of this job was passing agreed and well specified QA tests. The whole point of this type of QA is that it is independent of subjective interpretation.

Your previous assertion is specious because it demands that all knowledge is subjective. Information, from which knowledge is derived might be inaccurate, incomplete and context sensitive. It might also be subjective. If knowledge is not derived from a subjective information, it is not subjective.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Doesn't matter.

Oh but ot does. We were talking about what you know.

The agreed definition of "fit for purpose" in the context of this job was passing agreed and well specified QA tests. The whole point of this type of QA is that it is independent of subjective interpretation.

Did you agree to the definition? Because if you didn't, then you mighr not be so sure you know what YOU know.

Does what you know rely on your agreeing (aka granting authority to the QA test)

Your previous assertion is specious because it demands that all knowledge is subjective. Information, from which knowledge is derived might be inaccurate, incomplete and context sensitive. It might also be subjective. If knowledge is not derived from a subjective information, it is not subjective.

Lets hold that thought!

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Oh but ot does. We were talking about what you know.



Did you agree to the definition? Because if you didn't, then you mighr not be so sure you know what YOU know.

Does what you know rely on your agreeing (aka granting authority to the QA test)



Lets hold that thought!

Rubbish. I know that the work done was fit for purpose on the basis of passing specified tests, where those tests were carried out independently by multiple groups. My appraisal of the the suitability of tests is irrelevant. What I know "that the work is fit for purpose" is contextually limited to a previously agreed definition of "fit for purpose".

Edit: Let me dumb this down for you a bit more in case you're still struggling that with the concept that all we know is ultimately based in self assessment. I know that when adding base 10 integers, 1 + 1 = 2 Which bit of that is based on self assessment?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. I know that the work done was fit for purpose on the basis of passing specified tests, where those tests were carried out independently by multiple groups. My appraisal of the the suitability of tests is irrelevant.

If you appraised the suitability tests as unsuitable, then you wouldn't know what it is you say you know. Would you?

Doesn't what YOU know then rely on YOUR appraising the tests as suitable?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you appraised the suitability tests as unsuitable to draw the conclusion you draw then you wouldn't know what you say you know. Would you?

Doesn't what you know then rely on your appraisal?

Nope. QA/QC procedures and tests are defined and agreed in advance of starting the project, as is the case with every major infrastructural project. My appraisal of the suitability of these tests occurred long before these tests took place. If I'd had any concerns, I would have voiced them at that point. I didn't and know that the results they provide is correct to the desired level of confidence and thus the work is fit for purpose.

For someone who was complaining that my previous posts were 'infantile' you seem to be struggling with some extremely basic stuff here.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Nope. QA/QC procedures and tests are defined and agreed in advance of starting the project, as is the case with every major infrastructural project. My appraisal of the suitability of these tests occurred long before these tests took place.

Which doesn't alter the question. You appraised the tests as suitable. The tests (whenever they occur) lead to knowledge.

Back to reliance on your appraisal for subsequent knowledge.

(YOUR appraisal is something self-assessed. "Oneself or ones actions". The action is your appraising. You clearly judged yourself (oneself) to be correct in your appraisal)

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which doesn't alter the question. You appraised the tests as suitable. The tests (whenever they occur) lead to knowledge.

Back to reliance on your appraisal for subsequent knowledge.

(YOUR appraisal is something self-assessed. "Oneself or ones actions". The action is your appraising. You clearly judged yourself (oneself) to be correct in your appraisal)

Doesn't matter. "Fitness of purpose" in this context is defined as "having passed the specified tests", my appraisal of those test has no bearing on this. Much like saying 1+1=2 (in the context of integer arithmetic on base 10 numbers), there are plenty of plain facts that leave no wriggle room for subjective interpretation.

smacl

Just looking at the title of this post again OP

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

As per my earlier post, you seem to be failing to distinguish between "to know" and "to believe".

You certainly don't "know" what anyone else on this forum believes (as opposed to what they don't believe).

Saying something is "true or not" is simply saying it might be true.

The statement "your opinion matters" demands an audience, yet you deride all opinions and beliefs that are contrary to your own, apparently on the quest to save souls.

I think your title should actually read

I believe God might exist. My opinion matters

Let me know if I've missed anything :cool:

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Doesn't matter. "Fitness of purpose" in this context is defined as "having passed the specified tests", my appraisal of those test has no bearing on this. Much like saying 1+1=2 (in the context of integer arithmetic on base 10 numbers), there are plenty of plain facts that leave no wriggle room for subjective interpretation.

More like 1 = 1 since robustness is defined as the test result. Is 1 = 1 knowledge?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

More like 1 = 1 since robustness is defined as the test result. Is 1 = 1 knowledge?

Firstly, you're just putting up your own straw man to knock down there.

Secondly robust does not mean absolutely indestructible. Far better than a flimsy straw man though.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Firstly, you're just putting up your own straw man to knock down there.

Perhaps what's below helps?

Secondly robust does not mean absolutely indestructible. Far better than a flimsy straw man though.

I understood "is robust and fit for purpose" to mean something like "this vaccine will be safe". More a prediction of performance than the working title of a qualiry test phase passed. My mistake.

In that case.

You know your system passed a quality test. In order for you to know that, you would have to appraise and make judgement on whether the test was carried out properly and honestly. You are reliant on others and so must judge others.

This step is a self-assessment. If you assess badly, do you still know what you know? The test may have been faulty.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

This step is a self-assessment.

No it isn't, it is an assessment of the test results, not an assessment of the self or one's own actions. More specifically an assessment that the analysis of a set of observations carried out by someone else fall within agreed and documented ranges. Worth noting that just because an assessment demands a technical skill, e.g. manually carrying out a chi square test, doesn't imply self assessment.

Mark Hamill

Sorry for delay in getting back to the thread.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment. Its how anyone knows anything ultimately.

Don't believe me? Then try show me how you know anything that isn't based, ultimately, on self assessment.

So. Tell me something you know and we can quick fire our way down the chain to self assessment

Every other theist with contradictory beliefs says the same thing, that their self assessment tells them they are right. You can't all be right, therefore your self assessment is not enough to say that you are. What else do you have?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet you are not able to walk through it line by line to find out where it goes wrong?

Assert without evidence / dismissed without evidence springs to mind.

I thereby dismiss your disagreement. Its all piffle and waffle.

You argument doesn't contradict me, that's why I didn't go through it line by line. But fine, if you want to make this more embarrassing, lets break it down:
I asked that if we reject god, is that a choice on our behalf. You said no. At this point, this would agree with my assessment that our salvation (which is predicated on accepting god) is out of our hands and therefore 100% arbitrary.

You then try some argument as if I'm making a category error. It's not a case of "choose to reject" vs "choose to accept", it's actually a case of "choose to reject" vs do nothing, because our ability to accept god is nobbled (by god making us blind to god).
So what should I do?

Argue that if rejection is an active choice that we are aware of, then "do nothing" must be an active choice that we are aware of too, therefore you are fundamentally contradicting yourself and haven't even answered the original question? (don't mistake a lack of required effort to continue to do nothing for a lack of active choice to continue to do nothing).

Or accept your point and argue that it doesn't change the situation. If we can't choose to accept god because we are blind to him, then our "rejection" of him must be equally nobbled. Therefore our reaction, either way, to god is out of our hands. Therefore his salvation of us is not based on what we choose to do, but what god chooses to do and so is 100% arbitrary.

So, to repeat myself, are you wrong or are you wrong?

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Namely, secularism.

Secularism is not irreligion. There are very many religiously devout secularists, but they're generally members of locally minority religions, unsurprisingly.
Secularism is never too popular with a church which has significant local temporal power.

Who wouldn't plump for an option that made it easier to do as you please? Seems a no brainer to me.

Most people do what they please anyway. It's just that some use religion to justify their actions, others don't - and members of nominally the same religion frequently come to entirely opposite conclusions as to what their religion says is moral.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

My mistake.

Who gives you the authority to assert that you have made a mistake?