Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

1679111217

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Malty_T wrote: »
    OH sweet mother of God,

    Mangaroosh, It's because of folks like you the internetz invented tweets.
    Next time : 140 characters maximum!

    Indeed. Honestly mangaroosh I have neither the time nor the inclination to read and respond to all of that. Sorry


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Malty_T wrote: »
    OH sweet mother of God,

    Mangaroosh, It's because of folks like you the internetz invented tweets.
    Next time : 140 characters maximum!


    Tweet's were invented for a very different type of person, perhaps those incapable of following anything over 140 characters?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    If this is a dream, and nothing can be known, then, again, the omnipotent, omniscient being who can suspend the laws of physics, that is referred to in this dream state, as God, is the dreamer.

    If this isn't a dream, then true knowledge is possible.

    I decided to respond to what I think is your main point. Please try to keep your reply brief, this is not a blog.

    Since human senses are fallible, how can you ever say with 100% certainty that you know something?

    Do you think that externally verifiable evidence adds to the probability of something being true, even if the evidence must itself be experienced? Evidence + experience beats experience surely?

    If you found yourself in a situation where you thought you had experienced something but externally verifiable evidence suggested otherwise, would you reject the evidence and maintain that the experience was true?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Unfortunately the topic of conversation does not always lend itself to brevity, but I will do my best to limit myself in my replies, although I have found that detaiuled replies, that comprehensively cover certain issues raised, can be more beneficial than shorter posts that often leave more questions than they answer.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I decided to respond to what I think is your main point. Please try to keep your reply brief, this is not a blog.

    Since human senses are fallible, how can you ever say with 100% certainty that you know something?

    The issue with that is, just because human senses are fallible, it does not mean that nothing can be known, as human senses may not always be fallible, and therefore certain things can be known.

    Or to put it a bit more clearly, on those occasions where they are not wrong, things can be known.

    This could be looked at another way, as it is not necessarily human senses that are fallible, rather, it is our interpretation/rationalisation of them that is. As is the case with tacit knowledge, we can know something but may not necessarily be able to express it accurately, as experience does not lend itself to expression all too easily.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Do you think that externally verifiable evidence adds to the probability of something being true, even if the evidence must itself be experienced? Evidence + experience beats experience surely?

    I would say no, that externally viable evidence does not add to the probability of sometihg being true.

    Either something is true, or it isn't. Truth is therefore absolute, and no degree of probability can be assigned (unless it is 0% or 100%).

    Probability is a measure of how much or how little we know, and our ability to predict an outcome, based on what is known.

    Externally viable evidence therefore adds to the probability of our being able to predict an outcome, and is entirely dependent on what we actually know.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If you found yourself in a situation where you thought you had experienced something but externally verifiable evidence suggested otherwise, would you reject the evidence and maintain that the experience was true?

    Indeed, if I only thought that I had experienced something, but evidence suggested otherwise, then I would be more inclined to go with the evidence.

    This is of course different to knowing that one has experienced something.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    The issue with that is, just because human senses are fallible, it does not mean that nothing can be known, as human senses may not always be fallible, and therefore certain things can be known.

    Or to put it a bit more clearly, on those occasions where they are not wrong, things can be known.

    This could be looked at another way, as it is not necessarily human senses that are fallible, rather, it is our interpretation/rationalisation of them that is. As is the case with tacit knowledge, we can know something but may not necessarily be able to express it accurately, as experience does not lend itself to expression all too easily.
    As far as I can see, all you've said there is that when we're not wrong we can know things but that didn't really answer the question of how can we know we're not wrong? The only way to absolutely know that we are not wrong is to be infallible.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    I would say no, that externally viable evidence does not add to the probability of sometihg being true.

    Either something is true, or it isn't. Truth is therefore absolute, and no degree of probability can be assigned (unless it is 0% or 100%).

    Probability is a measure of how much or how little we know, and our ability to predict an outcome, based on what is known.

    Externally viable evidence therefore adds to the probability of our being able to predict an outcome, and is entirely dependent on what we actually know.
    You've missed my point there. Of course something is either true or it's not, that goes without saying. My point was that when we are trying to determine if something is true or not externally verifiable evidence helps, which you have agreed with. Therefore science supersedes personal experience in trying to determine if something is true or not
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Indeed, if I only thought that I had experienced something, but evidence suggested otherwise, then I would be more inclined to go with the evidence.

    This is of course different to knowing that one has experienced something.
    How is it different? I can guarantee you right now that everyone on this planet knows with absolute certainty at least a hundred things that are completely false. Just because someone thinks they know something doesn't mean they actually know it. How do you tell the difference between something you know and something you only think you know?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    As far as I can see, all you've said there is that when we're not wrong we can know things but that didn't really answer the question of how can we know we're not wrong? The only way to absolutely know that we are not wrong is to be infallible.

    Just to be clear, the initial question was with regard to the ability to know something, and the reason for not being able to know something was due to the fallibility of the senses, however this is not strictly speaking through, as the senses are not always fallible, so we can know things on those occasions when the sense get it right.

    It also assumes that all persons will not be able to distinguish between an occasion when their senses mislead them, and when they are not misleading. This also is strictly speaking, not true, as there may indeed be people who can distinguish. This negates the requirement for infallibility, in determining if something is true, although, not for all people.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You've missed my point there. Of course something is either true or it's not, that goes without saying. My point was that when we are trying to determine if something is true or not externally verifiable evidence helps, which you have agreed with. Therefore science supersedes personal experience in trying to determine if something is true or not

    One question with regard to the above, what exactly is meant by "externally verifiable evidence" - external to what?

    The issue may perhaps be fleshed out with the use of an analogy.

    Person A claims that they experienced X while skydiving.
    Person B wants to verify that claim.

    The rationalisation of person A, is subjective, while the experience itself is objective. Person A will have experienced something while skydiving, that is to a huge extent, beyond words. They can of course rationally explain a lot of the experiene, however, not to the extent that Person B will know exactly what their experience was like.

    Person A knows what it is like to go skydiving, or they know what skydiving is (or at least a specific type of skydiving)

    Person B, by means of "externally verifiable evidence", can verify whether or not skydiving exists, and whether or not Person A actually went skydiving. However, they cannot possibly verify the claim about the experience of skydiving, without direct personal experience themselves.

    It is for this reason, that personal experience is the only way in which the claim can be verified.

    Actually, my apologies, it does to a large extent depend on what is claimed. This could be where the issue arises.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    How is it different? I can guarantee you right now that everyone on this planet knows with absolute certainty at least a hundred things that are completely false. Just because someone thinks they know something doesn't mean they actually know it. How do you tell the difference between something you know and something you only think you know?

    Indeed you are correct, a person cannot know something that is not true, they can only believe something that is not true.

    The issue again is, what is it that the person believes, or thinks that they know. It must be remembered that a person can know a piece of information, but that does not mean that the piece of information that they know is true, or is a fact.

    For example, I can read a piece of information, that says blood is blue. I can know this piece of information. It must be remembered that a piece of information about something, is not the thing itself - just as Newton's theory of Gravity, isn't the force of Gravity itself.

    So I can know the piece of information, but at the same time, not know if it is true.

    The only way that I can know if blood is blue or not, is by seeing blood first hand.

    Otherwise, I either believe, or do not believe, the piece of information.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Just to be clear, the initial question was with regard to the ability to know something, and the reason for not being able to know something was due to the fallibility of the senses, however this is not strictly speaking through, as the senses are not always fallible, so we can know things on those occasions when the sense get it right.
    Our sense are always fallible. That does not mean they are always wrong, it just means that no matter how sure you are of something, there is still the possibility that you might be wrong.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    It also assumes that all persons will not be able to distinguish between an occasion when their senses mislead them, and when they are not misleading. This also is strictly speaking, not true, as there may indeed be people who can distinguish. This negates the requirement for infallibility, in determining if something is true, although, not for all people.
    Whereas as you assume that people are able to tell when their senses are misleading them and when they aren't. Thousands of years of human endeavour have shown that we're particularly bad at telling the difference.


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    One question with regard to the above, what exactly is meant by "externally verifiable evidence" - external to what?
    To your senses. If you see a ghost, that's internal but if you also record the ghost on a video camera, that's externally verifiable.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    The issue may perhaps be fleshed out with the use of an analogy.

    Person A claims that they experienced X while skydiving.
    Person B wants to verify that claim.

    The rationalisation of person A, is subjective, while the experience itself is objective. Person A will have experienced something while skydiving, that is to a huge extent, beyond words. They can of course rationally explain a lot of the experiene, however, not to the extent that Person B will know exactly what their experience was like.

    Person A knows what it is like to go skydiving, or they know what skydiving is (or at least a specific type of skydiving)

    Person B, by means of "externally verifiable evidence", can verify whether or not skydiving exists, and whether or not Person A actually went skydiving. However, they cannot possibly verify the claim about the experience of skydiving, without direct personal experience themselves.

    It is for this reason, that personal experience is the only way in which the claim can be verified.

    Actually, my apologies, it does to a large extent depend on what is claimed. This could be where the issue arises.
    Yes it does depend to a large extent on what is claimed. You keep using analogies that are about how people experience things, what it feels like to their senses, what emotions it elicits etc. These things are subjective and difficult to describe. However the existence of god is not subjective, it is objective, he either exists or he doesn't and how any particular person feels about it is irrelevant. Telling me that you felt God's presence is pointless because I can give you any number of scientific explanations for why you might have felt that way.

    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Indeed you are correct, a person cannot know something that is not true, they can only believe something that is not true.

    The issue again is, what is it that the person believes, or thinks that they know. It must be remembered that a person can know a piece of information, but that does not mean that the piece of information that they know is true, or is a fact.

    For example, I can read a piece of information, that says blood is blue. I can know this piece of information. It must be remembered that a piece of information about something, is not the thing itself - just as Newton's theory of Gravity, isn't the force of Gravity itself.

    So I can know the piece of information, but at the same time, not know if it is true.

    The only way that I can know if blood is blue or not, is by seeing blood first hand.

    Otherwise, I either believe, or do not believe, the piece of information.

    I'm colour blind so I can look at red blood and see green. If the lighting is poor or there is a coloured light shining the blood could be made to appear to be a different colour. Someone could have put red food colouring in it before you arrived. Seeing one person's blood does not mean that all blood is red, the next guy's could be green. I could go on all day but the point is that if you personally see blood and see that it is red there are still many many explanations for why it appears red and possible exceptions. When you see it for yourself you're only very slightly better off than before.

    Yes it is better to verify things for yourself and not just accept them at face value but you vastly overestimate the ability of the human mind if you think that just because you personally experienced something that you can say you "know" it and therefore can't be wrong about it. I'd take scientific data over personal experience any day.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    The issue with that is, just because human senses are fallible, it does not mean that nothing can be known, as human senses may not always be fallible, and therefore certain things can be known.

    Or to put it a bit more clearly, on those occasions where they are not wrong, things can be known.
    You can't know when your senses are right or wrong, as they are your only way of perceiving the world.

    Your brain could be hooked up to a matrix-style computer that makes you think you have senses, but you don't. So, either you assume your senses are accurate, but acknowledge their capacity for failure, and use that as an axiom for uncovering truth, or you say nothing can be known for sure as you can never trust that your senses are correct - you can't have it both ways and say that things are only true when your sense aren't wrong!
    I would say no, that externally viable evidence does not add to the probability of sometihg being true.

    Eh, what? Evidence is unimportant in working out the truth of something? :confused:

    Ok, let's look at an example:

    I have a bag with 100 marbles in it. Either I have put 50 red and 50 green marbles in OR I have put 100 red marbles in. Either/Or. Now I ask you to assess the truth of the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red"? Without any evidence to suggest anything, you have no idea which option I chose. Now I start to draw marbles out randomly one by one. I do this 50 times. Every time I do, the marble is red. When there are 50 left I ask the same question. Now, it's possible that the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red" is false and the remainder are all green and I just happened to always randomly choose a red marble - BUT ITS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

    Ergo, the evidence you now have would lead to the conclusion that I orginally chose to put all red marbles in the bag.
    One question with regard to the above, what exactly is meant by "externally verifiable evidence" - external to what?

    Self. Assessable by other people. E.g. the difference between assessing the truth of the statements:
    "I don't like the taste of apples"
    "Apples grow on trees"

    One can be verified by other people, one can only be truly verified by me.
    It must be remembered that a person can know a piece of information, but that does not mean that the piece of information that they know is true, or is a fact.

    The tri-partite theory of knowledge would suggest that in order for something to "known" it has to satisfy 3 things:

    1) It has to be true
    2) It has to be believed to be true
    3) There has to be justified reason to believe it is true

    This is also referred to as Justified True Belief. It has its issues, but it's not a bad place to start when thinking about what "knowledge" is. The scientific method is sort of a way of formalising part 3 (justification) in order to work out 1 (truth).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Our sense are always fallible. That does not mean they are always wrong, it just means that no matter how sure you are of something, there is still the possibility that you might be wrong.

    If we apply logic to the above statement about our senses always being fallible, then we can see that the scientific method falls down, as no experiement carried out to verify a hypothesis can be trusted. If none of the individual experiments can be trusted, then it makes no difference how many experiments are carried out, as none of them can be trusted.

    It is illogical to suggest that because two or more untrustworthy assessments are in agreement, then the trustworthiness increases.

    This would create an infinite chain of untrustworthy experiments, where we get nowhere near the truth. The only way to break the chain is if it is possible that some assessments are trustworthy.


    Again however, the assumption is that it is our senses that are fallible, and not our interpretation of those senses.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Whereas as you assume that people are able to tell when their senses are misleading them and when they aren't. Thousands of years of human endeavour have shown that we're particularly bad at telling the difference.

    No, what is suggested is that there are those who can tell and there are those who may not be as adept at discerning. Indeed, the method of scientific inquiry is just one example [not the only one] of where some people are more capable of discerning.



    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    To your senses. If you see a ghost, that's internal but if you also record the ghost on a video camera, that's externally verifiable.

    The issue of course, is that anyone who checks the video is reliant on their senses, so the concept of externality is nullified.

    It may be helpful to imagine that you are everybody in the entire world, pr perhaps the mind of everyone in the entire world, but independent and individual from them.

    Just to try and clarify, you are you, you are me, you are another person and so on.

    Now, lets just say that you make a claim. As your senses are fallible, and your claim cannot be trusted, it must be verified by someone else. That person is you in my body. Now, the exact same problem arises again, as my (your) senses are fallible and cannot be trusted. So it must be verified by a third person (you in someone elses body). Again, the issue of fallible senses arises, and at no point can the claim be verified.

    Unless of course, it is possible to discern whether or not something is correct.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes it does depend to a large extent on what is claimed. You keep using analogies that are about how people experience things, what it feels like to their senses, what emotions it elicits etc. These things are subjective and difficult to describe.

    Emotions experienced have never been mentioned, as emotions are themselves, entirely subjective, as they are based on the mind for existence.

    The use of analogies is to portray that experiences themselves, are not dependent on the mind for existence. Indeed, there is no experience that can be 100% accurately described or hypothesised. Any rationalisation of an experience is subjective, but the experience itself is objective.

    Experience is only possible on an individual or personal level, and this is entirely objective.

    It is the experience that is objective, and it is the experience that gives rise to knowledge.

    However, it is the rationalisation of the experience, the interpretation of that experience, in either words or images in the mind, that is subjective.


    Give me an example of an experience you have had, it can be absolutely anything, as said before, walking to the shops, meeting a friend, anything.

    Then try and describe that experience to me.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    However the existence of god is not subjective, it is objective, he either exists or he doesn't and how any particular person feels about it is irrelevant. Telling me that you felt God's presence is pointless because I can give you any number of scientific explanations for why you might have felt that way.

    You are very much correct, the existence of God is objective (either exists or not). However, any rationalisation of God, any attempt to describe God in words, and images of God are entirely subjective, as they are dependent on the mind for existence.

    The issue of telling you that I "felt God's presence", is that it would be likely that you would interpret that according to your own subjective understanding of what God is, how God's presence would be felt.

    Of course, that was never stated.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm colour blind so I can look at red blood and see green. If the lighting is poor or there is a coloured light shining the blood could be made to appear to be a different colour. Someone could have put red food colouring in it before you arrived. Seeing one person's blood does not mean that all blood is red, the next guy's could be green. I could go on all day but the point is that if you personally see blood and see that it is red there are still many many explanations for why it appears red and possible exceptions. When you see it for yourself you're only very slightly better off than before.

    apologies, it was a poor example, but you've given a very good example to work with. If you are indeed colour blind, then it will hopefully be the basis for demonstration.

    Can you describe your experience of being colour blind? Do you think that anyone who has always seen colour will understand what it is like? Do you feel that another colour blind person would intuitively know what it is like?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes it is better to verify things for yourself and not just accept them at face value but you vastly overestimate the ability of the human mind if you think that just because you personally experienced something that you can say you "know" it and therefore can't be wrong about it. I'd take scientific data over personal experience any day.


    Again, the crux of the issue is the human mind, and indeed the nature of it. Experience does not take place in the mind, and is not dependent on the mind for existence. Any attempt to rationalise one's experience, and this includes thinking that one has experienced something, is entirely subjective and is of course what is not reliable, and what must be verified.


    scientific data is used to give a more detailed and accurate description of certain experiences, but the only way that this data can be verified is through experience.

    Again, just try and describe the experience of being colour blind. It will not be possible, because the experience is not just mental, it is objective. The attempt to rationalise it is what is subjective.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Naz_st wrote: »
    You can't know when your senses are right or wrong, as they are your only way of perceiving the world.

    Your brain could be hooked up to a matrix-style computer that makes you think you have senses, but you don't. So, either you assume your senses are accurate, but acknowledge their capacity for failure, and use that as an axiom for uncovering truth, or you say nothing can be known for sure as you can never trust that your senses are correct - you can't have it both ways and say that things are only true when your sense aren't wrong!

    Again, this is just a variation on the "this could all be a dream" concept. If indeed we are all plugged into "the matrix", then, "the matrix" is the omniscient, omnipresent being that is referred to as God

    Again, the issue of fallibility of the senses means that the scientific method of inquiry falls down - see above.

    Naz_st wrote: »
    Eh, what? Evidence is unimportant in working out the truth of something? :confused:

    The above statement is correct, however it is a strawman, as that was not what was stated.

    Evidence does not add to the probability of something being true, as truth is absolute, either something is true or it isn't.

    Probability is relative, and is based on our ability to predict an outcome.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    Ok, let's look at an example:

    I have a bag with 100 marbles in it. Either I have put 50 red and 50 green marbles in OR I have put 100 red marbles in. Either/Or. Now I ask you to assess the truth of the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red"? Without any evidence to suggest anything, you have no idea which option I chose. Now I start to draw marbles out randomly one by one. I do this 50 times. Every time I do, the marble is red. When there are 50 left I ask the same question. Now, it's possible that the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red" is false and the remainder are all green and I just happened to always randomly choose a red marble - BUT ITS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

    Ergo, the evidence you now have would lead to the conclusion that I orginally chose to put all red marbles in the bag.

    Good example, but it does not deal with what was actually stated. Here we can calculate the probability of my being able to answer correctly.

    Of course it ignores the fact that, you would actually know 100% what the correct answer is, as you put the balls in the bag. Indeed, it would have been your experience of putting the balls in the bag, that would give you this 100% knowledge.


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Self. Assessable by other people.

    As soon as someone assesses it, it is in violation of the concept of externality. It means that their assessment is no longer trustworthy, and that it must be assessed by soemone else, whose assessment is also untrustworthy, as their asessement of evidence makes the evidence no longer external. So on ad infinitum.

    Of course, if any one of the senses of any one of those can be trusted, then the chain can be broken.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    E.g. the difference between assessing the truth of the statements:
    "I don't like the taste of apples"
    "Apples grow on trees"

    One can be verified by other people, one can only be truly verified by me.

    the concept of taste is subjective, however, the eating of the apple is objective, as is the digestion of it, as is the defacation of it.

    To say that one knows what it is to have experienced all these things, one must experience them.


    Experience preceded Newton's theory of Gravity (which is subjective), and experience will be required in order to verify whether or not string theory is correct.


    Naz_st wrote: »
    The tri-partite theory of knowledge would suggest that in order for something to "known" it has to satisfy 3 things:

    1) It has to be true
    2) It has to be believed to be true
    3) There has to be justified reason to believe it is true

    This is also referred to as Justified True Belief. It has its issues, but it's not a bad place to start when thinking about what "knowledge" is. The scientific method is sort of a way of formalising part 3 (justification) in order to work out 1 (truth).

    And as has been discussed, the scientific method is entirely based on personal experience, and verification of personal experience, by means of further personal experience.


    It may perhaps be easier to demonstrate how this is not accurate, and give an example of the scientific method in operation, and we can see whether or not personal experience is intrinsic to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Again, this is just a variation on the "this could all be a dream" concept. If indeed we are all plugged into "the matrix", then, "the matrix" is the omniscient, omnipresent being that is referred to as God

    Again, the issue of fallibility of the senses means that the scientific method of inquiry falls down - see above.

    Your whole argument is based on the incorrect conflation of two distinct concepts: existential philosophy and science. You are essentially using Descartes method of doubt (you should read up on Descartes’ demon – it’s essentially what you’re talking about) and then saying that because of this, science can never be sure of anything. What you’re overlooking is that science deals with “reality” – i.e. the scientific method comes into play after the question of existentialism has been assumed. You can’t prove that you exist to me, and vice versa. You can’t prove that the universe exists. You can’t prove that the monitor you are staring at exists. Science doesn’t care. It takes as axiomatic that there is an objective reality and tries to understand it. It doesn’t matter if this universe is a figment of my imagination or a digital matrix in some super computer in another universe – science doesn’t care. It deals with how the universe works, it doesn’t care about philosophical existentialism.
    Evidence does not add to the probability of something being true

    Yes it does: when we don’t have absolute knowledge of truth, we have to work out the truth of things for ourselves, hence evidence.
    Of course it ignores the fact that, you would actually know 100% what the correct answer is, as you put the balls in the bag. Indeed, it would have been your experience of putting the balls in the bag, that would give you this 100% knowledge.

    Here again I have to point out the inconsistency in your argument: If you are taking the philosophical view that essentially we can’t know anything for sure because we can’t trust our senses then I don’t know anything 100% - I may only think that I put all red balls in the bag, but my senses have been fooled. You can’t chop and change to suit your argument.
    As soon as someone assesses it, it is in violation of the concept of externality. It means that their assessment is no longer trustworthy, and that it must be assessed by someone else, whose assessment is also untrustworthy, as their assessment of evidence makes the evidence no longer external. So on ad infinitum.

    Of course, if any one of the senses of any one of those can be trusted, then the chain can be broken.

    Again, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t go from “no one’s senses can be trusted” to “someone’s senses can be trusted” without further undermining your own argument.
    Experience preceded Newton's theory of Gravity (which is subjective), and experience will be required in order to verify whether or not string theory is correct.

    No, Newton’s theory of gravity is not subjective. Nor is the law of gravity subjective. Things don’t fall to the earth at different speeds because different people are watching.
    And as has been discussed, the scientific method is entirely based on personal experience, and verification of personal experience, by means of further personal experience.

    As I said earlier you’ve got philosophical questions of existentialism confused with science:

    1) I Exist
    2) I perceive the universe
    3) The universe exists.
    4) It works a certain way.
    5) Humans experience it.
    6) The combined total of these experiences is known as reality.
    7) Objectively understanding reality is the goal of Science.

    Your argument based on fallible senses is somewhere between points 2 and 3. Science is point 7.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Your whole argument is based on the incorrect conflation of two distinct concepts: existential philosophy and science. You are essentially using Descartes method of doubt (you should read up on Descartes’ demon – it’s essentially what you’re talking about) and then saying that because of this, science can never be sure of anything. What you’re overlooking is that science deals with “reality” – i.e. the scientific method comes into play after the question of existentialism has been assumed. You can’t prove that you exist to me, and vice versa. You can’t prove that the universe exists. You can’t prove that the monitor you are staring at exists. Science doesn’t care. It takes as axiomatic that there is an objective reality and tries to understand it. It doesn’t matter if this universe is a figment of my imagination or a digital matrix in some super computer in another universe – science doesn’t care. It deals with how the universe works, it doesn’t care about philosophical existentialism.

    Cheers for the link, although it is immaterial who has made the argument before, as the discussion is based on what is said here, not on the similarities in philosophical viewpoints.

    There appears to be some confusion however, over what argument is being made.

    The assertion [and subsequent argument] was based on their existing an objective reality - as the existence of God [if true] would make up part, if not all of this objective reality. The arguement then was how this objective reality could be known.

    The contention has been that it is only through personal experience that this objective reality could be known.

    One of the issues raised, as to why personal experience is not reliable, was because it could not be known if we were actually existing in a dream, or indeed "the matrix". This was the introduction of existential philosophy into the discussion.

    What followed was the avoidance of the assumption that we either do or do not live in "the matrix", for this reason, both points were discussed.

    Where the existential issue of the possibility of us living in "the matrix" was raised, it was pointed out that, if this was the case, then it was "the matrix" that was what was referred to as God.

    Perhaps the confusion arose, as the discussion with Sam Vines was referenced, so as to avoid re-hashing the same point.


    It was the existential issue of living in a dream or "the matrix", that gave rise to the fallibility of the senses issue, which of course is negated with regard to the issue of the existence of God, as the omnipotent, omnipresent, being that is referred to, would actually be "the matrix" - capable of suspending all the laws of nature.

    On the other hand, if we are not living in a dream or "the matrix", then there is an objective reality, which can only be known through direct personal experience. In fact, science is completely reliant on the personal experience of those carrying out experiments to verify hypotheses, because if no one carries out any experiments, claims cannot be verified. Since the act of carrying out an experiment by a person, is a personal experience, and the act of observation of results is a personal experience, it is clear that science relies entirely on personal experience.


    Also, to say that one cannot prove that one exists, is not necessarily something to be overlooked, particularly when talking about reality, since reality is the state of things as the actually exist.

    It also further highlights either an incorrect assumption about the scientific method, or indeed a failing of it. The reason being, is that our own existence is about all we can be sure of. Well, at least, I am sure of mine and know 100% that I exist. I cannot be sure that you exist, but that I exist, of that I can be 100% sure. To say that this cannot be proven scientifically is a shortcoming of the scientific method.

    I may be unsure as to the nature of my existence, and what "I" actually am, but that is mor the sort of existentialism that is perhaps better left for a different discussion.


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Yes it does: when we don’t have absolute knowledge of truth, we have to work out the truth of things for ourselves, hence evidence.

    No - evidence adds to our ability to apply a degree of probability to a claim.

    The claim is either true or it isn't and is totally independent of our ability to reason whether it is true or not.

    Truth is absolute - again, either something is true or it isn't.

    Probability is relative - it is a percentage we assign to the possibility of a certain outcome, when we know certain information to be true. Without the known information, then probability is reduced. If nothing is known, then probability is zero. The claim however remains either true, or false.

    Probability is a degree of ignorance, or what is actually known.


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Here again I have to point out the inconsistency in your argument: If you are taking the philosophical view that essentially we can’t know anything for sure because we can’t trust our senses then I don’t know anything 100% - I may only think that I put all red balls in the bag, but my senses have been fooled. You can’t chop and change to suit your argument.

    Apologies, there was two separate arguments being made, to cover both the assumption that we are living in "the matrix" and the assumption that we are not.

    If it is true that we are in "the matrix", then the omnipotent, omnipresent being that can suspend the laws of nature is "the matrix", and the question of probability is immaterial.

    If we don't live in "the matrix", the there is an objective reality, which can only be known through personal experience.

    Of course if fallibility of the senses is still assumes in an objective reality, then the scientific method falls by the same sword, and cannot be used as reasoning for the existence/non-existence of God.



    Naz_st wrote: »
    Again, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t go from “no one’s senses can be trusted” to “someone’s senses can be trusted” without further undermining your own argument.

    hopefully this was clarified above. It may be useful to read the most recent response to Sam Vines post above, as the discussion is very similar.


    Naz_st wrote: »
    No, Newton’s theory of gravity is not subjective. Nor is the law of gravity subjective. Things don’t fall to the earth at different speeds because different people are watching.

    Firstly, just to distinguish, that Newton's theory of Gravity is not Gravity itself, and the latter is independent of the former [but not vice versa].

    As a theory is dependent on the mind for existence, as is the case with any rationalisation of anything, it is therefore subjective by definition.


    Naz_st wrote: »
    As I said earlier you’ve got philosophical questions of existentialism confused with science:

    1) I Exist
    2) I perceive the universe
    3) The universe exists.
    4) It works a certain way.
    5) Humans experience it.
    6) The combined total of these experiences is known as reality.
    7) Objectively understanding reality is the goal of Science.

    Your argument based on fallible senses is somewhere between points 2 and 3. Science is point 7.


    This should hopefully be borne out above, as there were two separate points being addressed.

    Again, it may be helpful to read the most recent response to Sam Vines above, for further clarity.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Cheers for the link, although it is immaterial who [etc for another 860 words]
    tl;dr

    On a mod note, if you make your posts a few yards shorter, your readership could double or even quadruple.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    mangaroosh wrote:
    Cheers for the link, although it is immaterial who [etc for another 860 words]

    robindch wrote: »
    tl;dr

    What does the abbreviation mean? "too long; didn't read"? at a guess. On that assumption, if it had been read, it would have become apparent, that the rest of the post had nothing to do with the opening comment, rather a clarification of the overall position with regard to the discussion.

    As there was obvious confusion over who was making what argument.
    robindch wrote: »
    On a mod note, if you make your posts a few yards shorter, your readership could double or even quadruple.

    Cheers for the advice, although I didn't realise there was competition for ratings.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    There appears to be some confusion however... [etc, etc]

    Indeed, and I think the confusion lies with the inconsistency of your own argument with respect to the science/philosophy mash-up.
    No - evidence adds to our ability to apply a degree of probability to a claim.

    Yes, a probability of its truth. Hence the more evidence we have to support a claim, the more likely it is that the claim is true [surely that is obvious? :confused:]. We don’t exist in a world where absolute truth is easily apparent - we have to work out the truth of things for ourselves.

    Evidence evaluation and its relation to truth claims is dealt with comprehensively mathematically via Bayesian theory.
    As a theory is dependent on the mind for existence, as is the case with any rationalisation of anything, it is therefore subjective by definition.

    Newton's explanation of the reason behind gravity is not subjective: It's not "subject" to personal opinion.

    The only sense in which it is could be said to be not objective is in the philosophical one where there can be said to be a lack of proof that objective reality itself exists. As I’ve been trying to point out, science doesn’t concern itself with that sort of philosophy.
    Perhaps the confusion arose, as the discussion with Sam Vines was referenced, so as to avoid re-hashing the same point.

    As I said, I think the confusion lies more with your odd philosophy-tinted view of what science is about. If it is a mix-up due to cross-posting, perhaps Sam can clarify? [Though I suspect that he, like me, is losing interest with this one...]


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    If we apply logic to the above statement about our senses always being fallible, then we can see that the scientific method falls down, as no experiement carried out to verify a hypothesis can be trusted. If none of the individual experiments can be trusted, then it makes no difference how many experiments are carried out, as none of them can be trusted.

    It is illogical to suggest that because two or more untrustworthy assessments are in agreement, then the trustworthiness increases.

    This would create an infinite chain of untrustworthy experiments, where we get nowhere near the truth. The only way to break the chain is if it is possible that some assessments are trustworthy.
    There's a difference between "cannot be known with 100% certainty" and "cannot be trusted". If you run an experiment 100 times and it succeeds each time you can be more confident that you are correct. The kind of absolutes you're talking about just don't exist in or out of science but that doesn't mean we can't trust anything with any level of confidence. Just because we can't be 100% certain about anything doesn't mean we have to remain 0% certain about everything.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Again however, the assumption is that it is our senses that are fallible, and not our interpretation of those senses.
    What difference does it make whether the input is fallible or the interpretation of the input is? :confused:
    Either way the end result is you can't be 100% certain.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    No, what is suggested is that there are those who can tell and there are those who may not be as adept at discerning. Indeed, the method of scientific inquiry is just one example [not the only one] of where some people are more capable of discerning.
    There might well be those who are more adept at discerning but no one is infallbile. And science is a bad example to pick since it relies on externally verifiable data and repeatable experiments, not just someone's interpretation of something. It doesn't matter how sure someone is, if no one else can repeat their experiment then their hypothesis is rejected.

    mangaroosh wrote: »
    The issue of course, is that anyone who checks the video is reliant on their senses, so the concept of externality is nullified.
    No, it's not. People's brains can conjur up, say, an image of a ghost when there is nothing there but a camera cannot. If the camera sees something then it wasn't just in the person's head. A person can also misinterpret, say, a pattern of light as a ghost but a thousand other people viewing the pattern of light on a video would not all be subject to the same flawed perception. An example would be this video:

    Thousands of people said they saw an apparition of the virgin Mary but all I see is the sun. When you stare directly at the sun your eyes can't handle it and they essentially overload and you see strange things but the same does not happen when looking at a video because there's no UV light etc. You say "scientific data is used to give a more detailed and accurate description of certain experiences, but the only way that this data can be verified is through experience" but the experience of looking at a video of an event is a very different experience to being there because it was recorded by a device not subject to the same flaws as our senses and looking at numbers on a graph that describe a physical phenomenon is very different to just watching it happen. You can also watch the video over and over again without any recollection biases. Everyone has certain flaws and biases but not everyone has the same ones so the more people look at something, the more likely you are to pick up errors. A simple example of this is writing software, where the writer can stare at something for hours and not find the fault but a fresh pair of eyes will spot the error immediately and as soon as it's pointed out the writer will also see it
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    You are very much correct, the existence of God is objective (either exists or not). However, any rationalisation of God, any attempt to describe God in words, and images of God are entirely subjective, as they are dependent on the mind for existence.
    By that logic nothing is objective, which I think is the point you're trying to make.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Can you describe your experience of being colour blind? Do you think that anyone who has always seen colour will understand what it is like? Do you feel that another colour blind person would intuitively know what it is like?
    Yet another bad example. You keep on talking about things that can only be subjectively experienced and trying to extend that to everything in existence but you can't do that. I cannot describe with 100% accuracy what goes on behind my eyes to someone that isn't colourblind but that doesn't mean that I can't describe the cup I'm holding in my hands with enough accuracy that only irrelevant details are left out and if I'm a scientist trying to prove something, telling someone what I experienced when running an experiment is very different to telling them how to do it and letting them verify it for themselves. To put it in your language, in science everyone can be made to personally experience the relevant parts of the experiment in exactly the same way. They might not be able to describe how the beaker felt against their skin but that's irrelevant, all that matters is that the outcome of the experiment is verified

    Your point here seems to be that you feel you can assume that your senses receive input correctly and that it is only our interpretation of them that is infallible so "certain people" (which I assume includes you) can know things with 100% certainty because they "know" that they interpreted it correctly. sorry mate, not buying it. For every person that "knows" something there are ten people that "know" the opposite. Your own personal opinion about how great you are at interpreting things is irrelevant, you still need to verify what you're saying just as much as anyone else. You can say you "know" something but how is anyone else meant to know if you actually know it or if you just think you know it? Unless of course you can show us your certificate of interpretational infallibility?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Naz_st wrote: »
    [Though I suspect that he, like me, is losing interest with this one...]

    indeed...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Indeed, and I think the confusion lies with the inconsistency of your own argument with respect to the science/philosophy mash-up.

    There has been no mash-up of philosophy and science, unless of course application of logic to the scientific method is considered philosophical, which of course it could be.

    The points being made remain logical, and it would perhaps be better to challenge the points themselves on the basis of logic, as opposed to sticking to unquestioned assumptions.


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Yes, a probability of its truth. Hence the more evidence we have to support a claim, the more likely it is that the claim is true [surely that is obvious? :confused:].

    Let's break it down.

    Evidence does not add to the likelihood that a claim/hypothesis is true or not.

    Evidence adds to our ability to verify a claim/hypothesis.

    They are two entirely different things, again, this is basic logic.


    With respect to the earlier example of the balls in the bag. We had gottent to the stage where there was a 50% probability assigned to the claim that all the balls in the bag were red.

    This doesn't mean that there is a 50% chance that the claim is correct.

    Remember, the claim is either 100% correct, or it isn't.

    The value of 50% is the ability to predict whether or not the claim is true or not.

    But remember, one person's ability to predict the validity of the claim, does not change the fact that either the claim is true or it isn't.

    The only way in which the claim can be verified, is if all the balls are drawn from the bag

    Naz_st wrote: »
    We don’t exist in a world where absolute truth is easily apparent - we have to work out the truth of things for ourselves.

    Just to ask a question, how does one achieve the aim of the emboldened statement, without the benefit of personal experience?
    Naz_st wrote: »
    Evidence evaluation and its relation to truth claims is dealt with comprehensively mathematically via Bayesian theory.

    cheers for the link, but the statements themselves are independent of the Bayesian Theory, and should be treated as such, even if they do overlap.


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Newton's explanation of the reason behind gravity is not subjective: It's not "subject" to personal opinion.

    The only sense in which it is could be said to be not objective is in the philosophical one where there can be said to be a lack of proof that objective reality itself exists. As I’ve been trying to point out, science doesn’t concern itself with that sort of philosophy.

    That is not correct. It is by definition subjective, because it depends on the mind for existence. The words which it uses are subject to personal opinion, even if consensus has been reached on what they mean.

    Again, the sense in which it is subjective, is in the logical, rational sense, where the correct meaning of the word subjective is applied.

    It is the force of Gravity itself that is objective.


    Naz_st wrote: »
    As I said, I think the confusion lies more with your odd philosophy-tinted view of what science is about. If it is a mix-up due to cross-posting, perhaps Sam can clarify?

    Again, it is the application of logic to the points being made that may qualify it as philosophy, however, the fact remains that it is logic.

    Again, it may be helpful to read the post that was referred to

    Naz_st wrote: »
    [Though I suspect that he, like me, is losing interest with this one...]

    Baisc logic does often lead to lack of interest. Emotionally charged rants and mis-representations of points is usually more fun, but infinitely more pointless.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    mangaroosh wrote: »

    That is not correct. It is by definition subjective, because it depends on the mind for existence. The words which it uses are subject to personal opinion, even if consensus has been reached on what they mean.

    Again, the sense in which it is subjective, is in the logical, rational sense, where the correct meaning of the word subjective is applied.

    It is the force of Gravity itself that is objective.

    Ok I was staying out of this discussion but maybe it's the tiredness or the caffeine that's compelling me to respond.

    Newtons theory is objective because it accurately describes the natural laws that "macroscopic" gravity follows. It is the only interpretation of it and if it the theory was developed by aliens or human or God the theory would still be the exact same - otherwise experiment by any of these parties invovled would show it to be incorrect.

    Unless of course your argument is that there can exist no objective reality. Then everything becomes subjective but really why not just say that and then we can all discuss annoying atheist arguments again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    I will respond in full to your post, but it may be useful to again look at real life examples.


    Again, to use an analogy that has been used before, but resist the temptation to assume that the same thing is being said.

    Lets just say the last time you went for a walk. Was there any part of that experience that was objective, or did any such experience only take place in your mind?



    Also, with regard to the issue of a video as externally viable evidence. If you do a skydive and make a video of it.


    Then you tell your friend about your experience, and you say that it is impossible to explain the experience in words, as no matter how descriptive you are, you will never be 100% accurate.

    You can then show the video to your friend [along with other externally verifiable evidence] and your friend can verify that yes indeed, you went skydiving. He can know this piece of information about you, however, with regard to skydiving, he would still have less knowledge about it.

    The only possible way, that he can have the same knowledge as you. is if he goes skydiving. This isn't about emotions, or feelings, this is about the tacit knowledge of skydiving.

    The same applies to something like meditation


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Just to do the courtesy of replying in full.

    Warning: this is pretty long
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    There's a difference between "cannot be known with 100% certainty" and "cannot be trusted". If you run an experiment 100 times and it succeeds each time you can be more confident that you are correct. The kind of absolutes you're talking about just don't exist in or out of science but that doesn't mean we can't trust anything with any level of confidence. Just because we can't be 100% certain about anything doesn't mean we have to remain 0% certain about everything.

    Just to re-iterate, the issue here is fallibility of the senses.

    The assumption here, is that the more times a person runs an experiment that returns consistent results, the more accurate it can be said to be.

    However, if a persons senses are infallible on the first experiment, then they just as fallible on all the subsequent experiments, meaning that each experiment is as flawed as the next.

    Just because the experiment is repeated 100 times, it doesn't remove the issue of fallible senses, rather replicates them in every single experiment. The same is true for every single person who carries out the experiment. Meaning that every single experiment carried out to verify a claim is flawed and so nothing can ever be verified.


    Probability cannot apply if nothing is known, or at least assumed to be true.


    Of course the main point is being overlooked though. In order for someone to verify a claim, they must carry out the experiment themselves. This is done through personal experience, and is unavoidable. So for every experiement that is carried out, there is a corresponding number of personal experiences [or corresponding to the number of scientists]

    If this is not the case then, please logically and rationally outline why.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What difference does it make whether the input is fallible or the interpretation of the input is? :confused:
    Either way the end result is you can't be 100% certain.

    Because the input does not have to be Interpreted, and so can be known, while the interpretation will be subjective.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    There might well be those who are more adept at discerning but no one is infallbile. And science is a bad example to pick since it relies on externally verifiable data and repeatable experiments, not just someone's interpretation of something. It doesn't matter how sure someone is, if no one else can repeat their experiment then their hypothesis is rejected.

    Everyone is indeed capable of this, although, like most things, it must be cultivated.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No, it's not. People's brains can conjur up, say, an image of a ghost when there is nothing there but a camera cannot. If the camera sees something then it wasn't just in the person's head. A person can also misinterpret, say, a pattern of light as a ghost but a thousand other people viewing the pattern of light on a video would not all be subject to the same flawed perception. An example would be this video:

    Again, the issue of interpretation arises. While the mind may intepret the experience in a certain way, the experience itself is not dependent on the mind.

    Experience is what gives rise to tacit knowledge. This is the part of an experience that is known, that is objective and is not dependent on the mind.

    Again, to use an analogy that has been used before, but resist the temptation to assume that the same thing is being said.

    Lets just say the last time you went for a walk. Was there any part of that experience that was, for you objective, or did any such experience only take place in your mind?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Thousands of people said they saw an apparition of the virgin Mary but all I see is the sun. When you stare directly at the sun your eyes can't handle it and they essentially overload and you see strange things but the same does not happen when looking at a video because there's no UV light etc. You say "scientific data is used to give a more detailed and accurate description of certain experiences, but the only way that this data can be verified is through experience" but the experience of looking at a video of an event is a very different experience to being there because it was recorded by a device not subject to the same flaws as our senses and looking at numbers on a graph that describe a physical phenomenon is very different to just watching it happen.

    OK, there are a couple of assumptions there, that must be addressed. Firstly that God must be perceived in the form of an apparition, akin to the above. This of course is not necessarily the case.

    With regard to the video as externally verifiable evidence, again, the nature of what is known is the question. If we ignore the example of a ghost, as it is not compatible, we can maybe take the example again of either your walk down the street or a skydive.

    Let's just go with the skydive. If you do a skydive and make a video of it.

    Then you tell your friend about your experience, and you say that it is impossible to explain the experience in words, as no matter how descriptive you are, you will never be 100% accurate.

    You can then show the video to your friend [along with other externally verifiable evidence] and your friend can verify that yes indeed, you went skydiving. He can know this piece of information about you, however, with regard to skydiving, he would still have less knowledge about it.

    The only possible way, that he can have the same knowledge as you. is if he goes skydiving. This isn't about emotions, or feelings, this is about the tacit knowledge of skydiving.

    The same applies to something like meditation

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You can also watch the video over and over again without any recollection biases. Everyone has certain flaws and biases but not everyone has the same ones so the more people look at something, the more likely you are to pick up errors. A simple example of this is writing software, where the writer can stare at something for hours and not find the fault but a fresh pair of eyes will spot the error immediately and as soon as it's pointed out the writer will also see it

    OK, but the above example of the programmer is a different point.
    While the programmer can make mistakes, that doesn't mean that he didn't have the knowledge to do it right. There may of course have been some interference, either personal or external, that made him make the mistake, but he would still retain the knowledge.

    Sticking with that example. A programmer can learn a programming language, but until he has the experience of actually writing code, and seeing it in action, he cannot know that it works.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    By that logic nothing is objective, which I think is the point you're trying to make.

    No, experience is objective, indeed objective knowledge is in the form of tacit knowledge. It is the attempted rationalisation or interpretation of that knowledge that is subjective.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yet another bad example. You keep on talking about things that can only be subjectively experienced and trying to extend that to everything in existence but you can't do that.

    Hopefully the nature of objective experience has been clarified. It is the experience that is objective and tacit knowledge is what is objective. It is the attemtped rationalisation of that experience that is subjective.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I cannot describe with 100% accuracy what goes on behind my eyes to someone that isn't colourblind but that doesn't mean that I can't describe the cup I'm holding in my hands with enough accuracy that only irrelevant details are left out

    Indeed, I fully agree. The only way that it can be verified however, is by someone else seeing the cup, and verifying through personal experience that your description of the cup is accurate. Otherwise one would have to rely on faith, in your good character.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    and if I'm a scientist trying to prove something, telling someone what I experienced when running an experiment is very different to telling them how to do it and letting them verify it for themselves.

    Indeed, but a hypothesis would be needed so that something could be verified, which would be the same as saying what is expected to be the outcome.

    The running of the experiment must be done by someone, who will have the personal experience of running the experiment. If their experience corresponds to what you have described, then they will agree with your hypothesis.

    If they have a different experience, then they will not agree.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    To put it in your language, in science everyone can be made to personally experience the relevant parts of the experiment in exactly the same way.

    Exactly the point.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    They might not be able to describe how the beaker felt against their skin but that's irrelevant, all that matters is that the outcome of the experiment is verified

    Indeed, that part would be entirely subjective. However, giving measurements of anything is also entirely subjective. Saying that something travels at x kilometres per hour is entirely subjective, as both a kilometre and an hour are subjective measurements. Not only because they are dependent on the mind, but because they were decided upon completely arbitrarily.

    They may of course have been agreed upon and standardized, but it doesn't change the fact that they are subjective.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Your point here seems to be that you feel you can assume that your senses receive input correctly and that it is only our interpretation of them that is infallible so "certain people" (which I assume includes you) can know things with 100% certainty because they "know" that they interpreted it correctly. sorry mate, not buying it.

    "Good! because I ain't selling it" - apologies, couldn't resist a "genuine opportunity"

    There is no claim on the exclusive ability to do it, and indeed there has been no claim whatsoever in the ability to do it, it is based on rational and logical consideration. Everyone has the ability to know things, and indeed reality, however, no one has the ability to express it in words, as the nature of words are such that they cannot define reality. They can describe it, but not define it.

    Again, tacit knowledge is what is refers to this knowledge.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    For every person that "knows" something there are ten people that "know" the opposite. Your own personal opinion about how great you are at interpreting things is irrelevant, you still need to verify what you're saying just as much as anyone else.

    Again, a person cannot know something that is not true, they can only beleive it.

    Again, there has been no claim of grandeur, rather mere application of logic.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You can say you "know" something but how is anyone else meant to know if you actually know it or if you just think you know it?

    Again, the simple answer is, "through personal experience".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Ok I was staying out of this discussion but maybe it's the tiredness or the caffeine that's compelling me to respond.

    Newtons theory is objective because it accurately describes the natural laws that "macroscopic" gravity follows. It is the only interpretation of it and if it the theory was developed by aliens or human or God the theory would still be the exact same - otherwise experiment by any of these parties invovled would show it to be incorrect.

    Newton's theory is subjective, by defintion of the word subjective. When the correct meaning of the word is known, this becomes clear.

    It is the actual law of Gravity, and indeed the experience of Gravity that is objective.

    These are two entirely different things.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Unless of course your argument is that there can exist no objective reality. Then everything becomes subjective but really why not just say that and then we can all discuss annoying atheist arguments again.

    No, only the attempt to interpret or rationalise reality, is subjective. The experience of reality is objective, and indeed tacit knowledge is how it can be known.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Just to re-iterate, the issue here is fallibility of the senses.

    The assumption here, is that the more times a person runs an experiment that returns consistent results, the more accurate it can be said to be.

    However, if a persons senses are infallible on the first experiment, then they just as fallible on all the subsequent experiments, meaning that each experiment is as flawed as the next.

    Just because the experiment is repeated 100 times, it doesn't remove the issue of fallible senses, rather replicates them in every single experiment. The same is true for every single person who carries out the experiment. Meaning that every single experiment carried out to verify a claim is flawed and so nothing can ever be verified.

    If that's true then nothing can ever be verified because you pointing out does not change the fact that both our senses and our interpretation of them is fallible
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Of course the main point is being overlooked though. In order for someone to verify a claim, they must carry out the experiment themselves. This is done through personal experience, and is unavoidable. So for every experiement that is carried out, there is a corresponding number of personal experiences [or corresponding to the number of scientists]
    This is true. The difference is that with science repeatable experiments allow anyone who wishes to personally experience it, where a claim to have experienced god can only be claimed and never verified. A repeatable experiment cannot be compared to one guy's unverifiable claim
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Because the input does not have to be Interpreted, and so can be known, while the interpretation will be subjective.

    Until the input is interpreted, it's a meaningless electrical signal, so the only part that matters is subjective. And that's even allowing the incorrect assumption that our senses are objective. They're not
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Let's just go with the skydive. If you do a skydive and make a video of it.

    You need to stop giving examples like that. I'm just not going to respond to them starting now
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    No, experience is objective, indeed objective knowledge is in the form of tacit knowledge. It is the attempted rationalisation or interpretation of that knowledge that is subjective.
    Experience is in its hole objective. To pick one of the millions of possible examples, peoples ears have different sensitivity so I might hear frequencies that you can't and so our experiences of the same thing might be completely different. There is a whole spectrum of infra red and UV light that is completely invisible to us. Our senses only show us a tiny slice of what is actually there even before our conscious and unconscious biases come into play. We are flawed
    and no amount of references to something called "tacit knowledge" will change that, especially because the phrase seems to simply be an attempt to make it look like one guy's opinion is as valid, or even more valid, than rigorous scientific scrutiny
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Indeed, that part would be entirely subjective. However, giving measurements of anything is also entirely subjective. Saying that something travels at x kilometres per hour is entirely subjective, as both a kilometre and an hour are subjective measurements. Not only because they are dependent on the mind, but because they were decided upon completely arbitrarily.
    Nonsense, arbitrary is not the same as subjective. Humans have decided how long a kilometre is and we could collectively decide to change it because the exact length doesn't matter, all that matters is that it's standardised. But I don't get to decide all on my own that a kilometre is different to what everyone else thinks it is, it's not a matter of opinion, it is not subjective.
    A kilometre is whatever we as a group decide it is but not what one guy decides it is
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Everyone has the ability to know things, and indeed reality,
    How? How can you tell the difference between knowing something and only thinking you know it? There are millions of people out there who all claim to know contradictory things because they say they experienced them so please don't answer by saying personal experience


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Newton's theory is subjective, by defintion of the word subjective. When the correct meaning of the word is known, this becomes clear.

    It is the actual law of Gravity, and indeed the experience of Gravity that is objective.

    I don't think you understand theory in the context of science.
    A theory is attempt to describe and explain the mechanisms of some set of observations of the natural world. Either it applies to these observations or it doesn't. Before the experiments are performed the theory is "subjective" if the tests are successful then the theory is "objective".
    Newtons's theory is the actual law of Gravity when describing the observations that relate to movement of planets, the speed at which objects fall etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig



    Just because the experiment is repeated 100 times, it doesn't remove the issue of fallible senses, rather replicates them in every single experiment. The same is true for every single person who carries out the experiment. Meaning that every single experiment carried out to verify a claim is flawed and so nothing can ever be verified.


    However, if a persons senses are infallible on the first experiment, then they just as fallible on all the subsequent experiments, meaning that each experiment is as flawed as the next.

    This is only partly true. You seem to be assuming that the experiment is performed the same way each time. Science doesn't work like that.
    It uses independent observations from various different methods of experiments to try to lift the so called "veil of perception". The more ways you do an experiment the more likely it is to be true.
    I'll reply in full some other time, I can't seem to think of a suitable analogy that would explain how the experimentation process works.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭deereidy


    'I don't believe in god 'cause religion class is soooo boring and I don't want to do it anymore'


    That's right. Religion, as I knew it at least, doesn't challenge your mind,just insults it. I'd rather choke than have to listen to that rubbish again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Mangaroosh, what I think is happening here is that you think you've "experienced" something but it seems very strange, eg a vision, and you have nothing to back up anything you're saying because it all went on inside your head so you've built up this big elaborate theory that attempts to say that it doesn't matter that you have nothing to back up what you're saying because you "know" what you saw.

    Well I'm sorry to tell you mate but that's not how it works. What you perceive of the world is not what's actually there. You perceive electrical signals sent to the conscious part of your brain which does extremely complex interpretation of those signals before you even become aware of them. An example is how you are able to instantly recognise a face. You don't even have to think about it because your brain interprets that face and throws up the name associated with it. You are not perceiving what is actually there, you are perceiving your flawed brain's interpretation of what it thinks is there which it has interpreted from your flawed senses.

    There is no way around these flaws in our senses, there is no such thing as "tacit knowledge". The best we can do is verify things as much as possible, as many times as possible and in as many ways as possible and hope that we haven't missed something. There is no such thing as 100% certainty but that does not mean that we must have 0% certainty. No matter how much you would like it to be, a repeatable experiment that anyone can verify for themselves whenever they so choose is not the same as one guy's unverifiable claim, no matter how sure he says he is and no matter how good he thinks he is at interpreting the signals his conscious mind receives from his brain

    As I said, this all seems to me to be your attempt to belittle the importance of externally verifiable evidence because you don't have any and instead say that you can be 100% certain because you think that there are no flaws in your senses and you're especially good at interpreting them. Sorry mate that's not going to fly, not on this forum anyway. You should try one of the religious or spiritual forums, where they also spend much of their time trying to come up with excuses to explain why they don't think they need evidence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Evidence does not add to the likelihood that a claim/hypothesis is true or not.
    Evidence adds to our ability to verify a claim/hypothesis.
    They're the same thing.
    They are two entirely different things, again, this is basic logic.
    No, it's not basic logic, it's basically wrong.
    With respect to the earlier example of the balls in the bag. We had gottent to the stage where there was a 50% probability assigned to the claim that all the balls in the bag were red.
    This doesn't mean that there is a 50% chance that the claim is correct.
    Do you even read what you write? "50% probability assigned to the claim" is the same as "50% chance the claim is correct".
    Remember, the claim is either 100% correct, or it isn't.
    Ok, well let's imagine a real-world scenario and apply your absolutist logic to it and see how far it gets us shall we?

    Setting: Courtroom

    Judge: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious crime here of murder and it’s up to you 12 jurors to decide the fate of the defendant. Counsel, please proceed.

    Prosecutor: He did it.

    Judge: thank-you counsel. Now, the defence please?

    Defence attorney: He didn't do it. The defence rests.

    Judge: Thank-you. Jury, have you reached a verdict?

    Juror #1 (timidly): Eh, shouldn't we, like, hear some evidence first?

    Judge (scoffing): Evidence? Don't be silly - evidence has no bearing on truth! I mean, sure, there may be CCTV footage of the defendant shooting the victim, and yes, the defendants fingerprints were all over the crime scene in the victim’s blood, and yes the bullets recovered from the victim do match the gun registered to the defendant, found in his home, covered with both the victim's blood and the defendant’s fingerprints, and yes the victims heart was found in the defendant’s freezer, but really - none of this evidence has any bearing on the actual truth of whether he killed the victim or not.

    Seem ok to you?

    In the real non-boolean world of complex, open systems, there is no absolute knowledge of truth (that's more the position of religions that have an omniscient deity as the arbiter of truth). Therefore ALL truth claims are subject to probability - there are no certainties. This is why each piece of evidence for something adds to the PROBABILITY of it being true.

    Look at it from a mathematical perspective: True = 1, false = 0. Probability represents the gradient in between. Let's assume every truth claim has a probability of 0 to begin with (false until shown otherwise). How do you move something from false (0) to true (1) in the absence of absolute knowledge (i.e. without conveniently knowing for certain the answer in advance)? Happily, the Bayesian theorem can show how evidence can be used to move truth claims from 0 to 1 in the real world.

    In the example I gave of the red balls and green balls (and if it makes it easier to grasp, assume no one, including me, has knowledge of the choice that was made at the start - a random number generator kicked it off for example), at the point in time when I had drawn 50 red balls, the probability of the bag NOT containing all red balls is (1 / 100891344545564193334812497256), which is roughly the same chance of winning the Euromillions 4 times in a row (So, pretty small then!). We got to this level of certainty by assessing the evidence.
    cheers for the link, but the statements themselves are independent of the Bayesian Theory, and should be treated as such, even if they do overlap.

    What? :confused: Did you read the wiki entry? Bayesian theory is a mathematical field specifically concerned with assessing truth probability based on evidence. IT’S IN BLACK AND WHITE.
    It is by definition subjective, because it depends on the mind for existence

    So you're saying that gravity worked differently before humans were around to describe it?
    It is the force of Gravity itself that is objective.

    The "force of gravity" is what is described by Newton's theory. You're arguing that his theory is subjective, but his theory is also objective. :confused:

    Or are you just saying that "things fall down" is objective. Because, while accurate, it's not very useful.
    Again, it is the application of logic to the points being made that may qualify it as philosophy, however, the fact remains that it is logic

    In this thread, your “application of logic” has led you to the following conclusions:
    “Something is either true or false”
    “Everything about the universe is subjective because humans describe it. If we didn’t exist the universe would be a crazy place of random physical forces”
    “Things fall down”

    I’m blown away by your powers of reasoning! :rolleyes:
    Baisc logic does often lead to lack of interest. Emotionally charged rants and mis-representations of points is usually more fun, but infinitely more pointless

    LOL. Ok Spock, but what you misinterpret as a rant is merely a modicum of the frustration of responding repeatedly to the same (very lengthy) posts again and again that seem to be based on weird semantics and completely unrelated to reality.

    (Though I agree, it was fun :))


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Naz_st wrote: »
    LOL. Ok Spock, but what you misinterpret as a rant is merely a modicum of the frustration of responding repeatedly to the same (very lengthy) posts again and again that seem to be based on weird semantics and completely unrelated to reality.

    Indeed.

    Tacit Knowledge: The act of being really really sure of something because I think I'm better than other people at interpreting the electrical signals my brain receives


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    apologies in advance for the tone of the response. I only realised at the end I was probably coming across like a "know-all". Actually same probably goes for the previous emails.

    I would change it, but it's late, and I must hit the hay soon.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If that's true then nothing can ever be verified because you pointing out does not change the fact that both our senses and our interpretation of them is fallible

    That is the logical consequence of fallible senses. Of course if this is accepted as true, then science would not have anything to do with the investigation of reality, and therefore the existence of God. Therefore, any reference to a lack of scientific evidence to support the existence if God is meaningless.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    This is true. The difference is that with science repeatable experiments allow anyone who wishes to personally experience it, where a claim to have experienced god can only be claimed and never verified. A repeatable experiment cannot be compared to one guy's unverifiable claim

    All the major religions prescribe a particular path to experiencing God. Of course, just as with sicence, if the directions are not followed closely, then the outcome of the "experiment" is likely to be different on each occasion.

    Just as with science, there are some "theories", which are more mainstream and accepted, all the while there are those who propose non-mainstream theories. There are also more mainstream religions.

    Just as is the case with science, there are some religions which "make better predictions" or give a better description of reality, than others. Of course, to verify these claims, one must first follow the prescribed path.

    Just as with science, there are some theories which explain a lot quite accurately, while leaving somethings yet to be discovered.


    Of course all of that is immaterial, because any claim about God is by its very nature subjective, and has no bearing on the existence of God. Just as the accuracy of your hypothetical description of a cup, has no bearing on the existence of the cup.

    Your description would be completely subjective, but that does not mean that you did not "experience" [holding/seeing] the cup.





    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Until the input is interpreted, it's a meaningless electrical signal, so the only part that matters is subjective. And that's even allowing the incorrect assumption that our senses are objective. They're not

    Again, if this is the case, then all of science is completely subjective, for the very reason that even "externally verifiable evidence" is going to be subjetively perceived by the fallible senses.

    For example, if one records a video of "a ghost", then there is a question over the sense of the person who manufactured the video recording device, the tape, and of course over anyone who views the tape. It means that any attempt at verification is meaningless.



    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You need to stop giving examples like that. I'm just not going to respond to them starting now

    The examples are to highlight that there are different types of knowledge. Knowledge of information is one kind, but the issue with that is, that knowledge of information about something, does not constitute knowledge of the thing itself.

    In order to verify the information about something, the thing itself must be directly experienced.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Experience is in its hole objective. To pick one of the millions of possible examples, peoples ears have different sensitivity so I might hear frequencies that you can't and so our experiences of the same thing might be completely different. There is a whole spectrum of infra red and UV light that is completely invisible to us. Our senses only show us a tiny slice of what is actually there even before our conscious and unconscious biases come into play. We are flawed


    As I'm sure you will agree, what we hear with our ears and see with our eyes are not reality, far from it. We, as I'm sure you are aware, are made up of [how many?] atoms, which themselves are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are hypothesised to be made up of other things. Right down to the postulation that we are made up of vibrating strings, or perhaps exist as a floating membrane.

    Whether one can come to admit it or not, we are not what we think we are. We exist as something other than we see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, etc. etc.

    We are at this very moment, experiencing our existence at this sub-atomic level, possibly right to the debatable vibrating strings or the more debatable floating brane. Whatever the reality of our existence, we are experiencing it right now. On some level, that is beyond expression in words, or theories, or measurements, we are experiecing that right now.

    Of course, this can be denied as philosophical, but science will back it up. We are experiencing reality right now. That does not meant that we can express it rationally, in fact, it is beyond rationalisation.

    Again, just as Newton's theory of Gravity is not Gravity, any expression of reality in words, is not reality. It can only ever be a subjective description of it.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    and no amount of references to something called "tacit knowledge" will change that, especially because the phrase seems to simply be an attempt to make it look like one guy's opinion is as valid, or even more valid, than rigorous scientific scrutiny

    "tacit knowledge" is very real, and although some may not be familiar with it, that does not affect its validity. Perhaps furhter investigation into the concept may prove fruitful.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Nonsense, arbitrary is not the same as subjective. Humans have decided how long a kilometre is and we could collectively decide to change it because the exact length doesn't matter, all that matters is that it's standardised. But I don't get to decide all on my own that a kilometre is different to what everyone else thinks it is, it's not a matter of opinion, it is not subjective.
    A kilometre is whatever we as a group decide it is but not what one guy decides it is

    Indeed, arbitrary is not the same as subjective, just as consensus is not the same as objective.

    It reamains, that a metre, and therefore kilometer, is a completely fabricated concept. It is an idea, that does not exist in reality. Yes, it has been adopted by consensus as a standardizes unit of measurement, but nonetheless it remains an idea, completely dependent on the mind for existence, and therefore, by definition entirely subjective.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    How? How can you tell the difference between knowing something and only thinking you know it? There are millions of people out there who all claim to know contradictory things because they say they experienced them so please don't answer by saying personal experience

    Thoughts do not exist in reality, so a thought about something is not knowledge of the thing, or indeed reality.

    It must be remembered, that any attempt to express knowledge in words, images, sounds etc. is completely subjective.

    Knowledge of information is something completely different, as information is only ever a description of reality, and not reality itself.

    This is why experience is necessary, so that the description can be verified, as it is only through a common experience, that two people can share knowledge.


Advertisement