Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

roosh · 12-01-2010 07:44PM

Morbert wrote: »

No it wouldn't. It would only be both objective and subjective if you conflate the meanings.

If we take the real number system.

It is being argued that it is not based on personal opinion, taste, bias, etc. This would make it objective.

However, it is dependent on the mind for existence. This would make it subjective.

It isn't a case of apply one definition to it, as both definitions would apply equally, making it both subjective and objective simultaneously. Therefore, if this position is not "allowable" one of the definitions must be either wrong, or interpreted incorrectly.

Morbert wrote: »

I have addressed this already. 1 implies 2 but 2 does not imply one.

The issue is that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. qualify as subjective under both. When 1 is broken down, it is clear that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. are basically personal opinions, because they exist only as thoughts.

An individuals own thoughts are personal, and all words exist as thoughts and all words, symbols, etc. are merely opinions, this makes them de facto personal opinions.

Therefore their use for anythign makes whatever it is they are used for, subjective.

Morbert wrote: »

You are now just asserting it is personal without any reference to why it is personal.

Just to re-iterate

The issue is that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. qualify as subjective under both. When 1 is broken down, it is clear that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. are basically personal opinions, because they exist only as thoughts.

An individuals own thoughts are personal, and all words exist as thoughts and all words, symbols, etc. are merely opinions, this makes them de facto personal opinions.

Morbert wrote: »

So once again, two people, with the same axioms, will not arrive at different, contradictory theorems regardless of their pesonal tastes, opinions, or biases. The theorems of real analysis do not depend on any personal quality to be true.

Two people can share the same opinion, and in the case of mathematics, words, etc. they may share the same opinion as to what the symbols and numbers mean.

Again, an individuals thoughts are personal, numbers, symbols, etc. only exist as thoughts, and they are de facto opinions, this makes them, and anything that uses them, subjective.

Morbert wrote: »

This is a non-sequitur. The claim that mathematics is influenced by the personal bias or opinion or taste of a particular individual does not follow from the fact that mathematics is the study of formal systems supposed by people.

Again, the numbers, words, symbols that are used in mathematics only exist as thoughts, and an individuals thoughts are personal. The symbols etc. are just opinions, albeit the shared opinion or consensus of many. Therefore, they and anything that uses them are based on personal opinions, even if everyone has the same opinion about them.

Morbert wrote: »

But that isn't what it means. The dictionary was not talking about perception in general. To be honest I am not impressed with the terseness of the OED online dictionary. My unabridged webster dictionary (hard copy) goes into much more detail.

Indeed, that is why it is useful to cross reference it with a hard-copy OED (not sure what they call the big fat, A4 ones). Whatever other definitions are there we can explore them to see if they are applicable, or contradictory.

Morbert wrote: »

No it doesn't. It is not a personal opinion, for example, that f(x) = 3 is defined for all x under the real number system.

f,(, ), x, = and 3 are all opinions. They may be the shared opinions of the vast majority, but they are opinions nonetheless.

Also, they only exist as thoughts, and individual can only think for themselves, which makes their thoughts personal.

That makes all the aforementioned symbols, and all the others, de facto personal opinions.

Morbert wrote: »

Tax policies are not subjective. Your personal opinion of them is.

Both are, tax policies for the same reasons as above.

Morbert wrote: »

This would make every claim ever made by anyone subjective.

Yep, all claims are subjective, although they may be based on objective knowledge.

Again, the "claim" about Gravity is subjective, but Gravity and our experience of it is objective.

The claim/theory are separate from the experience/thing itself.

Morbert wrote: »

Yes it does. If a theory is reputable then it has been found to accurately predict objective behaviour.

again, it is the [experience of the] behaviour that is objective, but the rationalisation/explanation of it, that is subjective, for the reasons mentioned above.

Bear in mind that an experience does not necessarily have to be rationalised, one does not have to come up with a theory to explain everything. that is a personal choice.

Morbert wrote: »

The personal language you use to convey the theory has no bearing on the theory itself.

the theory is completely dependent on the words, without the words there is no theory.

This is where the nature of words comes into it, where the words themselves are used to refer to something real or observed, and without the "object" they are ultimately meaningless. Indeed, the words themselves are not the things to which they rever. As mentioned, the word Gravity, and indeed the theory of Gravity, are not Gravity itself.

The thing to which the words refer (or the experiece of them) is objective, while the words themselves are subjective.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, I think you're confusing versimilitude (is a theory necessarily true) with objectivity (the theory passes the same tests for everyone).

There may be a potential overlap, but to be honest I don't think I have it in me to explore that one, but it is definitely subjectivity and objectivity that was being discussed.

Morbert wrote: »

How has it been shown that the practise of quieting the mind helps us discern what is necessarily true?

I'll refrain from re-asserting the position from the outset, and not simply say it has been shown through personal expericnce.

However, if one is looking for evidence to support the claims of Buddhist practice to knowledge of the mind, then it might be worth checking out some of the research[/quote] that has been conducted on Buddhist monks. Also worth checking out, are some videos on "self-immolation".

Of course, just to re-iterate, there is no substitute for personal experience.

roosh · 12-01-2010 07:46PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't understand. Could aliens define a number system where 1+1=3?

sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and a discussion on whether aliens could define the above number system is where it is for me.

roosh · 12-01-2010 07:48PM

robindch wrote: »

How do you know that?

We simply don't have the tools to figure out if a horse is conscious, let alone a rock.

the response was based on the assumption of the rocks existence, from the post that was replied to.

Sam Vimes · 12-01-2010 07:54PM

mangaroosh wrote: »

sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and a discussion on whether aliens could define the above number system is where it is for me.

It's a very important question. You don't have to think of it in terms of aliens, maybe even a remote tribe that had never seen other humans. Could they have defined a number system where 1+1=3 and if not why not?

robindch · 12-01-2010 08:44PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could they have defined a number system where 1+1=3 and if not why not?

Allow me.

If you define an arithmetic in which the operator '+' means 'add the following denary number twice', then your statement is valid, assuming all other symbols have their usual meaning.

Morbert · 13-01-2010 08:35AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

If we take the real number system.

It is being argued that it is not based on personal opinion, taste, bias, etc. This would make it objective.

However, it is dependent on the mind for existence. This would make it subjective.

It isn't a case of apply one definition to it, as both definitions would apply equally, making it both subjective and objective simultaneously. Therefore, if this position is not "allowable" one of the definitions must be either wrong, or interpreted incorrectly.

Well the majority of literature I have come across favours the interpretation I have tendered. Also, consider the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

The issue is that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. qualify as subjective under both. When 1 is broken down, it is clear that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. are basically personal opinions, because they exist only as thoughts.

An individuals own thoughts are personal, and all words exist as thoughts and all words, symbols, etc. are merely opinions, this makes them de facto personal opinions.

Therefore their use for anythign makes whatever it is they are used for, subjective.

Mathematics is not words, symbols, and numbers. It is the exploration of formal systems. Axioms and inference rules might be arbitrarily defined by any individual, but the theorems of those axioms and inference rules are not. They cannot vary from individual to individual.

Two people can share the same opinion, and in the case of mathematics, words, etc. they may share the same opinion as to what the symbols and numbers mean

See above

Again, an individuals thoughts are personal, numbers, symbols, etc. only exist as thoughts, and they are de facto opinions, this makes them, and anything that uses them, subjective.

See above

Again, the numbers, words, symbols that are used in mathematics only exist as thoughts, and an individuals thoughts are personal. The symbols etc. are just opinions, albeit the shared opinion or consensus of many. Therefore, they and anything that uses them are based on personal opinions, even if everyone has the same opinion about them.

See above

f,(, ), x, = and 3 are all opinions. They may be the shared opinions of the vast majority, but they are opinions nonetheless.

Again, the consequences of those opinions, however, do not change from person to person. It is the subtle difference between what is necessarily true and what is true according to axioms. What follows from axioms and inference rules, once they are defined, can never be influenced by personal opinion, taste, or feelings. This is the nature of mathematics.

<snipped repetition>

Yep, all claims are subjective, although they may be based on objective knowledge.

Again, the "claim" about Gravity is subjective, but Gravity and our experience of it is objective.

So what do people mean by the phrase "objective journalsim"?

the theory is completely dependent on the words, without the words there is no theory.

This is where the nature of words comes into it, where the words themselves are used to refer to something real or observed, and without the "object" they are ultimately meaningless. Indeed, the words themselves are not the things to which they rever. As mentioned, the word Gravity, and indeed the theory of Gravity, are not Gravity itself.

Do you accept that the theory, even if it can be said to depend on words for practical reasons, is not the words themselves. F=dp/dt and F=ma are both identical laws, for example.

I'll refrain from re-asserting the position from the outset, and not simply say it has been shown through personal expericnce.

Yes, because that would be circular reasoning. If we are assessing the validity of personal experience, then personal experience cannot be used to confirm that validity.

However, if one is looking for evidence to support the claims of Buddhist practice to knowledge of the mind, then it might be worth checking out some of the research that has been conducted on Buddhist monks. Also worth checking out, are some videos on "self-immolation".

Of course, just to re-iterate, there is no substitute for personal experience.

Well I think that link shows that such monks are no close than any of us to answering the question.

Naz_st · 13-01-2010 11:03AM

mangaroosh wrote: »

If we take the real number system.

It is being argued that it is not based on personal opinion, taste, bias, etc. This would make it objective.

However, it is dependent on the mind for existence. This would make it subjective.

No.

Mathematics is one of the few areas where we have definite objective knowledge of universal truths, where "proof" is a viable concept. There is nothing subjective about it. The real number system is objective. It does not require a "mind for existence" [incidentally, I would interpret the somewhat unhelpful OED's definition of "requiring the mind for existence" as meaning "based on personal opinion" anyway, i.e. "based on the personal opinion of the mind that is interpreting it"]. Regardless, whether we humans or any other intelligent life existed on Earth or not, in this solar system there would still be 1 moon orbiting around the 3rd planet of one star that converts 120 million tons of hydrogen into helium ovey 60 seconds.

robindch wrote: »

Allow me.

If you define an arithmetic in which the operator '+' means 'add the following denary number twice', then your statement is valid, assuming all other symbols have their usual meaning.

True, but ignoring the symbol used, the mathematical operation of addition on the set of real numbers still remains objectively true:
1 {symbol denoting the operation addition} 1 = 2

robindch · 13-01-2010 12:06PM

Naz_st wrote: »

True, but ignoring the symbol used, the mathematical operation of addition on the set of real numbers still remains objectively true: 1 {symbol denoting the operation addition} 1 = 2

Er, no. You're just playing with symbols and there's no truth inherent within them any more than there is in a fly's foot.

PDN · 13-01-2010 12:13PM

robindch wrote: »

Er, no. You're just playing with symbols and there's no truth inherent within them any more than there is in a fly's foot.

Then again, if you are going to play with the symbol + to give it a different meaning, you might as well play with the symbol = to give it a different meaning too.

So 1+1=3 will still be false (where + means sneaking in an extra number and where = means not equal to).

Then again, you can change the meaning of the word 'false' to make it mean 'true'. In that case you could argue that 1+1=3 is not false.

Naz_st · 13-01-2010 12:21PM

robindch wrote: »

Er, no. You're just playing with symbols and there's no truth inherent within them any more than there is in a fly's foot.

Addition is a mathematical operation - it doesn't matter what symbols you use, the underlying concept remains the same:

Wikipedia wrote:

As a mathematical operation, addition follows several important patterns. It is commutative, meaning that order does not matter, and it is associative, meaning that when one adds more than two numbers, order in which addition is performed does not matter (see Summation). Repeated addition of 1 is the same as counting; addition of 0 does not change a number. Addition also obeys predictable rules concerning related operations such as subtraction and multiplication. All of these rules can be proven, starting with the addition of natural numbers and generalizing up through the real numbers and beyond. General binary operations that continue these patterns are studied in abstract algebra.

Wikipedia wrote:

There are also situations where addition is "understood" even though no symbol appears:

e.g:

A column of numbers, with the last number in the column underlined, usually indicates that the numbers in the column are to be added, with the sum written below the underlined number.

A whole number followed immediately by a fraction indicates the sum of the two, called a mixed number.[2] For example,
3½ = 3 + ½ = 3.5.

Symbols are used to denote concepts, the underlying concept doesn't change if you replace the symbol with a different symbol.

robindch · 13-01-2010 12:25PM

PDN wrote: »

In that case you could argue that 1+1=3 is not false.

Yep, quite true.

Or false. Depending on your perspective.

Morbert · 13-01-2010 07:16PM

Regarding the truth of mathematics, I think Penrose has described it best. He talks of a platonic sense of existence, where theorems follow from axioms and rules regardless of whether or not such axioms have been explored by people.

So axioms of a formal system depend on the mind for existence, and do not have a platonic existence. The validity of theorems which follow from axioms however, does have a platonic existence, and proofs of these theorems do not depend on perspective.

So the meanings of '1' '+' '=' etc. are arbitrary, but "1+2=3" would follow from the axioms and definitions of the real number system no matter who you are.

roosh · 19-01-2010 11:49PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's a very important question. You don't have to think of it in terms of aliens, maybe even a remote tribe that had never seen other humans. Could they have defined a number system where 1+1=3 and if not why not?

There are a number of issues with the question.

Firstly, the parameters are such that the answer is implied.

Secondly, there is an assumption that the aliens or tribe would actually come up with a number system in the first place.

Thirdly, that consensus (between us and the aliens/tribe) would make the number system objective.

The discussion on the number system might be better served, by discussing the nature of numbers and how they are based on an arbitrary , selective perception.

roosh · 20-01-2010 12:00AM

Morbert wrote: »

Regarding the truth of mathematics, I think Penrose has described it best. He talks of a platonic sense of existence, where theorems follow from axioms and rules regardless of whether or not such axioms have been explored by people.

So axioms of a formal system depend on the mind for existence, and do not have a platonic existence. The validity of theorems which follow from axioms however, does have a platonic existence, and proofs of these theorems do not depend on perspective.

So the meanings of '1' '+' '=' etc. are arbitrary, but "1+2=3" would follow from the axioms and definitions of the real number system no matter who you are.

pardon my ignorance (and forgive me if it sounds like a stupid question) but could you clarify what the axioms of the real number system are, and does the real number system fall under the heading of "a formal system".

to attempt to answer however, "1+2=3" exists only as a thought and does not exist in reality.

the designation of anything as a singular item, is entirely based on perspective, as the items do not have to be designated, they simply exist.

The same can be said for the designation of anything in two's or three's.

roosh · 20-01-2010 12:49AM

Morbert wrote: »

Well the majority of literature I have come across favours the interpretation I have tendered. Also, consider the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

These could be food for an interesting discussion, so if you want to detail the ones which support your proposition, we can explore them further.

One which I found particularly interesting was with regard to the MW definition of 'subject', which is heavily relied upon for the definition of subjective, was

2c the mind, ego, or agent of whatever sort that sustains or assumes the form of thought or consciousness

Interestingly, spirituality is concerned primarily and overarchingly with the exploration of all of the abover phenomena.

Buddhist "philosophy" or [in the scientific sense] "theories" are fairly well established on these topics.

Morbert wrote: »

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

With regard to objectivity,

1b phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

The underlined above supports the contention that experience compatible with objectivity.

The underlined could easily be mistaken as a description of meditation, Buddhist or otherwise.

Morbert wrote: »

Mathematics is not words, symbols, and numbers. It is the exploration of formal systems. Axioms and inference rules might be arbitrarily defined by any individual, but the theorems of those axioms and inference rules are not. They cannot vary from individual to individual.

They only exist in the mind of the individual however. While everyone may be able to think of the same theorem, each must do it using their own mind.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, the consequences of those opinions, however, do not change from person to person. It is the subtle difference between what is necessarily true and what is true according to axioms. What follows from axioms and inference rules, once they are defined, can never be influenced by personal opinion, taste, or feelings. This is the nature of mathematics.

<snipped repetition>

whether or not the consequences change from indiviudal to individual is not relevant to the issue of subjectivity or objectivity, as opinions can be shared i.e. everyone may have a personal opinion that is the same as everyone elses.

Morbert wrote: »

So what do people mean by the phrase "objective journalsim"?

It may be best to ask them, then to ask them if they know what the word objective means, and what the word journalism actually means.

Morbert wrote: »

Do you accept that the theory, even if it can be said to depend on words for practical reasons, is not the words themselves. F=dp/dt and F=ma are both identical laws, for example.

A theory is the words themselves, it is the phenomenon or law that is not the words.

the above equations (for Newton's laws of motion is it - according to a basic google search) would be the theory and would be "the words themselves". It is the actual laws of motion that are not the words themselves.

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, because that would be circular reasoning. If we are assessing the validity of personal experience, then personal experience cannot be used to confirm that validity.

The question was how has quiteing the mind been shown to lead to the truth, to say that it has been shown through personal experience would not be circular reasoning, because personal experience represents the manner in which it has been shown to lead to the truth.

Indeed, personal experience is not a form of reasoning, rather a practical means by which one can either confirm or deny a hypothesis.

The condition could be added, to say that, if there is an objective reality, then personal experience is the only way in which it can be known, for the reasons outlined above.

Morbert wrote: »

Well I think that link shows that such monks are no close than any of us to answering the question.

What it also shows is their practical ability to use the mind, based on their training in the Buddhist teachings. That coupled with the fact that Buddhist monks are scinetifically proven to be happier, again, due to their practice, is further evidence on their credentials when it comes to knowledge of the mind.

Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Comments