Basis of Belief

[mikkel_the_dane]

You've lost me sorry, you did write a generic comment about atheists, that they were "only sceptical about religions". I pointed out that was probably only because that is the topic of this forum, this doesn't mean those atheists are not sceptical about anything else. I know my scepticism forms a part of my rationale, and I try to treat all claims without bias or prejudice.

I wrote skeptics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you don't think chopping someone's head off harms then objectively, you think that's a matter of personal opinion?

I have to say I disagree.

Yeah, I know. We disagree. So let us leave it at that.

 

[Sheldon]

That having your head removed is harmful, is not a controversial statement, even if it does imply a value judgement of sorts. Still, by any definition of harm, violent death is harmful to a living organism, yes.

Thank you, as that was an important distinction being made, and I accept people can subjectively view objective facts from a different context.

I believe the Samurai example proves the point that perspective goes a long way in determining what is good or bad.

Well it offers a subjective viewpoint, but it is a physiological fact that chopping off someone's head is harmful, wouldn't you agree?

And such perceptions will always be subjective, since we have no other way of addressing the material world;

Oh I absolutely disagree, I think we can hold subjective opinions about the physical world, but in the end we can also demonstrate sufficient objective evidence they are correct or incorrect.

which to a Samurai devotee of Zen Buddhism and the Bushido Code, would be seen as illusory and without substance anyway.

Which is by definition subjective, whereas being alive is objective, being dead is also objective, speculating about what may happen afterwards is of course subjective.

 

[Sheldon]

I wrote skeptics.

Well of course, but do you seriously believe one would think scepticism of religions are theists?

On the other hand most skeptics here are only critical of religion and the philosophy they consider wrong and use philosophy to support their beliefs in science, rationality, critical thinking, evidence and so on, beyond what those can actually do.
In other words, they are critical about everybody else's subjectivity in some cases, but not their own.

Note the "beliefs in science" canard. Science is based on the best objective evidence available, and is not an absolute. Note your last sentence, so science is a subjective belief now?

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, I know. We disagree. So let us leave it at that.

I was, that's why I said "I have to disagree".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well of course, but do you seriously believe one would think scepticism of religions are theists?

No, but more later.

Note the "beliefs in science" canard. Science is based on the best objective evidence available, and is not an absolute. Note your last sentence, so science is a subjective belief now?

No, Sheldon. There are no weird or obtuse academics, who in an intellectual and non-religious sense have ever considered if science is based on beliefs, which are without evidence.
And all skeptics are the same and there are no different schools of thought within skepticism.
I mean since you use Wikipedia, here is a part from it, that show you just that. There is no mentioning of beliefs, or unprovable or untested assumptions.

"...
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[42][43] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[44] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[45] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[46]

The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[47]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[47][48] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[49]. "As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. ... The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them."[50] "Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[51]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws.[47][48] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[49] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[52]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[47][48] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[51] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[49]
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[48] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[53] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[54]

..."
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

You see science has solved all the problems in philosophy in regards to epistemology. And of course you know what there problems are and how they are solved by science.

 

[AppieB]

#1 is objective. #2 - #4 are all subjective, because preference, like and not like are all depending on feelings in some sense.

Earlier you answered "yes" to the following questions:
1. We agree that's it's true that human beings have preferences. Would you call that a descriptive statement? "Yes"
2. Would you call it a fact of the everyday world? "Yes"

How is a true descriptive statement (fact) about the everyday world subjective?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Earlier you answered "yes" to the following questions:
1. We agree that's it's true that human beings have preferences. Would you call that a descriptive statement? "Yes"
2. Would you call it a fact of the everyday world? "Yes"

How is a true descriptive statement (fact) about the everyday world subjective?

The description as an act is objective, but what is going on is subjective as what the description is about. The description is objective because the person that makes the description is objective, but what is described, is subjective.

 

[AppieB]

The description as an act is objective, but what is going on is subjective as what the description is about. The description is objective because the person that makes the description is objective, but what is described, is subjective.

A description is something what is described.
That is literally the same! Yet you think the first is objective and the second is subjective. It makes absolutely no sense.

You're commiting the fallacy of composition: because there is a word used in the sentence that has a subjective connotation, therefore the whole statement is subjective. That is just wrong.

The statement that "people have preferences" is objectively true in the sense that it can be demonstrated as a fact of reality using the scientific method. By definition that makes it objective.

Preferences are subjective. The fact that people have preferences is not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A description is something what is described.
That is literally the same! Yet you think the first is objective and the second is subjective. It makes absolutely no sense.

You're commiting the fallacy of composition: because there is a word used in the sentence that has a subjective connotation, therefore the whole statement is subjective. That is just wrong.

The statement that "people have preferences" is objectively true in the sense that it can be demonstrated as a fact of reality using the scientific method. By definition that makes it objective.

Preferences are subjective. That fact that people have preferences is not.

Yeah, we agree. You are saying the same as me. It is an objective fact, that people preferences. But what the preference is about, is subjective.
So what is we debating?

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, we agree. You are saying the same as me. It is an objective fact, that people preferences. But what the preference is about, is subjective.
So what is we debating?

Until here we seem to agree.
The following can be objectively described
1. some people having blue eyes
2. people having preferences
3. some people liking coriander
4. some people not liking coriander.

#1 is objective. #2 - #4 are all subjective, because preference, like and not like are all depending on feelings in some sense.

I noticed a contradiction in your statements.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I noticed a contradiction in your statements.

Well, so let us look closer on the ontological version of the LNC: Something is at a given time and given position in space with a certain property.
Do you agree?

 

[AppieB]

Well, so let us look closer on the ontological version of the LNC: Something is at a given time and given position in space with a certain property.
Do you agree?

Could you please acknowledge that your were contradicting yourself? And that those 4 examples are objective statements?

I'm not familiar with the abbreviation LNC. Or do you mean the Laws of logic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Could you please acknowledge that your were contradicting yourself? And that those 4 examples are objective statements?

I'm not familiar with the abbreviation LNC. Or do you mean the Laws of logic?

Law of noncontradiction.

 

[AppieB]

Law of noncontradiction.

Could you please acknowledge that your were contradicting yourself? And that those 4 examples are objective descriptions?

 

[Sheldon]

Note the "beliefs in science" canard. Science is based on the best objective evidence available, and is not an absolute. Note your last sentence, so science is a subjective belief now?

No, Sheldon.

Had to trim your post, and that was all I could find that applied to my post? The rest was an endless straw man claim I've never made. I've warned you I'm done chasing your endless straw men, sorry, it's an exhausting waste of time. If you want to respond to what I actually posted, then I'll happily take a look.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Could you please acknowledge that your were contradicting yourself? And that those 4 examples are objective descriptions?

Okay, I will amend my previous post: Something can't at a local limited time and at a local limited space be with and without a given property.
So for a limited time and space I like(property) German WWII Tiger tanks, (That takes place at one time and place for a given property, like)
For another limited time and space you can observe(property) and describe(property) that. (That takes place for another time and place for 2 other properties, observe and describe)
So what is the contradiction?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Had to trim your post, and that was all I could find that applied to my post? The rest was an endless straw man claim I've never made. I've warned you I'm done chasing your endless straw men, sorry, it's an exhausting waste of time. If you want to respond to what I actually posted, then I'll happily take a look.

Yeah, Sheldon. There are no beliefs in science, because you don't believe so and you are the source of what science is. Not what is generally written by academics and which can be found by looking in books or refences to these books. I know. You are the source of what science is and that can't be doubted. I get you.

No matter how many references I make to works of academics about what science is, it will not change anything. You are the source of what science is. I get you.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, Sheldon. There are no beliefs in science, because you don't believe so and you are the source of what science is. Not what is generally written by academics and which can be found by looking in books or refences to these books. I know. You are the source of what science is and that can't be doubted. I get you.

No matter how many references I make to works of academics about what science is, it will not change anything. You are the source of what science is. I get you.

Sorry, but again that collection of straw man fallacies has no relevance to my original post. Doubling down on your straw man claims is not the answer. Read my post, give a candid and relevant response.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, but again that collection of straw man fallacies has no relevance to my original post. Doubling down on your straw man claims is not the answer. Read my post, give a candid and relevant response.

I will reference indirect sources with direct sources in them. This is standard in how you backup a claim. You reference other people from the field in question,
So you are at first not going to get my words. You are going to get that words of other humans. Is that okay?