Basis of Belief

[Sheldon]

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?

I'll settle for a concise and candid response to what I actually wrote, in the context of the post I was responding to, and not another diatribe attempting to refute straw man claims about science I haven't made.

The context was someone claiming atheists "believe" in science. This I described as an oft used canard, not because I don't believe claims based on sufficient scientific evidence, but because I've seen theists try too often to dishonestly conflate an acceptance of scientific facts with subjective anecdotal claims of personal experience, because they are both beliefs.

Lets examine two beliefs (one of them hypothetical used for the sake of argument):

1. Someone tells me they believe the world is flat, because a deity told them so in a revelation.
2. Someone tells me they believe all living things evolved from common ancestry because all the scientific evidence supports this conclusion.

Leaving perspective aside, those two beliefs are not the same, as one is supported by overwhelming objective evidence, and the other has none. Now someone is free to believe personal experience is a valid reason to believe, even that it is more important than objective evidence. I am of course free to disagree. However it is plainly wrong to suggest the beliefs are the same. Which was my point, and nothing else.

 

[AppieB]

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?

It looks like you want to go down some philosophical rabbit hole in order to justify your mistake. I won't go there.
Normally in an honest discourse one admits when being wrong. That is the honest and right thing to do.
I'm willing to entertain a discussion about the Laws of logic, but not before you acknowledge you were contradicting yourself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As for me, I learned to be critical about religion, yet I don't consider it wrong or any of these other beliefs. But I also learned to be critical about science and philosophy and as absurd as it may be, yo be critical about being critical. That is what makes me a global skeptic.

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.

I'll settle for a concise and candid response to what I actually wrote, in the context of the post I was responding to, and not another diatribe attempting to refute straw man claims about science I haven't made.

The context was someone claiming atheists "believe" in science. This I described as an oft used canard, not because I don't believe claims based on sufficient scientific evidence, but because I've seen theists try too often to dishonestly conflate an acceptance of scientific facts with subjective anecdotal claims of personal experience, because they are both beliefs.
...

Here is my answer concerning beliefs.
"
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

The short version in my own words. The use of evidence is based on a set of beliefs, for which there is no evidence for these beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It looks like you want to go down some philosophical rabbit hole in order to justify your mistake. I won't go there.
Normally in an honest discourse one admits when being wrong. That is the honest and right thing to do.
I'm willing to entertain a discussion about the Laws of logic, but not before you acknowledge you were contradicting yourself.

One step at a time: I claim that I can at same the time and place turn my body both left and right. I think it is a contradiction. What do you think?

 

[AppieB]

One step at a time: I claim that I can at same the time and place turn my body both left and right. I think it is a contradiction. What do you think?

I think you should acknowledge that you first said that people have preferences is subjective and then later agreed it is objective.
That is the first step we need to take in order to get to the next one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you should acknowledge that you first said that people have preferences is subjective and then later agreed it is objective.
That is the first step we need to take in order to get to the next one.

No, I didn¨t. It is subjective to one person and objective to another.

 

[AppieB]

No, I didn¨t. It is subjective to one person and objective to another.

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?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@AppieB

Yes, it is objective when you observe humans having preferences, but having a preference is subjective.
That is not the same to observe another human having a preference as personally having a preference.
So we can describe as per observation that human have preferences, but that is not the same as personally having a preference.

 

[AppieB]

@AppieB

Yes, it is objective when you observe humans having preferences, but having a preference is subjective.
That is not the same to observe another human having a preference as personally having a preference.
So we can describe as per observation that human have preferences, but that is not the same as personally having a preference.

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.

One more

Ok, using this definition/context for the word objective: it's a fact of the everyday world which doesn't change on how you think/feel. It's a description of the everyday world.
Whether you or me like or not, there are people with blue eyes.

Is the fact/description of the everyday world "human beings have preferences" objective?

No, because there are human behaviours in the everyday world that depends on how you think/feel.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One more

Yeah, I need to write better. I grant you that?
So is having a preference subjective?

 

[Kenny]

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.

You are not alone!! I have the same problem.

 

[Sheldon]

No, I didn¨t. It is subjective to one person and objective to another.

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

 

[Sheldon]

You are not alone!! I have the same problem.

You have mikkel's problem of making up straw man claims about science that I have never made?

I'd assumed it was a language barrier with mikkel?

 

[Kenny]

Although I selected one, it really doesn't encapsulate my position.

Yes, I started with scriptural but my position was, "I will begin with the position that it is true and then I will test the sucker. I will find out soon enough if it is true or false".

So it was scriptural, also experiential as well as evidential for me.

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, I need to write better. I grant you that?

Thank you.
Although I'm wondering what there is to "write better" than a clear "no". I'm also wondering why you wanted to have a dicussion about the LNC. Seems to me like you wanted to use (again) ambigious wording to mask your mistake. I hope you understand the importance of not contradicting yourself.

I don't know if English is your native language, but you have to be very precise in your wording. And read precise. I also make mistakes, but I try to be very careful how I put things into words. If the wording gets messy, we will talk past each other.

To answer your question:

So is having a preference subjective?

Again, precision is key here:
1. a preference is subjective: coriander is delicious.
2. the fact that a person has a preference is objective.

We agreed that the fact that people have preferences, is objectively true. It is a description of a fact (objective)
If it is obectively true that people have preferences, than it logically follows that a person having a preference is objectively true.

I can demonstrate this with a famous syllogism:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Applied to the preferences:
1. All humans have preferences.
2. My girlfriend is human.
C. Therefore, my girlfriend has preferences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you.
Although I'm wondering what there is to "write better" than a clear "no". I'm also wondering why you wanted to have a dicussion about the LNC. Seems to me like you wanted to use (again) ambigious wording to mask your mistake. I hope you understand the importance of not contradicting yourself.

I don't know if English is your native language, but you have to be very precise in your wording. And read precise. I also make mistakes, but I try to be very careful how I put things into words. If the wording gets messy, we will talk past each other.

To answer your question:

Again, precision is key here:
1. a preference is subjective: coriander is delicious.
2. the fact that a person has a preference is objective.

We agreed that the fact that people have preferences, is objectively true. It is a description of a fact (objective)
If it is obectively true that people have preferences, than it logically follows that a person having a preference is objectively true.

I can demonstrate this with a famous syllogism:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Applied to the preferences:
1. All humans have preferences.
2. My girlfriend is human.
C. Therefore, my girlfriend has preferences.

But that doesn't make the actual preference objective, because it is subjective. That is all.

 

[AppieB]

But that doesn't make the actual preference objective, because it is subjective. That is all.

I never said that the preference itself is objective. From the start I distinguished the preference (1) from the fact about the person (2)

1. coriander is delicious (subjective)
2. my girfriend likes coriander (objective).
The second is the fact about the person having a preference.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never said that the preference itself is objective. From the start I distinguished the preference (1) from the fact about the person (2)

1. coriander is delicious (subjective)
2. my girfriend likes coriander (objective).
The second is the fact about the person having a preference.

We agree.

 

[Sheldon]

We agree.

So there are some objective facts, this is a breakthrough.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So there are some objective facts, this is a breakthrough.

Yeah, some under a certain set of subjective assumptions.