Evidence means nothing with certain things

[Twilight Hue]

Science views limits understanding of life’s mysteries

Problem is when those mysteries are declared open and 'solved' by people without any inquiry and investigation beforehand.

Science isn't reckless, it is a methodological and careful process to address life's mysteries through the process of experimentation and documentation. Then demonstration and confirmation or elimination.

I think there is an event horizon based on our level of knowledge, composition, and capabilities, weither that expands or not is anyone's guess for the future.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you sure? It appears to have been an attempt at a modus tollens argument.

Go back. And remember this from the standard one:
P1: All humans are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a human.
C: Therefore Socrates is mortal.

The elements of the conclusion must be present in the premises. Here is trick to get an idea of it works. Simple use the first letters like in A is B, B is C. Thus:
P1: H is M
P2: S is H
C: S is M

So @Kfox is missing a premise, namely to claim something false makes you wrong.
So here is a version, which would work for valid.
P1: I claimed something false.
P2: Having claimed something false makes me wrong.
C: I am wrong.
As to whether it is sound, that is the next step.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go back. And remember this from the standard one:
P1: All humans are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a human.
C: Therefore Socrates is mortal.

The elements of the conclusion must be present in the premises. Here is trick to get an idea of it works. Simple use the first letters like in A is B, B is C. Thus:
P1: H is M
P2: S is H
C: S is M

So @Kfox is missing a premise, namely to claim something false makes you wrong.
So here is a version, which would work for valid.
P1: I claimed something false.
P2: Having claimed something false makes me wrong.
C: I am wrong.
As to whether it is sound, that is the next step.

He did not realize your level of understanding. Most of us know that we do not need to reinvent the wheel when we make something new.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He did not realize your level of understanding. Most of us know that we do not need to reinvent the wheel when we make something new.

Short answer. I have learned that in effect claim truth or any other variant to that effect, is no different that claiming God.
Here are 3 levels to this.
Don't understand evidence as in effect objective.
Understand evidence, but don't understand the limits.
Understand evidence and the limits.

In debates the usual suspects are some religious people, who don't understand evidence. Some non-religious people who understand evidence as relevant, but don't understand the limits. And those, who are the 3rd variant.

 

[Watchmen]

A lot of people on here like to point out that spiritual people on here don’t have any evidence. But let me remind you that all the scientific things you believe because of evidence, you’re blindly believing this as well. (ie. Big Bang, Abiogenesis & evolution). Looks like we’re all in the same boat. Hahahaha.

You most certainly don’t understand what “evidence” is, so no———we’re not in the same boat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Short answer. I have learned that in effect claim truth or any other variant to that effect, is no different that claiming God.
Here are 3 levels to this.
Don't understand evidence as in effect objective.
Understand evidence, but don't understand the limits.
Understand evidence and the limits.

In debates the usual suspects are some religious people, who don't understand evidence. Some non-religious people who understand evidence as relevant, but don't understand the limits. And those, who are the 3rd variant.

That is true, but there are things that we are very very very sure of. For all practical purposes saying "I know" works. There are times that people mistakenly say "I know" because the evidence tells us that they are wrong. Could the evidence be wrong? Since people claim and all powerful God often then if that God was not above lying the answer is yes. Though these same people tend to also claim that God does not lie.

But unless I am being hyper formal I am more than satisfied with using appropriate shortcuts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is true, but there are things that we are very very very sure of. For all practical purposes saying "I know" works. There are times that people mistakenly say "I know" because the evidence tells us that they are wrong. Could the evidence be wrong? Since people claim and all powerful God often then if that God was not above lying the answer is yes. Though these same people tend to also claim that God does not lie.

But unless I am being hyper formal I am more than satisfied with using appropriate shortcuts.

Yeah, but you are not really wrong, just because I can say so in effect, though it works as psychology in me for me to claim you are wrong.

And, no, you are neither wrong or right with evidence. That is subjective psychology in the end and not hard, natural science.

 

[Jimmy]

Problem is when those mysteries are declared open and 'solved' by people without any inquiry and investigation beforehand.

Science isn't reckless, it is a methodological and careful process to address life's mysteries through the process of experimentation and documentation. Then demonstration and confirmation or elimination.

I think there is an event horizon based on our level of knowledge, composition, and capabilities, weither that expands or not is anyone's guess for the future.

That’s what makes it a mystery. It’s hardly a mystery if it’s solved by science

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That’s what makes it a mystery. It’s hardly a mystery if it’s solved by science

Yeah it is a total mystery and I doubt you are even real.

 

[Kfox]

So @Kfox is missing a premise, namely to claim something false makes you wrong.

Not quite. The claim is simply an accusation which is not good enough. That claim must be backed up with evidence

So here is a version, which would work for valid.
P1: I claimed something false.
P2: Having claimed something false makes me wrong.

Again; it isn’t enough to just claim, the evidence must prove you wrong

C: I am wrong.

After evidence provided proves you wrong.

As to whether it is sound, that is the next step.

If the evidence provided is sound, the case has been made.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not quite. The claim is simply an accusation which is not good enough. That claim must be backed up with evidence

Again; it isn’t enough to just claim, the evidence must prove you wrong

After evidence provided proves you wrong.

If the evidence provided is sound, the case has been made.

You have to explain how it works, that the evidence proves me wrong? Not just claim it, but explain how the cause and effect work.
And combine it with this:

So to answer your question of how does awareness work in practice, when your mind gives you information, that is called awareness. When you react to such information, that is how awareness works.

 

[Kfox]

You have to explain how it works, that the evidence proves me wrong? Not just claim it, but explain how the cause and effect work.
And combine it with this:

In the context of this conversation, I present a measuring device that we both agree on. If you don't agree with the measuring device I provide, then I cannot prove you wrong to your satisfaction; only to mine. If you do agree with the measuring device, then I will use the measuring device will prove your claim wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the context of this conversation, I present a measuring device that we both agree on. If you don't agree with the measuring device I provide, then I cannot prove you wrong to your satisfaction; only to mine. If you do agree with the measuring device, then I will use the measuring device will prove your claim wrong.

Yeah, but it is subjective for proven wrong. I.e. in effect, I am not wrong, just because you say so or so in reverse.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, but it is subjective for proven wrong. I.e. in effect, I am not wrong, just because you say so or so in reverse.

Okay; it is not YOU that is wrong, it is your claim that is wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay; it is not YOU that is wrong, it is your claim that is wrong.

Yes, but even that is cognitive and in practice varies depending on what is assumed for a given worldview. And that include you and I.

 

[Kfox]

Yes, but even that is cognitive and in practice varies depending on what is assumed for a given worldview.

I disagree! If we both agree on the standard, and your claim is refuted by the standard, your argument fails regardless of worldview.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree! If we both agree on the standard, and your claim is refuted by the standard, your argument fails regardless of worldview.

Well, the problem is that there is only a limited objective standard for the everyday world and even that is not that easy for what that is, because in practice there are different subjective definitions of objective.

 

[Kfox]

Well, the problem is that there is only a limited objective standard for the everyday world and even that is not that easy for what that is, because in practice there are different subjective definitions of objective.

Then present a scenario where we both agree on a standard, your claim is refuted by the agreed upon standard, yet your claim still stands.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then present a scenario where we both agree on a standard, your claim is refuted by the agreed upon standard, yet your claim still stands.

I don't have to, because I only have to get away with disagreeing.
Your hidden assumption is that everything must make positive sense or it is meaningless. But if we can disagree, then that is in practice a negative.
You do truth as a standard and I just check if I can do it different for the context at play. That is all.

 

[Kfox]

I don't have to, because I only have to get away with disagreeing.

No, you are the one making the positive claim (that you stand 7 feet tall) I am the one disagreeing.