Judgement

[Jeremiahcp]

No, I'm stating that we don't have enough information to determine if the things presented are actually true or false, and this could easily be a third person's opinion on true or false. So both, neither, or either could be making a poor judgement.

It says clearly in the OP . . . . .

Someone who believes what is not true



Someone who believe what is true

There is no mention of a third person's opinion; you are trying to add things that are not there. Which I think you are doing to dodge the question.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It says clearly in the OP . . . . .

Someone who believes what is not true



Someone who believe what is true

There is no mention of a third person's opinion; you are trying to add things that are not there. Which I think you are doing to dodge the question.

And I think there's no reason to take claims of truth and falsehood as a given, nor does pretty much any philosophy I might identify with. So I guess there's your answer: at this point the 'truth' or 'falsehood' is claimed but unverified, so who might be making a poor judgement is disputable.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

And I think there's no reason to take claims of truth and falsehood as a given, nor does pretty much any philosophy I might identify with. So I guess there's your answer: at this point the 'truth' or 'falsehood' is claimed but unverified, so who might be making a poor judgement is disputable.

I find it odd that you can't fathom a situation where one person believes what is true and one believes what is not true; given that you believe in truth. I personally think you are just avoiding the question, but you are of course free to give and walk away with whatever take you want, and I don't have a great interest in debating you over it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I find it odd that you can't fathom a situation where one person believes what is true and one believes what is not true; give that you believe in truth. I personally think you are just avoiding the question, but you are of course free to give and walk away with whatever take you want, and I don't have a great interest in debating you over it.

And I think you're trying to set up a leading question where the truth of something is opinion based, but you want it to be taken as a given. This is a religious debate forum after all, I highly doubt your real world example followup is about proceeding based on true or false tax code.
Which is why I think your OP is too vague to be useful at best, leading at worst.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

And I think you're trying to set up a leading question where the truth of something is opinion based, but you want it to be taken as a given. This is a religious debate forum after all, I highly doubt your real world example followup is about proceeding based on true or false tax code.
Which is why I think your OP is too vague to be useful at best, leading at worst.

"And I think you're trying to set up a leading question where the truth of something is opinion based"

I am not trying to set up anything; my entire argument is in the OP. You are over thinking my motives here.

 

[Valjean]

OK, Am I the only one who isn't following this?
I think we all agree that judgements made with correct data would more reliable than those made with erroneous data -- so what's your point? What are we supposed to be discussing here?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ceteris paribus, who is more likely to make a poor judgment call?

Someone who believes what is not true and makes judgments based on those beliefs.

Or

Someone who believe what is true and makes judgments based on those beliefs.

Third option: somebody who makes judgements based on a rational process of supportable information and examined experience.

Beliefs should be a result of investigation and information gathering, not a cause.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

OK, Am I the only one who isn't following this?
I think we all agree that judgements made with correct data would more reliable than those made with erroneous data -- so what's your point? What are we supposed to be discussing here?

As far as I am concerned it is a clear and obvious truth, but as we have seen there are people who are resistant to it and I just don't understand why. This should be a no brainer, but people always assume there is something else going on. Are people really that suspicious or do they simply want to reject it?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

And I think you're trying to set up a leading question where the truth of something is opinion based, but you want it to be taken as a given. This is a religious debate forum after all, I highly doubt your real world example followup is about proceeding based on true or false tax code.
Which is why I think your OP is too vague to be useful at best, leading at worst.

OK, Am I the only one who isn't following this?
I think we all agree that judgements made with correct data would more reliable than those made with erroneous data -- so what's your point? What are we supposed to be discussing here?

As far as I am concerned it is a clear and obvious truth, but as we have seen there are people who are resistant to it and I just don't understand why. This should be a no brainer, but people always assume there is something else going on. Are people really that suspicious or do they simply want to reject it?

In a debate forum, I believe that @ADigitalArtist has a very distinct point. I.e. there are many who have set up threads here with vague, leading questions like your own, only later to post something along the lines of .....

"....so since it is true that God exists and sent Jesus to save us then why are people so foolish as to not except this reality?"
​

Once burned twice shy and all that.
Most of us reading your OP saw it as a set-up. Inherently, we are not generally that suspicious/paranoid.

However your OP question I think pertains more to the recent events and forums in North American politics than here in religious debates.


But I will bite. Obviously those with knowledge of the truth are more likely to make correct judgments than those who believe full falsehoods. And now, just like @Valjean, I must ask.....OK so now what?

 

[Augustus]

Ceteris paribus, who is more likely to make a poor judgment call?

Someone who believes what is not true and makes judgments based on those beliefs.

Or

Someone who believe what is true and makes judgments based on those beliefs.

It really depends what the beliefs are, the context and how you evaluate what constitutes a poor judgement call.

It's perfectly possible that someone bases their worldview on things that are untrue yet contributes a great deal of social utility as a result of this.

Another person who bases their worldview on what is true could do a great deal of harm.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It really depends what the beliefs are, the context and how you evaluate what constitutes a poor judgement call.

It's perfectly possible that someone bases their worldview on things that are untrue yet contributes a great deal of social utility as a result of this.

Another person who bases their worldview on what is true could do a great deal of harm.

Ceteris paribus means everything else being equal, or everything else held at a constant.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Third option: somebody who makes judgements based on a rational process of supportable information and examined experience.

Beliefs should be a result of investigation and information gathering, not a cause.

Once again, Ceteris paribus. You could apply your "third option" to both someones in the OP, and still have the same question.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ceteris paribus means everything else being equal, or everything else held at a constant.

I don't think it matters. I figured the latin was inconsequential to the premise.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

In a debate forum, I believe that @ADigitalArtist has a very distinct point. I.e. there are many who have set up threads here with vague, leading questions like your own, only later to post something along the lines of .....

"....so since it is true that God exists and sent Jesus to save us then why are people so foolish as to not except this reality?"
​

Once burned twice shy and all that.
Most of us reading your OP saw it as a set-up. Inherently, we are not generally that suspicious/paranoid.

However your OP question I think pertains more to the recent events and forums in North American politics than here in religious debates.


But I will bite. Obviously those with knowledge of the truth are more likely to make correct judgments than those who believe full falsehoods. And now, just like @Valjean, I must ask.....OK so now what?

"I must ask.....OK so now what?"

It is a neutral position thread that seems to be generating some discussion. I like the "vagueness", as it does not have to be about theist or atheist, or this religious belief or that religious belief, yet it is a truth I feel that is sometimes overlooked and fairly universal.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I don't think it matters. I figured the latin was inconsequential to the premise.

No, it is there for a reason. Or else someone could argue something like: What if person A is smarter than person B, but this way we are saying person A and person B are the same level of smartness.

 

[BSM1]

Ceteris paribus, who is more likely to make a poor judgment call?

Someone who believes what is not true and makes judgments based on those beliefs.

Or

Someone who believe what is true and makes judgments based on those beliefs.

Yes, but of course this is just a judgement call...

 

[james bond]

Ceteris paribus, who is more likely to make a poor judgment call?

Someone who believes what is not true and makes judgments based on those beliefs.

Or

Someone who believe what is true and makes judgments based on those beliefs.

Atheists are usually wrong.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Yes, but of course this is just a judgement call...

I am sorry, but I am not really sure what you are saying "yes" to, as it was not a yes or no question.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Atheists are usually wrong.

That is clearly a troll response. Or a joke maybe? A trolling joke? I don't know you well enough to say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I highly disagree. People supposing something is true when it's not, and visa versa, would render your OP meaningless, if we can't actually establish what's true and what isn't.

What's irrelevant is statements which conflate belief with truth, e.g. 'my religion is true.'

Pretty much my thoughts on it. It doesn't if a person believes something is true or not, it matters what they believe.