Subjective Proof

[ChristineM]

I assume you have a doctorate in linguistics? If not, then how are you assuming your "dictionary only" approach to knowledge is the one true path to education?

So you have no education in linguistics yet feel qualified to dictate use of language to others.

All I am saying is the "common use" of words, is just the surface meanings, which when you explore beneath the surface, has far greater depth that what the common use conveys. I'm honestly not sure how you could argue otherwise rationally. I've never connected atheism with anti-intellectualism, but I am rethinking that assumption on my part based on our interactions.

Sheesh... There are other words for that, no need to make a bunch of bull to make yourself feel superior, because you are not. But such egocentric idiocy is typical of deliberately ignorant creationist. You want to trade insults? See where this goes?

They are using their brains to understand there is more to truth that what average "common" assumptions of truth and meaning are. They are explorers of truth, which you, glibly, call "egotism". That's the same sort of response you get from fundamentalists against institutions of higher education, "them damn intellectuals from out East thinkin they know everything!." This was the birth of modern fundamentalism in response to modernity. Your thinking and rhetoric appears to mirror theirs well

Bull, see above about making up bull

?

You made a quote indicating you knew your gods mind.

 

[Windwalker]

So you have no education in linguistics yet feel qualified to dictate use of language to others.

I have an education that includes understanding language. I do not have a degree in it. Do you? I notice you didn't answer this question, and instead deflected it back to me. No linguist I know of would consider the dictionary the source of authority on the meanings of words. What specifically was incorrect in what I said about how dictionaries were created?

If you were degreed in this, you certainly should be able to articulate what is wrong the points I made, and educate others here in this thread. Why do you as a supposed PhD in Linguists consider dictionaries the sole source of authority on the meaning of words? I would love to understand the academic reasons for your position. Can you cite other authorities of language who agree with you? Can you name some names for us?

Sheesh... There are other words for that, no need to make a bunch of bull to make yourself feel superior, because you are not. But such egocentric idiocy is typical of deliberately ignorant creationist. You want to trade insults? See where this goes?

I will note it is only you who have stooped to calling others who you don't agree with egotists. There is only one in this conversation doing that, and that is you. Calling educated people egotists, is what uneducated fundamentalists do to compensate for their own lack.

You made a quote indicating you knew your gods mind.

Please share that. I would not have, since I do not believe God has "ideas". That must be someone else you are thinking of.

 

[Windwalker]

Are Dictionaries Primary sources? Answer, No.

Secondary sources are less easily defined than primary sources.


Generally, they are accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

They are interpretations and evaluations of primary sources.


Secondary sources are not evidence, but rather commentary on and discussion of evidence.

However, what some define as a secondary source, others define as a tertiary source. Context is everything.



Examples include:

• Bibliographies (also considered tertiary);
• Biographical works;
• Commentaries, criticisms;
• Dictionaries, Encyclopedias (also considered tertiary);
• Histories;
• Literary criticism such as Journal articles;
• Magazine and newspaper articles;
• Monographs, other than fiction and autobiography;
• Textbooks (also considered tertiary);
• Web site (also considered primary).

Link: https://guides.library.yale.edu/c.php?g=295913&p=1975839

As I said, you go to the experts in the field, not quote dictionaries. Any college would not pass your paper, were you to cite them as primary sources of authority.

 

[ChristineM]

I have an education that includes understanding language. I do not have a degree in it. Do you? I notice you didn't answer this question, and instead deflected it back to me. No linguist I know of would consider the dictionary the source of authority on the meanings of words. What specifically was incorrect in what I said about how dictionaries were created?

Considering you deflected while turning the question back on me i find considerable hypocrisy in that.

Well academia and the legal profession do consider dictionaries to be a source of authority. How many linguist's do you know?

I will note it is only you who have stooped to calling others who you don't agree with egotists. There is only one in this conversation doing that, and that is you. Calling educated people egotists, is what uneducated fundamentalists do to compensate for their own lack.

Right

I've never connected atheism with anti-intellectualism, but I am rethinking that assumption on my part based on our interactions.

Please share that. I would not have, since I do not believe God has "ideas". That must be someone else you are thinking of.

Ok

Here's what I wrote about dictionaries and the proper understanding of their uses and weakness some time back when encountering others like you who cheat knowledge by quoting dictionaries as if they were "The Word of God". Citing essentially, "It's not my ideas, it's God's!"

 

[ChristineM]

Are Dictionaries Primary sources? Answer, No.

Secondary sources are less easily defined than primary sources.


Generally, they are accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

They are interpretations and evaluations of primary sources.


Secondary sources are not evidence, but rather commentary on and discussion of evidence.

However, what some define as a secondary source, others define as a tertiary source. Context is everything.



Examples include:

• Bibliographies (also considered tertiary);
• Biographical works;
• Commentaries, criticisms;
• Dictionaries, Encyclopedias (also considered tertiary);
• Histories;
• Literary criticism such as Journal articles;
• Magazine and newspaper articles;
• Monographs, other than fiction and autobiography;
• Textbooks (also considered tertiary);
• Web site (also considered primary).

Link: https://guides.library.yale.edu/c.php?g=295913&p=1975839

As I said, you go to the experts in the field, not quote dictionaries. Any college would not pass your paper, were you to cite them as primary sources of authority.

Hang on, you are moving goalposts.where did primary come from?

 

[Milton Platt]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.

Evidence that convinces one of the truth is simply evidence. I dislike using the word "proof".

- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.

Proof is the incorrect word, except in mathematics...yes, I know it is used colloquially to mean evidence. but you need to not equate all evidence as "proof".
Proof may be objective...in mathematics. But we are talking about evidence, not proof, and all evidence is not objective. Your first premise does not restrict evidence to only objective evidence.

- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.

Again, you are switching terms

- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

If something is unverifiable, then it may indeed be true, but there is no reason to believe it is in fact true.

Objections?

 

[Windwalker]

↑
I've never connected atheism with anti-intellectualism, but I am rethinking that assumption on my part based on our interactions.

↑
Please share that. I would not have, since I do not believe God has "ideas". That must be someone else you are thinking of.


↑
Here's what I wrote about dictionaries and the proper understanding of their uses and weakness some time back when encountering others like you who cheat knowledge by quoting dictionaries as if they were "The Word of God". Citing essentially, "It's not my ideas, it's God's!"

Ok

Did you not see the words, "others like you" in that quote from me? Others like you, on the religious belief side of that same aisle who say, "It's not my ideas, it's God's!", whereas you would say, "You're not arguing with me, it's the Dictionary." How exactly did you read me saying I believe what fundamentalists say? I don't believe in the God you don't believe in too which is a cartoon man.

 

[Windwalker]

Hang on, you are moving goalposts.where did primary come from?

You reject those who are experts in the field, such as philosophers, who use words which violate your understanding you glean from the Dictionary as your primary source of authority. That's not moving the goal post, that's kicking the ball right through it.

 

[ChristineM]

Did you not see the words, "others like you" in that quote from me? Others like you, on the religious belief side of that same aisle who say, "It's not my ideas, it's God's!", whereas you would say, "You're not arguing with me, it's the Dictionary." How exactly did you read me saying I believe what fundamentalists say? I don't believe in the God you don't believe in too which is a cartoon man.

Quote : I've never connected atheism with anti-intellectualism, but I am rethinking that assumption on my part based on our interactions.

Quote : Here's what I wrote about dictionaries and the proper understanding of their uses and weakness some time back when encountering others like you who cheat knowledge by quoting dictionaries as if they were "The Word of God". Citing essentially, "It's not my ideas, it's God's!"

No mention of 'others like you'

I dont believe there is harry potter for the same reason i dont believe there is a god or gods. Cartoon man, thunder riding magician or big beard in the sky. When someone can provide any valid evidence of any god then i will consider that evidence. Until than ill chuckle at the futility of god claims.

 

[Windwalker]

Quote : Here's what I wrote about dictionaries and the proper understanding of their uses and weakness some time back when encountering others like you who cheat knowledge by quoting dictionaries as if they were "The Word of God". Citing essentially, "It's not my ideas, it's God's!"

No mention of 'others like you'

Please read what I have now just bolded and underscored above in your quote. It was there all along, and you missed it not just the first and the second time when you quoted back at me, but a third time just now. What else don't you see when you read what I'm saying?

I dont believe there is harry potter for the same reason i dont believe there is a god or gods. Cartoon man, thunder riding magician or big beard in the sky. When someone can provide any valid evidence of any god then i will consider that evidence. Until than ill chuckle at the futility of god claims.

Well, that has nothing to do with how you place dictionary definitions above the thoughts of experts in their own fields who are the ones, along with poets, who create how we use the words which end up in dictionaries.

 

[ChristineM]

You reject those who are experts in the field, such as philosophers, who use words which violate your understanding you glean from the Dictionary as your primary source of authority. That's not moving the goal post, that's kicking the ball right through it.

There is that word primary again.

Since when have philosophers been expert in linguistics.

Ok, you've gone far enough with this delusion. Please identify one philosopher who changes the meaning of words from the dictionary definition of the word in order to make his/her work more meaningful to 'people like you'

 

[ChristineM]

Please read what I have now just bolded and underscored above in your quote. It was there all along, and you missed it not just the first and the second time when you quoted back at me, but a third time just now

That is nothing to do with what i quoted of yours.

Well, that has nothing to do with how you place dictionary definitions above the thoughts of experts in their own fields who are the ones, along with poets, who create how we use the words which end up in dictionaries.

Who said it was, i was replying you your " I don't believe in the God you don't believe in too which is a cartoon man."

Sorry if it upset your chain of thought

 

[dfnj]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.
- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.
- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.
- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

Objections?

People often choose a particular religious discipline or belief NOT based on evidence but based on faith. The essence of faith is choosing a set of assumptions about reality. These assumptions are considered to be true without any proof. Of course you can always question any assumptions as being worth having. Being worth having is purely a subjective judgement.

If having evidence is a must have prerequisite for your belief system then that too is based on a set of assumptions you are making which you may not be aware of you are making.

Proof can be subjective in the sense that if you share the same set of assumptions with someone else you will both come to the same conclusions with regards to statements that are being made.

Provable truth only occurs in the context of having the same set of assumptions.

I think a more interesting aspect to truth and belief systems is when two people take the exact same set of data points, or evidence, but come to a completely different or opposition conclusion based on different assumptions. For example, many people believe evolution is proof God does not exist. Where as you could think of evolution as God's way of realizing our perfection through evolution. For millions of years lizards were killed and eaten. But then lizard brains gave rise to ape brains. And ape brains gave rise to human brains. Human brains are capable of appreciating beauty in the world. Brain consciousness is expanding through evolution. Maybe in a million years the human brain will evolve into something else capable of appreciating some deeper aspect of reality we are completely unaware of with our present limitations. Is God evil because He allowed so many lizards to die in the process. It's hard to say in a larger context of creation whether or not God is evil for allowing evil to exist.

I think what you are trying to achieve is not possible without subjective judgments. Take the scientific method for example. The mathematics we use to represent nature's behaviors is only true in a very rigid well defined context of measurement. Without a context of measurement, I do not know of any pieces of mathematics that represents nature's behavior accurately and completely. It seems to me mathematics is being used as a language representation of nature. Or a map of nature. And just like maps we hold in our hand have very little detail compared to the reality they represent, I would argue all forms of language used to represent nature have limitations. There always seems to be rogue waves converging from higher dimensions or from outside the context of measurement causing unexplained physical manifestations like experimental error and observational outliers.

I would argue we really do not understand anything about nature and reality. If you did, then you would be able to explain the source of experimental errors, observational outliers. and why the constants are the values they are, and why the laws of physics are the way that they are. Even further, not only does a real understanding need to explain the weird stuff, but a real understanding of nature not only needs to understand why the Strong force is so strong, but it needs to explain where does the Strong force come from and why.

It just seems to me people who worship objectivity, scientific method, materialism/realism, all fall under the following category. Just give me one miracle to explain the origin of energy in the Universe and then science will explain the rest. As long as we continue to need at least one miracle, religion will continue to be relevant in my humble subjective opinion.

 

[`mud]

hey Christine,
Just a little encouragement to your thinking on this thread.
Amidst all the wind blowing here.
Take a breath and take a walk.
You got it right !

 

[`mud]

Also Christine...ignore long word salads.

 

[Windwalker]

That is nothing to do with what i quoted of yours.

What is wrong with you? You quoted it in your post here: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/subjective-proof.210956/page-5#post-5715230

 

[dfnj]

Also Christine...ignore long word salads.

"The Earth if flat. You are all insane!"

 

[Windwalker]

People often choose a particular religious discipline or belief NOT based on evidence but based on faith. The essence of faith is choosing a set of assumptions about reality. These assumptions are considered to be true without any proof. Of course you can always question any assumptions as being worth having. Being worth having is purely a subjective judgement.

If having evidence is a must have prerequisite for your belief system then that too is based on a set of assumptions you are making which you may not be aware of you are making.

Proof can be subjective in the sense that if you share the same set of assumptions with someone else you will both come to the same conclusions with regards to statements that are being made.

Provable truth only occurs in the context of having the same set of assumptions.

I think a more interesting aspect to truth and belief systems is when two people take the exact same set of data points, or evidence, but come to a completely different or opposition conclusion based on different assumptions. For example, many people believe evolution is proof God does not exist. Where as you could think of evolution as God's way of realizing our perfection through evolution. For millions of years lizards were killed and eaten. But then lizard brains gave rise to ape brains. And ape brains gave rise to human brains. Human brains are capable of appreciating beauty in the world. Brain consciousness is expanding through evolution. Maybe in a million years the human brain will evolve into something else capable of appreciating some deeper aspect of reality we are completely unaware of with our present limitations. Is God evil because He allowed so many lizards to die in the process. It's hard to say in a larger context of creation whether or not God is evil for allowing evil to exist.

I think what you are trying to achieve is not possible without subjective judgments. Take the scientific method for example. The mathematics we use to represent nature's behaviors is only true in a very rigid well defined context of measurement. Without a context of measurement, I do not know of any pieces of mathematics that represents nature's behavior accurately and completely. It seems to me mathematics is being used as a language representation of nature. Or a map of nature. And just like maps we hold in our hand have very little detail compared to the reality they represent, I would argue all forms of language used to represent nature have limitations. There always seems to be rogue waves converging from higher dimensions or from outside the context of measurement causing unexplained physical manifestations like experimental error and observational outliers.

I would argue we really do not understand anything about nature and reality. If you did, then you would be able to explain the source of experimental errors, observational outliers. and why the constants are the values they are, and why the laws of physics are the way that they are. Even further, not only does a real understanding need to explain the weird stuff, but a real understanding of nature not only needs to understand why the Strong force is so strong, but it needs to explain where does the Strong force come from and why.

It just seems to me people who worship objectivity, scientific method, materialism/realism, all fall under the following category. Just give me one miracle to explain the origin of energy in the Universe and then science will explain the rest. As long as we continue to need at least one miracle, religion will continue to be relevant in my humble subjective opinion.

I just have to say this post was absolutely brilliant! I admire how you were able to put all this as succinctly as this. I blather all over the place to get these points made. I think I'll just kick back here and let you take over.

 

[`mud]

dfnj said:
"The Earth if flat. You are all insane!"
Really ?

 

[ChristineM]

What is wrong with you? You quoted it in your post here: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/subjective-proof.210956/page-5#post-5715230

Thats not the post i was referring to otherwise i would have quoted it in my post #89

And still you have not named one philosopher who changes the meaning of words from the dictionary definition of the word in order to make his/her work more meaningful to 'people like you'