Subjective Proof

[ChristineM]

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

The flat earth society boasts members all over the globe

 

[ChristineM]

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 !

Its getting boring and for some reason he wont provide any evidence for his claim that philosophers manipulate language by bastardising dictionary definitions.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Ditto.

 

[allfoak]

If people want to make up definitions to massage their own ego, they are welcome. Me, I'll stick to the internationally accepted dictionary definitions.

Nice accusation.
If people want to run themselves in circles to soothe their ego, they are welcome to do so.

 

[Windwalker]

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'

It was you in fact who first raised that as an attack on philosophers and other "egotists" as you call them. Who did you have in mind?

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...the ego that is exposed from one that is non anointed,
but exposes one self's ignorance to the same !

 

[ChristineM]

Nice accusation.
If people want to run themselves in circles to soothe their ego, they are welcome to do so.

Sure you are..

While you are at it do you think you could rewrite some dictionary definitions and get them internationally accepted?
[

 

[ChristineM]

It was you in fact who first raised that as an attack on philosophers and other "egotists" as you call them. Who did you have in mind?

Not really, no attack on your interpretation of philosophy until post #75

It began when you jumped into a conversation in post #57 claiming that objectivity does not exist.

Then in post 64 you began your condiscending insults

And in post #67 you resorted to overt insult

After that you ran with it in post #74

So you cannot provide evidence of your claim

Philosophers take commonly used words, such as "faith" and give true depth to them, far beyond what you will find in the surface meanings reflected in common use

 

[atanu]

I will repeat in case you missed it first time

Person : a human being regarded as an individual

I asked for the criteria that we can unambiguously use.

Why not so fast, i was replying to your post

Because you are not precisely attending to the queries.

 

[Willamena]

How many decimals?

No two atoms vibrate at the same frequency. Several billions of atoms have an average vibration to an accuracy of billions of decimal places. So im guessing that point is moot even if you misunderstood it

No scientific measurement is precise and the accuracy will be stated in the write up for whatever experiment. Depending on the subject i would say an average of between 3 and 6 decimal places of accuracy is ok for typical measurements. If thats wrong im sure a scientist would correct me.

Have you any idea of what 0.001 or 0.000001 of a degree accuracy represents?

As for me not understanding science, kind of hypocritical considering you have shown that trait several times, the last in the very post i am answering here in your misunderstanding of scientific accuracy.

At 101.325 kilopascals of pressure (sea level), pure water will boil at 100c to within the accuracy of most scientific thermometers.

And you still haven't provided evidence for your claim that water boils at different temperatures depending on the material of the containing vessel.

Now... if you have scientific evidence to show that pure water at sea level does not boil at 100c (to within the accuracy of the measuring instruments) please feel to present it because without that i am done banging my head.

On the issue of what is objective, I think this post is salient. The fact is made to represent the truth, not to be it.

 

[Willamena]

'personal' seems to be the key here. So, what is that exactly? And what is personal freedom for objectivity?

It is freedom from 'personal,' a judgement that something is external. With it, we have surrendered any responsibility and ownership of the value so judged.

 

[Willamena]

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?

Your points are well-taken, but proof commonly is evidence that convinces one of the truth of a thing. As a type of evidence, using the broader term 'evidence' in its place would be unsatisfying.

All evidence is not objective, but 'proof' must be. To me, the thing deemed 'objective' or 'fact' is measurable and a representation of the truth. Evidence that convinces me of the truth has to be representative of the truth. I'm not going to be convinced by illusions, delusions, attitudes, opinions, spins, rhetoric, or lies.

 

[Milton Platt]

Your points are well-taken, but proof commonly is evidence that convinces one of the truth of a thing. As a type of evidence, using the broader term 'evidence' in its place would be unsatisfying.

All evidence is not objective, but 'proof' must be. To me, the thing deemed 'objective' or 'fact' is measurable and a representation of the truth. Evidence that convinces me of the truth has to be representative of the truth. I'm not going to be convinced by illusions, delusions, attitudes, opinions, spins, rhetoric, or lies.

Okay, we’re on the same page. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[ChristineM]

I asked for the criteria that we can unambiguously use.



Because you are not precisely attending to the queries.

Its up to you whether you use the definition of make stuff up. Me, i prefer to abide by the agreed definition, that way there is little, if any confusion.

I answered your query. If you didn't like the answer i can hardly be responsible for that

 

[allfoak]

Sure you are..

While you are at it do you think you could rewrite some dictionary definitions and get them internationally accepted?
[

Think what you like of me.
I am not obligated to make the world a better place.

 

[ChristineM]

Think what you like of me.
I am not obligated to make the world a better place.

I never said you were but its beneficial if you can.

What i did do is reply in kind to your post which i have answered 3 times now and you repeatedly ask the same question. Perhaps hoping for an answer you like.

 

[atanu]

Its up to you whether you use the definition of make stuff up. Me, i prefer to abide by the agreed definition, that way there is little, if any confusion.

I answered your query. If you didn't like the answer i can hardly be responsible for that

I asked:

What is your definition or your understanding of an individual separate from you? By what objective criteria you decide that there is another person separate from you?

You have provided a definition. But you are repeatedly avoiding answering the 2nd question.

 

[allfoak]

I never said you were but its beneficial if you can.

What i did do is reply in kind to your post which i have answered 3 times now and you repeatedly ask the same question. Perhaps hoping for an answer you like.

It makes no difference to me if you respond or not. Your answers are your answers. I'm just having some fun with you. Sorry
I am not concerned in the least bit If people don't like the way I think. At my age there is no way I could ever explain to anyone how it is that I have come to the understanding I have of life.
I know my intentions and also know that not everyone is going to agree with me or even like me. I'm ok with that because no one can ever say or do anything that can take away what I have worked so hard to accomplish.

 

[ChristineM]

I asked:

What is your definition or your understanding of an individual separate from you? By what objective criteria you decide that there is another person separate from you?

You have provided a definition. But you are repeatedly avoiding answering the 2nd question.

I answered both your questions in post 63. Have you moved your goalposts since then ?

 

[ChristineM]

It makes no difference to me if you respond or not. Your answers are your answers. I'm just having some fun with you. Sorry
I am not concerned in the least bit If people don't like the way I think. At my age there is no way I could ever explain to anyone how it is that I have come to the understanding I have of life.
I know my intentions and also know that not everyone is going to agree with me or even like me. I'm ok with that because no one can ever say or do anything that can take away what I have worked so hard to accomplish.

If it makes no difference to you then why ask in the first place?.

Ahh, right, having fun... Do you think you are unique in that pastime? Think on that.