What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

[nrg]

~(P∧~P) (dummy text)

I don't think I've seen "~" been used in boolean algebra, and I can't seem to find it in my books. What does it mean? I know that in math I've seen it used as "poor estimate".

But, let me guess, your proposition is a tautology?

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't think I've seen "~" been used in boolean algebra, and I can't seem to find it in my books. What does it mean? I know that in math I've seen it used as "poor estimate".

But, let me guess, your proposition is a tautology?

It means "not" in this context and is equivalent to ¬.

~(P∧~P) is the law of noncontradiction, also written ¬(P&¬P) or "Something can't be itself and something else at the same time and in the same respect."

 

[nrg]

It means "not" in this context and is equivalent to ¬.

In Sweden, we use an apostrophy to represent not when we absolutely can't use "¬". The law of non contradiction is written most often with "¬", or as '(P^'P).

 

[Meow Mix]

Does the set of knowledge contain the subset belief, or is it the other way around? Philosophy has a few strange schools of thought, including the belief that belief doesn't exist; I'm just wondering if yours is a formal doctrine or not.

It's the other way around; the set of belief contains the subset of knowledge.

Belief is very general, you can believe any ol' thing... but if you can justify that belief and that belief is true (internally and externally consistent to the best of your ability to judge based on all available data) then it's a special type of belief called knowledge.

The heirarchy of beliefs, then, in order from weakest to strongest probability of being true is belief -> justified belief -> justified true belief (knowledge).

As for "personal experience," whatever is experienced is still believed to have been experienced. Memories are also believed. So, it doesn't make sense to say that even a powerful memory or experience isn't a belief.

Consider the absurdity of the following: "Sally remembers falling down the hill but she doesn't believe she fell down the hill."

 

[Meow Mix]

In Sweden, we use an apostrophy to represent not when we absolutely can't use "¬". The law of non contradiction is written most often with "¬", or as '(P^'P).

Neat, I've never seen an apostrophe as a negation, but it looks nice enough. I've seen the classic negation sign ¬, the tilde ~, and exclamation points !, I guess it doesn't matter that much as long as it's obvious to the reader what it means

 

[nrg]

Belief is very general, you can believe any ol' thing... but if you can justify that belief and that belief is true (internally and externally consistent to the best of your ability to judge based on all available data) then it's a special type of belief called knowledge.

I thought that was just Plato's description. I've heard there's no accepted definition that reaches across the philosophy community. Yet.

 

[Meow Mix]

I thought that was just Plato's description. I've heard there's no accepted definition that reaches across the philosophy community. Yet.

"Justified true belief" is the most commonly accepted definition of knowledge and the only real criticisms involve Gettier objections and Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology, which I could spend all day refuting as "meaningful" objections to JTB. So, I stick with JTB.

 

[nrg]

Neat, I've never seen an apostrophe as a negation, but it looks nice enough. I've seen the classic negation sign ¬, the tilde ~, and exclamation points !, I guess it doesn't matter that much as long as it's obvious to the reader what it means

The only ones I've seen in my literature are the negation sign, exclamation points (by far the most common one to me, since I major in computer science and all the programming languages that mean anything uses !), the apostrophe. Not counting all those who really want to geek around and build their propositions with NAND and XOR signs.

 

[Meow Mix]

The only ones I've seen in my literature are the negation sign, exclamation points (by far the most common one to me, since I major in computer science and all the programming languages that mean anything uses !), the apostrophe. Not counting all those who really want to geek around and build their propositions with NAND and XOR signs.

Haha, I've always pronounced those in my mind and thought they're rich "words." Reminds me of the urban legend of how Tolkien declared "cellar door" to be the prettiest phrase in the English language. I think "nand" and "xor," while not pretty, have a fun sound to them.

 

[nrg]

"Justified true belief" is the most commonly accepted definition of knowledge and the only real criticisms involve Gettier objections and Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology, which I could spend all day refuting as "meaningful" objections to JTB. So, I stick with JTB.

Hm, maybe I got it mixed around then, because on the last lecture on data theory, I was told there's no perfect way to distinguish data from information because, in the end, an interpretation must always be made.

Or maybe you just meant that knowledge exists, and not that we can find out that it's knowledge. In that case, I withdraw my statement.

 

[Meow Mix]

Hm, maybe I got it mixed around then, because on the last lecture on data theory, I was told there's no perfect way to distinguish data from information because, in the end, an interpretation must always be made.

Or maybe you just meant that knowledge exists, and not that we can find out that it's knowledge. In that case, I withdraw my statement.

It's that second one, since nearly all knowledge is tentatively known. We can absolutely know a few things though such as identity (and its corollaries) and that we ourselves exist (cogito ergo sum) due to the infinite justifications we have for those things; i.e. their justifications are incorrigible. As you've noted, though, our justifications for the rest of our knowledges are finite and at some point assumed (reasonably assumed, we hope).

 

[nrg]

Haha, I've always pronounced those in my mind and thought they're rich "words." Reminds me of the urban legend of how Tolkien declared "cellar door" to be the prettiest phrase in the English language. I think "nand" and "xor," while not pretty, have a fun sound to them.

The professor who holds my Java courses told me a story about his room mate who was going on a Ph.D. in mathematics years ago. He was going to study at the university library, and the librarian told him "You can only book a table or a locker."
"Ok", he replied, "Then I'll take both."
"Uh, no, you can only book a table or a locker."
"I heard you, I want both."
"No, you don't. You can only choose a table OR a locker."
"Then you should say either a table or a locker! Or xor! Even if both inputs for an or operation is true, the output will still be true!"
"... what?"
"I'll take the table, please."

It sounds better in Swedish, but I hope you get the idea.

 

[Meow Mix]

The professor who holds my Java courses told me a story about his room mate who was going on a Ph.D. in mathematics years ago. He was going to study at the university library, and the librarian told him "You can only book a table or a locker."
"Ok", he replied, "Then I'll take both."
"Uh, no, you can only book a table or a locker."
"I heard you, I want both."
"No, you don't. You can only choose a table OR a locker."
"Then you should say either a table or a locker! Or xor! Even if both inputs for an or operations are true, the output will still be true!"
"... what?"
"I'll take the table, please."

It sounds better in Swedish, but I hope you get the idea.

lmao, yes that's awesome. Reminds me of the urban legend about some physicist (was it Feynman?) getting pulled over and confusing the officer with a discussion about his mean velocity... and let's not forget the old joke about Heisenberg and the officer; I can't remember exactly how it goes but I think you can get the gyst of it just from knowing who's involved!

 

[nrg]

It's that second one, since nearly all knowledge is tentatively known. We can absolutely know a few things though such as identity (and its corollaries) and that we ourselves exist (cogito ergo sum) due to the infinite justifications we have for those things; i.e. their justifications are incorrigible. As you've noted, though, our justifications for the rest of our knowledges are finite and at some point assumed (reasonably assumed, we hope).

Well, I've never been given a proper lecture on identity since my epistemology is reduced to logic. In fact, pure philosophy always seems so daunting.

 

[nrg]

lmao, yes that's awesome. Reminds me of the urban legend about some physicist (was it Feynman?) getting pulled over and confusing the officer with a discussion about his mean velocity... and let's not forget the old joke about Heisenberg and the officer; I can't remember exactly how it goes but I think you can get the gyst of it just from knowing who's involved!

Yeah, jokes about Heisenberg are as plentiful as drops of water. One of my class mates is studying physics, and he loves to pull Heisenberg jokes. Like yesterday.
"Dude, I can't believe I can't find my phone! I know it's in here!"
"Maybe you know too much about it's momen ..."
"If you say "you know too much about it's momentum" one more time, I'll punch you!"

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, I've never been given a proper lecture on identity as my epistemology is reduced to logic. In fact, pure philosophy always seems so daunting.

Just spend some time trying to believe in any sense whatsoever that A=(¬A) and you'll note that any attempt to deny identity's truth must assume its very truth -- it's incorrigible, infinitely justified, and thus absolutely known.

 

[nrg]

Just spend some time trying to believe in any sense whatsoever that A=(¬A) and you'll note that any attempt to deny identity's truth must assume its very truth -- it's incorrigible, infinitely justified, and thus absolutely known.

Well, yes, logic becomes inconsistent if somethings identity can be false, true or both depending on "faith". But what's saying logic is consistent and complete?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Ok, so if Roman Catholics don't believe at least one god exists, then they are atheists -- as that's the definition of atheism.

If they don't believe at least one god exists, then they lack belief that any gods exist, which is atheism.

It's not a false dichotomy as I've defined the terms. You just saying "false dichotomy" without supporting your assertion is as baseless as if I just started responding to your statements with "ad hominem."

I'm pretty close to being done with this discussion if you don't start putting forth a little bit more. It's not a lot to ask in my opinion to clarify your position.

My position:

'Do you believe God exists' is not the same question as 'does God exist'. To the first, I answer no. To the second, I answer yes.

This is more a personal difference than anything else. When people say 'I believe in God' they mean something completely different than 'God'. When you say 'God exists' it forces people to ask 'What is God?'. Believing in God does not. If they believe in God, they can believe that means just about anything. If God exists, then God has to be something, rather than anything.

 

[nrg]

If they believe in God, they can believe that means just about anything. If God exists, then God has to be something, rather than anything.

So, just to check if I'm on the right track, in your opinion you don't have to have to have a well defined concept of something you believe in, but it's a must if you know something that it's well defined?

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, yes, logic becomes inconsistent if somethings identity can be false, true or both depending on "faith". But what's saying logic is consistent and complete?

Logic doesn't succumb to either of Godel's theorems because it doesn't set up the paradox. Of course, mathematics are essentially the same as logic and many paradigms therein do give Godel the coup de grace, but for the most part 99% of logic can't possibly trigger GIT, so there's no worries That identity is true and absolutely so is one area of logic that's safe from GIT.