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

[Meow Mix]

What?!?! Blasphemy!

The implications of Incompleteness go far beyond mere logic. What happens if you meet some guy and all your logic processors say he's A-OK; yet dogs growl and children shy away? No system is complete unto itself without imposing rigid axoimatic definition - as you stated earlier - but what are the axioms of mankind?

Book asks, "what is faith without works?" Obviously, the book knows about Incompleteness. And what is this "most part of 99%" stuff? 99.2%? 99.8%?

You're... not talking about incompleteness as is understood in GIT. This is a complete non sequitor.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Many times words are interconnected... changing one changes many, so it's not something that should be done lightly. Usually these systems of words are exhaustive, and changing a word removes the exhaustiveness of the system.

I do not change definitions of words lightly. I had just as much trouble accepting them as you seem to be.

This is one such example: changing "belief" changes knowledge, theism, atheism, and a great deal of other things. It seems pointless to me and destroys the ability to communicate without first laying down a whole slew of pertinant definitions. If that's what you want to do, then fine; but your definitions that you attempted to give were still so vague and inexhaustive that they didn't impart any meaning to me.

You are not letting them impart any meaning. It's a difficult thing to do, when you've accepted something, to unaccept it, then accept something else. But when you do, you'll find that it's not as contrary to your original ideas as you thought.

Normally I don't have a problem with playing the semantics game but when it comes to terms as basic and required for a philosophical discussion as the words "belief" and "knowledge" it just becomes silly and I don't want to spend time on such things. So, again, I'm done with this conversation in particular and I'll see you around in other discussions; hopefully ones in which we're both being clear with our language.

Well, I don't think that can really happen. Look on the bright side. If we're both not being clear, we'll both learn something. Of course we have to allow that to happen first.

 

[Meow Mix]

For S&G's, why don't you define your terms succinctly for us then?

Please define:

1) Belief

2) Knowledge

3) Theism

4) Atheism

5) Justification

6) Finally, explain how Roman Catholicism is different from, say, Protestantism... in terms of whether or not either is "theism"

 

[nrg]

What?!?! Blasphemy!

The implications of Incompleteness go far beyond mere logic.

That's because induction will always be finite. Gödel's incompleteness theorem only deals with deductive systems, because it's no secret that induction is imperfect.

 

[ellenjanuary]

You're... not talking about incompleteness as is understood in GIT. This is a complete non sequitor.

See what I mean by rigid?

 

[ellenjanuary]

That's because induction will always be finite. Gödel's incompleteness theorem only deals with deductive systems, because it's no secret that induction is imperfect.

Of course. I tend to take mathematical concepts far beyond the realm of mathematics. I'm weird like that.

 

[Meow Mix]

See what I mean by rigid?

lol, but it was a non sequitor. The "incompleteness" GIT refers to is a specific, mathematical type of incompleteness -- what you did was equivocate the term to something completely unrelated.

 

[ellenjanuary]

lol, but it was a non sequitor. The "incompleteness" GIT refers to is a specific, mathematical type of incompleteness -- what you did was equivocate the term to something completely unrelated.

It may not be unrelated if we're nothing more than organic computers. Isn't that all we are, in the atheistic sense?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

For S&G's, why don't you define your terms succinctly for us then?

Please define:

1) Belief:
Something that you have either not confirmed for yourself, or just take at face value because it fits with what you think it should be. When faced with extremes, this falls through completely.

2) Knowledge
A belief that you have taken through your own system of analysis (whatever that may be) and have modified it accordingly. This is linked directly to perception, and contains the flaws of it.

3) Theism
Meaningless term. States that a person has the belief above, which in and of itself is useless.

4) Atheism
Another meaningless term. States that a person has the opposite belief as theism.

5) Justification
Things that are used to create knowledge. They can be external or internal, but internal are far more powerful in terms of knowledge.

6) Finally, explain how Roman Catholicism is different from, say, Protestantism... in terms of whether or not either is "theism"
Are they? Can you decide based on the definitions I've given?

 

[PolyHedral]

It may not be unrelated if we're nothing more than organic computers. Isn't that all we are, in the atheistic sense?

Having studied comp. sci extensively, It is unrelated.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Having studied comp. sci extensively, It is unrelated.

You're just siding with MM because she's cute.

Kidding. Neural networks as well? Parallel processing, all that good stuff; or just applied? I've been following along while you and Atanu go at it on the other thread. Interesting. It is good to get rebuttal on my expasion of Incompleteness - if it's just me and my insanity; it doesn't need to be part of MT.

 

[Meow Mix]

1) Belief:
Something that you have either not confirmed for yourself, or just take at face value because it fits with what you think it should be. When faced with extremes, this falls through completely.

This confuses me. What is an extreme, and why does a belief "fall through" if there's an extreme? What does it mean to "fall through?" What do you mean by "take at face value," is that the same thing to "regard as true?" Are you saying that a belief is something which you regard as true specifically only because it fits what you think it should be?

This is very, very confusing to me, I'm still really not sure at all what a "belief" is in your estimation. Can you re-define it a little more clearly?

2) Knowledge
A belief that you have taken through your own system of analysis (whatever that may be) and have modified it accordingly. This is linked directly to perception, and contains the flaws of it.

So can something be "knowledge" as long as it's gone through ANY sort of system? For instance if I believe that things have gremlins in them if they are blue, and my system is I look at objects to see if they're blue and I thus observe a blue backpack, I have "knowledge" that there are gremlins in it? Would that count as "knowledge" in your definition...?

3) Theism
Meaningless term. States that a person has the belief above, which in and of itself is useless.

4) Atheism
Another meaningless term. States that a person has the opposite belief as theism.

I'm still confused as to what you mean by "belief" and pretty sure I still don't know what you mean by "knowledge" either, so I can't really tackle this one yet.

5) Justification
Things that are used to create knowledge. They can be external or internal, but internal are far more powerful in terms of knowledge.

Can you give examples of what you consider to be internal justifications and some examples of external justifications in your semantic system?

6) Finally, explain how Roman Catholicism is different from, say, Protestantism... in terms of whether or not either is "theism"
Are they? Can you decide based on the definitions I've given?

No, I still don't understand pretty much at all what you mean by your terms so I can't make any sort of statement at all about it yet... am very, very confused on what your terms mean. Please clarify.

 

[Meow Mix]

...she's cute.

Kidding. ...

Watch it mister. You better have been kidding about the OTHER thing!

 

[strikeviperMKII]

This confuses me. What is an extreme, and why does a belief "fall through" if there's an extreme? What does it mean to "fall through?" What do you mean by "take at face value," is that the same thing to "regard as true?" Are you saying that a belief is something which you regard as true specifically only because it fits what you think it should be?

This is very, very confusing to me, I'm still really not sure at all what a "belief" is in your estimation. Can you re-define it a little more clearly?

Taking at face value is not of your own regard. It is the same thing as looking at a math problem and saying the answer is right because it uses math. Beliefs are blind assertions, and when held up to scrutiny, they 'fall through'.
When this happens, I have found there are two options a person takes. One, they try to rationalize the error as some form of special pleading. Or two, they accept their belief as such and find out what they were really adamant about.

So can something be "knowledge" as long as it's gone through ANY sort of system? For instance if I believe that things have gremlins in them if they are blue, and my system is I look at objects to see if they're blue and I thus observe a blue backpack, I have "knowledge" that there are gremlins in it? Would that count as "knowledge" in your definition...?

You forget that your system is also contained within belief and knowledge as well. As you have described it, you system is a belief, not knowledge. In order to change that, you'll have to actually look into the backpack.

I'm still confused as to what you mean by "belief" and pretty sure I still don't know what you mean by "knowledge" either, so I can't really tackle this one yet.

Hmm...

Can you give examples of what you consider to be internal justifications and some examples of external justifications in your semantic system?

Internal and External in terms of self. If it comes from you it is internal. If it comes from someone else it is external.
Internal justifiers are the basis for beliefs and knowledge. External justifiers can influence internal justifiers, but are not the basis for beliefs and knowledge. I would even go so far as to say they cannot be the basis for beliefs and knowledge.

No, I still don't understand pretty much at all what you mean by your terms so I can't make any sort of statement at all about it yet... am very, very confused on what your terms mean. Please clarify.

I tried...but I don't think it'll be enough.

 

[Meow Mix]

Taking at face value is not of your own regard. It is the same thing as looking at a math problem and saying the answer is right because it uses math. Beliefs are blind assertions, and when held up to scrutiny, they 'fall through'.
When this happens, I have found there are two options a person takes. One, they try to rationalize the error as some form of special pleading. Or two, they accept their belief as such and find out what they were really adamant about.

Ok, I might have some more understanding. In your semantics -- if you'll allow me to use mine for a second to compare -- are you saying that "belief" (in your semantics) always means "blind belief" in my semantics? In other words, a belief is only a belief if it's regarded as true blindly without consideration of any justification; and that it "falls through" if investigated with skeptical scrutiny?

A belief in your semantics is held basically on a dart toss/coin flip? Like blind faith? If something is regarded as true with evidence/justification it is not a belief? (If so, what do you call something that is regarded as true with evidence but isn't "known" (in my semantics), i.e. it's believed with evidence but there's still a possibility of being wrong... such as many scientific discoveries?)

You forget that your system is also contained within belief and knowledge as well. As you have described it, you system is a belief, not knowledge. In order to change that, you'll have to actually look into the backpack.

But we're talking about your system -- you said that knowledge uses a system of analysis but also said "whatever that may be." I interpreted this to mean that ANY system will validly cause knowledge. In my semantics, there are only certain valid systems which lead to knowledge (for instance, dart tossing is not a valid system that can lead us to knowledge). If you agree that only some systems can give us knowledge, then how is your definition different from mine?

Internal and External in terms of self. If it comes from you it is internal. If it comes from someone else it is external.
Internal justifiers are the basis for beliefs and knowledge. External justifiers can influence internal justifiers, but are not the basis for beliefs and knowledge. I would even go so far as to say they cannot be the basis for beliefs and knowledge.

Ok. In my semantics an "internal" justifier is what's called a priori, something which I don't have to use sensory evidence to confirm or deny; whereas an "external" justifier is one that I do have to look at the world around me to confirm or deny (a posteriori). In your semantics are you saying that there is no distinction between a priori and a posteriori, that the only difference between "internal" and "external" is whether you originated an idea or whether you heard an idea from someone else?

What happens when someone else has a better justifier for something than you do? You stated that "internal justifiers" (i.e., justifiers you have developed) seem to have preference simply because they came from you, but what if someone has more experience: for instance, what if you have a theory on dental cleanliness but a dentist has an alternative, more informed theory? Does the "internal justifier" still have preference?

In my semantics the origin of the justification doesn't matter, but it's important to distinguish from an internal (a priori) justification and an external (a posteriori) justification. If I'm understanding your position correctly, it seems more useful to me to distinguish a priori/a posteriori as opposed to "my idea"/"your idea." In my opinion whose idea it is says nothing about the force of an idea's truth.

 

[Willamena]

If someone says "Roman Catholics aren't theists," then obviously they're using some sort of term way differently than they're normally used. Of course semantics are arbitrary, but arbitrarily making a position obtuse that doesn't need to be is just sort of silly in my book. There's a reason languages have common definitions: so we don't run around saying that the toves are slithey to one another. Might as well bang our heads into walls than discuss anything if using bizarre definitions for commonly understood terms becomes the norm.

Semantics isn't arbitrary. Definitions are, by their very nature. Arbitrariness does not make a thing obtuse and doesn't disqualify it from being commonly agreed upon, as is demonstrated by our use of definitions every moment of everyday --in fact, its arbitrariness is what makes it necessary to agree commonly upon definitions. Semantics is only possible because definitions are arbitrary.

But nevermind.

 

[Eliot Wild]

There's a reason languages have common definitions: so we don't run around saying that the toves are slithey to one another.

But the toves are slithey. Hell, everybody knows that. The toves are slithey and the krups are wabbled. And if you don't believe me, then just take a look at the slubberdoggers. They haven't been so far out of whack since the slummers pitted in the harmins. And I should know, I sluved the asports with a slungbarber before those silly ashamenites even slinked the zuppers.

 

[Meow Mix]

But the toves are slithey. Hell, everybody knows that. The toves are slithey and the krups are wabbled. And if you don't believe me, then just take a look at the slubberdoggers. They haven't been so far out of whack since the slummers pitted in the harmins. And I should know, I sluved the asports with a slungbarber before those silly ashamenites even slinked the zuppers.

Oh yeah... talk to me dirty with that Colbert avatar. I may yet go straight...

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Ok, I might have some more understanding. In your semantics -- if you'll allow me to use mine for a second to compare -- are you saying that "belief" (in your semantics) always means "blind belief" in my semantics? In other words, a belief is only a belief if it's regarded as true blindly without consideration of any justification; and that it "falls through" if investigated with skeptical scrutiny?

A belief in your semantics is held basically on a dart toss/coin flip? Like blind faith? If something is regarded as true with evidence/justification it is not a belief? (If so, what do you call something that is regarded as true with evidence but isn't "known" (in my semantics), i.e. it's believed with evidence but there's still a possibility of being wrong... such as many scientific discoveries?)

I would say that 'belief' means that a person thinks something is true because it looks like it should be true. To tie this into justification, belief is something stated with few internal justifiers, and many external justifiers. Knowledge has many internal justifiers and few external justifiers. While both based on internal justifiers, knowledge is more solid than belief.

But we're talking about your system -- you said that knowledge uses a system of analysis but also said "whatever that may be." I interpreted this to mean that ANY system will validly cause knowledge. In my semantics, there are only certain valid systems which lead to knowledge (for instance, dart tossing is not a valid system that can lead us to knowledge). If you agree that only some systems can give us knowledge, then how is your definition different from mine?

The difference, I think, is that my semantics allows for any system to be included. Yours does not. Mine also treats said systems as perceptions, with all the flaws that go with.

Ok. In my semantics an "internal" justifier is what's called a priori, something which I don't have to use sensory evidence to confirm or deny; whereas an "external" justifier is one that I do have to look at the world around me to confirm or deny (a posteriori). In your semantics are you saying that there is no distinction between a priori and a posteriori, that the only difference between "internal" and "external" is whether you originated an idea or whether you heard an idea from someone else?

Originated isn't the word I would use. An internal justifier can be someone esle's idea, just one that you agree with.

What happens when someone else has a better justifier for something than you do? You stated that "internal justifiers" (i.e., justifiers you have developed) seem to have preference simply because they came from you, but what if someone has more experience: for instance, what if you have a theory on dental cleanliness but a dentist has an alternative, more informed theory? Does the "internal justifier" still have preference?

Yes it does. Until someone changes their internal justifier to either accept the external on of an 'informed theory' or adds a new one pertaining to 'informed theories', then their opinion will not change.

In my semantics the origin of the justification doesn't matter, but it's important to distinguish from an internal (a priori) justification and an external (a posteriori) justification. If I'm understanding your position correctly, it seems more useful to me to distinguish a priori/a posteriori as opposed to "my idea"/"your idea." In my opinion whose idea it is says nothing about the force of an idea's truth.

I am not talking about an idea's truth. I'm talking about an idea's strength. Internal justifiers win. Always.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Oh yeah... talk to me dirty with that Colbert avatar. I may yet go straight...

LOL . . . My slubberdogger is fully slivened, if you know what I mean, gorgeous. Wait, wait, no, that's my sluvvenbagger that's slivened. I can't even find my damn slubberdogger. I hate it when that happens.