Who is the one who must "prove"

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is the answers to the question "How do you know that?" All the rest is fluff

How do you explain what knowledge is and what it requires?

 

[ChristineM]

How do you explain what knowledge is and what it requires?

I dont have to, i provided the means of how it is known that water is so abundant in the universe

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I dont have to, i provided the means of how it is known that water is so abundant in the universe

So you know something without wanting to explain what knowledge is, how it works and what it requires. Okay.

 

[ChristineM]

So you know something without wanting to explain what knowledge is, how it works and what it requires. Okay.

As a teacher did you ever teach the intricacies of knowledge and how it works to your students?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As a teacher did you ever teach the intricacies of knowledge and how it works to your students?

Well, if you are asking me, what knowledge is, I don't have to be a teacher to know that.

So here is what knowledge is. It requires 3 parts. Someone who knows, what it is known and the explanation of how it is known.
The problem is that you can't know something, when you are not there. So for objective as having reality independent of the mind, that is a religious/philosophical belief, because to know something requires a mind to have experience and thus a mind. So it is unknown what reality independent of the mind is, because knowledge requires a mind to experience something and thus know.
We are playing philosophy and scientific realism, but that it is not the only game in town. There is also scientific antirealism in regards to metaphysics and epistemology.
So you believe something you can't prove, because you can't know what reality is independent of you, because if it is independent of your mind, you can't know.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, if you are asking me, what knowledge is, I don't have to be a teacher to know that.

So here is what knowledge is. It requires 3 parts. Someone who knows, what it is known and the explanation of how it is known.
The problem is that you can't know something, when you are not there. So for objective as having reality independent of the mind, that is a religious/philosophical belief, because to know something requires a mind to have experience and thus a mind. So it is unknown what reality independent of the mind is, because knowledge requires a mind to experience something and thus know.
We are playing philosophy and scientific realism, but that it is not the only game in town. There is also scientific antirealism in regards to metaphysics and epistemology.
So you believe something you can't prove, because you can't know what reality is independent of you, because if it is independent of your mind, you can't know.

So why are you asking me? You apply your own take on what knowledge is

Here is the short answer, whether you accept it or not is not my problem

Knowledge ; facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

I gave the answer that matches that definition, seems you didnt like it so moved the goalposts

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So why are you asking me? You apply your own take on what knowledge is

Here is the short answer, whether you accept it or not is not my problem

Knowledge ; facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

I gave the answer that matches that definition, seems you didnt like it so moved the goalposts

So can you know something you have no experience of?

 

[ChristineM]

So can you know something you have no experience of?

The definition is clear.

But your question is irrelevant. It is covered by education.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The definition is clear.
...

So you can't know something which is independent of the mind and experience as knowledge requires a mind and experience. So when you say something about the world it, is not independent of you and have no reality independent of the mind. Thus you can't claim to know what the world is, if you are not around. I.e. there is no observer independent knowledge of the world. So e.g. water is what it is to you and you don't know what water is in itself.

Glad we agree.

 

[ChristineM]

So you can't know something which is independent of the mind and experience as knowledge requires a mind and experience. So when you say something about the world it, is not independent of you and have no reality independent of the mind. Thus you can't claim to know what the world is, if you are not around. I.e. there is no observer independent knowledge of the world. So e.g. water is what it is to you and you don't know what water is in itself.

Glad we agree.

What? Spectroscopic analyst is accurate and CAN be observed

Please dont brand me with your woo

Glad you agree

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What? Spectroscopic analyst is accurate and CAN be observed

Glad you agree

Yeah and that is not independent of the mind and experience. You confirmed what I already knew. Knowledge requires a mind and you can't say what the world is independent of you, because you can't know that.

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah and that is not independent of the mind and experience. You confirmed what I already knew. Knowledge requires a mind and you can't say what the world is independent of you, because you can't know that.

Even without a mind to observe the data the data would still be there.

Who says the world us anything but a percentage of water, thats your straw man

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So far they have not given one that clearly show God do not exist

No one can provide evidence that god definitively does not exist. For the same reason we can't provide evidence that unicorns definitively don't exist. You can't come up with such "evidence" at all if the thing genuinely doesn't exist.

What if I told you that there existed something called "The Vienas Ragas Dimension" and that, within it, there are as many unicorns as there are stars in our dimension? If you didn't believe me, then what if I told you to provide me evidence that such a dimension doesn't exist? Could you do it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Even without a mind to observe the data the data would still be there.

Who says the world us anything but a percentage of water, thats your straw man

What is data?

 

[ChristineM]

What is data?

In this case its the output from the spectrocope

 

[Spirit of Light]

No one can provide evidence that god definitively does not exist. For the same reason we can't provide evidence that unicorns definitively don't exist. You can't come up with such "evidence" at all if the thing genuinely doesn't exist.

What if I told you that there existed something called "The Vienas Ragas Dimension" and that, within it, there are as many unicorns as there are stars in our dimension? If you didn't believe me, then what if I told you to provide me evidence that such a dimension doesn't exist? Could you do it?

My answer would be : No i can not give you evidence for or against a dimension full of unicorns, that does not mean it can not exist somewhere. It means i can not see it my self. If i had personally been to a dimension full of unicorns i would still not be able to bring back physical evidence, only my personally experience and my understanding of what i saw. But that would not be taken as scientific proof or disproof

 

[MonkeyFire]

Amanaki is wise. Imo, there is no such thing as a burden of proof because believers dont require or even rely on proof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In this case its the output from the spectrocope

Yes, still requires experience and a mind to know in the end.

This started with you, after me asking, claiming that you can in effect know something you can't know. You still take for granted that you know in effect what the world is independent of you. There is no observer independent knowledge, because knowledge requires an observer for it to be knowledge. It follows from how knowledge works. You admit that it requires observation and experience, so just accept that and don't clam that you know what the world is independent of the mind, experience and observation.

Here is 2 versions of objective:
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

See how they both require humans. Now this one is philosophy and require you believe in it: Having reality independent of the mind. Because there is no ability to perceive or sensible experience independent of the mind.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, still requires experience and a mind to know in the end.

This started with you, after me asking, claiming that you can in effect know something you can't know. You still take for granted that you know in effect what the world is independent of you. There is no observer independent knowledge, because knowledge requires an observer for it to be knowledge. It follows from how knowledge works. You admit that it requires observation and experience, so just accept that and don't clam that you know what the world is independent of the mind, experience and observation.

Here is 2 versions of objective:
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

See how they both require humans. Now this one is philosophy and require you believe in it: Having reality independent of the mind. Because there is no ability to perceive or sensible experience independent of the mind.

This started with you asking a question, not liking the answer and then introducing barriers.


Wrong, objective is not influenced by personal feelings, perception is personal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This started with you asking a question, not liking the answer and then introducing barriers.


Wrong, objective is not influenced by personal feelings, perception is personal.

Well, show me something that doesn't involve you and I will accept that it, but here is the relevant definition of objective you left out:
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
So please do that without sensible experience.