jenn

I also want to be assertive(because I am)and say to Koy that you have totally upset yourself for NOTHING.Why get yourself so upset and cuss and degrade someone becuase you do not agree????You said the word childish so many times, and it is you that was childish. If you go back and read your statements you will see what I am talking about. If you cannot debate without getting angry then smoke a fatty....or really sit back and think before you answer in an outrage.I am not trying to put you on the defensive. I am simply trying to get you to look at yourself. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

braces_for_impact

Forgive me, but for lack of time I have only scanned through this thread here today. Aren't we overcomplicating matters a bit here? Reality is reality. It will still be here when you cease to be a reality. Granted we tend to interpret our own reality based on our own personal collective experiences, but if our actual realities differed, even ever so slightly, wouldn't we have an awful lot of trouble cooperating in any endeavor? We use our common basis in reality as a starting point for communication, and can use that to work together. Without a common framework, all would just fall apart would it not? I mean, imagine a bunch of schizophrenics trying to cooperatively escape from a mental ward? Half probably couldn't agree they were even IN a mental ward! Anyway, philosophy is far from one of my strong points, just tossing my two cents on the table.

WJ

"Sufficient evidence could be a key problem here, because what counts as sufficient in areas like, for example, theoretical physics, or even archaeology, may be the subject of fierce debate. When do facts count conclusively against and for a belief?"

I'd suggest another thread called something like, what does it mean to hold a belief(?). Or, are belief's necessary for any thought process at all?
And, what kinds of belief's exist or are necessary? Are there 'right' and 'wrong' belief's? And what is a justified true belief?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Too bad. I was enjoying the intelligent, coherent discourse (that was sincere, by the way, lest you think my tone with the likes of WJ applied to you).

Interesting distinction and I concur. Unfortunately, it is all too often mistaken for justification by theists.

Ok. At the risk of being pre-emptive, however, aren't you then arguing a "rational basis" for an ultimately irrational construct?

If a belief is held regardless of the evidence either pro or con, wouldn't that constitute an irrational action on behalf of the believer?

I sort of see where you're going with this, but again, the "belief" that a star exploded in the past is, I contend, too trivial to matter in any relevant way to the topic.

Why don't we adjust it accordingly? Can one hold a belief in, say, an ineffable creator-being who "magically" created the universe as a necessary presupposition of existence in order to "know" anything and not have such a belief labeled irrational absent any evidence at all that this is the case?

That's the heart of (at least) WJ's nonsense about "logic" not being able to "explain" the "essence of my reality" existing "oustide the domain of reason," yes?

It's comparatively simple, IMO. Holding a belief such as the one I just outlined is inherently useless to the question of "What is reality?" and as such should be summarily discarded, since there is no compelling or sufficient evidence to even begin to establish the validity of such a preposterous truth claim, yes?

Again, it would be akin to solipsism, which, by the very acceptance of negates all further discussion in any relevant manner.

A quick example should suffice:

Surely you can see that such an answer--like solipsism--instantly and inherently shuts down any further useful discussion, especially if the believer either refuses or cannot provide sufficient evidence for the truth claim of that belief, yes?

It isn't "only" retroactively true; just the scenario you had presented would be "retroactively" true in regard to the (in that case, trivial) lable of self-delusion.

Since at the time of the stated belief there was insufficient (and, I think as part of your scenario, contradictory) evidence to support a truth claim and the believer chose to believe in spite of this, then it could be said that the believer was engaging in self-delusion, but again I caution you (or anyone) not to explode the extreme on that term. It is trivially true that the believer was engaging in a form of self-delusion, especially if (as I recall) there existed contradictory evidence (i.e., evidence that tended to discount the truth claim of the belief).

So, in other words, it is trivially true that denial of contradictory evidence that would tend to discount the truth claim inherent within a particular belief can be said to be a form of self-delusion.

Is that clearer?

Nor does it support it, but, again, I think the scenario you had postited involved contradictory evidence (i.e., evidence that would tend to discount the truth claim).

Self-deluded as a result of the denial (not disproof, but mere denial) of contradictory evidence that tends to discount the truth claim.

Again, please do not put undo hyperbolic weight on this term and/or misapply the context.

Which belief? The belief that a star exploded 80 billion years ago to this day. That is clearly and obviously a trivial belief.

It most certainly does, since whether or not a belief that a particular star exploded 80 billion years ago or not has no bearing on anything relevant.

Expand the belief to be, "I believe a particular star exploded 80 billion years ago and it is this star's explosion that resulted in the meteorite that eventually hit the Earth millioins of years ago causing the extinction of the Dinosaurs" and you've got something.

Clearly, the latter belief carries with it a far more weighty (for lack of a better term; i.e., non-trivial) truth claim, yes?

Then perhaps the distinction you're missing is that the "evidence" for this astronomer's belief that appears subsequently retroactively means that the astronomer was correct all along and his "belief" has now been conclusively and demonstrably transformed into a fact that cannot be discredited, just childishly (i.e., petulantly) denied.

In other words, hooray for the astronomer, but then the particulars of his "belief" (that a particalur star exploded 80 billion years ago "to this day") are of trivial interest to anyone outside of his friends and family.

Are you trying to say that his belief and the belief of Cult Member X--that a mystical fairy god king who magically blinked the universe into existence six thousand years ago--just to pull an example out of my ass, is in any way comparable?

That, comparatively speaking, because the astronomer was demonstrated to be correct and therefore "retroactively justified" in his belief, that Cult Member X is equally "justified" in his belief, simply by some sort of proxy?

I would argue against such an unwarranted and unjustifiable ( ) position, but I would welcome your attempt.

Agreed. They also may not, so this distinction, right now, seems irrelevant.

Yes, certainly. It would be "transformed" (for lack of a better term) into a fact in evidence, shall we say; a demonstrable "truth," yes?

Well, hold on a second, since you didn't fully define this to my recollection. As I recall, he didn't have "sufficient" evidence either, not just that he hadn't received "contradictory" evidence.

Oh, sorry, I was confused again regarding the scenario, but back on track. We're here discussing the scientist who holds a belief (not posits a theory, simply holds a belief according to my definition) that multiple universes exist, right?

As I went into great detail prior, that's a critical distinction.

Are you positing a scientist who merely holds a belief that there are multiple universes (i.e., regardless of the evidence) or are you positing a scientist who is theorizing on the origin of the universe and making his theory contingent upon that acceptance of multiple universes (such as String Theory)?

Again, good question. I would only answer with the obvious; it depends upon the nature of the truth claim inherent in the belief.

For example, the astronomer's truth claim was relatively easy to confirm.

A christian's truth claim that God is revealed, however, is impossible to confirm since there is no way to confirm personal experience.

Thus, just like with John's nonsense, one could only accept for the sake of argument such personal experience or dismiss it.

A theist's truth claim (that the universe is necessarily dependent upon a deity/creator as chronicled in particular ancient mythologies) is likewise impossible to confirm, since there exists no evidence at all, either sufficient or insufficient for such a claim.

Bear in mind, of course, that a work of fiction cannot be considered evidence until such time as it can be demonstrated to be a work of non-fiction, which has never happened, regardless of apologetic confusion over literary style and archeological digs.

As you well know and we have abundantly illustrated here, unsupportable claims establish nothing.

No doubt, but, of course, "in what" would be the delineating question.

Not at all. What is the substance of the truth claim of the belief? That question is all that is required to delineate.

It does and is.

That would certainly be a "cut off" point, I would argue, yes.

As I have repeated several times, whatever format he wishes to choose if fine by me.

I have been awaiting that the whole time.

I asked only that you clarify it and I would ask you for further clarification. A "statement of a belief accords with an observable fact" is still too vague for me. Do you mean, "The observable facts support the truth claim of the belief?"

Clarity in communication is exceedingly important, IMO. Debat and/or discussion is nearly impossible without it, yes.

Noted and accepted, though my interactions with WJ are borne from a very different set of experiences. He has demonstrated (both here and in other fora) a deliberate abuse of language in order to evade ever having to either make a coherent point or take a relevant position since, IMO, he knows that he cannot defend it.

In other words, he relies upon linguistic shrapnel to hide the fact that he has nothing to say.

But at least cogently presented and intellectually stimulating. An extremely welcome relief!

I, too, look forward to your response. I suspect my rather loaded section regarding one of the truth claims of christianity may spark something, yes?

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Comments noted.

John Page

Jenn:

From a cognitive point of view, it seems to me that "we" reside in the conscious part of the mind/brain, and that our immediate environment is the subconscious.

This may look a little speculative for a straight science topic but, if the above is true, then what is the reality we are talking about? Does it comprise only the stuff outside the body? Does it comprise only the stuff outside the mind?

Consider the implications for a scientific method comprising four steps below (cribbed from a basic science course):
Now consider the implications of my initial speculation in this post - what comprises the objective test environment? Does these mean we have to climb into each other's minds to verify the perceptions all the way to the end points?

There is a reality "out there", but what the hell is it? Before you decide what to believe for the sake of argument, take a look at the scientific experiments involving <a href="http://www.hippocrates.com/archive/November1999/11departments/11integrative.html" target="_blank">Nocebos</a>, courtesy of the Hippocrates journal.

Cheers, John

jenn

John,
I think I understand where you are coming from.I am going to ponder on it and get back to you.It is midnight and I am wo out!!

WJ

jenn!

Thanks for your query and I hope that you give the pitfalls of rationalism in the face of reality some consideration. The insoluble problem here, of course, relates to the inability to understand the first cause of the universe. Think of it this way, if you could actually create some thing from no thing (like a universe, or at least an invention of a product, etc.) you would understand the nature of its existent qualities [reality] and what it comprises. At least most of it anyway.

Walrus

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Gee, I'm so glad you have no ulterior motive.

And this means what? That only the "creator" can understand the creation?

Or something even more pointless, like, only the "creator" can understand more fully than anyone else?

So, the carpenter is the only one who can fully understand better than anyone else a chair.

That's your comment. Not your argument. Not your sceintific deconstruction of what is reality.

Just a thinly veiled, unsupportable appeal to deism that serves no purpose other than to say, since you didn't create the universe, you can't understand it as fully as the creator that has never been demonstrated to exist.

The "as fully" part, of course, being the entire semantics hinge of your unsupportable claim; your linguistic shrapnel.

So, that leaves us with what, WJ? Since--according to you--we can't understand the universe as fully as some imaginary creator, then what?

For the sake of argument, I will grant your utterly preposterous claim that a magical fairy god king exists as that creator. So now what?

Since we can't understand the universe as fully as the magical fairy god king creator, we should do what?

Let me put it into even simpler terms. Since I can't understand the Theory of Relativity as fully as Einstein, I should do what? What is your point?

John Page

Walrus:

Did you actually claim this (below), or was it merely a hypothetical belief you put forward for the sake of argument?

Cheers, John