Tossing Myself into the Fire - Page 4

**Wyzcrak** · 04-21-2006, 12:48 PM

I suppose you could say that the nature of facts goes to arrogance.

Apophis is "amused by" (read: "not satisfied with") the arrogance Buck assumes in claiming that as fact?

Another could say that it's arrogant of Apophis and me to claim as fact our belief that the clouds are in the sky. But our belief is more commonly accepted than Buck's, and is therefore less arrogant, and so we get a free pass?

Does that make sense?

**DigitalAssassin** · 04-21-2006, 12:54 PM

I agree Wyz. For someone to state they know something 'for a fact' when that really isn't possible is my problem. I know I can't prove (to their satisfaction) to doubters either, but I didn't make the statement the original poster did.

It's all about faith and your belief system...

Diceman · 04-21-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

I suppose you could say that the nature of facts goes to arrogance.

Apophis is "amused by" (read: "not satisfied with") the arrogance Buck assumes in claiming that as fact?

Another could say that it's arrogant of Apophis and me to claim as fact our belief that the clouds are in the sky. But our belief is more commonly accepted than Buck's, and is therefore less arrogant, and so we get a free pass?

Does that make sense?

That's an interesting idea, because I see it creating a social tie-in to the concept of knowledge. Ultimately, I'd be somewhat shy about adhering too closely to that concept. After all, I've met some unbelievably arrogant folk with few intelligent things to say (and I don't think I'm saying this just because I think they're arrogant). I also met a few very humble professors and whatnot in some of my university classes, studying ideas at the cutting edge of computing (arguably, those ideas with the least common acceptance).

I guess what I'm saying is that I haven't noticed a correlation between the two concepts of knowing and of arrogance. But that doesn't mean I'm correct. After all, superficially, there is strong resistance to ideas that fly in the face of established thought, sometimes by the idea-person themselves. Copernicus, as I recall, wrote that his idea of of a heliocentric solar system was likely not true, but merely a handy way of calculating what the various heavenly bodies were going to do. We can perhaps take from this that one must have quite the gall to sit there and pontificate about something which is obviously false.

But maybe they speak their contrarian ideas not out of arrogance, but out of conviction. Is there a difference? I think so... It doesn't mean that people won't call them arrogant, but calling someone a name doesn't make it so.

**Apophis** · 04-21-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Another could say that it's arrogant of Apophis and me to claim as fact our belief that the clouds are in the sky. But our belief is more commonly accepted than Buck's, and is therefore less arrogant, and so we get a free pass?

Does that make sense?

That is a very interesting question.

Can a fact only be a fact if EVERYONE has the same belief surrounding it? Is it no longer a fact that the Earth is round because some individuals still believe it to be flat? Is it less arrogant for me to state as a fact that the Earth is round because more people have that belief than those that believe the Earth is flat?

Hmmm...

**Apophis** · 04-21-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalAssassin

I agree Wyz. For someone to state they know something 'for a fact' when that really isn't possible is my problem. I know I can't prove (to their satisfaction) to doubters either, but I didn't make the statement the original poster did.

It's all about faith and your belief system...

You've got me really thinking now on the possibility for a "fact" to exist. I'm looking around trying to find anything that I could present as a fact, but based on some input from this thread I'm not longer sure I can do that without still requiring someone believe in the concept.

**leejo** · 04-21-2006, 01:17 PM

Mathematics! 2+2=4 is a fact. It is a fact that in euclidian geometry parallel lines don't meet.

**Pokerface** · 04-21-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Jay Gould

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

To believe in facts -- things that are true regardless of perception -- you need to believe in a God-figure. To say that the earth would be round regardless of human perception still implies perception; this perception needs to come from someplace.

Now, this God-figure need not be a religious entity; I mean it more in the sense of that certain something which is outside of our present experience, untenable, yet for whatever reason reliable. This can be God, certainly, but it also covers very temporal concepts like memory ("I know for a fact Germany exists because I've been there") and the experiences of others ("I know for a fact Wyzcrak owns cats, because he told me they did, and I trust him").

And tying into my opening quote, these perceptions can be confirmed over and over again to the point where the fact that we can't DISPROVE something morphs into factual proof for it.

Diceman · 04-21-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. C. George Boeree

One of the criticisms that empiricists would put forth is that “one plus one is two” is trivial. It is tautological, meaning it is true, sure, but not because it is self-evident: It is true because we made it that way. One plus one is the definition of two, and so with the rest of mathematics. We created math in such a way that it works consistently for us!

From Epistemlogy.

xTYBALTx · 04-21-2006, 01:35 PM

In the words of Milton Friedman, economist:

"You can never know anything for certain, but you can be pretty damn sure."

**Wyzcrak** · 04-21-2006, 01:36 PM

I work for a very staunch, intelligent, and tolerant Christian. We've had discussions before about belief systems. One of the most respectable things we've ever agreed on is that the attributes of science and religion which seem to contradict one another and which we both defend despite neither of us, individually or together, being able to really prove (evolution/creation, for example) suggest that science and "religion" are merely two different belief systems -- not identical, but both belief systems nevertheless.

Poker says we must have "that certain something which is outside of our present experience, untenable, yet for whatever reason reliable" which tells us what is "fact."

The arrogance Buck assumes is his self-designation as that "something," as we have nothing else which tells us that what he's proposing is "true regardless of perception."

There are two threats there. One is communal, and one is personal.

communal) conversation over
personal) you're wrong

Is that valid?

Diceman · 04-21-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

I work for a very staunch, intelligent, and tolerant Christian. We've had discussions before about belief systems. One of the most respectable things we've ever agreed on is that the attributes of science and religion which seem to contradict one another and which we both defend despite neither of us, individually or together, being able to really prove (evolution/creation, for example) suggest that science and "religion" are merely two different belief systems -- not identical, but both belief systems nevertheless.

Poker says we must have "that certain something which is outside of our present experience, untenable, yet for whatever reason reliable" which tells us what is "fact."

The arrogance Buck assumes is his self-designation as that "something," as we have nothing else which tells us that what he's proposing is "true regardless of perception."

This is exactly the way I see the relationship between science and religion as well. The foundation for faith in religion always comes down to God. People love to argue about the existence of God, likely because the foundations of science are so much more mundane. But, mundane or not, they are no more solid footing than a claim that God absolutely exists, or alternatively fails to exist.

The suppositions of science seem to come down a one thing, but it can be further boiled down to something more basic. As I see it, the faith motivating science is empiricism - the belief that what we perceive about the world is actually what happens in the world; that our senses don't fool us, and the world is empiricably knowable. More basic than that is the idea of causality - that effects have causes. Really, we have no argument in principle for this idea, just a strong belief in this claim because everything we have ever considered has had a cause (the only room for discussion on this one is, if the big bang happened, what caused it? Some say something came from nothing, others say that there was some extra-universal cause. We don't know.) Lastly, we believe in logic and reason. This is the trickiest one to affirm; after all, how do we know that logic is true? We can't use logic to deduce its own existence, that would be one of the more basic fallacies. But without logic, we have only intuition and/or faith (incidentally, this argument also handily defeats mathematics from any claim of necessary truth, beyond the definitional one presented above).

Now, at the same time, I think we are starting to see unifying themes between the two concepts of religion and science. After all, religious people are not illogical people. When seeking reasons for why something is, they simply provide a different answer than the scientist. The claim has been made (not in this thread) that postulating God as an explanation is illogical, but that is nothing more than name calling. In reality, the priest and the physicist simply have competing hypotheses, but both are motivated by an unquestioned need to explain reality via logic.

As a closing thought, this post indirectly relates to a post made by leejo in another thread, postulating that people are foudational illogical. I recognize (what I hold to be) certain truths in that claim, but simultaneously think that my reasoning above shows that people are foundationally logical. Perhaps the truth is something harder to understand - that we are foundationally logical and illogical at the same time. Superpostion is possible in Quantum Mechanics, why not with the self?

**CingularDuality** · 04-21-2006, 02:10 PM

Wow, Buck started a better thread than I imagined it would be...

**TheFeniX** · 04-21-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rincewind

Much of the Koran was dictated to Mohammads followers by Mohammed. It's has a very, very different authorial history than the Bible. The two don't even compare in that sense.

And how exactly is the bible so different? If I'm not mistaken, the bible was written by many different hands (under the direction of God), passed through many hands over the years, and was even translated from Latin to English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

Doesn't the word "believe" work well here?

It's semantics. The belief that Jesus rose from his grave is a completely irrational concept that has no evidence that it happened other than speculation from people back during a superstitious time. It's purely based on an irrational belief (which I've stated in the past is not a bad thing in of itself).

The "belief" (but I wouldn't even call it that) that Jesus did not in fact rise from his grave has a logical basis (people just do not arise from their graves). If you look at the situation from a rational stand-point, then you're forced to go with the more logical conclusion: Jesus didn't rise from his grave.

Quote:

I believe that Jesus rose from his grave.
I do not beleive that Jesus rose from his grave.

I could say I don't believe in the Boogey Man. It doesn't mean there's a solid chance he could exist. It's semantics.

Quote:

We WOULD be splitting hairs *IF* your above scenario was the case. Once again. You're building a different argument in order to make a statement not directly associated with the original posters claims at having "facts" regarding Jesus rising from the grave.

He didn't say he had facts. He just used a common phrase when speaking about something.

**TheFeniX** · 04-21-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

One of the most respectable things we've ever agreed on is that the attributes of science and religion which seem to contradict one another and which we both defend despite neither of us, individually or together, being able to really prove (evolution/creation, for example) suggest that science and "religion" are merely two different belief systems -- not identical, but both belief systems nevertheless.

This is where it all breaks down. People say you have to "believe" in evolution which is a valid scietific theory (if it wasn't, other scientists not religious figures would have torn it apart by now).

So, evolution and the big bang (among some others) are different from say:
Newtonian physics
the pythagorean theorem
the accepted theory the the earth orbits the sun
or pretty much any other generally accepted theory.

Here's my take: People don't harp on gravity or the fact that the earth revolves the sun (at least not now) because the effects tend to be right in front of your face (you jump up, you come back down; you plug in the numbers, you get the hypotenuse of a triangle) and they don't spit in the face of your (I use this term in a general sense, not pointing at anyone) religion (at least not now).

The issues with Evolution and other theories is that you can't observe them directly. No one here has the ability to grab a microwave radar dish and scoure the galaxy for all the background microwave radiation which is really light that has been travelling for so long, it's red shifted into microwave energy, or do the hours upon hours of reading that understanding evolution entails.

So, its easy to claim a Golden Mean and say that Evolution is just like ID because you have to believe in them both. The problem stems from the issue that one involves a variable that make the equation impossible to solve. The other just keeps going about it's own business, getting stronger. Futher, one is based on a completely irrational belief system, and the other is grounded in observation and logic.

**DigitalAssassin** · 04-21-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

(people just do not arise from their graves).

You are exactly right. However, Jesus Christ was not just a person, but the Son of God. I will not even begin to propose my feeble human mind can understand what actually happened, all that matters is I choose to believe it did. That one choice directs how I live the rest of my life.

04-21-2006, 12:48 PM	#46 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire I suppose you could say that the nature of facts goes to arrogance. Apophis is "amused by" (read: "not satisfied with") the arrogance Buck assumes in claiming that as fact? Another could say that it's arrogant of Apophis and me to claim as fact our belief that the clouds are in the sky. But our belief is more commonly accepted than Buck's, and is therefore less arrogant, and so we get a free pass? Does that make sense? __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

04-21-2006, 12:54 PM	#47 (permalink)
DigitalAssassin Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Kansas City Age: 35 Posts: 1,595	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire I agree Wyz. For someone to state they know something 'for a fact' when that really isn't possible is my problem. I know I can't prove (to their satisfaction) to doubters either, but I didn't make the statement the original poster did. It's all about faith and your belief system... __________________

04-21-2006, 01:17 PM	#51 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire Mathematics! 2+2=4 is a fact. It is a fact that in euclidian geometry parallel lines don't meet.

04-21-2006, 01:35 PM	#54 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,919	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire In the words of Milton Friedman, economist: "You can never know anything for certain, but you can be pretty damn sure." __________________ A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

04-21-2006, 01:36 PM	#55 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire I work for a very staunch, intelligent, and tolerant Christian. We've had discussions before about belief systems. One of the most respectable things we've ever agreed on is that the attributes of science and religion which seem to contradict one another and which we both defend despite neither of us, individually or together, being able to really prove (evolution/creation, for example) suggest that science and "religion" are merely two different belief systems -- not identical, but both belief systems nevertheless. Poker says we must have "that certain something which is outside of our present experience, untenable, yet for whatever reason reliable" which tells us what is "fact." The arrogance Buck assumes is his self-designation as that "something," as we have nothing else which tells us that what he's proposing is "true regardless of perception." There are two threats there. One is communal, and one is personal. communal) conversation over personal) you're wrong Is that valid? __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

04-21-2006, 02:10 PM	#57 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 17,137	Re: Tossing Myself into the Fire Wow, Buck started a better thread than I imagined it would be... __________________ Become a supporting member! Buy a Tactical Duck! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links