First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/3/10
Honestly. I just don't give a !#$#!

Believe, don't believe. just leave me in peace. And frankly Dark Phoenix you're starting to appear less and less peaceful so if you are the exemplar of the logic my own stance fails to achieve. I'm a happy failure.

Have a nice day.
16179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 8/3/10 , edited 8/3/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


Yet one cannot, with logical meaning, "purport to posit a fact" that is the accepted norm when such a fact by its very natural is already held as accepted truth. Keep in mind that the statement "The universe is not causal" is also a "purport to posit a fact". Suppose you were faced with the decision to make a choice between these two stances, which would you pick? If you choose instead to say "I do not have enough information to make a meaningful answer" then are you not simply defaulting to agnosticism?

I see a lot of "mere"s and "nothing more than"s in this thread. So I have hereby learned that Agnosticism and Epistemological Nihilism/Inductive Reasoning are very similar, with few but defining differences in their ideologies. So I ask this, what exactly is illogical about these systems of beliefs?

Edit: And do the few differences between agnosticism and the other similar systems relieve agnosticism from being similarly illogical?
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/3/10

excalion wrote:
Yet one cannot, with logical meaning, "purport to posit a fact" that is the accepted norm when such a fact by its very natural is already held as accepted truth. Keep in mind that the statement "The universe is not causal" is also a "purport to posit a fact". Suppose you were faced with the decision to make a choice between these two stances, which would you pick? If you choose instead to say "I do not have enough information to make a meaningful answer" then are you not simply defaulting to agnosticism?

I see a lot of "mere"s and "nothing more than"s in this thread. So I have hereby learned that Agnosticism and Epistemological Nihilism/Inductive Reasoning are very similar, with few but defining differences in their ideologies. So I ask this, what exactly is illogical about these systems of beliefs?

Edit: And do the few differences between agnosticism and the other similar systems relieve agnosticism from being similarly illogical?


I have no default position. I have not been induced to hold anything as true, so I simply don't believe. I don't refer to standards of proof, or degrees of information, merely to my own lack of beliefs in this regard. Agnosticism would focus on my inability to know.

As I have stated before, I have not, entirely, made up my mind as regards epistemological nihilism. Inductive reasoning appears to be a necessity of everyday life. It is a practical tool, so logic is a factor, but the paramount consideration is utility. As for agnosticism, it would depend on which of the two it is in disguise.
16179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 8/3/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


Ah, so am I to understand that you do not withhold judgment because of the limitations placed on you by the lack of evidence for either case, but rather because you simply do not see a choice in the matter as a necessity for day to day life? As such, you do not classify yourself as an agnostic because the reasons for your stances are different than an agnostic, but the stances themselves tend to be quite similar.

However do you realize that when ultimately confronted with those certain unanswerable questions your answer and your reasons for those answers are the same as an agnostic? "Though I may be more inclined towards a certain specific answer, I cannot provide a definite answer because I lack clear and concise evidence."
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/4/10

excalion wrote:
Ah, so am I to understand that you do not withhold judgment because of the limitations placed on you by the lack of evidence for either case, but rather because you simply do not see a choice in the matter as a necessity for day to day life? As such, you do not classify yourself as an agnostic because the reasons for your stances are different than an agnostic, but the stances themselves tend to be quite similar.

However do you realize that when ultimately confronted with those certain unanswerable questions your answer and your reasons for those answers are the same as an agnostic? "Though I may be more inclined towards a certain specific answer, I cannot provide a definite answer because I lack clear and concise evidence."


I do recognise that this position is somewhat similar to agnosticism, but as I have pointed it out before, there is no focus on whether the truth can be known, but on the fact that to 'not to X' is equally an action and a choice, the same way as 'to do X' is. My actions will be arbitrary either way, because I will not admit to having any knowledge simply by reason of having observed certain purported trends and therefore any reason to choose one course of action over another in trying to reach the desired results. In a way, you could say that my instincts will make the choice for me, who may even be labeled agnostic, but I, consciously, will not regard the views pronounced by my instincts as anything definitive, I will simply default on choosing a course of action, faced with the crisis of having no information upon which to proceed.
16179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 8/4/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


excalion wrote:
Ah, so am I to understand that you do not withhold judgment because of the limitations placed on you by the lack of evidence for either case, but rather because you simply do not see a choice in the matter as a necessity for day to day life? As such, you do not classify yourself as an agnostic because the reasons for your stances are different than an agnostic, but the stances themselves tend to be quite similar.

However do you realize that when ultimately confronted with those certain unanswerable questions your answer and your reasons for those answers are the same as an agnostic? "Though I may be more inclined towards a certain specific answer, I cannot provide a definite answer because I lack clear and concise evidence."


I do recognize that this position is somewhat similar to agnosticism, but as I have pointed it out before, there is no focus on whether the truth can be known, but on the fact that to 'not to X' is equally an action and a choice, the same way as 'to do X' is. My actions will be arbitrary either way, because I will not admit to having any knowledge simply by reason of having observed certain purported trends and therefore any reason to choose one course of action over another in trying to reach the desired results. In a way, you could say that my instincts will make the choice for me, who may even be labeled agnostic, but I, consciously, will not regard the views pronounced by my instincts as anything definitive, I will simply default on choosing a course of action, faced with the crisis of having no information upon which to proceed.


In a crisis where we are faced with no information, everyone will be using their instincts to make a decision for them. However that is hardly the case for most of the decisions we have to make. If you choose to ignore evidence when it is easily accessible aren't you being purposefully ignorant? If you use that evidence but then call it something else (trends), aren't you just playing with words?

If you truly believe that the conventional meaning of evidence is really just a prettier word for trends, I would agree with you on that technicality. However I make a difference between trends that I would stake my life on and trends I would not. I would not stake my life on a certain speculation about a minesweeper game, but I would certainly stake my life on gravity to function. Of the trends I would stake my life on, I call them evidence. Ultimately I do realize this is somewhat of a personal definition.

It would seem that our argument here has progressed to a point where we're splitting very fine hairs. Also it feels like we're not really arguing about what our beliefs are but rather what names we choose to give them. I honestly see no point in that.

PS: Bolded text sounds awfully like epistemological nihilism.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/4/10

excalion wrote:
In a crisis where we are faced with no information, everyone will be using their instincts to make a decision for them. However that is hardly the case for most of the decisions we have to make. If you choose to ignore evidence when it is easily accessible aren't you being purposefully ignorant? If you use that evidence but then call it something else (trends), aren't you just playing with words?

If you truly believe that the conventional meaning of evidence is really just a prettier word for trends, I would agree with you on that technicality. However I make a difference between trends that I would stake my life on and trends I would not. I would not stake my life on a certain speculation about a minesweeper game, but I would certainly stake my life on gravity to function. Of the trends I would stake my life on, I call them evidence. Ultimately I do realize this is somewhat of a personal definition.

It would seem that our argument here has progressed to a point where we're splitting very fine hairs. Also it feels like we're not really arguing about what our beliefs are but rather what names we choose to give them. I honestly see no point in that.

PS: Bolded text sounds awfully like epistemological nihilism.


I am neither being purposefully ignorant, nor playing with words. I have described my thought processes, and have admitted that absent knowledge, I will opt for whatever course of action it is that my instincts, used in a broader sense, prefer. I am not using instinct in the narrow sense of will to survive and reproduce and so on, but in a sense that comprises a much wider range of forms of behaviour, behaviour that is wholly practical and needs not logical explanation. But I will not try to justify these actions using logic or anything of that sort. I had not facts available to me at the time and I relied an inherent system of mine that operates without the need for absolute proof and evidence. A system that can operate simply on possibly falsely observed experience, prospects, expectations and speculations. It is a practical system working with what is available.

I would agree that this resembles semantics slightly. I will not go into the whole problem of language stuff, but matching definitions with words is crucial and truly, we can only start to resolve a conflict of views once we have come to a consensus as regards definitions and the words marking them. A good example would be your calling certain trends evidence and not others in light of whether you would stake your life on them.

I suppose there is epistemological nihilism to some extent in my behaviour, although I am yet to explore my views or lack of views in their entirety, so such a presence is not a great surprise.
54941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 8/4/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote: It is unreasonable to accept anything on outlandish unprovable claims alone.
Without a bases for such claims of any kind it is illogical to accept it even as a possibility.


Hey, Darkph. , are you just yanking chains as "devil's advocate" again, or are you secretly a Vulcan alien among us?

I love playing with syllogisms & thoroughly enjoyed the logic class I took in HS, but the problem w/ strict logical arguments is their lack of imagination, & intuition. Both of these are integral parts of the human mental process.

Please, leave some room for the dreamers, & our worlds of fantasy !!!!!
Think how empty & boring your world would be w/o us, so, please don't attack us with the artillery of logic!
55149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 8/4/10
There were plenty of Illogical Agnostic when it came down to breaking the sound barrier Pilots died trying and after a little tinkering the did it. sweep back wings. With out illogical agnostic thinking or dreaming many thing may have never been tried. and some worked. No one could come up with a working theory on how helicopters could fly but it was right in front of them. Global warming is it science or a bunch of hypothesis that can't hold water. In this case Do you believe despite there not a working theory.
Posted 8/5/10 , edited 8/5/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

It is unreasonable to accept anything on outlandish unprovable claims alone.
Without a bases for such claims of any kind it is illogical to accept it even as a possibility.




So you are saying that we should rather just accept what goes out from the four walls of some room governed by some old people in white robes who brand themselves to have "superior thinking" or "superior knowledge" to common people?

Good, humanity will progress better that way. We'll just wait for the "theories" these experts claim to call themselves in order for us to know some "mysteries" about our lives. Mysteries about the universe, mysteries about all and every curiosity man wish to know.

Before medicine evolved as we know as of know there were just barbers, common people experimenting on these "outlandish" theories just to arrive for a better purpose human society. Those never came out from the four walls of a "laboratory" nor from the concrete four walls of "limited, constricted, close-minded, logic" most experts claim they have.

It was "amateurs" who first started on their ideas that made the advancement of science possible. I think we should rather respect people who express their ideas properly rather not brand them "illogical" for the sake of turning the tides of the argument.

17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10

pcekeep wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

It is unreasonable to accept anything on outlandish unprovable claims alone.
Without a bases for such claims of any kind it is illogical to accept it even as a possibility.




So you are saying that we should rather just accept what goes out from the four walls of some room governed by some old people in white robes who brand themselves to have "superior thinking" or "superior knowledge" to common people?

Good, humanity will progress better that way. We'll just wait for the "theories" these experts claim to call themselves in order for us to know some "mysteries" about our lives. Mysteries about the universe, mysteries about all and every curiosity man wish to know.

Before medicine evolved as we know as of know there were just barbers, common people experimenting on these "outlandish" theories just to arrive for a better purpose human society. Those never came out from the four walls of a "laboratory" nor from the concrete four walls of "limited, constricted, close-minded, logic" most experts claim they have.

It was "amateurs" who first started on their ideas that made the advancement of science possible. I think we should rather respect people who express their ideas properly rather not brand them "illogical" for the sake of turning the tides of the argument.



'Expressing a superstition based on no evidence is not logical.'
Being creative is a good thing, but fallowing a idea without any form of evidence is not open minded. Its closing ones mind to reality in-order to not have to think about the world and the reality around them.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/5/10

pcekeep wrote:
So you are saying that we should rather just accept what goes out from the four walls of some room governed by some old people in white robes who brand themselves to have "superior thinking" or "superior knowledge" to common people?

Good, humanity will progress better that way. We'll just wait for the "theories" these experts claim to call themselves in order for us to know some "mysteries" about our lives. Mysteries about the universe, mysteries about all and every curiosity man wish to know.

Before medicine evolved as we know as of know there were just barbers, common people experimenting on these "outlandish" theories just to arrive for a better purpose human society. Those never came out from the four walls of a "laboratory" nor from the concrete four walls of "limited, constricted, close-minded, logic" most experts claim they have.

It was "amateurs" who first started on their ideas that made the advancement of science possible. I think we should rather respect people who express their ideas properly rather not brand them "illogical" for the sake of turning the tides of the argument.


You fail to recognise that modern day science, including medical science, works with sophisticated tools and explores sophisticated systems. If you take your barbers, and have them perform bypass surgery, the outcome will be most unfortunate and lamentable. If you order a group of natural philosophers with wigs and frocks to man the Hadron collider, it will break down before long. Science nowadays works with complex problems, systems and tools, as I stated before. In order to be able to utilise these complex systems and tools to solve complex problems, knowledge of their complexities is required, knowledge pertaining to minute details. Laymen are no longer competent, simply by virtue of having great enthusiasm, to be able to make new discoveries.

Keep common sense out of science. Science is a field of abstract thought.
54941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10
Couldn't some of these logical premises apply to either point of view? & wouldn't it also depend on the criteria used to define what is the proof for any given argued subject matters? The way I see it, the same burdens of proof should apply to both points of view,right?
Is or isn't the world flat? It used to be a contentious subject, yet, today we have proof thru the knowledge of experience as well as physical, scientific knowledge.

In other arguments, it may not be so easy to pin down the evidential proofs & truths needed to confirm either point of view . Scientific theories might be laid out in balanced equations, & appeal to the logical format, but still lack the physical, material evidence which may be required as logical, unequivocal proof.
So then, if the same lack of evidence is apparent on the both sides of the argument, how could either premise be called true, proven or correct?
Posted 8/5/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


pcekeep wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

It is unreasonable to accept anything on outlandish unprovable claims alone.
Without a bases for such claims of any kind it is illogical to accept it even as a possibility.




So you are saying that we should rather just accept what goes out from the four walls of some room governed by some old people in white robes who brand themselves to have "superior thinking" or "superior knowledge" to common people?

Good, humanity will progress better that way. We'll just wait for the "theories" these experts claim to call themselves in order for us to know some "mysteries" about our lives. Mysteries about the universe, mysteries about all and every curiosity man wish to know.

Before medicine evolved as we know as of know there were just barbers, common people experimenting on these "outlandish" theories just to arrive for a better purpose human society. Those never came out from the four walls of a "laboratory" nor from the concrete four walls of "limited, constricted, close-minded, logic" most experts claim they have.

It was "amateurs" who first started on their ideas that made the advancement of science possible. I think we should rather respect people who express their ideas properly rather not brand them "illogical" for the sake of turning the tides of the argument.



'Expressing a superstition based on no evidence is not logical.'
Being creative is a good thing, but fallowing a idea without any form of evidence is not open minded. Its closing ones mind to reality in-order to not have to think about the world and the reality around them.


Let me ask you, what is reality? What is "logical", what is this evidence you are talking about?

How did they become logical in the first place? Weren't they because they were proven later on?

You are not open minded if you are just going to stick on one approach. I am not saying you are to follow a unproved idea but you are to "investigate" it.

That is how existing theories came into reality if I am correct. No one easily believed that all people came from apes until evidence came to life.
Posted 8/5/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


pcekeep wrote:
So you are saying that we should rather just accept what goes out from the four walls of some room governed by some old people in white robes who brand themselves to have "superior thinking" or "superior knowledge" to common people?

Good, humanity will progress better that way. We'll just wait for the "theories" these experts claim to call themselves in order for us to know some "mysteries" about our lives. Mysteries about the universe, mysteries about all and every curiosity man wish to know.

Before medicine evolved as we know as of know there were just barbers, common people experimenting on these "outlandish" theories just to arrive for a better purpose human society. Those never came out from the four walls of a "laboratory" nor from the concrete four walls of "limited, constricted, close-minded, logic" most experts claim they have.

It was "amateurs" who first started on their ideas that made the advancement of science possible. I think we should rather respect people who express their ideas properly rather not brand them "illogical" for the sake of turning the tides of the argument.


You fail to recognise that modern day science, including medical science, works with sophisticated tools and explores sophisticated systems. If you take your barbers, and have them perform bypass surgery, the outcome will be most unfortunate and lamentable. If you order a group of natural philosophers with wigs and frocks to man the Hadron collider, it will break down before long. Science nowadays works with complex problems, systems and tools, as I stated before. In order to be able to utilise these complex systems and tools to solve complex problems, knowledge of their complexities is required, knowledge pertaining to minute details. Laymen are no longer competent, simply by virtue of having great enthusiasm, to be able to make new discoveries.

Keep common sense out of science. Science is a field of abstract thought.


I was just pointing out DP's point. He was underestimating the fact that some people even has the abilities to create "theories" and "ideas" unproven yet can be a breakthrough in the future. It may sound ridiculous at the present date because of the lack of the capabilities of modern science to prove them.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.