Post Reply
Page 14 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14
Switch to Forum Live View ID without the deity part
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 9:50AM #131
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,491

Mar 25, 2012 -- 11:02PM, Oncomintrain wrote:


You should know, Meso, that Blu is extremely bright, as are many posters here. If Blu cannot even follow your central argument, odds are that the problem isn't Blu. Just sayin'.




I am no brighter than Blu.  However, Blu is limited in his scope of science concepts and terms to discuss.


Meso has said he supports the Correspondence Theory of Truth, as plain as day.  The only reason Meso is told he is not being understood is that this very definitive statement is not comprehended in context in this discussion.  It's like asking a rider - how he rides and getting told they ride "side-saddle".


And the next question is - well how do you sit on the horse?  The term; its precise meaning and historical context are just ignored.


plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-corresp...


As to Truth -- My statement - about how to use truth in a science discussion - will be a many time repeat, for all but Meso -- There are at least two usages of the term.  One: for subjective truth, which is always associated or related to an agent (s) (knower) - the other usage is for truth about physical reality. (facts open to objective measurement).


Meso - I find the materialists like Blu and the concerned like OCT - only understanding "truth" in context one, but always pointing to context two.


In context two - objective reality - the answer is in "truth-tables".  Now, we can not only have physical measurements (where appropriate) and their relation to fact, but we can measure some the abstractions, as well as information.


(Blu will not understand this comment)  Meso - does this make sense to you? - if you are talking about physical science - it all about truth tables from data -- and not about subjective Truth. 


A truth table is a mathematical table used in logic—specifically in connection with Boolean algebra, boolean functions, and propositional calculus—to compute the functional values of logical expressions on each of their functional arguments, that is, on each combination of values taken by their logical variables (Enderton, 2001). In particular, truth tables can be used to tell whether a propositional expression is true for all legitimate input values, that is, logically valid.




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 10:08AM #132
Oncomintrain
Posts: 2,861

NCG-


It is difficult for me to see the value of contributing additional jargon, which you claim -- if not brag -- that one party to the discussion will not understand, when the entire PROBLEM at this point is the apparent inability of both parties to reach a common understanding of the argument.


The need at this point is to clarify and simplify the argument, not pile on additional wrinkles. I know it is fun to pat yourself on the back and reassure yourself that you "get it" while others don't, but that isn't constructive to actually moving the discussion forward.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 10:21AM #133
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,491

Mar 26, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Oncomintrain wrote:


NCG-


It is difficult for me to see the value of contributing additional jargon, which you claim -- if not brag -- that one party to the discussion will not understand, when the entire PROBLEM at this point is the apparent inability of both parties to reach a common understanding of the argument.


The need at this point is to clarify and simplify the argument, not pile on additional wrinkles. I know it is fun to pat yourself on the back and reassure yourself that you "get it" while others don't, but that isn't constructive to actually moving the discussion forward.




OCT,


You have every right to say that - just as do the fundi's when you and others challenge them with ideas and terms from science, that upset their literalist beliefs.


But, you expect them to click the links and learn the science and logic - right?


To me - the CToT and the idealism of the good Bishop Berkeley are connected.  That's because i have studied both.   Does that make me better - NO.   and with a quick look into the subjects --you may develop a better opinion that I on the subject.


But what's going on is you are telling Meso he is unclear when - he is not. 


Meso has started and supported a thoughtful thread about a kind of ID process and ties it to ideas (new information) being created by living things - some without brains.  I still have not read your comment to the theme of the thread?  Only comments to your POV about Meso and to Blu's POV.


 




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 10:46AM #134
Oncomintrain
Posts: 2,861

Mar 26, 2012 -- 10:21AM, newchurchguy wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Oncomintrain wrote:


NCG-


It is difficult for me to see the value of contributing additional jargon, which you claim -- if not brag -- that one party to the discussion will not understand, when the entire PROBLEM at this point is the apparent inability of both parties to reach a common understanding of the argument.


The need at this point is to clarify and simplify the argument, not pile on additional wrinkles. I know it is fun to pat yourself on the back and reassure yourself that you "get it" while others don't, but that isn't constructive to actually moving the discussion forward.




OCT,


You have every right to say that - just as do the fundi's when you and others challenge them with ideas and terms from science, that upset their literalist beliefs.


But, you expect them to click the links and learn the science and logic - right? 




Sorry, but the comparison is specious. Creationists and "fundies", as a rule, show little to no interest in better understanding the ToE. Blu, on the other hand, is genuinely TRYING to understand what Meso's argument IS. Blu is attempting to describe Meso's argument in a way that does not DEPEND on jargon, because the use of terms is obscuring rather than clarifying the discussion. I think he suspects (as do I) that if the argument is restated in plain English, without rambling reference to philosophical jargon, it won't hold up very well.


If someone was trying to understand the arguments of the ToE, but lacked an understanding of the relevant terminology, I would never send them off to read a book. I would do my best to explain the concepts in language they could understand. If I'm discussing riding with someone who doesn't know horses, and I drop terms like "side saddle" and refuse to explain them... that isn't a discussion, it is a powerplay. It is an attempt to keep the discussion in terms that you understand (or think you understand) better than the other person. And if you have to do that, it doesn't bode well for your argument.


If this were the Info Theory board, or the metaphysics of reality board, or Equestrians of America, or a seminar for Philophy grad students, then it might be fair to expect others to be conversant with a particular set of jargon. As it is, this is the Creation/Evolution board on a site for public (non-professional) discussion. So if you want to bring Subjective Idealism or Info Theory or equestrian slang to the table, it is on YOU to make yourself understood.


If I were a car mechanic, and I came here propounding a theory of biology based on automotive construction, it would be easy for me to dismiss all arguments from non-mechanics by saying "Oh well... you just can't understand my argument because you don't know how a carborator works." That doesn't mean I have a good theory... it means I've done a lousy job of explaining my argument to non-mechanics.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 2:15PM #135
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Mar 25, 2012 -- 10:07PM, Mesothet wrote:


Mar 25, 2012 -- 10:00PM, Blü wrote:


Mesothet

This isn't working.  Instead it's galloping off in all directions.

It's one thing for me to try to understand your argument by reducing it to a list of propositions that you apparently intend.  It's another when I'm asked to join in the task of turning the list into a sensible argument.

I propose that you scan the list of propositions I set out in #108 and either accept each one or change it so that it represents your actual argument.

When you present a succinct list of such propositions and say, That's my argument, and I understand what you've written, I'll respond to it.


Otherwise we'll be here for a year.




Before I do, do we still have disagreements as to what radical skepticism signifies? That it does not produce any affirmation whatsoever (including the conclusion of “certainty is never justified”)?



I still haven't seen a rational justification for radical skepticism. I do not accept radical skepticism; therefore, I cannot accept any argument that includes radical skepticism among its premises.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 2:55PM #136
Mesothet
Posts: 119

As it is, I’ve grown increasingly content with this thread.


Unless there will be reason to do otherwise, I’ll back off of it at this point.


Thank you for all the posts and comments.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 3:06PM #137
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:55PM, Mesothet wrote:


As it is, I’ve grown increasingly content with this thread.


Unless there will be reason to do otherwise, I’ll back off of it at this point.


Thank you for all the posts and comments.



In other words, the moment you're asked point blank to justify your initial premise, you turn tail and run.


That's no way to defend an argument. In fact, your argument fails.


I'm surprised that you're content.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 5:24PM #138
Blü
Posts: 23,974

ncg


The only reason Meso is told he is not being understood is that this very definitive statement is not comprehended in context in this discussion.


Then go to #108, and either accept each proposition or amend it to read as, in your view, Mesothet should have amended it to make his case.


With your brilliance, I don't know why you haven't done this already instead of making silly remarks out in the carpark.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 5:26PM #139
Blü
Posts: 23,974

Mesothet



As it is, I’ve grown increasingly content with this thread.


You astonish me.



Unless there will be reason to do otherwise, I’ll back off of it at this point.


That seems sensible.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 14 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook