CreateDebate


Libertarian1's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Libertarian1's arguments, looking across every debate.

Anyone expressing absolute certainty would better fit your description of an irrational perspective, especially when talking about science where explanatory models change so drastically over time to match the evidence. There is instead a level of confidence expressed in regards to current explanatory models that are expressly subject to change in regards to shifting scientific consensus. Your point actually makes MY distinction, as a religious faith based position DOES exude the acceptance of absolute certainty in regards to arbitrary claims.

You said yourself that an acceptable formulation would be, "I trust that this is true". That is the very formulation implied by the etymology of belief. My acceptance that it represents non-optimal means of communicating in-depth ideas is due to it not actually qualifying the specific level of confidence in a position, which is a distinction that would be hammered out in regards to a specific subject. But I wouldn't say it has no place, as clearly it is part of wider diction that is here to stay and one is more likely to increase it's secular application that to eliminate it entirely (as people outside the religious context do use the etymologically consistent version).

opinion and belief from the realms of science and reason as militantly as possible so that there is no room for confusion.

You believe that such a standard is an ideal goal.

Libertarian1(1080) Clarified
1 point

without sending him into a rage

Judging by some of his responses, I'm not sure this is strictly true!

Your point is well taken though.

(edit) actually upon second thought I'm not sure which individual(or both) you are referring to there as it seems to possibly apply to both from what I've seen.

They are not antithetical at all

Yes, they are. One version specifically precludes the influence of reason and evidence, the other broadly refers to confidence.

The non-religious faith and belief you speak of are at best a figure of speech or placeholder for "something which I suspect". In which case you are better off wording it differently to avoid confusion, because it is important to distinguish between insanity that is relatively reasonable compared to other insanity and non-insanity.

I've actually agreed that these terms represent non-optimal means of communicating in-depth concepts.

The fact that it is 90% rational does not change the fact that the scientist is taking that 10% of uncertainty and doing the exact same thing with it which the religious person does with 100%

This particular point strikes me as odd because I've NEVER met a scientist who represents their views as absolutely certain, but rather indicating confidence in what is evidently indicated.

The reliability of reason and logic is predicated upon the further reliability of sensory perception

Since individuals humans are subject to biological reality, one can absolutely have a compromised means of perception. This is partly why I make reference to the topology of logic and reason, wherein subjects can benefit from layers of evidence, inference, deduction to be more likely to come to correct conclusions. But even if everyone hypothetically suffered from the same degree of sensory malfunction, a priori truths like 1+1=2 would still be correct, which to me represents one example of inherent reliability.

The Problem of Induction (Hume), for instance, suggests that we cannot reasonably or logically engage in casual thinking.

Can you expound on this for me as this doesn't seem to quite match my understanding of the problem?

There is no coherent theoretical reason to trust perception and it cannot logically be invoked as proof of itself.

An argument can be coherent without being correct, which is why I wouldn't call all incorrect positions arbitrary. With that said, would you still assert that no coherent argument can be made to trust perception? I do accept that logic is itself a presupposition, but I don't see any scenario where I have a discussion without applying that which logic entails lest we have no capacity to even communicate.

I don't see that as a reason to reject or personally devalue the seeming reliability of reason and logic. But I do think it makes any greater claim overextended, with the consequence that we even become overly committed to reason and logic in practice.

This is perhaps where some of the broader discussion on this prompt comes into play, particularly in regards to my use of the word believe. I believe in the inherent reliability of reason and logic would seem to me to just be a rewording of your above statement of it seeming inherently reliable(barring the fallibility of the senses). I specifically use the word believe to reflect a level of confidence in a position for which a claim of absolute certainty would be hubris as I am certainly fallible. I am curious about your statement about the potentiality of being over-committed to logic and reason, and wonder what that entails in a practical setting?

Although one may engage certain logical axioms as though they were true I do not think that engagement necessarily entails a further acknowledgment of those logical axioms as true.

This is where I get quite dissonant with your perspective. Are you debating with me? Are you making arguments? Are those arguments themselves and not other arguments? Yes to any of those would seem to me to entail the truth of base logical axioms by definition. I'm sure I just inadequately comprehend you on this issue.

I have some contentions that I withheld barring my rereading of a couple particular works, I mostly just feel the need to get a better understanding on your perspective here.

no means by which you can possess evidence the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

You may have thought it was over folks, but nope! By this... gentleman's... reasoning there is no evidence for evolution or any other model by which all your interactions with reality are explained.

It was the exact opposite of a probability model you retarded halfwit. I explained to you that you cannot predict the future based on past results. How difficult can this actually be for someone to understand?

It is the very definition of a probability model, and as such it was a perfect example of an instance in which they are not inherently an accurate means of predicting the future.

So you don't have any evidence that night is going to turn into day then, do you?

As I said you're disingenuous, I leave it to observers to see that I did in fact mention pieces of evidence.

The heliocentric model is not evidence of anything because it is a model by its very definition....Hence, I refer you to my earlier analogy involving a roulette ball and request once again that you kindly shut your stupid face.

Your example of the roulette ball was a probability model. Are you using that as evidence that I am wrong?

Evidence that there was a battle in Hastings (actually it was fought in Battle, but they didn't want to call it the Battle of Battle) in 1066 is not evidence that there will be a battle tomorrow morning, or at any time other than 1066. Does that compute?

A battle may not be evidence of future battles, but it can be evidence of social behavior of humans as part of a larger theory explaining why humans do battle. A piece of a puzzle at it were.

You keep strong arming the religious definition of faith and belief into the discussion, but both from the roots of the word itself as well as it's in common secular verbiage is antithetical to such a definition. I've clearly defined and represented what I mean by the term, but your insistence to adhere to it's religious connotation is exactly why I claimed that it is commandeered and is in need of reclaiming.

You heard it here folks: the Heliocentric model as well as probe data, satellite imagery, any number of evidence that day will in fact turn to night, is NOT in fact evidence that day will turn to night. You've been a great crowd.

You have no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow

I do though, through the heliocentric model as well as available technology. These happen to concord with my observations, meaning we have multiple pieces of evidence that point to a particular conclusion.

Your accusation that I am being disingenuous does not even make any sense,

I once again leave it to observers, but disingenuous is exactly the word I'd ascribe to you.

I have explained to you meticulously, with the use of examples, why it is irrelevant.

I specified two instances in which it certainly isn't irrelevant.

Hmm, could have sworn I wrote more than just that sentence. Keep fishing, there's trout yet.

I've already answered this contention, myself admitting that probability models are not necessarily always accurate or capable of predicting future behavior. To say it's completely irrelevant is yet again disingenuous however, as clearly observation is often a required element of testing an hypothesis, and just as well experience need not always be applied to models of probability.

No matter which definition you use, you are replacing acceptance of the unknown with something irrational.

This is just not true, one's level of confidence can be purely so on the basis of reason.

It is irrational to have "conviction" or "confidence" in place of acceptance of the unknown

I agree, which is why I try to tailor belief to that which is evidently true. I believe the Heliocentric model and Big Bang cosmology is no different then stating that I find them to be evidently true.

Stop talking total unadulterated rubbish. You cannot even see the air that you breathe.

I suppose you aren't done yet then. You accuse me of talking rubbish, yet disingenuously take "seen" as presented in the passage to mean literally see. The definition per Hebrews and several other sections of Biblical scripture give us a particular definition of faith and belief that is distinct from the roots of the words themselves, which is why I made the statement that they are commandeered by religious rhetoric.

Libertarian1(1080) Clarified
1 point

Hebrews 11:1 specifies faith as, “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Other definitions of faith have no such requirements, instead representing the term more broadly as conviction or confidence. It’s roots are from the Latin fides(thus predating the Bible) whose use very clearly is consistent with my own application of the term.

Except no you didn't and clearly one needs to be delusional to believe such a "distinction" exists in the first place.

What fallacious or otherwise unjustifiably assumed presuppositions do I make by professing a belief that day will turn to night?

You abuse words like "reason" and "logic" to make yourself feel more secure in your own beliefs, without having the first clue what they actually represent...Here's a life lesson, dimwit. EVERYBODY thinks their beliefs are logical. Not just you.

The only beliefs I've represented thus far as my own is the reliability of reason and logic and that night will turn to day per the Heliocentric model. I assume you actually share both of these and would represent them both as logical positions to have, which make these lines rather humorous.

You cannot possess evidence of the future you retard.

A belief regarding the future CAN(and should) be based on reason and evidence.

I'm done with this conversation because you are a complete unadulterated idiot

¯\(ツ)

It is exactly the same faith you hilarious clown

Except it isn't and I specified the specific distinction between the two. What fallacious or otherwise unjustifiably assumed presuppositions do I make by professing a belief that day will turn to night?

more rational than everybody else's simply because they are your own beliefs.

I think anyone could see that this isn't reflective of my approach at all, but I leave that to observers.

Reason is not the belief that events in the future will always copy events of the past, so believing day will follow night has nothing to do with reason

My belief that day will turn to night is born from reason and evidence(both from personal observational/experience as you state, but also from a sufficient understanding of related sciences and associated evidence) and that this usage of the term "belief" is in reference to my level of confidence in the subject as opposed to theologically-centered definitions such as given by the Bible wherein even if I saw sufficient evidence to the contrary of the position, I'd be duty bound to refuse it.

You are making predictions about the future based on past experience.

Probability based models may indeed not always be accurate, which is why it's important wherever possible have multiple means of logically coming to a particular conclusion.

In the case of religious faith...They have put their faith in the experiences of others rather than themselves.

As people have done for aliens, Bigfoot, etc. Take your pick, they all represent instances where the premise has nothing to do with a logically consistent explanatory model, but rather is arbitrarily assumed. A belief in the Heliocentric model isn't analogous to that in the slightest.

I remember Cartman was quickly getting up there, but he lacked your conviction to stick with it.

Libertarian1(1080) Clarified
1 point

Are there any particular sources you recommend on the subject of value nihilism?

Libertarian1(1080) Clarified
2 points

I'll delve into each specific term:

Reliability- I am referring to reason/logic's continued success at providing an actionable means by which I interact with the world around me. They provide a topology by which I can take information from the senses and pair it with deduction and inference to navigate reality. As I point out in my response, the very act of discourse and communication as a whole exhibit an acceptance of base logical axioms; that the parties involved do in fact exist, that the responses contain concepts that are identifiable by their unique properties, and that they can not respond to me and have not responded to me at the same time.

Arbitrary- Without observation and without coherent theoretical argument. That which is asserted absent of reason or evidence can be dismissed with equal reverence to both.

Justification- articulately warranted by the reason and evidence.

Acknowledgement- in this context the term refers to an acceptance or application(of logical axioms). I acknowledge the validity of the boat when I use it to get me across a body of water.

Virtue- in this context the term was used as "the capacity of". I drove here by virtue of a motor vehicle, for example.

anti-reason concept because belief implies faith to at least some degree.

Faith and belief have the same differential between them, in the sense that there is a common tongue definition and a theological version. I don't concede the language ground to theology, the faith I have that day will turn to night is not the same faith upon which someone asserts a specific deity with arbitrarily assumed characteristics. For example, the Bible defines faith as specifically the anti-reason(blessed is he who has NOT seen, and still believed), but my application of the term certainly would be antithetical to such a definition.

I certainly agree that these terms are not the optimal way to talk about concepts, but it is rather important to me that terminology that is commandeered by spirituality not be left in its hands, and instead given a valid secular purpose.

Libertarian1(1080) Clarified
2 points

I've only recently rekindled my appreciation for philosophy, it's a muscle I'm eager to exercise after years of neglect. I'm currently rereading works that were formulative for me, so hopefully in the near future we can once again have a substantial discourse. It's sad to see that not much of that occurs here compared to the old days, I'm surprised Andy has kept the site running at such expense to himself with such a limited pool of serious posters.

Did you by chance ever end up reading The Moral Landscape?

The one and only! I'm a little disappointed to see you below 50,000 points after all this time!

belief is not a reason-based thing

I'm not sure this is necessarily true. It would depend on the particular version of belief in question. One using a version based on level of confidence(which can be justified qua degrees of rationality) as opposed to a more theological version (wherein in a position is held regardless of, or in spite of reason/evidence).

I believe in Big Bang cosmology, but that belief is tailored to the scientific consensus and is subject to change per said consensus. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough myself to claim absolute certainty, but I have a level of confidence in the position, and that I refer to as belief. What are your thoughts?


1 of 49 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]