- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).|
Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
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.
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.