| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob White" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2003 04:04:00 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bh0qqt$59v@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-F023C1.23261007082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <g%DYa.92142$Ho3.12157@sccrnsc03>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> > news:vmhjr2-12F57C.20045307082003@[63.218.45.211]...
;> > > In article <hjxYa.90284$o%2.40508@sccrnsc02>,
:> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;> > >
:> > > > Belief (your personal subjective conviction) is not a factor in
that
;> > public
:> > > > demonstration, knucklehead. All that counts is the public
;demonstration.
:> > >
;> > > If that public demonstration does not inspire belief in the
:> > > observers, then there is no knowledge.
;>
:>
;> >
:> > Demonstration of the facts in evidence is all that counts,
knucklehead,
;> > anybody's belief (subjective conviction) be damned.
:>
;> Then the presence of observers is irelevant?
:
;Don't act so stupid, knucklehead. 'Demonstration' means presenting it in
:public. Being testable by anyone is what makes objective empirical
evidence,
;contrasted to subjective metaphysical conviction (belief).
What about when the knowledge is not demonstrateable?
An observation of yours that cannot be repeated and tested in public by you,
so that anyone interested can watch, and cannot be repeated and tested by
anyone else?
What you are talking about is not knowledge, it is belief (subjective
conviction), which has no bearing on adding to the knowledge base through
the systematic, logical, scientific method of investigation.
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Beliefs (personal subjective convictions) have no bearing on scientific
discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities, as
is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested - in
principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated
and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that we
are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which,
on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle
inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
.
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
08 Aug 2003 05:35:40 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bh0qqt$59v@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> ;news:vmhjr2-F023C1.23261007082003@[63.218.45.211]...
;> :> In article <g%DYa.92142$Ho3.12157@sccrnsc03>,
:> ;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;> :>
:> ;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> :> > news:vmhjr2-12F57C.20045307082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> ;> > > In article <hjxYa.90284$o%2.40508@sccrnsc02>,
;> :> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> ;> > >
;> :> > > > Belief (your personal subjective conviction) is not a factor in
:that
;> ;> > public
:> :> > > > demonstration, knucklehead. All that counts is the public
;> ;demonstration.
:> :> > >
;> ;> > > If that public demonstration does not inspire belief in the
:> :> > > observers, then there is no knowledge.
;> ;>
:> :>
;> ;> >
:> :> > Demonstration of the facts in evidence is all that counts,
;knucklehead,
:> ;> > anybody's belief (subjective conviction) be damned.
;> :>
:> ;> Then the presence of observers is irelevant?
;> :
:> ;Don't act so stupid, knucklehead. 'Demonstration' means presenting it in
;> :public. Being testable by anyone is what makes objective empirical
:evidence,
;> ;contrasted to subjective metaphysical conviction (belief).
:>
;> What about when the knowledge is not demonstrateable?
:
;An observation of yours that cannot be repeated and tested in public by you,
:so that anyone interested can watch, and cannot be repeated and tested by
;anyone else?
I didn't say anything about observation. What about when the knowledge
is not an observation and is not demonstrateable?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
08 Aug 2003 06:28:52 PM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bh18js$9cg@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bh0qqt$59v@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> ;news:vmhjr2-F023C1.23261007082003@[63.218.45.211]...
;> :> In article <g%DYa.92142$Ho3.12157@sccrnsc03>,
:> ;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;> :>
:> ;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> :> > news:vmhjr2-12F57C.20045307082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> ;> > > In article <hjxYa.90284$o%2.40508@sccrnsc02>,
;> :> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> ;> > >
;> :> > > > Belief (your personal subjective conviction) is not a factor
in
:that
;> ;> > public
:> :> > > > demonstration, knucklehead. All that counts is the public
;> ;demonstration.
:> :> > >
;> ;> > > If that public demonstration does not inspire belief in the
:> :> > > observers, then there is no knowledge.
;> ;>
:> :>
;> ;> >
:> :> > Demonstration of the facts in evidence is all that counts,
;knucklehead,
:> ;> > anybody's belief (subjective conviction) be damned.
;> :>
:> ;> Then the presence of observers is irelevant?
;> :
:> ;Don't act so stupid, knucklehead. 'Demonstration' means presenting it
in
;> :public. Being testable by anyone is what makes objective empirical
:evidence,
;> ;contrasted to subjective metaphysical conviction (belief).
:>
;> What about when the knowledge is not demonstrateable?
:
;An observation of yours that cannot be repeated and tested in public by
you,
:so that anyone interested can watch, and cannot be repeated and tested by
;anyone else?
I didn't say anything about observation.
Well how can it be knowledge of the nature of things in the world if it is
not some observation you have made about the nature of things in the world?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
08 Aug 2003 06:56:13 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bh18js$9cg@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:bh0qqt$59v@neptune.myri-local.com...
;> :> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:> ;> :
;> :> ;
:> ;> :"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> :> ;news:vmhjr2-F023C1.23261007082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> ;> :> In article <g%DYa.92142$Ho3.12157@sccrnsc03>,
;> :> ;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> ;> :>
;> :> ;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> ;> :> > news:vmhjr2-12F57C.20045307082003@[63.218.45.211]...
;> :> ;> > > In article <hjxYa.90284$o%2.40508@sccrnsc02>,
:> ;> :> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;> :> ;> > >
:> ;> :> > > > Belief (your personal subjective conviction) is not a factor
;in
:> :that
;> ;> ;> > public
:> :> :> > > > demonstration, knucklehead. All that counts is the public
;> ;> ;demonstration.
:> :> :> > >
;> ;> ;> > > If that public demonstration does not inspire belief in the
:> :> :> > > observers, then there is no knowledge.
;> ;> ;>
:> :> :>
;> ;> ;> >
:> :> :> > Demonstration of the facts in evidence is all that counts,
;> ;knucklehead,
:> :> ;> > anybody's belief (subjective conviction) be damned.
;> ;> :>
:> :> ;> Then the presence of observers is irelevant?
;> ;> :
:> :> ;Don't act so stupid, knucklehead. 'Demonstration' means presenting it
;in
:> ;> :public. Being testable by anyone is what makes objective empirical
;> :evidence,
:> ;> ;contrasted to subjective metaphysical conviction (belief).
;> :>
:> ;> What about when the knowledge is not demonstrateable?
;> :
:> ;An observation of yours that cannot be repeated and tested in public by
;you,
:> :so that anyone interested can watch, and cannot be repeated and tested by
;> ;anyone else?
:>
;> I didn't say anything about observation.
:
;Well how can it be knowledge of the nature of things in the world if it is
:not some observation you have made about the nature of things in the world?
Does all knowlege has to be about the nature of things in the world?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
