|
On May 03 2010 15:31 tinman wrote:
why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?
one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief.
Isn't this a cop-out? It's too easy to just keep asking people to justify their justification. It's not clever, it's counter-productive.
Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable. If everybody had your attitude, nobody would get anywhere. Your mother would still be justifying to you why you need to eat your vegetables even though the answer is mind-blowingly clear.
|
BruceLee6783 United States. May 03 2010 14:29. Posts 57 PM Profile Quote #
By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept.
Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better?
It's somewhat subtle, but in essence very simple. You're presented with 3 doors. Behind 1 is a ton of money. Behind the other 2 is some gag prize. You're allowed to choose 1 of the doors and get whatever is behind it. Obviously, you would prefer the money, but with no evidence on which to base your decision, you might as well pick a door at random.
You choose a door, and there is a 1/3 chance that this door is the good one, but a 2/3 chance that it isn't. This 2/3 chance corresponds to the 2 other doors, each of which have a 1/3 chance of being the good one. Now the host shows you the gag prize that is behind one of the doors which you didn't pick. You are now given another choice: stay with the door you originally picked or switch to the remaining 3rd door. This is where the subtlety comes in. Most people default to their original logic and say "well, I still have no evidence on which to base the decision, so either door is equally likely, so I'll just stick with my first choice."
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect. You have to think about it as the door you first picked had a 1/3 chance of being correct, while the collection of the other 2 doors had the remaining 2/3. After a door you didn't pick is revealed to not have the money, the final door inherits the total 2/3 chance. Thus, you are twice as likely to get the money if you switch doors when given the second choice.
Wikipedia link in case my explanation wasn't clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
|
On May 03 2010 15:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable.
tautology, thy name is prOxi.swAMi.
|
On May 03 2010 15:31 tinman wrote:
why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?
one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief.
Are we assuming "truth" is a value to be sought from one's logical system? Then it obviously follows, because if you accept things without evidence, it's possible to believe contradicting things, one of which must be false.
I am reading what I'm typing. You're asking me a question but taking the answer for granted. Any kind of worldview that didn't think some kind of evidence was necessary to back up claims would be basically incoherent.
|
On May 03 2010 15:39 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 15:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable. tautology, thy name is prOxi.swAMi.
Excuse my feeble mind but I'm quite sure what you quoted fits not into the definition tautological. Care to explain your assertion?
|
On May 03 2010 15:40 Lixler wrote:
Are we assuming "truth" is a value to be sought from one's logical system? Then it obviously follows, because if you accept things without evidence, it's possible to believe contradicting things, one of which must be false.
I am reading what I'm typing. You're asking me a question but taking the answer for granted. Any kind of worldview that didn't think some kind of evidence was necessary to back up claims would be basically incoherent.
so Lixler am i to understand that you hold beliefs based on assumptions, rather than conclusions drawn from evidence? your post on page 8 now requires emendation.
|
On May 03 2010 15:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 15:39 tinman wrote:On May 03 2010 15:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable. tautology, thy name is prOxi.swAMi. Excuse my feeble mind but I'm quite sure what you quoted fits not into the definition tautological. Care to explain your assertion?
not particularly.
but i'll admit i did find your argument from eating-your-vegetables fairly creative.
|
On May 03 2010 15:43 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 15:40 Lixler wrote:
Are we assuming "truth" is a value to be sought from one's logical system? Then it obviously follows, because if you accept things without evidence, it's possible to believe contradicting things, one of which must be false.
I am reading what I'm typing. You're asking me a question but taking the answer for granted. Any kind of worldview that didn't think some kind of evidence was necessary to back up claims would be basically incoherent. so Lixler am i to understand that you hold beliefs based on assumptions, rather than conclusions drawn from evidence? your post on page 8 now requires emendation.
You aren't to understand that, no. I was giving "truth is positive" as an assumption that I wouldn't need to explain.
Either way, you can follow this line of logic forever and keep asking "What evidence is there for that statement?", but what do you aim to prove? That some assumptions must be made?
|
exactly.
some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.
|
On May 03 2010 15:31 tinman wrote:
why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?
one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief. lulz you might as well ask people why they only buy cars that work
|
that's a fair enough question too.
|
On May 03 2010 15:48 tinman wrote:
exactly.
some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.
Assumptions are needed where evidence is incomplete but nonetheless based on the evidence that does exist. You devalue evidence whilst preaching the necessity of assumption.
Nobody denies the necessity of assumption. We make assumptions to get by in everyday life.
In addition, nobody claims their beliefs exist in some special dimension. They claim their beliefs exist in a dimension where evidence exists, and is useful to exploit.
By all means if you want to walk across the road completely ignoring the sensory evidence your eyes and ears are being bombarded with, going on pure faith that you will not be hit, please do so.
When you're half way through the air from being hit by a car, ask yourself again why we should not use evidence to draw beliefs.
|
Tinman I'll give you an answer in the interest of debate, one should not belief without evidence as it is detrimental to the progression of mankind, also belief without evidence can be seen as having great influence in the violence, oppression and intolerance that we observe in the world on an every day basis.
Belief with evidence holds itself in contrast to this, now you have left a huge ammount of room for interpretation of "evidence" and even "belief" so I will interpret the former as "an accepted scientific proof for which there is numerous evidence supporting" and the latter "A position you hold where you have an understanding of something and consider it to be true"
So those are two reasons. I could add some more, such as philisophical point that to talk or consider anything outside of the world of sense, as Kant has argued, is essentially meaningless and much belief without evidence rests of the idea that such considerations are meaningful. Or even that the position there is no more value in belief with evidence than without, however, you cannot have your cake and eat it, or religious people ought not engage in scientific discussion if they cannot leave their belief without evidence at the door (and perhaps vice versa for scientists wishing to discuss religion).
|
On May 03 2010 15:48 tinman wrote:
exactly.
some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.
I'm certainly not. But after your assumptions have been made "Truth is good" "Contradictions are false" etc. a logical system can be drawn, and certain beliefs or worldviews can be obviously shown to not be consistent with it.
Any faith-based worldview should be that in total, they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).
|
On May 03 2010 14:29 BruceLee6783 wrote:
I watched some of QualiaSoup's videos, and I definitely understand the video about being open-minded. Matter of fact, I've understood this for years, but have always failed to convince others in that matter, possibly because the way that I worded it confused people.
I think about philosophy and such every single day. It's good to know that there are others in this world that think the way I think. The hard part is getting my points across. It's a skill, just like anything else. The more I practice, the better I get.
By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept.
Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better?
Three doors. You get to pick either one of the three doors (by picking and not switching), or two of the three doors (by picking and switching). Two-thirds of the time, the object will be behind one of those two doors rather than the one you picked.
What confuses people is they don't realize what their initial choice of a door actually means. It's not, "I want the prize behind this door". Rather, it's, "You can't open this door. You have to open one of the others." That matters. You protect Door A from the game master. If Door A has the prize, the GM gets to pick his door to open at random... but if you picked a door without the prize, the game master doesn't get a choice --> his action isn't random --> his action tells you where the prize is. 1/3 of the time, Door A has the prize so his action is random... but 2/3 of the time, Door B or Door C has the prize, so his action tells you which one. Thus you play the odds and say that his action told you where the prize is, and you win 2/3 of the time.
There aren't even three doors - not really. There are two doors, one of which passed a trial by fire (a chance of elimination if it doesn't contain the prize) and one which did not pass any such trial. Clearly the one that passed the trial is more likely to contain the prize than the one you protected.
|
The trouble is Lixler "should" "good" and "false" are tricky words. Either you are coming from the understanding that there notions of good, the idea of truth and falsity and the resulting "should" are objective. However good luck trying to prove that, and if you are left with subjectivity there is little argument to be had. You are left with "if you hold that belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial than belief without evidence then belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial"
|
On May 03 2010 15:54 Lixler wrote:
I'm certainly not. But after your assumptions have been made "Truth is good" "Contradictions are false" etc. a logical system can be drawn, and certain beliefs or worldviews can be obviously shown to not be consistent with it.
Any faith-based worldview should be that in total, they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).
so let me get this straight...
you make a "logical system" based on arbitrary assumptions for which no evidence can be offered.
then you demand that worldviews adhere to your logical system.
i dunno sounds a little like proselytization to me.
|
Philosophy! Sweet!
Is anyone here pursuing graduate study in philosophy?
|
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect.
|
On May 03 2010 16:05 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 15:54 Lixler wrote:
I'm certainly not. But after your assumptions have been made "Truth is good" "Contradictions are false" etc. a logical system can be drawn, and certain beliefs or worldviews can be obviously shown to not be consistent with it.
Any faith-based worldview should be that in total, they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real). so let me get this straight... you make a "logical system" based on arbitrary assumptions for which no evidence can be offered. then you demand that worldviews adhere to your logical system. i dunno sounds a little like proselytization to me.
I'm not demanding that anyone else's worldviews adhere to my logical system, only that my worldviews adhere to it. If anyone should want me to accept their worldview, then obviously they would have to demonstrate to me in some way that it is superior in some way to mine.
If I just accepted their worldview based on nothing, my "beliefs" would be fairly meaningless, the same with any statement I made.
And I sort of have a "practical" fallback to requiring evidence, otherwise I would obviously agree that anything is arbitrary. But since the OP is, to some extent, concerned with real-life interaction, I can just draw anything back to that.
On May 03 2010 16:05 XeliN wrote:
The trouble is Lixler "should" "good" and "false" are tricky words. Either you are coming from the understanding that there notions of good, the idea of truth and falsity and the resulting "should" are objective. However good luck trying to prove that, and if you are left with subjectivity there is little argument to be had. You are left with "if you hold that belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial than belief without evidence then belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial"
I should hope I wasn't trying to say truth and falsity were objectively good and bad, only that any kind of "worldview" that seeks truth should obviously accept this.
The tautology you've presented is kind of a more fundamental problem than just this, I think. Any kind of logical conclusion you make from something can be reduced to a repetition of the premises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
