|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
On January 03 2013 07:59 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 03:18 koreasilver wrote:I'm really not interested in getting involved in this retarded "discourse" that you people have driven this thread to, completely unrelated and utterly off-topic to what this thread is supposed to be about, but as to this: "As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" This is pretty much a reiteration of the logical positivist tenant that was later shown to be internally problematic. To give a very condensed form of the problem: 1. Only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful. 2. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", cannot be empirically tested, observed, and proven. 3. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", is not meaningful. w/e this thread is irreparable. I hate you people. All of you. edit: TENENT. You're all still to be held in utter contempt, mockery, and should be shunned for turning this thread that was about the nature of the fucking secular law into another shitty "religion and pseudo-philosophy" thread. Tenet? lol  If you'd like to quote some people you feel in particular are guilty of such heinous crimes feel free to do so, also if you have some particular idea about what the current topic of discussion should be then feel free to direct us in the right direction... I'd be happy to hear well expressed and on topic opinions as opposed to mindless ranting... It's a ridiculous stretch imo because it says X is "meaningful" and since you can't test for "meaningful" as meaning is attributed by a group of people or an individual then yeah of course you can't empirically prove and test that statement. No shit. That doesn't make it any more or less true... the fact that it's "internally problematic" means..... nothing. Suffering is bad. BUT WHAT IS BAD AND WHAT IS SUFFERING LOLOLOLOL Oh shit, you're right. Maybe suffering is good. I'll be quiet now because you've 100% just disproved what I was saying.  Try harder next time.
Your username might be the most ironic thing in the totality of this forum. Logical positivism in itself was abandoned by the Anglo-analytic philosophers because of this problem. You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't. Without an awareness and honest display of the limits of grounding thought in a purely empirical way, this kind of positivism just becomes another kind of dogma, with an implicit metaphysic that underlines it even when it strives so hard to escape all metaphysical and transcendent appeals in thinking. This is also where the limits of phenomenology become apparent, but that's for a completely different topic. This kind of scientific thinking is noble and respectable but the scientific method is ruptured if it isn't aware of its own limits. At that point it just becomes a disingenuous and rather vulgar form of populist scientism that is incapable of being self-critical of its methods.
So is a method of inquiry that grounds itself only upon the empirical wrong? Of course it isn't. Scientific inquiry must be empirical, and its precisely this limiting of scope only to what is immanently approachable that gives science its rigor, and this methodology allows us to accumulate data that can be passed on as a history of knowledge that can be reviewed, interpreted, and continued on ad infinitum as long as human intelligence exists. What has to be stressed is that the greatest value of the sciences lies in their methodology that purposefully narrows and concentrates how they inquire and review their subjects. Science can't be approached as some kind of panacea of the totality of thought and knowledge. If we do, then we're just returning to some implicit theological ground that fucks up everything.
|
On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value"
That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say.
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
So is a method of inquiry that grounds itself only upon the empirical wrong? Of course it isn't. Scientific inquiry must be empirical, and its precisely this limiting of scope only to what is immanently approachable that gives science its rigor, and this methodology allows us to accumulate data that can be passed on as a history of knowledge that can be reviewed, interpreted, and continued on ad infinitum as long as human intelligence exists. What has to be stressed is that the greatest value of the sciences lies in their methodology that purposefully narrows and concentrates how they inquire and review their subjects. Science can't be approached as some kind of panacea of the totality of thought and knowledge. If we do, then we're just returning to some implicit theological ground that fucks up everything. "
If you can rephrase that bolded part into the simplest English possible that would help a lot.
I interpret it as "science is really good, but it can't answer theological questions."
If that's what it says, fine, that still doesn't answer me as to how you judge one theological belief to be more or less "valid" than another when you've already completely ruled out empirical study as a possiblity. That's where this entire tangent came from, so please, inform me.
|
On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
Because it is impossible to function in the world unless one makes the assumption. The opposite can be nothing other than a self-deception, as it is impossible to establish a discursive position without value-rational assumptions.
edit: question is on topic as my interlocutor desires to use the claim that "claim x is legitimate iff scientific" to justify belief that all religious claims are illegitimate, and that therefore do not deserve to be seen deserving of respect in questions concerning the scope of secular authority.
|
On January 03 2013 11:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
Because it is impossible to function in the world unless one makes the assumption. The opposite can be nothing other than a self-deception, as it is impossible to establish a discursive position without value-rational assumptions.
Okay... thanks for responding.
I personally am quite content making the "assumption" that everything empirically provable has more value than that which is not, and that which is not is all equally valuable because it can't be verified or validated.
So... can you give me a few examples to help me understand please?
|
On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort.
After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so?
(i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.)
|
what the fuck is happening in this thread? There's nothing, literally nothing regarding the OP on this, the 34th page.
Get over yourselves.
|
On January 03 2013 11:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:44 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
Because it is impossible to function in the world unless one makes the assumption. The opposite can be nothing other than a self-deception, as it is impossible to establish a discursive position without value-rational assumptions. I personally am quite content making the "assumption" that everything empirically provable has more value than that which is not, and that which is not is all equally valuable because it can't be verified or validated.
Are you familiar with the Cretan Liar's paradox?
|
On January 03 2013 11:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:51 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:44 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
Because it is impossible to function in the world unless one makes the assumption. The opposite can be nothing other than a self-deception, as it is impossible to establish a discursive position without value-rational assumptions. I personally am quite content making the "assumption" that everything empirically provable has more value than that which is not, and that which is not is all equally valuable because it can't be verified or validated. Are you familiar with the Cretan Liar's paradox?
Yes.
|
Why do you use the word "data"?
|
|
|
On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance.
Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable.
And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system.
Oh, you religious types.
|
On January 03 2013 12:02 Reason wrote:it's not important data/information/belief just put whatever you want there to make it easy reading for you...
of course the words are important. we're using words to talk about it. I think about data as being beliefs of the type "after x happened, y happened"
|
I think beliefs can be seperated into two groups, one group of beliefs is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not.
I think the former group of beliefs, that which can be tested and proven, has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, so then this group of beliefs can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false.
I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, beliefs which are capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which have in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than beliefs which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true.
So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is:
Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right.
Beliefs not empirically testable or provable.
Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong.
That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising.
What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of beliefs can also be further subdivided into portions with different "value", and I wish to hear his (or yours, or anybodies) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance.
|
On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types.
Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then???
I'm waiting.
|
it's really hard and you have to read a lot and think about it.
you don't prove it with a formal system. really mostly you can lead by example, or tell stories. also important is to understand why other people think other things and try to think about all these different ways of thinking together and compare them critically. It is a process of iterative challenging and refining of moral intuitions. you start with the assumption that nobody is smart enough to be wrong about everything and you go from there.
but your claim is self-contradictory, so that proves it already by reductio ad absurdum so you don't even have to be able to say how you would do it to know that it is something which can be done.
edit: look. claim X is your belief. there's also a claim not-X. how do you decide which of these claims has more value? claim X claims that claim X is meaningless.
|
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong.
|
On January 03 2013 12:27 Reason wrote:
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong.
of course I am not claiming this. That is tautologically false.
edit: I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is.
|
On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is.
is this also a Godel sentence?
|
On January 03 2013 12:20 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types. Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then??? I'm waiting.
What's all this? You're defending contradictions within your own belief system by asking me to state my belief system? And here I was thinking Reason was simple, logical, and uncompromising...
I think I'll decline. I'm not the one laboring under the illusion that my beliefs are scientifically and logically demonstrable.
|
On January 03 2013 12:32 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is. is this also a Godel sentence?
hmm, is it?
I don't think so.
edit: no definitely not. Otherwise the proof wouldn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
