Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: Phred]
    #4792426 - 10/12/05 01:36 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

furthermore rationality provides no absolute knowledge. you may buy a stock only the have all of the company's factories destroyed by earthquakes.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4792446 - 10/12/05 01:42 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

crunchytoast said:
furthermore rationality provides no absolute knowledge.  you may buy a stock only the have all of the company's factories destroyed by earthquakes.




Well, let's not expect the impossible, now. :smirk:

Furthermore, I do believe that wise and aware investor would take such possibillities into consideration. :wink:

Seriously, though, what mechanism do you wish to employ to attain absolute knowledge, or an real knowledge at all? :confused:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: fireworks_god]
    #4792552 - 10/12/05 02:05 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

i don't believe in absolute knowledge. real knowledge- i want to say that real knowledge is anything that gets called knowledge. even the belief in a flat earth was real knowledge at one point, in the sense that people who held that belief would have said "i know that the earth is flat". yet it was not absolute knowledge.

the way i understood the original post was a position that stated: the world is rational, and humans can absolutely know the truth, if they go follow the rules of rationality.

whereas it seems to me rationality is something rationalists indiscriminately attribute to experience after it happens. "i made a mistake? guess it turns out i wasn't being rational after all." rationality is like a mirage that you keep walking toward but never reach.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4792656 - 10/12/05 02:28 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge"
what about the external world impinging on the senses?


the quote states that reason is the only source of knowledge; if this is true, then the external world impinging on the senses is not a source of knowledge. this is counter-intuitive for me; how about you?


Sensory input is not equivalent to knowledge.
Knowledge is the mental grasp of the facts of reality. It is the awareness of the identity of particular aspects of reality. It is not just an awareness of reality, but an understanding of it. It is a successfully formed conclusion about some aspect of reality. An example of knowledge is the identification of the law of gravity. It is a characteristic of reality that is identified and understood.
And only reason can collect sensory data into something meaningful, which is clear and definable.


Rationality means acting according to reason. It means accepting only that which you have reason to believe. It means using logic to weed out any contradictions.

this begs the question, how do you know for a fact that reality isn't essentially contradictory?


See below.


Simply because Reality exists in a certain way.
A contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other.


again, how do you know a contradiction is necessarily impossible?


A contradiction is not impossible. I?ve already mentioned that our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. I repeat, reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself.


"me, i have contradictory thoughts all the time, such as "i am sick of eating rice every day this week/damn this rice is good." one can find many paradoxes in poetry for example. also, what about the particles from quantum physics that can be in more than one location at once?"


If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you're mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.
If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.


Objectivity is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation.
reality does not evaluate, it just is. people evaluate.
Does it say that reality evaluates? It says that it is a standard of evaluation. If I said a Ruler is a standard of Metric Evaluation, that means that it can be used to evaluate and measure certain metrics ? not that the ruler itself performs these actions.


individual people evaluate the world based on the standards of their preferences


Not always.


a ruler is not an evaluating tool, it is a measuring device. IMO e-valu-ation implies value, which is subjective.


There is such a thing as numerical value, in mathematics. The ruler analogy stands.


Preferences and judgments are indeed subjective, and while there is always some element of subjectivity in our preferences and judgments, more objective metrics can be used. Agreed. Not sure if whether you are simply conversing or trying to refute the premise of the quoted sentences, because what you mentioned doesn?t conflict with the sentence in consideration.

my argument is that rationalism can not be an intrinsic quality of the universe, since it's a system of evaluating different statements based on subjective criteria (such as truth is better than falsehood).


Honestly, I don?t know where you?re getting that rationalism is itself an intrinsic quality of the Universe.


Objectivity is the act of referencing reality in determining the truth. It is the act of founding one's knowledge on reality, and making one's thoughts and ideas conform to it.

It is a common mistake to believe that one cannot be objective if one has a personal stake involved in something. The implication is that the emotion or motivation necessarily prevents one to be accurate. Since objectivity is the act of conforming one's thoughts to reality, it should be clear that this is possible regardless of any influences.


how can a person know for certain that they know something?


Observation, reasoning, objectivity, logic and rationality, for starters. When should one be certain? When all knowledge supports the conclusion, and none denies it. If one has a valid reason for doubting something, one should not be certain. If one, for instance, knows there are facts that are unknown, and important in validating the knowledge, one should not be certain. If, however, one believes that all of the relevant information is known, and it all points to the knowledge being true, one should be certain.

everything is conjecture.


Is that right?
From dictionary.com:
con?jec?ture
n.
1.) Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2.) A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
Enough said.


Are you implying that it isn?t possible for objectivity to be exercised with what information is available at-hand?

it's possible, but there's no way of knowing if you're right or wrong at the end of it.


Depends on what situation we?re really speaking about and I?m not psychic enough to know what you?re talking about underneath your blanketing statement. Perhaps I should enlist in the Sylvia Browne Academy.


furthermore it's not necessary to use logic with empirical evidence.


In some cases it is ? particularly in the medicinal field.


even if we were to assume that logic is a valuable tool, it would not be the only valuable tool.


Certainly, logic is not the only valuable tool there is. For instance, we also have objectivity, logic, reason, knowledge, perception, concepts, definitions, words, integration, values, deduction, induction and focus, to name several.


yet even something as taken-for-granted as gravity was re-visioned as recently as last century with relativity. what's beautiful about science IMO is that it makes no statements with absolute certainty, but allows for the perpetual evolution of its theories and hypotheses.


Certainty is contextual. It is based on one's current knowledge. It is possible to be certain, and still be wrong. Human beings are not omniscient. They can form conclusions, but there is the possibility of error. Humans need knowledge, though, and need a basis for accepting knowledge as true. They cannot live constantly doubting every piece of knowledge. To survive, they must be able to accept knowledge as true, and act accordingly.
The term certainty is often used to describe knowledge without the possibility of doubt. This is omniscience. It is an improper use of the term.


?i think emotion is the sole determinant of human behavior, not reason.?
The sole determinant? Oh please. Stop with the black and white thinking and use some rationality.

i stand by my statement 100%. IMO it's an old myth in our culture that intellect and emotions are separate things that perpetuates much of contemporary neuroscience (but not all). if you ask me, it's precisely why we haven't been able to create artificial sentience. the computer is a system of symbols that have no meaning for the computer itself. what it lacks is a way of grounding its knowledge, for its knowledge to have any meaning for it. if you ask me, emotions and intellect necessarily fall on a single spectrum.

rationality- you make it sound like there's two places for the ego to inhabit- emotion and the rational.



I never made any claims as to any such dichotomization. You stated that ?emotion is the sole determinant of human behavior.?, to which I am disagreeing with. Emotion is a determinant of our behavior, as is our intellect. The spectrum upon which the emotion and intellect fall, can be aptly named consciousness, which in itself is already a nebulous subject, so I?ll digress.


It is as important to understand with the feelings as well as with the intellect. Both must develop together and equally in order to maintain balance.

balance implies conflict, and i have no doubt that intellect and emotions often conflict- but do they necessarily conflict?


Balance implies conflict? Call me crazy, but I thought balance implies harmony, whereas non-balance implies conflict.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: Phred]
    #4792734 - 10/12/05 02:42 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

You saved me quite a bit of typing, Skorp. Well done.

My pleasure.

I will disagree with your concession "It is as important to understand with the feelings as well as with the intellect. Both must develop together and equally in order to maintain balance. A person dominated by his intellect is a repetitious tape-recorder. An individual commanded by his emotions is an unpredictably erupting volcano," however. It is important to recognize the fact that emotions are not tools of cognition. Emotions provide no information whatsoever about the situation you are observing other than the fact that observing (or thinking about) that situation makes you smile or cry or frown or whatever.

I should've been more clear. It is Emotional Intelligence, not strictly reactive-emotions that I'm speaking of here. Emotional intelligence is valuable in social and interactive situations, as well as intrapersonal cases. One who is dominantly high in his IQ but inordinately low in his EQ, will typically have a certain level of difficulty in social life or intimacy but excell in academics and intellectual pursuits, and vice versa.
[Pardon the hyperbolic statements regarding tape-cassettes and volcanoes.]

I agree though, emotions aren't tools of cognition.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,517
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 5 months, 21 days
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4792857 - 10/12/05 03:09 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

A high EQ, can cause as many social problems as a low EQ.

Just 'cause you're right, doesn't mean the majority will agree.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4792878 - 10/12/05 03:17 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

I'm a scientist. I'm all for using logic, reason, and the (above all else) the evidence of my senses to form my world view.

This, however:
Quote:

It means a commitment to the principle that all of one's convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought.



is more than a bit silly. Values, convictions, and desires can be rationallized or studied rationally (with questionable success to date), but aren't fundamentally rational.

Beyond that, I think there is room for mystical experience. I'm not so proud as to believe that I can figure out what the world is all about in my lifetime, or to believe that I have access to a truely objective world view.


Beyond that, many of the concepts we deal with in day-to-day life are arbitrarily defined, or unclearly defined. In many cases, it is hard to apply logic because the law of identity relies on the belief that our concepts actually correlate to objectively real objects - which is frequently not the case.

Two examples are the the unclear boundry and the ineffable.

In biology, organisms are perpetually reclassified because their relations are not clearly known or - in many cases - not fundamentally liable to a heirarchical or ancestral classification because of the various methods of genetic recombination. Or again, we may look at organisms as seperate which can be confusing from a metabolic standpoint when resources are shared between them - as in mycorrhizal fungi and trees. This last point also brings up the question of physicall seperation. Mycorrhizae frequently physically penetrate the cells of plants - ie., there's fungus in a plant cell. Although most plants can survive without fungus, some - such as orchids - cannot. And again, there are other endosymbionts - including chloroplasts and mitochondria - that have different heredities than the surrounding organism.

An interesting - and widely appreciated - boundry question is that of abortion. Assuming we all agree that murder is wrong, there becomes a quesiton of when a foetus becoms a human, or gains whatever it is that makes killing people wrong. This basically comes down to a question of boundry: at what point in the incremental development of a human does a person become a person?

Basically, this means there are certain arguments - which frequently occur in day to day life - that aren't liable to logic because their terms are either flawed or unclear.

Logic is also generally not useful when attempting to communicate the ineffable. Certain concepts are inherently hard to define or consider logically despite wide acceptance of their importance. These include love and mystical experience.


In any case, I think the ability to think and reason is great, but it doesn't define who we are as people, nor does it wholly define how we (in either an empirical or normative sense) relate to the world.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4792913 - 10/12/05 03:22 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

i want to say that real knowledge is anything that gets called knowledge.


Say what you want. If I merely state ?water freezes at 102 degrees Fahrenheit? as knowledge, it doesn?t become knowledge. Knowledge is based in facts of reality.


even the belief in a flat earth was real knowledge at one point,


Belief and Knowledge are not the same thing.


the way i understood the original post was a position that stated: the world is rational


Again, perhaps I missed something. Would you kindly show me where you get this from?


and humans can absolutely know the truth, if they go follow the rules of rationality.


This is an over-generalized statement. Humans can know truth[s] when they use rationality. Plain and simple.


whereas it seems to me rationality is something rationalists indiscriminately attribute to experience after it happens. "i made a mistake? guess it turns out i wasn't being rational after all." rationality is like a mirage that you keep walking toward but never reach.


Sigh. I will repeat: Rationality is the habit of acting according to reason. You seem to have some outlandish perceptions of what rationality is.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: phi1618]
    #4795071 - 10/12/05 10:21 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Basically, this means there are certain arguments - which frequently occur in day to day life - that aren't liable to logic because their terms are either flawed or unclear.

Logic is also generally not useful when attempting to communicate the ineffable. Certain concepts are inherently hard to define or consider logically despite wide acceptance of their importance. These include love and mystical experience.


Question:
Do you believe these statements to be logical?



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4795146 - 10/12/05 10:36 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Logic can only be applied to clear and definite ideas.
Relatively few ideas are clear and definite.
... you can do the math.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: phi1618]
    #4795186 - 10/12/05 10:43 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Logic can only be applied to clear and definite ideas.
Relatively few ideas are clear and definite.




Incorrect. In actual fact there are far more situations amenable to logical analysis than situations which are not. I challenge you to support your assertion by providing five scenarios to which logic cannot be applied.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: phi1618]
    #4795242 - 10/12/05 10:51 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

No, here's a better way of putting it...

Classical logic depends on two laws:
Every statement is either true or false (or not true).
No statement can be both true and false (or not true).


These conditions clearly don't apply to such statements as "I love Amanda".
The situation is unclear with such statments as "Pluto is a planet", although this objection is piddling and purely semantic.
Further, there are plenty of situations in catagorizing knowlege where it is difficult to use logic because our knowlege is flawed in some more fundamental way - as in the catagorization of organisms.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: phi1618]
    #4795416 - 10/12/05 11:19 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

These conditions clearly don't apply to such statements as "I love Amanda".




How do you see that? If a person who loves Amanda says "I love Amanda", that person may be making a true statement or he/she may be making an untrue statement. The fact that the person to whom the statement is made may have a hard time deciding whether to believe the statement doesn't change the truth or untruth of the statement, it just means the person to whom the statement is made has no way of verifying it.

It isn't a question of logic being inapplicable, it's a question of determining the validity of one of the steps in a logical chain of thought, i.e.

a) I love Amanda
b) I happily assist people I love


c) therefore I will happily assist Amanda



What is wrong with c) from a logical perspective?





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: Phred]
    #4795532 - 10/12/05 11:36 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

The problem is that it is unusual to have absolutely clear feelings about sombody with whom you're in a close relationship.


It is very likely that simultaniously both love and emphatically do not love Amanda, and this was the intent of my statement.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4796598 - 10/13/05 03:40 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

"Belief and Knowledge are not the same thing."
"This is an over-generalized statement. Humans can know truth[s] when they use rationality. Plain and simple."
"Human beings are not omniscient. They can form conclusions, but there is the possibility of error."

if there's always a possibility of error, then a person can never know that they know anything.  therefore, there is effectively no difference between belief and knowledge, except in terms of an unknowable criterion.

and i would go a step further and say, if the criterion is unknowable, it effectively doesn't exist.  and if there is effectively no difference between belief and knowledge, there is no real difference between them...

Quote:

Certainty is contextual. It is based on one's current knowledge. It is possible to be certain, and still be wrong. Human beings are not omniscient. They can form conclusions, but there is the possibility of error. Humans need knowledge, though, and need a basis for accepting knowledge as true. They cannot live constantly doubting every piece of knowledge. To survive, they must be able to accept knowledge as true, and act accordingly. The term certainty is often used to describe knowledge without the possibility of doubt. This is omniscience. It is an improper use of the term.




wow, my very favorite paragraph so far!  while i believe that the "proper" use of language is defined by how each speaker uses it- that's a different argument- i will happily oblige you here, and call my use of certainty- "certainty2"- so there's no confusion.

yes, all knowledge implies doubt- but then it's not really certain2 knowledge is it?  i believe this realization has earth-shattering implications for the rationalist-

if doubt is at the root of all reason, yet the rationalist ignores the doubt- i think that says a lot about rationality.

again, why do you say the rationalist ignores doubt?
Quote:

Humans need knowledge, though, and need a basis for accepting knowledge as true. They cannot live constantly doubting every piece of knowledge. To survive, they must be able to accept knowledge as true, and act accordingly.




hmm, so humans need to go through life without perpetual doubt...  yes!  absolutely!  it's this sort of emotional need (even if it's a need for an illusion) that's at the foundation of rationality- and not some unshakeable premise, such as you would find at the beginning of some proof for the truth of rationality.  as you pointed out, no premise is unshakeable- in your words
Quote:

It is possible to be certain, and still be wrong. Human beings are not omniscient.




at the very root of rationality is this non-rational thing, doubt, and an emotional need for the dissipation of the doubt.  and that is why i say rationality is but one kind of irrationality- its root is irrational.

what that leaves, fundamentally, is rationality as a kind of practice:
Quote:

Rationality is the habit of acting according to reason.




yes!  it is a practice, a habit, a way of acting- it holds no metaphysical truth; it's a way of acting (among others), with no rational foundation; on the contrary, rationality, as any other system of knowledge, has doubt at its fundations; and this doubt must be swept under the rug (along with any metaphysical pretensions), for a person to practice it.

Quote:

It is the awareness of the identity of particular aspects of reality. It is not just an awareness of reality, but an understanding of it. It is a successfully formed conclusion about some aspect of reality. An example of knowledge is the identification of the law of gravity. It is a characteristic of reality that is identified and understood.




but which may be totally abandoned in a in a century, just as the gravity of previous times has been abandoned.  i mean, how do you know with absolute certainty2 that your knowledge of gravity isn't simply a belief?

Quote:

again, how do you know a contradiction is necessarily impossible?

A contradiction is not impossible. I?ve already mentioned that our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. I repeat, reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself.  Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.




what i don't get is how a person can know beforehand whether two things contradict?  sure, sometimes you can apply deduction, and you might find some contradiction, bang problem solved (in the sense of, a meaningless action with no claims to metaphysical truth takes place).

but more often than not, you're going to hold onto these evaluations, until bam, one day, empirical evidence shows up and it turns out there was a contradiction you werent aware of.  then the rationalist back-tracks and says, 'well gee, i wasn't being rational in the first place.  see, my conclusions were mistaken here and and here, it's so obvious how irrational i was being.'  the hindsight of rationalism is 20/20...  sadly its only application to the future is conjectural.  (see below for discussion of "conjectural".)

Quote:

Honestly, I don?t know where you?re getting that rationalism is itself an intrinsic quality of the Universe.




does the universe conform to the law of identity, in your opinion?

if not, then what would be the use of applying the law of identity to subjective beliefs?  why would that necessarily be worthwhile in any way?

Quote:

how can a person know for certain that they know something?

Observation, reasoning, objectivity, logic and rationality, for starters. When should one be certain? When all knowledge supports the conclusion, and none denies it. If one has a valid reason for doubting something, one should not be certain.




i'm saying there is always a valid reason for doubt: humans are not omniscient, and there may always be something they don't know.  what humans take for knowledge always may turn out to be mere beliefs.

Quote:

If one, for instance, knows there are facts that are unknown, and important in validating the knowledge, one should not be certain. If, however, one believes that all of the relevant information is known, and it all points to the knowledge being true, one should be certain.




how can one ever know with 100% certainty2 that all the relevant facts are known?

Quote:

everything is conjecture.


Is that right?
From dictionary.com:
con?jec?ture
n.
1.) Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2.) A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
Enough said.




i'm not sure what your point is here.  i'm arguing that there is no absolute knowledge; nothing can be known for certain2; if i'm right, then i think it naturally follows that all knowledge is guesswork, right? :confused:

Quote:

it's possible, but there's no way of knowing if you're right or wrong at the end of it.

Depends on what situation we?re really speaking about and I?m not psychic enough to know what you?re talking about underneath your blanketing statement. Perhaps I should enlist in the Sylvia Browne Academy.




of course i don't really expect you to read my mind, skorpivo.  perhaps i was unclear.  i'm speaking in general, with no particular case in mind.  i'm saying in every single case there is no way of knowing with absolute certainty2 that a person is right or wrong.

no knowledge is absolute.

Quote:

furthermore it's not necessary to use logic with empirical evidence.

In some cases it is ? particularly in the medicinal field.




yet doctors are always making mistakes.  case in point.  to repeat, logical interpretation of empirical evidence yields no guarantees.

Quote:

balance implies conflict, and i have no doubt that intellect and emotions often conflict- but do they necessarily conflict?

Balance implies conflict? Call me crazy, but I thought balance implies harmony, whereas non-balance implies conflict.




i believe you are crazy, just like every other human being on this planet!  perhaps madness is the inescapable constant of consciousness, of which rationality is but one form.

re: balance, i would say balance implies harmony between essentially conflicting parts.  as i understand your view, if emotion rises beyond intellect, that's a problem, because they should be in balance.  yet i would argue that emotion and intellect not essentially conflictual, and balance is moot in relation to them.

maybe a better description than a continuum is a coextensive plane: emotion and intellect are coextensive; each expression of consciousness has an emotional aspect, and an intellectual one.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Edited by crunchytoast (10/13/05 03:44 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4798692 - 10/13/05 03:22 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

By Certain2, you are referring to omniscience, correct?



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: phi1618]
    #4799039 - 10/13/05 04:53 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Assuming we all agree that murder is wrong, there becomes a quesiton of when a foetus becoms a human, or gains whatever it is that makes killing people wrong.

If the premise is flawed then nothing that follows will make sense.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4801366 - 10/14/05 01:01 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

By Certain2, you are referring to omniscience, correct?




more or less. i'm referring to the absolute guarantee that only omniscience could provide.

ps. welcome back swami!


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: phi1618]
    #4802784 - 10/14/05 10:58 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Classical logic depends on two laws:
Every statement is either true or false (or not true).
No statement can be both true and false (or not true).
These conditions clearly don't apply to such statements as "I love Amanda".


What you said in the above quote is not a correct version of the laws of logic. And the example you gave is a good one for showing this.

"Every statement is either true or false [or not true]" is an incorrect statement of the Law of the Excluded Middle. You should have added: "at a given time and in a given respect." That is the form given it by Aristotle.

Similarly, "No statement can be both true and false [or not true]" should have been extended to say: "at the same time and in the same respect," in order to be a correct statement of the Law of Contradiction.

Consider the sentence: "I love Amanda." When is this being said? In what respect does the person love Amanda? Who is "I"? None of these are specified. You may love Amanda today but not tomorrow, so you're saying it is true at one time, but not at another. You may love Amanda for her passionate sense of life, but not love her for her lack of personal hygiene, so you're saying it is true in one respect, but not at another. You may love Amanda, while I do not love Amanda - so in respect of your feelings for her, it is true, while in respect of my feelings for her, it is false.

Now, look back at how the LEM and the LOC apply to "I love Amanda." At a given time and in a given respect [which must be specified], "I love Amanda" is indeed either true or false - and not both. And "I love Amanda" cannot be both true and false at the same given time and respect.

Failing to realize the time and respect must be specified so that the specific meaning of a statement is clearly understood before truth or falsity can be attributed to it is one of the most basic errors in understanding the laws of logic. If your logic textbook or professor did not make this issue clear to you, you should ask for your money back.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (10/14/05 09:42 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Rationality, Objectivity and Logic [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4802920 - 10/14/05 11:53 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

if there's always a possibility of error, then a person can never know that they know anything.


We can know things with degrees of certainty, but not to the point of omniscient certainty. I?ve cleared this up before. We know with utmost non-omniscient certainty that water does not freeze at 102 degrees Fahrenheit, for instance.


therefore, there is effectively no difference between belief and knowledge, except in terms of an unknowable criterion.


Nonsense. Belief is synonymous to opinion, whereas knowledge is rooted in observation and learning. For example, I do not need to believe that the sun rises and sets everyday. I know it does.


Certainty is contextual. It is based on one's current knowledge. It is possible to be certain, and still be wrong. Human beings are not omniscient. They can form conclusions, but there is the possibility of error. Humans need knowledge, though, and need a basis for accepting knowledge as true. They cannot live constantly doubting every piece of knowledge. To survive, they must be able to accept knowledge as true, and act accordingly. The term certainty is often used to describe knowledge without the possibility of doubt. This is omniscience. It is an improper use of the term

all knowledge implies doubt- but then it's not really certain2 knowledge is it? i believe this realization has earth-shattering implications for the rationalist-


You?re stating that the fact that knowledge without the possibility of doubt is impossibility because we are not omniscient is earth-shattering for rationalists?


if doubt is at the root of all reason,


Doubt as in skepticism is a root of reason, but not the sole root by any means. As such, your corollary does not follow:


yet the rationalist ignores the doubt- i think that says a lot about rationality.

[See Above]


again, why do you say the rationalist ignores doubt?


Rational humans disregard irrational doubts, i.e., doubting every piece of knowledge.


Humans need knowledge, though, and need a basis for accepting knowledge as true. They cannot live constantly doubting every piece of knowledge. To survive, they must be able to accept knowledge as true, and act accordingly.
hmm, so humans need to go through life without perpetual doubt... yes!


Yes. This is to say, humans need to go through life in the company of rationality.


absolutely! it's this sort of emotional need (even if it's a need for an illusion) that's at the foundation of rationality


Rationality stems from the strive to survive. It is because of man?s discovery of his rationality that we are where we are today, amongst others. See third response down below.


not some unshakeable premise, such as you would find at the beginning of some proof for the truth of rationality . as you pointed out, no premise is unshakeable- in your words


Whiskey Tango Fox, Over.


It is possible to be certain, and still be wrong. Human beings are not omniscient.

at the very root of rationality is this non-rational thing, doubt,


See fourth response.


an emotional need for the dissipation of the doubt.


Our instinctual drive to survive is encoded in our Limbic brain, amongst our other instinctive mechanisms, such as our prurient urges. They are not subject to rational OR emotional thought. [In layman?s terms, it gives us the feeling of what?s important, but it cannot read, for instance] They may be behaviorally overridden, but the urges still remain. The need for rationality stems from survival, not emotions, which are secondary or tertiary, but not primary.


and that is why i say rationality is but one kind of irrationality- its root is irrational.


Your  misconceptions of rationality say nothing about rationality and only about yourself.


what that leaves, fundamentally, is rationality as a kind of practice:


You sound as if you?ve just discovered this. Interesting. Glad to see you?re making progress.


Rationality is the habit of acting according to reason.

yes! it is a practice, a habit, a way of acting 


?And? Thinking itself IS an act[ion], i.e. the act of thinking. Moving along?


it holds no metaphysical truth;


First and foremost, metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. Rationality is most definitely a tool of cognition to be used in the discovery of metaphysical truth[s].


It is the awareness of the identity of particular aspects of reality. It is not just an awareness of reality, but an understanding of it. It is a successfully formed conclusion about some aspect of reality. An example of knowledge is the identification of the law of gravity. It is a characteristic of reality that is identified and understood.

but which may be totally abandoned in a in a century, just as the gravity of previous times has been abandoned.


Irrelevant.
[What-ifs are irrelevant. What is relevant is the actuality here and now.  And I would call into question the actual degree of certainty regarding prior theories of gravity, as I may not be as erudite on this particular facet of knowledge as you are. Perhaps you would be kind enough to share the details on this..]


i mean, how do you know with absolute certainty2 that your knowledge of gravity isn't simply a belief?


Knowledge is not synonymous with beliefs.


what i don't get is how a person can know beforehand whether two things contradict?


For something to be perceived as contradictory, presupposed concepts or opinions regarding incompatibility would be required.


you're going to hold onto these evaluations, until bam, one day, empirical evidence shows up and it turns out there was a contradiction you werent aware of. then the rationalist back-tracks and says, 'well gee, i wasn't being rational in the first place. see, my conclusions were mistaken here and and here, it's so obvious how irrational i was being.'


You seem to be equating subjective inaccuracy to a means/target for irrational behavior. This is erroneous. I can rationally approach and attempt to decipher a mathematical equation, but if I find that one of my answers are incorrect, this does not mean that my behavior has been irrational. Again, I have already said that it is possible to form conclusions, with the possibility of an error.  Furthermore, if my behavior were entirely irrational, I would never arrive at the correct answer to the equation ? until I started becoming more rational, which is to say, more reasonable.


Honestly, I don?t know where you?re getting that rationalism is itself an intrinsic quality of the Universe.

does the universe conform to the law of identity, in your opinion?


That question is a bit askew. Reality itself doesn?t ?conform? to the Law of Identity. Essentially, the Law of Identity ?conforms? to Reality. The Law of Identity is an establishment of what has been proven about a nature of the Universe.


what would be the use of applying the law of identity to subjective beliefs?

For instance, if I believed that burning Bibles is my duty to a god that I call Allah, because Christianity is the religion of evil warmongers and a threat to my religion, then the knowledge that this particular book is solid, dry, and flammable ? all characteristics of it?s own identity ? would be applicable, for me to carry out such a subjective belief.


why would that necessarily be worthwhile in any way?


Because of the subjective belief that doing such would be efficacious ? in that hypothetic scenario.


how can a person know for certain that they know something?

Observation, reasoning, objectivity, logic and rationality, for starters. When should one be certain? When all knowledge supports the conclusion, and none denies it. If one has a valid reason for doubting something, one should not be certain.

i'm saying there is always a valid reason for doubt: humans are not omniscient,


We?ve already differentiated between standard certainty and omniscient certainty. The absence of omniscience can be a source of doubt ? but ultimately, this is simply to be disregarded, so that we can be certain with what we are able to attain standard certainty about. As was pointed out before: It would be irrational to constantly doubt every piece of knowledge.


and there may always be something they don't know.


Irrelevant. Conclusions can still be and still are formed regardless of the unknown.


what humans take for knowledge always may turn out to be mere beliefs.


Not quite. The anatomical difference between knowledge and beliefs obviate this.


If one, for instance, knows there are facts that are unknown, and important in validating the knowledge, one should not be certain. If, however, one believes that all of the relevant information is known, and it all points to the knowledge being true, one should be certain.

how can one ever know with 100% certainty2 that all the relevant facts are known?


Facts are, by definition, that which is known. Your question is akin to asking how one can know with certainty that water is liquid.


everything is conjecture.

Is that right?
From dictionary.com:
con?jec?ture
n.
1.) Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2.) A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
Enough said.


i'm not sure what your point is here.


The point is: By definition, not everything is conjecture.


i'm arguing that there is no absolute knowledge;


And where was it said that there IS absolute knowledge?


nothing can be known for certain2;


Nothing can be known with omniscient certainty, correct. This is irrelevant, as we are not omniscient, and therefore must focus on what is known for certain.


i'm saying in every single case there is no way of knowing with absolute certainty2 that a person is right or wrong.


See above.


no knowledge is absolute.


Overlooking the irrelevancy of this; where are you getting the interpretation that knowledge itself is absolute?


furthermore it's not necessary to use logic with empirical evidence.

In some cases it is ? particularly in the medicinal field.

[correction mine:] yet some doctors have made mistakes.


Yet doctors have not made mistakes.


i believe you are crazy, just like every other human being on this planet! i believe you are crazy, just like every other human being on this planet!


:toomuchacid:



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (10/14/05 11:59 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* epistemology and logic Axiom420 3,162 17 01/16/03 01:23 PM
by Axiom420
* Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs
( 1 2 all )
Swami 10,271 39 01/14/05 07:58 PM
by Alan Stone
* Fuck logic, logic is barren and desolate
( 1 2 all )
Lightningfractal 1,938 23 01/20/05 12:10 PM
by redgreenvines
* rationality
( 1 2 all )
BleaK 2,822 28 03/18/06 02:17 AM
by BlueCoyote
* rejection of logic.
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,879 31 10/17/03 10:45 PM
by Anonymous
* Logic, Emotion, Mathematics, and the Universe
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 5,210 47 02/23/04 09:29 AM
by raytrace
* Logical Empiricism
( 1 2 3 all )
Ravus 3,055 44 04/14/05 08:09 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* An Aristotelian Foundation for Objectivity SkorpivoMusterion 1,415 8 04/22/06 07:40 AM
by fresh313

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
6,111 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 17 queries.