Is there some unknown religion I don't know about?

[lixluke]

Take this example that somebody said:
1. A subject has concluded that X is true.
2. The subjct cannot possess knowledge that X is true until he verifies that X is true.

First he says that the subject already concluded that X is true. Then he said that the same subject must verify that X is true in order to possess knowledge.

There seems to be some sort of religion of verification that I don't know about. Obviously, I cannot understand why this person isn't aware that he has contradicted himself. Is there some sort of "verification" ritual that I don't know about? The first bloody 'given' stated that the subject already concluded that X is true. What is this so-called 'verification' that this subject must undertake in order to possess knowledge? What happens after that ritual is performed? The subject may change his conclusion to X is false or keep it to X is true. In both cases, the subject made some sort of determination about the t/f state of X. Is he saying that in the first 'given', the subject never made any determination about the t/f state of X? What makes it so that the subject in the second case made a determination?

So before performing this ritual (that this religion says is required for knowledge), it is not possible for the subject to possess knowledge about his conclusion. Only after performing this ritual, it is possible for the subject to possess knowledge? (Of course, when asked to explain, there was no rational response.)

 

[Dywyddyr]

So you're under the impression that people don't make conclusions (or claims) without actual verification?
That people don't "conclude" based on prejudice, ignorance or wishful thinking?

 

[Read-Only]

Take this example that somebody said:
1. A subject has concluded that X is true.
2. The subjct cannot possess knowledge that X is true until he verifies that X is true.

First he says that the subject already concluded that X is true. Then he said that the same subject must verify that X is true in order to possess knowledge.

There seems to be some sort of religion of verification that I don't know about. Obviously, I cannot understand why this person isn't aware that he has contradicted himself. Is there some sort of "verification" ritual that I don't know about? The first bloody 'given' stated that the subject already concluded that X is true. What is this so-called 'verification' that this subject must undertake in order to possess knowledge? What happens after that ritual is performed? The subject may change his conclusion to X is false or keep it to X is true. In both cases, the subject made some sort of determination about the t/f state of X. Is he saying that in the first 'given', the subject never made any determination about the t/f state of X? What makes it so that the subject in the second case made a determination?

So before performing this ritual (that this religion says is required for knowledge), it is not possible for the subject to possess knowledge about his conclusion. Only after performing this ritual, it is possible for the subject to possess knowledge? (Of course, when asked to explain, there was no rational response.)

Are you really THAT dense????? Lots of people believe something is true without ANY verification or proof. And without that verification it certainly cannot be called knowledge.

People used to believe the world was flat - that was their conclusion. Would you really consider such a silly idea as being knowledge?????

 

[lixluke]

So you're under the impression that people don't make conclusions (or claims) without actual verification?
That people don't "conclude" based on prejudice, ignorance or wishful thinking?

Those are methods of verification. In order for a subject to come to a conclusion there has to be something that compelled him to a conclusion. Verificaiton/evidence/justification is anything that has compelled a subject to a conclusion. Whether or not you consider it to be a valid method of verification is irrelevant. Verification regarding a subject's conclusion is directly (or indirectly) only defined by the subject.

If as subject has arrived at a conclusion, is it not absolutely necessary that something compelled that subject to a cocnlusion? All you're doing is following the common religion of verification. As if what you consider to be verification is what everybody considers to be verification: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2456946#post2456946

 

[lixluke]

So you're under the impression that people don't make conclusions (or claims) without actual verification?
That people don't "conclude" based on prejudice, ignorance or wishful thinking?

Are you really THAT dense????? Lots of people believe something is true without ANY verification or proof. And without that verification it certainly cannot be called knowledge.

People used to believe the world was flat - that was their conclusion. Would you really consider such a silly idea as being knowledge?????

Both of these are responses of the exact religion I'm talking about. The religion of verification. The assumption that a subject has arrived at a conclusion without any verification simply because I worship this entity that I consider true verification. If this entity that I worship as 'verification' wasn't used by this subject, then this subject has not used any verification. What makes you so blindly faithful that what you personally consider verification is considered by everybody else to be verification?

Provide an example of a form of "verification" that if not used, a subject has used nothing to arrive at a conclusion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Those are methods of verification.

Prejudice, ignorance or wishful thinking are methods of verification?
No.
They're methods of confirmation (of themselves) though.

In order for a subject to come to a conclusion there has to be something that compelled him to a conclusion.

Correct.

Verificaiton/evidence/justification is anything that has compelled a subject to a conclusion.

Incorrect.
Verification is a method of determining the validity of the conclusion: which is something prejudice, ignorance and wishful thinking cannot do.

Whether or not you consider it to be a valid method of verification is irrelevant.

Because you say so?

Verification regarding a subject's conclusion is directly (or indirectly) only defined by the subject.

Wrong.

All you're doing is following the common religion of verification. As if what you consider to be verification is what everybody considers to be verification: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2456946#post2456946

How does a link to Read Only's post (i.e. post #3 in THIS thread) make whatever point you think you're making?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Provide an example of a form of "verification" that if not used, a person has used nothing to arrive at a conclusion.

And again you miss the point.
Not everyone verifies their conclusions, many don't even try to do so.
As previously noted:

So you're under the impression that people don't make conclusions (or claims) without actual verification?
That people don't "conclude" based on prejudice, ignorance or wishful thinking?

Too many people do little but use prejudice, ignorance and wishful thinking rather than verification.
For example:

Verification regarding a subject's conclusion is directly (or indirectly) only defined by the subject.

Or even claiming that ignorance, prejudice and wishful thinking

are methods of verification.

 

[lixluke]

And again you miss the point.
Not everyone verifies their conclusions, many don't even try to do so.
As previously noted:

Too many people do little but use prejudice, ignorance and wishful thinking rather than verification.
For example:

Or even claiming that ignorance, prejudice and wishful thinking

Once again, you're using the term "verification" in a religious manner.


They're not verification, but they are confirmations? Says who? As far as I know, it's up to the subject to determine what he considers to be verification.


Consider the statement: "The subject has concluded that X is true, but hasn't verified whether or not X is true."

This is becomes a religious statement when the individual making the statement is unaware of the fact that what people consider to be "valid verification" completely depends on the person.

Now consider the following givens:
This subject has concluded that X is true.
This subject hasn't verified/determined/confirmed whether or not X is true.

What does this mean to you? How is it possible for the subject to have arrived at the conclusion that X is true without something that relative to the subject is verification/confirmation? What these givens are doing, is religiously using the term "verification" as some sort of universal without specifying exactly what this "verification" is that the subject hasn't completed.

 

[Read-Only]

Both of these are responses of the exact religion I'm talking about. The religion of verification. The assumption that a subject has arrived at a conclusion without any verification simply because I worship this entity that I consider true verification. If this entity that I worship as 'verification' wasn't used by this subject, then this subject has not used any verification. What makes you so blindly faithful that what you personally consider verification is considered by everybody else to be verification?

Provide an example of a form of "verification" that if not used, a subject has used nothing to arrive at a conclusion.

Your statements truly border on the insane! Can you actually say that you've never heard of the "Scientific Method" of proving something to be true or false?

All you are doing here is showing your extreme ignorance concerning the most basic application of reasoning and logic.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Once again, you're using the term "verification" in a religious manner.

Once again you're displaying your ignorance.

They're not verification, but they are confirmations? Says who?

So you're unaware of the meaning of the word "verify"?

ver·i·fy (vr-f)
tr.v. ver·i·fied, ver·i·fy·ing, ver·i·fies
1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
2. To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference: experiments that verified the hypothesis.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verify

As far as I know, it's up to the subject to determine what he considers to be verification.

Then your "knowledge" is faulty.

Consider the statement: "The subject has concluded that X is true, but hasn't verified whether or not X is true."
This is becomes a religious statement when the individual making the statement is unaware of the fact that what people consider to be "valid verification" completely depends on the person.

Religious?
Or ignorant, or prejudiced, or deluded.

Now consider the following givens:
This subject has concluded that X is true.
This subject hasn't verified/determined/confirmed whether or not X is true.
What does this mean to you? How is it possible for the subject to have arrived at the conclusion that X is true without something that relative to the subject is verification/confirmation?

By using ignorance, prejudice or wishful thinking.
The fact that someone has made a conclusion does not in any way say anything about the veracity of that conclusion.
Or are you under the impression that no one ever comes to an erroneous conclusion?

 

[lixluke]

Your statements truly border on the insane! Can you actually say that you've never heard of the "Scientific Method" of proving something to be true or false?

All you are doing here is showing your extreme ignorance concerning the most basic application of reasoning and logic.

Once again you're displaying your ignorance.


So you're unaware of the meaning of the word "verify"?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verify


Then your "knowledge" is faulty.


Religious?
Or ignorant, or prejudiced, or deluded.


By using ignorance, prejudice or wishful thinking.
The fact that someone has made a conclusion does not in any way say anything about the veracity of that conclusion.
Or are you under the impression that no one ever comes to an erroneous conclusion?

Neither of these have anything to do with what this thread is about. This thread is about the fact that different people consider different things to be verification. The religion is the lack of awareness of this. The scientific method may be a great format, but it doesn't change the fact that religious people are blindly unaware that not all people consider the same entity to be "verification".

All you are doing is sitting on your highhorse without actually reading the actual point of the matter.
Here is the scenario:
1. Subject arrived at a conclusion.
2. Subject used verification to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, it is possible for the subject to possess knowledge.

So this is saying that it's possible for this subject to have knowledge if he used "verification" regardless of whether or not other people agree about the legitimacy of the verification being used. So this subject used "Verification". Now he can have knowledge? What about the first line? He didn't use "Verification", so he cannot have knowledge? Yet let's completely dismiss the fact that others may disagree on what verification is.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Neither of these have anything to do with what this thread is about. This thread is about the fact that different people consider different things to be verification.

Then you should have made that clear.
And you should also show how these "other methods of verification" are valid.

The religion is the lack of awareness of this.

Arrant nonsense.
Look at the definition of the word.

The scientific method may be a great format, but it doesn't change the fact that religious people are blindly unaware that not all people consider the same entity to be "verification".

Which is avoiding the question.
How do you know these other methods are real?

All you are doing is sitting on your highhorse without actually reading the actual point of the matter.

Wrong again. You're rather good at that.

Here is the scenario:
1. Subject arrived at a conclusion.
2. Subject used verification to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore, it is possible for the subject to possess knowledge.

And you still avoid the point.
Is it possible to arrive at an incorrect conclusion?
An unverified one?

So this is saying that it's possible for this subject to have knowledge if he used "verification" regardless of whether or not other people agree about the legitimacy of the verification being used.

That's your claim: show that it's true.

So this subject used "Verification". Now he can have knowledge? What about the first line? He didn't use "Verification", so he cannot have knowledge?

Correct: knowledge can only refer to things that are true. If it cannot be shown to be true then it's belief.

 

[John99]

These things are not religions, may as well just forget about it.

 

[lixluke]

knowledge can only refer to things that are true. If it cannot be shown to be true then it's belief.

Typical religious statement that happens all the time.
Shown to be true to whom, by whom, and by what method of verification?

 

[lixluke]

These things are not religions, may as well just forget about it.

It is a religion. The religion of Verification. The idea that what one religiously considers to be verification means that there is no such thing as others who have a different idea of what verification is.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Shown to be by who and according to whos method of verification?

And you fail again: show that these "other methods of verification" have any validity whatsoever.

It is a religion. The religion of Verification.

And you're talking nonsense. Again.

The idea that what one religiously considers to be verification means that there is no such thing as others who have a different idea of what verification is.

Having a "different idea" of what verification is merely displays ignorance.
You claim there are other methods of verification. You have yet to show they these other methods do, in fact, verify anything.
In fact you yet have to describe or name these "other methods".

One more example of you inventing "facts" and sticking to them through thick and thin with nothing other than the fact "you said so" as support for the view.

 

[lixluke]

And you fail again: show that these "other methods of verification" have any validity whatsoever.


And you're talking nonsense. Again.


Having a "different idea" of what verification is merely displays ignorance.
You claim there are other methods of verification. You have yet to show they these other methods do, in fact, verify anything.
In fact you yet have to describe or name these "other methods".

One more example of you inventing "facts" and sticking to them through thick and thin with nothing other than the fact "you said so" as support for the view.

Consider the following:

Subject 1 considers his dream to be the justification (verification/confirmation/proof/evidence) that has compelled him to his belief.

Subject 2 considers Subject 1's method of verification to be invalid.

The Religion: If I consider a subject's method of verification to be invalid, then that subject considers his method of verification to be invalid.

THE WHOLE POINT: Different people consider different things to be valid methods of verification. Whether or not you consider other people's methods of verification to be valid or invalid does not change this fact.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So what?
Merely because someone considers a dream to be valid does NOT mean that it is.
Like I noted earlier: - ignorance, prejudice or delusion are used as confirmation by people.
That doesn't mean it's a valid method of justification.

 

[John99]

Subject 1 considers his dream to be the justification (verification/confirmation/proof/evidence) that has compelled him to his belief.

Subject 2 considers Subject 1's method of verification to be invalid.

I dont know anyone who consider dreams to be verification (proof) of anything let alone some kind of religion.

 

[lixluke]

So what?
Merely because someone considers a dream to be valid does NOT mean that it is.
Like I noted earlier: - ignorance, prejudice or delusion are used as confirmation by people.
That doesn't mean it's a valid method of justification.

It means that that person considers it to be valid. While another person may or may not consider it to be valid. Either way, to assume that every person considers what you personally deem to be 'valid verification' as the only form of "Verification" is a religion.