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

[lixluke]

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

It's just an example. The point is, what one considers to be verification may not be considered to be verification by another.

Take the following proposition: This box contains a golf ball.

Now you look inside the box, see a golf ball, and conclude that the proposition is true.

Your method of verification can be described as visual perception. You visually perceived a golf ball inside the box. Perhaps you even felt it up. Whatever.

Meanwhile, another person might say that there is no golf ball in the box. Or another yet might do the exact same thing you did, saw it, felt it, and continued to remain inconclusive on the matter.

Which one is a requirement for knowledge? Now in this scenario, it hasn't been 'given' that there is a ball in the box.
If there is a ball in the box, then you possess knowledge.
If there is no ball in the box, then you possess misconception.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It means that that person considers it to be valid.

And "considering" something to be valid doesn't mean that it is.
They could be ignoring pertinent facts, or be unaware of them.

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.

Wrong again.
Valid means that it conforms to reality: anything else is delusion or etc.
You still have yet to provide examples of these "other forms of verification".

 

[lixluke]

And "considering" something to be valid doesn't mean that it is.

The religion is that nobody uses "Verification" in any form other than the form that you deem real valid verification.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The religion is that nobody uses "Verification" in any form other than the form that you deem real valid verification.

And you still have to show that there is any other method that works.
Otherwise your claims that it's a religion are no more valid than claiming that travelling by sea or air rather than walking is a religion when one wants to cross the Atlantic.
The method is used because it works, not because it's a "religion".
Still avoiding the point...

 

[lixluke]

And you still have to show that there is any other method that works.
Otherwise your claims that it's a religion are no more valid than claiming that travelling by sea or air rather than walking is a religion when one wants to cross the Atlantic.
The method is used because it works, not because it's a "religion".
Still avoiding the point...

Show a method that works to who? If somebody shows you a method that you deem accetable/unacceptable, does it mean that nobody considers it acceptable justificatin? The religion is the idea that if you deem something as invalid, then nobody will consider it to be valid. So if I show a method of justification that you accept as valid, does it change anything? If I show you method that you don't accept as valid, does it change anything?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Show a method that works to who?

A method that actually works: not one that promotes belief but one that can actually show the truth to be the truth.

If somebody shows you a method that you deem accetable/unacceptable, does it mean that nobody considers it acceptable justificatin?

And you still miss the point.

The religion is the idea that if you deem something as invalid, then nobody will consider it to be valid. So if I show a method of justification that you accept as valid, does it change anything? If I show you method that you don't accept as valid, does it change anything?

You claimed there were other methods: show them.
Then we can argue about whether or not they're valid.
Until then all we have is (once again) your unsupported word that there are other methods.

 

[lixluke]

A method that actually works: not one that promotes belief but one that can actually show the truth to be the truth.

A method that actually works to show the truth. A method that works according to who? Consider a method you deem effective. Somebody else might consider it to be ineffective. Consider a method you deem ineffective. Somebody else might consider it completely effective.

So who's method shows the truth? Who has knowledge?

 

[Read-Only]

Show a method that works to who? If somebody shows you a method that you deem accetable/unacceptable, does it mean that nobody considers it acceptable justificatin? The religion is the idea that if you deem something as invalid, then nobody will consider it to be valid. So if I show a method of justification that you accept as valid, does it change anything? If I show you method that you don't accept as valid, does it change anything?

Here's a method that works:

I have a substance that I suspect may contain chlorine. Note that I neither believe or disbelieve or know - I simply suspect.

I now run a sample through an LC/GC (depending if it's a liquid or gas) and get a spike on the graph at the chlorine point.

I now have the KNOWLEDGE that it contains CL because I have tested it and verified the presence of CL. There's absolutely NO form of religion involved here at all. No unsubstantiated belief, no questions and I can prove it to anyone bright enough to understand how the test works.

Can you disprove what I have shown to be true? Is there a method of doing that - short of ignorance or disbelief?

 

[lixluke]

Here's a method that works:

I have a substance that I suspect may contain chlorine. Note that I neither believe or disbelieve or know - I simply suspect.

I now run a sample through an LC/GC (depending if it's a liquid or gas) and get a spike on the graph at the chlorine point.

I now have the KNOWLEDGE that it contains CL because I have tested it and verified the presence of CL. There's absolutely NO form of religion involved here at all. No unsubstantiated belief, no questions and I can prove it to anyone bright enough to understand how the test works.

Can you disprove what I have shown to be true? Is there a method of doing that - short of ignorance or disbelief?

The religion is the lack of awareness that somebody might use a different method, even draw a different concluson, then state that he has knowledge while you don't.

Because truth exists independent of the observer, the only one that has knowledge is the one that possesses the correct belief. Regardless of method of justification.

 

[Read-Only]

The religion is the lack of awareness that somebody might use a different method, even draw a different concluson, then state that he has knowledge while you don't.

Because truth exists independent of the observer, the only one that has knowledge is the one that possesses the correct belief. Regardless of method of justification.

That's pure bull !!! All you're doing is showing your lack of ability to think correctly.

I've given you an example of how to prove something - yet you've offered NO no counter example of ANY kind. Why? Because you cannot. You think you have something in your silly mind yet you are unable to express it. All you ever offer is the same old meaningless garbage.

 

[lixluke]

That's pure bull !!! All you're doing is showing your lack of ability to think correctly.

I've given you an example of how to prove something - yet you've offered NO no counter example of ANY kind. Why? Because you cannot. You think you have something in your silly mind yet you are unable to express it. All you ever offer is the same old meaningless garbage.

What meaningless garbage?

You posted a scenario. I replied to your scenario. You claim my reply is incorrect, yet provide no explanation behind it. It's meaningless garbage because you say so? Not because you provided any points regarding how it's incorrect?

 

[Read-Only]

What meaningless garbage?

The same meaningless garbage you keep repeating since you got on this idiotic kick.

You never once have posted any counter examples - you just continue to repeat the same old stuff over and over and over again.

 

[lixluke]

The same meaningless garbage you keep repeating since you got on this idiotic kick.

You never once have posted any counter examples - you just continue to repeat the same old stuff over and over and over again.

Consider the following example:


Proposition X: Substance contains chlorine.

Subject 1: Has not arrived at conclusion about the proposition. He runs it through the scanner, and observeers reading. Based on is observation, he concludes that X is true.

Subject 2: Has not arrived at a conclusion about the proposition. He takes a pill, and suddenly, he believes that X is true.

Given: Both Subject 1 and Subject 2 used a method of justification to arrive at his belief.

1. If X is true, they both possess knowledge.
2. If X is false, they both possess misconception.


The point is providing a rational explanation without any sort of religious interference. People are using religious ideas of "justification" and "verification". I never said that your method of verification was invalid. You are missing the point. I simply stated that others, no matter how absurd you think they are, might be using some other form of verification. From their perspective, your methods may be absurd. Knowlege is about truth and subjective perceptions of the truth.

 

[Dywyddyr]

A method that actually works to show the truth. A method that works according to who? Consider a method you deem effective. Somebody else might consider it to be ineffective. Consider a method you deem ineffective. Somebody else might consider it completely effective.
So who's method shows the truth? Who has knowledge?

I see so you don't think that something being true should be demonstrable?
It can remain subjective?

 

[lixluke]

I see so you don't think that something being true should be demonstrable?
It can remain subjective?

I'm saying that people use terms such as "demonstratable" incorrectly like some sort of religion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm saying that people use terms such as "demonstratable" incorrectly like some sort of religion.

Really?
You have your own definition for "demonstrable" as well?
Effectively you're claiming there's no such thing as reality, simply a myriad individual "realities" that occasionally coincide.

 

[lixluke]

Really?
You have your own definition for "demonstrable" as well?
Effectively you're claiming there's no such thing as reality, simply a myriad individual "realities" that occasionally coincide.

No. I'm saying people religiously use their own definitions for these words as if their idea of what is is were the only idea of what it is. Might their idea of it be completely valid, and others who disagree be completely invalid? Sure. But it doesn't mean their idea of it. valid or not, is the only idea.

2 people using the word "demonstratable" might have 2 completely different ideas of what is necessary to deem something a valid "demonstration". It's fine to disagree with the other person. What is religious is the lack of awareness of the fact that somebody else might have a different idea of it.

So what some religious person says that something must be "demonstratable" in order for it to be knowledge. He is ignoring something very crucial. That various people have different ideas of what requirements are necessary for something to be "demonstratable".

 

[Dywyddyr]

No. I'm saying people religiously use their definitions for these words as if their idea of what is is were the only idea of what it is.

That's your claim (again). Yet you haven't once bothered to give the definition YOU use.

Might their idea of it be completely valid, and others who disagree be completely invalid? Sure. But it doesn't mean their idea of it. valid or not, is the only idea.

Ideas aren't worth much if they aren't valid.

 

[lixluke]

That's your claim (again). Yet you haven't once bothered to give the definition YOU use.


Ideas aren't worth much if they aren't valid.

This isn't about what definition anybody uses. This is about the lack of awareness that people have different ideas about what is necessary for something to be considered "valid". That's when it becomes a religion. Furthermore, I don't respond to ad-hominem.

Say you have a machine. Everytime you enter a proposition into it, it pops out a conclusion of whether or not the proposition is true or false. To do so, this machine uses the exact method of what you consider valid to justify/determine/prove/verify/demonstrate/determine the truth.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This isn't about what definition anybody uses. This is about the lack of awareness that people have different ideas about what is necessary for something to be considered "valid".

On the contrary, it's about people not understanding what valid means and claiming validity where it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, I don't respond to ad-hominem.

And it appears that you don't understand the meaning of "ad hominem" either: there wasn't one there, it was an direct observation.

Say you have a machine. Everytime you enter a proposition into it, it pops out a conclusion of whether or not the proposition is true or false. To do so, this machine uses the exact method of what you consider valid to justify/determine/prove/verify/demonstrate/determine the truth.

Really?
How so?
What's the underlying principles of the machine?
You make up a "machine" without describing its functioning and then claim that it uses method X. How so? Why so?