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

[lixluke]

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


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


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?

I don't respond to or entertain attempts to bring personal characteristics into a discussion. It's irrelevant. It always is. It always will be. Such tactics don't belong in discussions. I never use them on others. They are simply a waste of time. It's loud and clear in my profile. If we had signatures, it would be right there so nobody would even bother using ad-hom tactics on me.

The underlying principal is that you have a belief about your personal idea of what is necessary in order for you to consider something "justification" This machine uses that same process in order to output t/f conclusions from proposition inputs. That's the underlying 'principal'.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't respond to or entertain attempts to bring personal characteristics into a discussion.

And as I stated: there was no ad -hom, there was no personal characterisation.
You have not defined the words. It's an OBSERVATION of what you have not done, not a characterisation.

I never use them on others.

Oops, that's a lie.

The underlying principal is that you have a belief about your personal idea of what is necessary in order for you to consider something "justification" This machine uses that same process in order to output t/f conclusions from proposition inputs. That's the underlying 'principal'.

Also incorrect: I know what produces validation: you have yet to show that any other method does so.
And as for the machine you're postulating a human-capable intellect in a machine (plus the capability of experimentation etc)... So what?

 

[lixluke]

And as for the machine you're postulating a human-capable intellect in a machine (plus the capability of experimentation etc)... So what?

This machine is outputing conclusions. And everybody useing the same machine can agree with its ability to demonstrate its conclusions.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING STORY:
Somebody else has a different machine. It uses a different method for outputting conclusions. For some of the propositions, the output conclusions are different from the conclusions outputted by your machine. For other propositions, the outputted conclusions are the same. For all conclusions, the method is completely different. While some people agree with your machine, others agree with this person's machine and disagree with yours.

You have faith that your machine is the valid method for justification. You say that this person must "demonstrate" that his method works. Of course, in essence, you're saying (without realizing it) that this person must put his his system under the scrutinization of your machine.

So this person says "OK, I will justify (prove) that my system is best. He then uses his machine to output what he considers to be a valid demonstration of his machine's effectiveness. You then take this person's data, and put it through your machine. Obviously, your machine says it's invalid. Thus concluding that the other person's methods for justification are invalid. You then say that anybody using that person's machine to output conclusions doesn't have knowledge. Regardless of whether or not their output matches yours.

Now the other person decideds to input some proposition X into his machine. The machine produces the output: X is true. The person says that he possesses knowledge that X is true. You then say that person doesn't have knowledge because he hasn't yet "determined" whether or not X is true. What you don't know is that all your saying is that this person hasn't put his proposition under the scrutinization of your machine.

The point is that anytime a subject claims knowledge of a proposition, there was some form of justification that, whether you agree with it or not (or even know about it), compelled that subject to his conclusion. The religion is the lack of awareness of this. Thus, a religious person, without being aware of it, will make a statement usch as:
"This person doesn't have knowledge until verifies his belief."

Unfortunately, such a statement simply has no meaning whatsoever. That's because any conclusion anybody has made has, in one way or another, been verified by some form of justification. This is the whole point being made by this thread.

Now consider the following givens from the initial post:
1. A subject has concluded that X is true.
2. The subject cannot possess knowledge that X is true until he verifies that X is true.

In order for #1 to be a given, then the subject must have alreeady used some form of justification in order for him to verify that X is true. 32 simply has no meaning.

 

[Dywyddyr]

None of which means anything: you can postulate any fictional machine you like.
And you can claim any fictional property that you like.
A story will NOT prove that there are "alternative" methods of validation.

The point is that anytime a subject claims knowledge of a proposition, there was some form of justification that, whether you agree with it or not (or even know about it), compelled that subject to his conclusion.

Wrong again: there may be claims made of knowledge but until they are actually validated then they remain claims and beliefs, not knowledge.
And you still have not shown that there are "alternative" methods of validation that work.

 

[lixluke]

None of which means anything: you can postulate any fictional machine you like.
And you can claim any fictional property that you like.
A story will NOT prove that there are "alternative" methods of validation.


Wrong again: there may be claims made of knowledge but until they are actually validated then they remain claims and beliefs, not knowledge.
And you still have not shown that there are "alternative" methods of validation that work.

I never said anything about any alternative methods of justification. I said that people have different ideas about what justification is.

If you claim knowledge that X is true, then there must be something that compelled you to do so. This something is, relative to you, justification. Now somebody else might say that you have concluded that X is true, but have yet to determine whether or not X is true. Therefore, until you determine whether or not X is true, you don't have knowledge.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I never said anything about any alternative methods of justification. I said that people have different ideas about what justification is.

But you have stated many times that what I call verification isn't what other people may use as verification.
In other words they're using something other than the scientific method.
Re-read from the first page...

If you claim knowledge that X is true, then there must be something that compelled you to do so. This something is, relative to you, justification.

No it isn't.
You can be compelled to belief by ignorance, prejudice etc.
These are NOT justification,
One more time:

jus·ti·fy (jst-f)
v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies
v.tr.
1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid:

And you claim above "This something is, relative to you, justification." again implies alternative methods of justification.
As does "Somebody else has a different machine. It uses a different method for outputting conclusions."

Now somebody else might say that you have concluded that X is true, but have yet to determine whether or not X is true. Therefore, until you determine whether or not X is true, you don't have knowledge.

But one could still claim to have knowledge. For example "Oh I don't use the scientific method I go by blah blah..."
It is possible to conclude one has the answer without it being the right answer, or true.

Methods of justification cannot be relative to the individual, otherwise, as I said above there's no such thing as reality, only individual ones.

 

[lixluke]

Relative to the subject, whatever it was that compelled him to his belief is justification. If he inputs a proposition into his machine, and it outputs a conclusion, he considers himself to possess knowledge. That his conclusion is justified.

Whether or not you consider it to be valid as justification doesn't matter. You might even be right that, although you may agree with his output, his method of justification actually is invalid. That doesnot change the fact that the subject considers his method to be valid.

So you can say all day that the subject has not determined whether or not X is true. As long as a subject considers the matter conclusive, he has, no matter how invalid you may think his justification is, and regardless of whether or not his conclusion is correct, made a conclusive determination on the matter.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Relative to the subject, whatever it was that compelled him to his belief is justification.

No it isn't, it's merely confirmation of bias/ delusion/ prejudice if it isn't actually true.
True is not relative.

If he inputs a proposition into his machine, and it outputs a conclusion, he considers himself to possess knowledge. That his conclusion is justified.

Also incorrect since machine merely confirms the belief: without giving the verification.

Whether or not you consider it to be valid as justification doesn't matter. You might even be right that, although you may agree with his output, his method of justification actually is invalid. That doesnot change the fact that the subject considers his method to be valid.

It doesn't matter what the subject considers to be valid justification: if it can't be shown to others then it isn't justification.

So you can say all day that the subject has not determined whether or not X is true. As long as a subject considers the matter conclusive, he has

Wrong: delusion, ignorance, prejudice...

no matter how invalid you may think his justification is, and regardless of whether or not his conclusion is correct, made a conclusive determination on the matter.

A conclusive determination is NOT the same as knowledge.

 

[lixluke]

No it isn't, it's merely confirmation of bias/ delusion/ prejudice if it isn't actually true.

Of course it is. If a subject considers his justification to be valid, there is nothing you can do to change that. If a subject has made a determination that X is true. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the validity of his methods. From the frame of reference of the subject, he has made a conclusive determination about the proposition. You have no say on his frame of reference. He is an observer. If he has determined that X is true, then, that is all there is to it.

It is meaningless to state: "A subject who claims that X is true cannot possess knowledge until he determines X is true." It's a totally meaningless statement.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Of course it is. If a subject considers his justification to be valid, there is nothing you can do to change that. If a subject has made a determination that X is true. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the validity of his methods. From the frame of reference of the subject, he has made a conclusive determination about the proposition. You have no say on his frame of reference. He is an observer. If he has determined that X is true, then, that is all there is to it.

Wrong again, or rather, still.
Verification is NOT up to the individual.
Otherwise we're back to no reality and have to accept things like, say, 9/11 being, at one and the same time both a plot by the US Government and also nothing at all to do with internal machinations.

It is meaningless to state: "A subject who claims that X is true cannot possess knowledge until he determines X is true." It's a totally meaningless statement.[/FONT]

Wrong.
Until it is determined that the belief actually conforms to reality then it remains a belief.

 

[deicider]

3 pages of same things repeated with different word positioning ,yay.
Lix,whats ur point?that everything is religion?

 

[lixluke]

3 pages of same things repeated with different word positioning ,yay.
Lix,whats ur point?that everything is religion?

Once again for the gazillionth time. Hopefully, somebody will get it.

There is a subject who is the observer. This observer arrives at a conclusion regarding the state of a proposition. Thus, he claims knowledge. In order for this observer to arrive at his conclusion, something must have compelled him to do so. Whatever it may be, that material, from the observer's frame of reference, is justification (verification/determination/confirmation/proof/evidence).

Regardless of whether anybody agrees or disagrees with the validity of that material from their own frame of reference, that material must be, from the observers frame of reference, justification.

So somebody states:
1. An observer has concluded that X is true.
2. But in order for him to possess knowledge that X is true, he must verify whether or not X is true.

#2 is meaningless because the observer cannot have concluded that X is true without any material that, from the observer's perspective, is justification/verification.

Science only becomes a religion when people don't consider the fact that not all people arrive at their conclusions through science. That different people have different ideas about what they consider necessary in order to deem something "verification".

 

[Dywyddyr]

Once again for the gazillionth time. Hopefully, somebody will get it.

But you appear not to get it:

Regardless of whether anybody agrees or disagrees with the validity of that material from their own frame of reference, that material must be, from the observers frame of reference, justification.

What someone claims as justification may not be.

#2 is meaningless because the observer cannot have concluded that X is true without any material that, from the observer's perspective, is justification/verification.

So we're back to there being no such thing as reality.
The criteria for what counts a valid justification is NOT up to each individual.

Science only becomes a religion when people don't consider the fact that not all people arrive at their conclusions through science.

Strawman.
It has yet to be shown that there is any valid method of justification other than science.

That different people have different ideas about what they consider necessary in order to deem something "verification".

So you're back to claiming that there are other methods of justification?
Something you denied earlier:

I never said anything about any alternative methods of justification.

It's either valid (real) justification or it isn't.
If it isn't then it's delusion, dishonesty, ignorance or wishful thinking...

 

[lixluke]

But you appear not to get it:


What someone claims as justification may not be.


So we're back to there being no such thing as reality.
The criteria for what counts a valid justification is NOT up to each individual.


Strawman.
It has yet to be shown that there is any valid method of justification other than science.


So you're back to claiming that there are other methods of justification?
Something you denied earlier:

It's either valid (real) justification or it isn't.
If it isn't then it's delusion, dishonesty, ignorance or wishful thinking...

Whether or not a subject's justification/verification is valid, doesn't change the fact that it compelled him to his belief. It's impossible for him to have a belief without something compelling him to his belief regardless of whether or not you consider it valid as a form of verification. Thus, it is meaningless to state that the subject has a belief, but has not verified his belief.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Whether or not a subject's justification/verification is valid, doesn't change the fact that it compelled him to his belief. It's impossible for him to have a belief without something compelling him to his belief regardless of whether or not you consider it valid as a form of verification. Thus, it is meaningless to state that the subject has a belief, but has not verified his belief.

Still wrong.
One can come to a conclusion/ belief without justification.
As previously noted.

 

[lixluke]

Still wrong.
One can come to a conclusion/ belief without justification.
As previously noted.

Just because you don't agree with the justification doesn't mean that it isn't justification from the frame of reference of the subject.

 

[deicider]

dywy,you mean without "real" justification

 

[deicider]

"Just because you don't agree with the justification doesn't mean that it isn't justification from the frame of reference of the subject."
But its not justification 'by the book of maths' so its 'false' justification

 

[Dywyddyr]

Just because you don't agree with the justification doesn't mean that it isn't justification from the frame of reference of the subject.

And since it's a subjective "justification" it isn't justification it's the illusion of justification.
Justification is not something that varies with "reference frame".

dywy,you mean without "real" justification

What do you mean "real"?

One more time:

jus·ti·fy (jst-f)
v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies
v.tr.
1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid:

How do prove something to be right in any other way than "really"?
Either it's justification or it isn't.

 

[lixluke]

"Just because you don't agree with the justification doesn't mean that it isn't justification from the frame of reference of the subject."
But its not justification 'by the book of maths' so its 'false' justification

From the frame of reference of the book of maths yes. Possibly even from the frame of reference of objective reality. Still, if the observer arrived at a conclusion that X is true, it's a contradiction to say he hasn't "verified" it.


Consider proposition X: There is a golf ball in the box.

Subject 1 looks into the box, and sees a golf ball in there. He also feels it. Thus, he concludes X is true. His method of verification is visual perception (and feeling it up).

Subject 2 goes to sleep, and dreams that there is a golf ball in the box. Thus, he concludes that X is true. His methof of verification is his dream.

They both consider one another's conclusive determinations to be correct. However, Subject 1 says that Subject 2 has not verified there is a ball in the box. Subject 2 says that Subject 1 has not verified there is a ball in the box.

If there is indeed a ball in the box, then both of their conclusions are correct. If there is indeed no ball in the box, then both of their conclusions are incorrect. So what has really occurred?

Both of them used what they consider to be verification to arrive at their conclusion. Both of them claim to have verified knowledge that there is a golf ball in the box.

This goes for any conclusion that anybody arrives at. Whatever material compelled a subject to his conclusion, that material, from that subject's frame of reference, is verification.

It's impossible for me or anybody to say something like:
"Subject has arrived at a conclusion that X is true, but has not verified/determined whether or not X is true."

The only way I would make such a statement is if I religiously believe that what I consider to be "verification" is what everybody, including the subject, considers to be verification. Of course, this cannot be the case.

Thus, the proper statement would be:
"Subject arrived at a conclusion that X is true, but has used a method of verification that I consider to be unacceptable."