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

[Dywyddyr]

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.

A dream is not a method of 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."

It may be impossible for you to say, but it happens.

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.

Why can't it 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."

Wrong again: the correct statement would be "Subject X has arrived at a conclusion without verifying it".
Dreams &c are not methods of verification.

 

[lixluke]

A dream is not a method of verification.

So you say, but if a subject arrives at a conlusion based on a dream, that subject has just used a dream to verify the state of a proposition. Whether you like it or not, that subject used his dream as verification for his conclusion. So if he were to say "I have verified that X is true.", you can cry and disagree all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you have a different idea of what justification/verification is than he does. So keep repeating that yours is correct and that his cannot be correct.

 

[Read-Only]

So you say, but if a subject arrives at a conlusion based on a dream, that subject has just used a dream to verify the state of a proposition. Whether you like it or not, that subject used his dream as verification for his conclusion. So if he were to say "I have verified that X is true.", you can cry and disagree all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you have a different idea of what justification/verification is than he does. So keep repeating that yours is correct and that his cannot be correct.

If a dream is what he used to reach a conclusion then he is obviously a fool.

What if he had dreamed Elvis was performing a concert in Chicago? Would he conclude that to be justification for believing it to be true?

 

[Dywyddyr]

So you say, but if a subject arrives at a conlusion based on a dream, that subject has just used a dream to verify the state of a proposition.

No.
They have coincidentally arrived at a correct conclusion. The dream is not justification.

 

[lixluke]

If a dream is what he used to reach a conclusion then he is obviously a fool.

What if he had dreamed Elvis was performing a concert in Chicago? Would he conclude that to be justification for believing it to be true?

You're misinterpreting. The subject used the dream to decide whether or not X is true. Your idea of whether or not he is a fool has nothing to do with what the subject used for his justification. It is simply a given in this scenario.

You cannot continue a discussion if you're not trying to figure out what other people are saying. All you're doing is preventing dialogue from progressing.

The subject used a dream to verify something. So you think that somebody is a food using a dream as verification. That's great. So what? Either way, that's what he did. It's part of the point being made by the scenario.

He might dream that Elvis was performing at a concert in Chicago. Whether or not he 'would' arrive at any sort of conclusion is up to whoever is creating the scenario.

 

[lixluke]

No.
They have coincidentally arrived at a correct conclusion. The dream is not justification.

According to you. Regardless, this individual used his dream as justification to arrive at his conclusion. He didn't use anything else as justification to get to his conclusion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

According to you. Regardless, this individual used his dream as justification to arrive at his conclusion. He didn't use anything else as justification to get to his conclusion.

Bearing in mind that the word justification means proof please explain how dream can be considered proof?
And then please explain how many dreams (which ones and how to distinguish those particular ones) can be considered proof.
As opposed to coincidence.
Whatever is dreamt is not proof: dreams still require corroboration.

 

[lixluke]

Bearing in mind that the word justification means proof please explain how dream can be considered proof?
And then please explain how many dreams (which ones and how to distinguish those particular ones) can be considered proof.
As opposed to coincidence.
Whatever is dreamt is not proof: dreams still require corroboration.

When a subject uses a dream as proof for his conclusion. There is nothing you can do about it. Kick and scream all you want about how absurd it is. If a subject uses a dream as proof, nobody can say that he doesn't have proof. All they can say is that they don't accept what the subject considers to be proof.

You request proof of the subject's conclusion. Subject shows you his dream. You can either accept it or not. It's up to you. Now let's say that instead of showing you his dream, the subject shows you Wikipedia. It is still up to you whether or not you want to accept it.

 

[Read-Only]

You're misinterpreting. The subject used the dream to decide whether or not X is true. Your idea of whether or not he is a fool has nothing to do with what the subject used for his justification. It is simply a given in this scenario.

You cannot continue a discussion if you're not trying to figure out what other people are saying. All you're doing is preventing dialogue from progressing.

The subject used a dream to verify something. So you think that somebody is a food using a dream as verification. That's great. So what? Either way, that's what he did. It's part of the point being made by the scenario.

He might dream that Elvis was performing at a concert in Chicago. Whether or not he 'would' arrive at any sort of conclusion is up to whoever is creating the scenario.

Nope, nope and nope.

According to you, anyone could use ANYTHING as justification for whatever he wants to be true.

For example, you could claim that the recent earthquake in Haiti is justification (proof) of anything you choose.

 

[lixluke]

Nope, nope and nope.

According to you, anyone could use ANYTHING as justification for whatever he wants to be true.

For example, you could claim that the recent earthquake in Haiti is justification (proof) of anything you choose.

Yes. Because truth is independent of the observer. Otherwise, you will end up trying to make truth dependent on justification.

 

[Read-Only]

Yes. Because truth is independent of the observer. Otherwise, you will end up trying to make truth dependent on justification.

That's pure bunk - and you are a foolish, foolish person.

End of story.