What has god done for you

[S.A.M.]

I dont get it, we cant use definitions now ? What are you getting at ?

You can use definitions, in fact I insist you do.

But only after you define your thoughts first.

 

[Oli]

Then you are merely capitalising on your ignorance.

Capitalising?
Merely stating a fact.
I can't (haven't yet!) learnt everything...

Why would I listen to the opinion of one who has a lack of belief based on ignorance?

Or why should I listen to someone who tells me that Pele is the best footballer when it has no bearing on my life?

In any field whatsoever?

? You lost me (not for the first time).
You mean a ignorance in one field disqualifies any opinion in all fields or just that you would ignore my opinion in just that field?

 

[S.A.M.]

Capitalising?
Merely stating a fact.
I can't (haven't yet!) learnt everything...


Or why should I listen to someone who tells me that Pele is the best footballer when it has no bearing on my life?


? You lost me (not for the first time).
You mean a ignorance in one field disqualifies any opinion in all fields or just that you would ignore my opinion in just that field?

I mean, if your lack of belief is based on ignorance, its best kept to yourself, since no one is bound to take it seriously.

If you substitute football for design engineering you'll see what I mean.

e.g. I lack belief that your design is functional because I am ignorant of engineering.

 

[Oli]

I mean, if your lack of belief is based on ignorance, its best kept to yourself, since no one is bound to take it seriously.

If you substitute football for design engineering you'll see what I mean.

Ah okay, granted without reservation.
But if I state my lack of knowledge can I not be educated by those who know?
Point by point?
Objection by objection?

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah okay, granted without reservation.
But if I state my lack of knowledge can I not be educated by those who know?
Point by point?
Objection by objection?

In a belief?

Its the difference between induction and abduction; you seek induction in a system where people use abduction.

 

[Enmos]

You can use definitions, in fact I insist you do.

But only after you define your thoughts first.

Where did this all come from anyway? Is it because of this post:

Its all fine with me, but your description implies agnosticism. :shrug:

 

[Oli]

In the reasons for that belief.

 

[S.A.M.]

In the reasons for that belief.

Like I said, its the difference between induction and abduction

You look for cause and effect; while theists use the available "evidence" as a cogito ergo sum.

 

[Oli]

So my mind set precludes me from knowing?

 

[S.A.M.]

So my mind set precludes from knowing?

Not really, perspective is merely a matter of broadening your viewpoint, is it not?

And you're mentally agile enough to expand the way you think.

It helps to examine your thinking, the steps that lead to your conclusions in an objective unemotional way; it also helps to focus on the way you think and why.

Some starting points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking

I think you are one of the few people I know who would enjoy it and not be frustrated.

 

[(Q)]

Like I said, its the difference between induction and abduction

You look for cause and effect; while theists use the available "evidence" as a cognito ergo sum.

From your wiki link:

...abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.

 

[S.A.M.]

From your wiki link:

...abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.

And induction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

PS I think your thinking is too literal for this, but I could be wrong.

 

[Oli]

Not really, perspective is merely a matter of broadening your viewpoint, is it not?

And you're mentally agile enough to expand the way you think.

It helps to examine your thinking, the steps that lead to your conclusions in an objective unemotional way; it also helps to focus on the way you think and why.

Some starting points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

Just bookmarked a page on abductive reasoning:

allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of “a entails b” to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like “a entails b” is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent. Therefore abductive reasoning is like Post hoc ergo propter hoc as the cause is questionable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking

Oh yeah - I did de Bono's course on lateral thinking (Seven Days?? vague recollections of the title) - took me three hours to work through the book.

I think you are one of the few people I know who would enjoy it and not be frustrated.

Shukran Katheeran.

 

[Enmos]

Like I said, its the difference between induction and abduction

You look for cause and effect; while theists use the available "evidence" as a cognito ergo sum.

Shouldnt that be cogito ergo sum ? I am not certain but doesnt cognito ergo sum mean something like "I am known, therefor i exist" ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Just bookmarked a page on abductive reasoning:

The idea being of course, that everything has its shortcomings but that is still advisable compared to getting trapped into thinking only one way about everything.

Oh yeah - I did de Bono's course on lateral thinking (Seven Days?? vague recollections of the title) - took me three hours to work through the book.

Me too; I've lost the book in my travels- had it many years ago

Shukran Katheeran.

Afwan Katheeran.

 

[S.A.M.]

Shouldnt that be cogito ergo sum ? I am not certain but doesnt cognito ergo sum mean something like "I am known, therefor i exist" ?

Touche; as I just told someone else who pointed out an error, I am somewhat distracted at the moment.

 

[Oli]

I read it as "it is known, therefore it exists".
But my latin lessons were interrupted while we dodged the T Rexes running through the classroom.

 

[Enmos]

Touche; as I just told someone else who pointed out an error, I am somewhat distracted at the moment.

LOL i had to look it up to be honest
You seem to have some knowledge of Latin, do you know what cognito means, i know cognitus means something like "to be known to someone".

 

[Oli]

The idea being of course, that everything has its shortcomings but that is still advisable compared to getting trapped into thinking only one way about everything.

So I am fallible after all.
Rats!

Touche; as I just told someone else who pointed out an error, I am somewhat distracted at the moment.

And I thought you'd done it deliberately:

I read it as "it is known, therefore it exists".

Bah.

 

[Enmos]

I read it as "it is known, therefore it exists".
But my latin lessons were interrupted while we dodged the T Rexes running through the classroom.

Ah thanks Oli