[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri
Aldo

Why do you choose the least sensical of his posts to quote.  You disregarded his restated argument to attack his older ones.

Because it took a ****ing age to write it, and a meta conversation sprung up in the middle

Originally posted by Scottish
I essence, what I'm saying is: Know your limits. Because your 'Truth' is subject to them.

I think you're misunderstanding how we set or view our 'limits', and thinking that we (we?  mmm...probably correct) are dealing in some sort of absolucy.

So what do you think we are ragarding our 'limits' as?

[Scottish]

You're not.

You're assuming that evidence leads to Truth. You see that as a path, not a limit.

Truth could be hiding in a place to which no evidence leads. Metaphysics being a prime example. It doesn't follow what you'd consider a path, it just swings wildly through possibility in search of the truth. It's only 'evidence' is in the implications of the limits of human understanding - which is more than a little paradoxical.

[Osiri]

Really, he is far more eloquent.  I will have to go back and analyze his questions a little better.  They did not seem to be very difficult questions hang on.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Scottish
You're not.

You're assuming that evidence leads to Truth. You see that as a path, not a limit.

Truth could be hiding in a place to which no evidence leads. Metaphysics being a prime example. It doesn't follow what you'd consider a path, it just swings wildly through possibility in search of the truth. It's only 'evidence' is in the implications of the limits of human understanding - which is more than a little paradoxical.

I don't believe in the concept of 'truth' you're referring to, though.  Not this absolute sense of the intangible universe.  I don't think it's a universal concept, either, but a personal one.

I think you're assuming I'm referring to truth (well, by translation of that concept to what I've been saying) as the universal answer to everything.  But I've been referring to it in the sense of  'what we know', where the context is that it's what we can know, with the further qualification that what we can know is limited by observability and how we can observe. i.e. answers.  Good answers; not infallible, flawless answers but ones that we can trust to the degree of what we know that supports them.

From what I can tell, your usage of 'Truth' refers to some abstract concept which I don't think (would?) even exist to be discovered.  Although if it did, some could say it lies within the search rather than the solution (if we're delving towards personal philosophy).

Oh, and
Truth = 42.

[Scottish]

Truth is Truth (and 42).

If a rock is there, the rock is there.

If I see a rock, it might not be there.

If I believe the rock is there, and it is, I know Truth.

If I believe the rock is there, and it isn't, I'm just wrong.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Scottish
Truth is Truth (and 42).

If a rock is there, the rock is there.

If I see a rock, it might not be there.

If I believe the rock is there, and it is, I know Truth.

If I believe the rock is there, and it isn't, I'm just wrong.

But, within that context we can never know anything to any degree, ever.  Which is not a very good starting point, IMO. because it means there is no point in doing anything.  So I picked, personally, the best solution;

I see/feel the rock; within the concept of my environment, it is there.

If the rock is not there, then my environmental concept is wrong, but it's a consistent error across the concept.

Thus my environmental concept is my best way of understanding the environment.

Technically, you can abstract everything to be an illusion (is that Zen?).  But whilst that states our view is an assumption, the abstraction concept is also an assumption of a different sort.  Now, to me an assumption (that we see the world) is better and more reliable than an assumption built upon an assumption.

[Osiri]

Okay I have reread one of Kara's earlier posts.  The jist of it was that I should not talk because I have been trained as a lawyer and not a scientist.  This is BS.  I was trained as a scientist and then became a lawyer.  Besides, I was not refering only to scientific arguments.  This is not a scientific argument.  If it were we would each go out and research each others arguments and come running back with empirical data before we spoke again.  That is true scientific argument.  Even if we don't run out and grab new studies and such we would not just state opinion.  We would state facts for those opinion.  

Further, he went on to discuss devil's advocate.  Just because you are a devil's advocate does not mean there is no value your argument.  Devil's advocate simply means you do not believe in the side your arguing for.  This does not mean specifically that there is no merit.  

I hate to drag out this example again but if you support M-Theory there is a completely meritorious agrument against it.   There are weaknesses and strengths for both sides.  As such, there is no "correct" side to argue.   Hence, by your argument, you could not argue both sides or any side for that matter until there was known to be a correct answer.  This is a unrealistic view.  

Take for example, the debate of aldo and I over what funding should go toward in space exploration.  We both have completely valid points of view.  I believed it should go to space elevator and to probes.  He thinks it should all go to toward the probes because he does not believe the Space elevator is a valid project as yet.  I could devil's advocate for his side and he could do the same for mine.  This does not mean that either side is invalid just that we would not believe in what we are arguing.

[Scottish]

I'm not trying to 'win' here, BTW. I'm just trying to get you [aldo] to think.

As it is, taking your environment to be a construct of the mind, while acknowledging that it can be both entirely wrong, but work anyways - was all I was trying to get you to do. So I'm done.

Now all you've got to do is bear these things in mind when you're deciding things in future, and find a way to apply them to your life.

And remember that just because something looks like a rock, it doesn't mean it stops being a very aggressive turtle with a taste for fingers.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri
Okay I have reread one of Kara's earlier posts.  The jist of it was that I should not talk because I have been trained as a lawyer and not a scientist.  This is BS.  I was trained as a scientist and then became a lawyer.  Besides, I was not refering only to scientific arguments.  This is not a scientific argument.  If it were we would each go out and research each others arguments and come running back with empirical data before we spoke again.  That is true scientific argument.  Even if we don't run out and grab new studies and such we would not just state opinion.  We would state facts for those opinion.  

Further, he went on to discuss devil's advocate.  Just because you are a devil's advocate does not mean there is no value your argument.  Devil's advocate simply means you do not believe in the side your arguing for.  This does not mean specifically that there is no merit.  

I hate to drag out this example again but if you support M-Theory there is a completely meritorious agrument against it.   There are weaknesses and strengths for both sides.  As such, there is no "correct" side to argue.   Hence, by your argument, you could not argue both sides or any side for that matter until there was known to be a correct answer.  This is a unrealistic view.  

Actually, kara was saying that as a lawyer you are trained to argue for a point rather than evidenciary basis, and that whilst a proper scientific arguement should acknowledge weakness, a lawyer probably should never, ever do that because of the adversarial nature of law.

The Devils Advocate thing was citing that; namely that the person who would be best able to argue for an inverse point of view to their own would be a lawyer; that we associate lawyers with an ability to argue for a converse or 'losing' side such as within the legal context.

Although about m-theory... that was never the arguement.  It was always over a factural versus non factual arguement, where a non-factual arguement used tactics of omission.  So I think you've misunderstood kara quite a bit there.

Originally posted by Scottish
I'm not trying to 'win' here, BTW. I'm just trying to get you [aldo] to think.

As it is, taking your environment to be a construct of the mind, while acknowledging that it can be both entirely wrong, but work anyways - was all I was trying to get you to do. So I'm done.

Now all you've got to do is bear these things in mind when you're deciding things in future, and find a way to apply them to your life.

And remember that just because something looks like a rock, it doesn't mean it stops being a very aggressive turtle with a taste for fingers.

But I do, you see.  Always did (just see any of the big debates on 'science kills religion'; i'm an aetheist, but I've never regarded religion as something that can be 'destroyed' by the observable world because of its nature).

Simply by understanding exactly what I'm doing, and why a fact is considered a fact, a theory a theory, etc.  So don't think I omit this consideration; it's just one I consider useless because it's insurmountable.  If the world doesn't exist as we see it, we'll never know.  And soforth.  And that scientific, empirical observation is the best way of understanding that world we see (hence the repeated use of observable world), and what lies outside of that has to be disregarded within that empirical sense, as it is forever unknown.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
They should obviously carry whatever weight they have.

That's a brilliant non-answer. If you aren't allowed to just use scientific principles to determine the weight how the hell are you calculating the weight in the first place. If a defendant in a trial says God stabbed the victim and he was just a witness how do you determine the weight that statement should have?

Originally posted by Scottish
All that matters is wether your boss believes your unicorn was sick. Evidence supporting such a belief would be totally unnecessary.

But how would I determine the likelyhood of the boss believing me before I say it? If you're going to tell a lie determining the likelyhood of it being viewed as truthful is of vital importance. You've yet to give me any explaination of a time when the boss could be expected to not just look at it scientifically and tell you to clear your desk.

Originally posted by Scottish
My point was that you can't. Not reliably anyway..

You previously said that you could in order to refute an earlier point.

In fact now I've looked back you've pretty much said the exact opposite of what you're saying now.

The 'weight' of any evidence should be completely seperate from the matter of it's associated implications. It's 'weight' should be based entirely on observable reliability and truth.

Not the small t in truth and your insistance that observaable reality was the main criterion on which the weight should be assigned. Unless you meant to use a capital t that's a complete 180 from your  current argument.

Furthermore

So it's entirely reasonable to disregard 'evidence' which supports an opposing viewpoint if it's source if questionable or is the source is biased. So, once again, no omission is required. You simply undermine it's credibility by finding flaws in the source and the source's reliability.

How are you able to do any of that if you're now claiming that there is no reliable way to determine the questionablility of the source? If there is no way determine the reliablity of a source as you now claim my earlier comment to which this was the reply was correct.

Originally posted by Scottish
If I was arguing from a scientific standpoint, I'd be obliged to provide you with evidence and examples and reasons - but I'm operating outside of science, therefore I'm operating outside of those bounds.

Thus, any scientific minds reading this will see my 'explainations' as senseless, unsupported drivel - because that's what they are, by the scientific definitions of right/wrong/reliable/bull****. Whereas I'm guessing the Fundie element of HLP will see my posts and simply have faith that I'm right.

The problem is not whether your argument is scientific or not. The problem is that you haven't set any boundries at all. No one can debate against you because you've refused to set out the stall on what your opinion actually is.

If you'd said "I believe in science but I believe that XYZ are due to God" then you'd have a point that can be debated against. But you haven't done that. You've answered my pertinant questions about that sort of thing with non-answers like the one you gave above.

If I ask why is the sky blue and you answer with "Cause God likes blue" you have a discussion point. We can question the existance of God or whether the bible points out that he actually likes red better.
  If you simply say "Cause it's blue" you haven't answered the question and you haven't actually posted anything worth the time it took you to write it.

That's why the answer at the top of this page is invalid. I asked you how you determine the weight of something and you said the eqivalent of "Write down the weight it has". That is simply not an answer.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Osiri
Okay, I'm just going to point out that 75 years ago we could not observe an atom.  We could not even measure them reliably in an observable manner.  We could no even find any proof of them.  There was plenty of theory behind thier existence but we could not observe them tangibly or  otherwise.  The same thing with string theory and multiverse.  We cannot see the strings or other universes floating around in the multiverse.  Granted they have not been proven yet but why do we give them credence.

Rutherford and Perrin are kinda disagreeing with your atom statement.

We moved far beyond observable(touchable or visual) evidence long ago.  Now we just work with readings on a sensor.

Are they any different?

[Scottish]

Originally posted by karajorma
That's a brilliant non-answer. If you aren't allowed to just use scientific principles to determine the weight how the hell are you calculating the weight in the first place. If a defendant in a trial says God stabbed the victim and he was just a witness how do you determine the weight that statement should have?

It carries the weight of your belief in his honesty.

But how would I determine the likelyhood of the boss believing me before I say it? If you're going to tell a lie determining the likelyhood of it being viewed as truthful is of vital importance. You've yet to give me any explaination of a time when the boss could be expected to not just look at it scientifically and tell you to clear your desk.

You're looking at it all wrong. Or right, depending on your perspective.

This isn't a real-life thing, it's an analogy. So the Boss would be thinking non-Scientifically. Which brings into question the functionality of the analogy, but it doesn't need functionality because it's a metaphor with a somewhat restricted focus.

You previously said that you could in order to refute an earlier point.

In fact now I've looked back you've pretty much said the exact opposite of what you're saying now.

Yes, because I was arguing within a smaller scope before.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Janos

Rutherford and Perrin are kinda disagreeing with your atom statement.

Pity it's taking me so long to read and reply to this topic. That's exactly what I was about to say.

[Osiri]

Aldo,

Lawyers always argue on a evidenciary basis and have to acknowledge the weakness of our argument.  Lawyer's who do not acknowledge weakness in argument or who disregard factual evidence lose or get disbarred.  Even in an adversarial system we cannot commit fraud.  This is a misconception on your part that I cannot explain.  Why do you think that a trial court is a court of fact.  

As to the devil's advocate discussion anyone is qualified to be a devil's advocate.  I do not have to be a lawyer to argue for both sides.  I have successfully argued for a communist system of government and several other things that I am completely against.  This was well before I became a lawyer.  In fact it was when I was a computer scientist.

[Osiri]

Oops was I off on my dates as to the atom statment.  Oh ya, huh the point is valid.  The time is off.  Sorry for the oversight.  But my point was they had evidence of its existence but no direct proof.  Direct proof being more than the effects of it.

There is a difference between readings on a sensor and touch and visual.  One you are not seeing and experiencing the other you are.  The former is just a reading which you interpret to be something.

[Scottish]

Lawyers acknowledge all evidence, but argue of it's implications.

[Osiri]

Pity it took  me that long too.  I would have corrected myself long ago but I was dressing to go have fun  again.

[Osiri]

Scottish is right to a point.  Lawyers supposedly acknowledge all valid evidence and then argue its implications, validity and pertinence.  Supposedly only because some lawyers do not. These are bad lawyers.

BAD BAD BAD YOU FORFEIT YOUR FEE, GET SUED, LOSE YOUR LICENSE, ETC. BAD....

[Scottish]

Jack Thompson bad.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
The current questions see to relate to "How are we supposed to judge things if we can't use proof and evidence?". Well, the point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't bother judging.

You may like to claim there are other answers but the fact is that you make a large percentage of your daily choices based on a much simplified version of the scientific method. You choose what to eat based on empirical evidence of what you've tried before and liked. You drink water rather than bleach because you are aware of what happens to people who drink liquids with a skull and crossbones on them.

I doubt very much that you wait for the Truth to explain to you gray skies mean you should take your coat out cause it might rain.

The scientific method amounts to little more that that sort of thing with a few extra rules handling how you decide what is drinkable (maybe the milk was bad rather than all milk tasting like that) and how you formulate rules on what else you might not like (I've not liked anything with tomatoes in so far in my life. So lets take it that I don't actually like tomatoes as a theory. Bite into a tomato. Yep. That was the taste I didn't like).  

It's not an artificial construct. It's simply a more refined version of what we all do anyway. If you want to claim that the scientific method is flawed that you also have to decry the version of it you're using in your everyday life and sit rigidly still where ever you are till you die.

Well you're welcome to sit through the rest of life like a lemon because you're unable to make any choice on anything because it could be wrong but I doubt you'll have many converts. Not for longer than the week it will take you to die of dehydration at least.