to gmsisko1 and anybody else

[ProfJIM]

"On what basis do you decide whether statements are true in everyday life?"

"Weak magnets can be used to heal many illnesses.I read all about it in the newspaper." This statement represents knowledge based on authority. We often think something is true because we read it in an authoritive source or hear it from an expert. But authoritive sources and experts can be wrong. For example, 19th-century Western physicians commonly "bled" their patients with leeches to draw "poisons" from their bodies. [People] should always question authority to arrive at more valid knowledge.

anything about John Kerry or G.W in Vietnam

"The car that hit the cyclist was dark brown. I was going for a walk last night when I saw the accident. "This statement represents knowledge based on causual observation. Unfourtunately, we usually are pretty careless observers. This is why good lawyers can often trip up eyewitnesses in courtrooms. Eyewitnesses are rarely certain about what they saw. In general, uncertainty can be recduced by observing a in concious and deliberate manner and recording observations. (I don't think that was on the to do list in the jungle or at protests after the war)

"I'm right because I can't think of any contrary cases." This statement is based on selective observation. Sometimes we unconsciously ignore evidence that challenges our firmly held beliefs.

"I just can't be wrong" and "the matter is settled once and for all". These statements represent knowledge based on premature closure of inquiry and ego defense which involves deciding all the relevant evidence has been gathered on a particular subject and trying to be right no matter what. Matters are never settled, (and it makes you look like an asshole)
Source: Sociology: Your Compass for a New World by Robert J. Brym and John Lie

Just because you call it "the truth" doesn't mean its accurate, and just because you know you're "right" doesn't mean you're seeing the whole picture

[adam_f]

I stopped caring when you wrote "Is reading believing or is believing reading?"

[ProfJIM]

dont be a dick

[adam_f]

You're the dick who edited out of his thread.

[ProfJIM]

i cant spell

oh well

[ToucanSpam]

Jim you bring up a very good point. To be honest, I believe Bush has gone out of his way to make his candidate look like an idiot with these ad campaigns with old fogies from Vietnam. He succeeded unfortunately, and Bush has opened a double digit lead on Kerry in the popular vote. I greatly fear for the United States right now, I hope they come to their senses and get rid of GWB. It will surely mean the end of the "Free World" if he is re-elected. I think, however, we should ease up on gmsisko. Yes, we all hate him and I personally have no idea why he continues to post, but hopefully he will either come to his senses and vote for Kerry, or he will be sent across the ocean to fight in a war that he shouldnt be in, and will see the real stupid stuff that is going on.

[ProfJIM]

i'm not voting for either of them. and that disapoints me. what also disapoints me, is narrow-minded people like eskimo.

[Bob]

regrettably, sisko isn't the only narrow-minded person on here...there seems to be a plague of it

i'm not naming names but...i think everyone needs to examine themselves, seriously

[ProfJIM]

^and that is the point of this thread

[Bob]

just making sure...i'm just so tired of going into threads with people who claim to deplore violence and hatred, and then gang up on the nearest conservative and say "fuck you tard fuck you tard go back to nascar tard fuck you bushy tard bushite neocon fuck you ignorant idiot you call that a source you tard here's a link"

it's so fucking annoying...we need more GEA's and blighty's, for serious

[ProfJIM]

i know what you mean

and yes, we need GEA and Blighty back

[Schmeltz]

It's a worthy goal to elevate the level of debate and by extention the dignity of all those who participate, but sisko is seriously beyond the respect pale. What we need are more Jasoniks, tell you what.

[travesty]

What happened to TheWedge? Where have they been?

[QueenAdrock]

He's probably laying low till a few more weeks then give it all he's got to convert all the sinners on this board to vote for Kerry. ;)

[Ace42]

Muh, Yeah, we need blighty back:
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=24503&page=2&pp=30
Because he is always reasonable...

And jasonik is never assworthy either:
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=29924

Wolves, sheeps clothing.

But yes, everyone does like GEA.

Shame Chris Love is not around more though.

And 100% Ill was often (although far from always) reasonable.

And Sneakyimp is a nice addition to the forum, also.

[ProfJIM]

You don't know what you are talking about. Kerry voted against the Stealth Bomber, against the Cruise missle, and for a Nuk freeze. There is evil in the world, and some want all US citizens dead. Kerry can't do a good job in defending this Great Nation. Bush is not perfect, but he is the clear choice.


hey there he is :rolleyes:

[Ace42]

Please don't quote the troll, it offends the eyes of us who have him on ignore.

[ProfJIM]

oh thats right. sorry.

silly eskimos

[ASsman]

Yah BOB! You go BOB! Because thats exactly what happens, or what you let yourself see happen.

[Bob]

Muh, Yeah, we need blighty back:
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/show...03&page=2&pp=30
Because he is always reasonable...


what do you mean? what i see there is a bunch of you calling him a douche and mocking his beliefs, and him trying very hard not to lose his cool (this happens to him alot, i used to call him a douche too), but letting the irritation show anyway. nobody's perfect. he believes (or more accurately, refuses to disbelieve) some...interesting things. he's not stupid, he's not insane, he's just got a mind so wide open you can fit a school bus in it, and that seems to annoy people with rigid belief structures.

i'm just so tired of this "you're clearly an idiot, i don't have to respect you or take your beliefs seriously" mentality some people seem to have towards their opponents here, it's really aggravating. it's very hard to sympathize with most of you

[ProfJIM]

i'm just so tired of this "you're clearly an idiot, i don't have to respect you or take your beliefs seriously" mentality some people seem to have towards their opponents here, it's really aggravating. it's very hard to sympathize with most of you




"I'm right because I can't think of any contrary cases." This statement is based on selective observation. Sometimes we unconsciously ignore evidence that challenges our firmly held beliefs.

"I just can't be wrong" and "the matter is settled once and for all". These statements represent knowledge based on premature closure of inquiry and ego defense which involves deciding all the relevant evidence has been gathered on a particular subject and trying to be right no matter what. Matters are never settled, (and it makes you look like an asshole)



exactly (y)

[Ace42]

what do you mean?

I mean that his argument there was based on numerous quantifiable errors. Specifically suggesting that the UN was unelected.

You might call disbelieving every single news-source in the world ever "open minded" - I'd agree with you, in part. But it is also open-minded in the same was as being open-minded to the possibility that the world is infact flat, and that every book and media outlet since Copernicus has been lying to us. I for one don't operate my day to day life on the basis this might be the case.

I fully appreciate the people here wanting to espouse the liberal (and I do not mean this in a perjorative sense) extremist philosophy that everything is unknowable, and thus all debate is productive. However, this is an argument reserved for philosophy for a reason. Everything that human society has produced, the entire basis for human sentience, is based around the premiss that things are knowable, and that there is "truth" that can be discovered.

As Pratchett says in Mort "Mere accumulation of observational evidence is not proof" - however it is the only "proof" mankind has.

So, to say that "well, it could be the case" is perfectly right and valid, however for ease of debate and any sort of meaningful discourse, we have to accept some things as knowable and as "fact."

If you are going to be as open minded as you advocate, that means entertaining the extension of this, solipsism.

If this is the case, and the self is the only reality, then these people who are using exactly the arguments you complain about (I am right because it is me saying so) actually has some weight to it. By perceiving something as so, they make it so.

[Bob]

I mean that his argument there was based on numerous quantifiable errors. Specifically suggesting that the UN was unelected.

You might call disbelieving every single news-source in the world ever "open minded" - I'd agree with you, in part. But it is also open-minded in the same was as being open-minded to the possibility that the world is infact flat, and that every book and media outlet since Copernicus has been lying to us. I for one don't operate my day to day life on the basis this might be the case.

I fully appreciate the people here wanting to espouse the liberal (and I do not mean this in a perjorative sense) extremist philosophy that everything is unknowable, and thus all debate is productive. However, this is an argument reserved for philosophy for a reason. Everything that human society has produced, the entire basis for human sentience, is based around the premiss that things are knowable, and that there is "truth" that can be discovered.

As Pratchett says in Mort "Mere accumulation of observational evidence is not proof" - however it is the only "proof" mankind has.

So, to say that "well, it could be the case" is perfectly right and valid, however for ease of debate and any sort of meaningful discourse, we have to accept some things as knowable and as "fact."

If you are going to be as open minded as you advocate, that means entertaining the extension of this, solipsism.

If this is the case, and the self is the only reality, then these people who are using exactly the arguments you complain about (I am right because it is me saying so) actually has some weight to it. By perceiving something as so, they make it so.

see? that wasn't so bad. you didn't call me an idiot once, and i learned something, it was great! why can't we all be like this all the time?

[maddoctorx]

I fully appreciate the people here wanting to espouse the liberal (and I do not mean this in a perjorative sense) extremist philosophy that everything is unknowable, and thus all debate is productive. However, this is an argument reserved for philosophy for a reason. Everything that human society has produced, the entire basis for human sentience, is based around the premiss that things are knowable, and that there is "truth" that can be discovered.

As Pratchett says in Mort "Mere accumulation of observational evidence is not proof" - however it is the only "proof" mankind has.

So, to say that "well, it could be the case" is perfectly right and valid, however for ease of debate and any sort of meaningful discourse, we have to accept some things as knowable and as "fact."

If you are going to be as open minded as you advocate, that means entertaining the extension of this, solipsism.

If this is the case, and the self is the only reality, then these people who are using exactly the arguments you complain about (I am right because it is me saying so) actually has some weight to it. By perceiving something as so, they make it so.[/QUOTE]

I think your misunderstading some of this philosophies. First of all the idea isn't that all things are unknowable just that all of something is unknowable. That by gathering information on something we create a model of that thing which can be considered to be some but not all of the information about the thing or system and can be of us to us praticaly. Truth is an absolute concept that ingnores the function of time and of the possibliity of new information changing our models on a system and reversing truth or adjusting its ramifications when held up to the light of new evidence.For instance the way the universe works and is known to be true has changed dramaticaly in the past 1000 years. If even two hundred years ago you tried to explain quantum mechanics to someone you would proabably be put away in a insane asylum. You see the problem is that I think your aproaching this in a very binary way. In the since that you can either know everything about something absouletly or you know nothing. Proabality shows that there is a wide range of certainity between those two values. Infinity to be precise. Secondly acepting that we each live in a modeled perception of reality does not mean that all of reality is based on our model just that our experience of that reality is. Fundamentaly you could never proof 100 percent that there is a objective reality however there is enough evidence to put it at least 99.999999999999901 percent. However improable it is still tecnicaly possible that everything is a illusion. However since there seems to be no ready way to prove this and my model of objective reality precieved through a subjective filter has worked thus far I will stick to it. I never discount anything as impossible just merely improabale.

[Ace42]

Cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am, not "I think therefor some things are, but not all of it because nothing is 100% knowable." Descartes said quite clearly that the only things substantially knowable is that there is someone asking the question in the first place.


First of all the idea isn't that all things are unknowable just that all of something is unknowable.

The practical upshot is the same. What part of "2 + 2 = 4" is the unknowable bit? Surely the totality is as unknowable as the fragments, thus it amounts to the same thing.

That by gathering information on something we create a model of that thing which can be considered to be some but not all of the information about the thing or system and can be of use to us praticaly.

Indeed, and with this model we work under the assumption it is the case. Thus it can clearly be seen to be a waste of time to question every single precept, premiss and axiom. At some level you have to accept things on faith. While it might seem, in this light, that questioning every single thing might seem rigorously scientific, this is a fallcy. All of these deductions are based on a complicated system of assumptions. To question one thing you hold as "true" and yet complacently accept (assuming you do not have a reason other than 'it is possible it is wrong, and thus like every single concept ever it merits further attention') another is a double standard.

Truth is an absolute concept that ingnores the function of time and of the possibliity of new information changing our models on a system and reversing truth or adjusting its ramifications when held up to the light of new evidence.

And yet, when in a court, you are instructed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. By your argument this is impossible and every witness ever has been a perjorer. Actually, truth is not necessarily an absolute.

Truth Audio pronunciation of "truth" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

Proabality shows that there is a wide range of certainity between those two values. Infinity to be precise. Secondly acepting that we each live in a modeled perception of reality does not mean that all of reality is based on our model just that our experience of that reality is. Fundamentaly you could never proof 100 percent that there is a objective reality however there is enough evidence to put it at least 99.999999999999901 percent. However improable it is still tecnicaly possible that everything is a illusion. However since there seems to be no ready way to prove this and my model of objective reality precieved through a subjective filter has worked thus far I will stick to it. I never discount anything as impossible just merely improabale.

This is all obvious and in no way contradicted by above post. Whether you hold something to be true because it is (in your opinion) the most probable explanation, or whether you are convinced 100% of something (And you can believe something 100%, even if there is not a 100% probability of it being the case) the practical upshot is the same. You operate under the assumption it is the case. Every time you are faced with a choice which has a close (although, for the sake of this argument, not equal, as that is not relevant) order of probability, you do not sit idley and say "I can't make a choice" - and when you do make that choice, you make it totally. You don't say "Well, I only 60% made that choice because it was only 60% likely to be the case."

So, when someone tells me that 2 + 2 = 4, I am not going to say "Well, I'd say there is only a 90 odd percent chance of that being the case, so I'll hedge my bets"

When it comes down to it, no-one does in any scientific or meaningful sense. It is impossible to think of and take into account all the minutae of fact that we are aware of when weighing up a "fact" - let alone the vast enormity of the things we do not know about.

But, do we all live in an existential quandry ignoring everything but our own existence? No, Descartes has a valid point, but the fact that no-one ignores the world and the things in it as "unknowable" means that not only is there, but there must be acceptance of assumption, and thus things which cannot be proven must be accepted as "true."

So, long story short, call me an anti-lectual if you will, but I will go along with every media outlet in existence and accept as truth the facts I know. I'm not going to go to Egypt just to add perceptual evidence the pyramids exist, and I am not going to start questioning "facts" unless there is substantial evidence to suggest they are incorrect.

And Bob, I didn't call you an idiot because you said nothing idiotic. Unless you impress me enough for me to give you preferential treatment, you will get called an idiot by me if you (like numerous other people on the forum) post suitable material to justify it. I do not act unreasonably to people who are reasonable.

[Apollo Creed]

"On what basis do you decide whether statements are true in everyday life?"

"Source: Sociology: Your Compass for a New World by Robert J. Brym and John Lie

Just because you call it "the truth" doesn't mean its accurate, and just because you know you're "right" doesn't mean you're seeing the whole picture

Did anyone else feel the need to point out that Mr. ProfJim's objective thesis at the start of this thread was taken from a beginning Sociology book?

Oh well, at least some people are crediting sources other than their own asshole.

[Whois]

regrettably, sisko isn't the only narrow-minded person on here...there seems to be a plague of it

i'm not naming names but...i think everyone needs to examine themselves, seriously

(looks)

I have a pimple on my leg...

[infidel]

You don't know what you are talking about. Kerry voted against the Stealth Bomber, against the Cruise missle, and for a Nuk freeze.
So what?
Cheney voted to eliminate more military than Kerry. It was the only sensable thing to do with the cold war gone.

[ProfJIM]

gmsisko1 makes is sound like kerry voted for this shit yesterday

[EN[i]GMA]

And the E drops the knowledge too don't he?!??!?!?!


I'm going to go cry now :(

[ToucanSpam]

You liberal half truth telling ninnie! Kerry voted against the Stealth Bomber, Cruise Missle, exc DURING THE COLD WAR !!!!!

Your MOM voted against the Stealth Bomber, Cruise Missle, and whatever 'exc' is. Time to get as petty as you, gmsisko.

[EN[i]GMA]

Why do you people STILL respond to sisko? It's not funny anymore and he NEVER will get it. He will go to the grave with the same stupid ideas. Just give up. Please. Save everyone some time and give up responding to him. He'll eventually get bored and go away.

[QueenAdrock]

You liberal half truth telling ninnie! Kerry voted against the Stealth Bomber, Cruise Missle, exc DURING THE COLD WAR !!!!!


Who would Jesus bomb? :rolleyes:

Who the fuck cares what happened in the past? The cold war was over 20 fuckin' years ago! 20 years ago, Bush was PRO-CHOICE. What one says or thinks over TWO DECADES AGO has no correlation with what's happening TODAY.

But if you want to talk about what's effecting us now, how about slashing the veterans pay? (http://irregulartimes.com/solvingveterans.html) He sends them over there to be shot at, and pours salt in their wounds when they come back.

[ProfJIM]

the world is always changing.

and eskimo just says stuff without saying where he heard it from.

he also hasnt addressed anything i said to him in post #1

[Ace42]

Who would Jesus bomb?

Don't quote the troll. And you may as well not reply. If the guy isn't capable of realising that even without the Stealth Bomber and other shit that Kerry saved BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON, the US still survived the cold war without even a scratch, he isn't capable of learning anything.

Leave him to his ignorance. Sooner or later Darwin'll sort him out.

[SobaViolence]

100% truth is unobtainable.

get over it. you can't know everything, therefor cannot possess 100% truth on any topic. we are limited in our cognitive abilities. we are flawed from the get-go. some people are just more flawed than others.

i'm not picking sides(because i'm anti-establishment) but politics is a bunch of bullshit.

believe it or not, no matter where you stand, it's all a crock of shit. national borders are invisible(for the most part) culture is an illusion and your parents had sex to create you; the only thing that matters is that we are all human beings and have a limited lifespan. what you do with yours is completely up to you.

and honestly, no one else really cares what you think. (see, you don't care what i think, and vice versa)

PEACE

[Apollo Creed]

and honestly, no one else really cares what you think. (see, you don't care what i think, and vice versa)

PEACE

Amen.