Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 18, 2016, 01:43:50 PM
-
Pithy little article from Emanual Papparella. In the end though, IMO, it's a restatement of the problems of our biases.
http://tinyurl.com/zyzc5nq
-
If our so called 'truth' isn't harming others then I guess we are entitled to it. However, if we try to force it on others with threats if they don't accept it, it is a BIG PROBLEM.
-
If our so called 'truth' isn't harming others then I guess we are entitled to it. However, if we try to force it on others with threats if they don't accept it, it is a BIG PROBLEM.
Theats such as this, for example?
British values oath proposed for public office holders (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38355373)
Writing in the Sunday Times, Mr Javid said people could not play a "positive role" in public life unless they accepted basic values.
-
Pithy little article from Emanual Papparella. In the end though, IMO, it's a restatement of the problems of our biases.
http://tinyurl.com/zyzc5nq
What do you mean by 'our own truth', Nearly?
-
If our so called 'truth' isn't harming others then I guess we are entitled to it. However, if we try to force it on others with threats if they don't accept it, it is a BIG PROBLEM.
So, would you agree that scientific truth, that only has itself as verification, shouldn't be forced on people?
-
What do you mean by 'our own truth', Nearly?
Erm I am quoting the article title, that's why it's in quotes. So asking me what I mean by it isn't the correct approach
-
So, would you agree that scientific truth, that only has itself as verification, shouldn't be forced on people?
So you think that children shouldn't be stopped from drinking acid or handling poisonous snakes!
-
I'm sick of being force-fed quantum mechanics, why I saw it mentioned on X-factor the other day. Disgusting. And all that gravity nonsense, let's leave that to the EU.
-
Erm I am quoting the article title, that's why it's in quotes. So asking me what I mean by it isn't the correct approach
Well, NS, you have started the thread, so you must have some idea of how you understand the article title. I accept that I may not have made myself clear.
-
Well, NS, you have started the thread, so you must have some idea of how you understand the article title. I accept that I may not have made myself clear.
Why if I start a thread based on an article would I provide my understanding of every tern used by the author? I suggest you read the article and respond to that, just as I did in my first post.
-
So, would you agree that scientific truth, that only has itself as verification, shouldn't be forced on people?
Scientific discoveries can usually be verified, unlike religion.
-
Scientific discoveries can usually be verified, unlike religion.
So how many scientific discoveries have you verified for yourself Floo?
For those that you haven't, on what basis do you accept them as being correct?
-
So how many scientific discoveries have you verified for yourself Floo?
For those that you haven't, on what basis do you accept them as being correct?
So you tried drinking acid or handling poisonous snakes?
-
So you tried drinking acid or handling poisonous snakes?
Which is why I asked Floo
For those that you haven't, on what basis do you accept them as being correct?
-
Which is why I asked Floo
so you have tried handling poisonous snakes then.
-
so you have tried handling poisonous snakes then.
I don't like any kind of snakes so would avoid handling them, given the choice.
-
I don't like any kind of snakes so would avoid handling them, given the choice.
Evasion noted
-
I don't like any kind of snakes so would avoid handling them, given the choice.
Evasions noted.
Which scientific truths do you reject?
-
Evasion noted
No evasion. The premise for your examples didn't apply. I don't like snakes, period, and the only acids i consume are the ones in food products. For whatever reason, I've never felt the need to consume e.g. hydrochloric or sulphuric acid.
Which scientific truths do you reject?
How are you defining truths? Something that is factual and verifiable by anyone, such as a claim that Theresa May is the Prime Minister?
-
No evasion. The premise for your examples didn't apply. I don't like snakes, period, and the only acids i consume are the ones in food products. For whatever reason, I've never felt the need to consume e.g. hydrochloric or sulphuric acid.
How are you defining truths? Something that is factual and verifiable by anyone, such as a claim that Theresa May is the Prime Minister?
And further evasion. Say your child says I would like to drink some sulphuric acid, do you let it?
-
No evasion. The premise for your examples didn't apply. I don't like snakes, period, and the only acids i consume are the ones in food products. For whatever reason, I've never felt the need to consume e.g. hydrochloric or sulphuric acid.
How are you defining truths? Something that is factual and verifiable by anyone, such as a claim that Theresa May is the Prime Minister?
since you are into the answer a question with a question routine, I'll ask you what you think is a scientific truth.
As is often said on these boards, science never says it can 100% prove anything, but the Theories they have, for instance that the earth goes round the sun, are as near 100% as possible while remaining open to challenges and improved information.
-
Scientific discoveries can usually be verified, unlike religion.
When are you going to verify your scientism Floo?
-
You verify your faith!
-
Say your child says I would like to drink some sulphuric acid, do you let it?
No.
-
No.
And why is that?
-
Pithy little article from Emanual Papparella. In the end though, IMO, it's a restatement of the problems of our biases.
http://tinyurl.com/zyzc5nq
Thanks for the article NS. What troubles me is why there is any disagreement with it from people on this thread . Any casual observation of daily life or news items on the telly or newsprint can see its true.
I find it so annoying when MPs being asked a question start their reply with 'I believe' with such conviction that it sounds like a universal law of physics that they are about to impart .
I don't know how many people are fooled by it but my guess is younger inexperienced voters might be .
-
And why is that?
Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!
While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.
-
Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!
While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.
So the scientific experiments which show that dangerous acids destroy, for instance, flesh, are accepted by you as truths?
Please do try to give a direct answer.
-
Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!
While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.
that does not answer the question . all you've done is given a vague description of the properties of some acid how to handle them .
-
#28
Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!
While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.
that does not answer the question. all you've done is given a vague description of the properties of some acid how to handle them.
Nearly Sane's question was
Say your child says I would like to drink some sulphuric acid, do you let it?
Why would I want my child to drink something that I have observational evidence for (GCSE, A-Level Chemistry), regarding the damage it causes?
So the scientific experiments which show that dangerous acids destroy, for instance, flesh, are accepted by you as truths?
Having done Chemistry, the damage that some acids (e.g. sulphuric, hydrochloric acids) can do has been verified, so I can accept these.
-
OK, that is an answer
however judging from many of your posts you accept things without 'observational evidence' to be true.
Why is that, Sword?
-
Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!
While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.
that would be when you were doing science and doing observation. Which is the basis for Floo's acceptance of science as an approach.
-
author=SwordOfTheSpirit
Having done Chemistry, the damage that some acids (e.g. sulphuric,
hydrochloric acids) can do has been verified, so I can accept these.
Okay, but which ones will you reject, or not accept?
By the way, I note that you have cunningly avoided using the words science, scientific, or truth/s, but you see, I did notice that.
Synthetic Dave has been programmed to be a very conscientious reader and doesn’t miss a thing.
-
Having done Chemistry, the damage that some acids (e.g. sulphuric, hydrochloric acids) can do has been verified, so I can accept these.
So, since you accept knowledge regarding the actions of acids as being justified: so well justified that you'd be reluctant to test it by drinking some, then presumably you'd agree that the basis of the justification needs to be sound for the associated knowledge claim to be accepted as sound: yes?
-
So, would you agree that scientific truth, that only has itself as verification, shouldn't be forced on people?
Science doesn't do truth; science suggests. No-one forces you to go to the doctor for prescription medicines; you can always visit the homeopath or a witch doctor.
-
Science doesn't do truth; science suggests. No-one forces you to go to the doctor for prescription medicines; you can always visit the homeopath or a witch doctor.
I agree with the principles of what you say, torri; but I also know of a number of people - including some pretty famous ones who seem to forget that maxim when expounding science and its ability to answer everything - eventually.
-
I agree with the principles of what you say, torri; but I also know of a number of people - including some pretty famous ones who seem to forget that maxim when expounding science and its ability to answer everything - eventually.
Do you have any pretty famous names to regale us with?
-
We are not entitled to our own truths when it goes against the law of the land.
examples would be FGM and there are many others.
Even when the victim is agreeable.
I can't set up a sect that believes LSD opens the doors to paradise, for example, and hand it out to everyone who wants it.
If it's against the law, then no we are not entitled.
-
We are not entitled to our own truths when it goes against the law of the land.
examples would be FGM and there are many others.
Even when the victim is agreeable.
So if the law of the land said FGM was OK, I wouldn't by your position be able to object?
-
So if the law of the land said FGM was OK, I wouldn't by your position be able to object?
It's not my position, because I don't choose the law of the land.
But no you wouldn't.
Hitler changed the law in Germany to accommodate murdering millions of Jews.
Many Germans faced being murdered themselves, if they objected.
-
It's not my position, because I don't choose the law of the land.
But no you wouldn't.
Hitler changed the law in Germany to accommodate murdering millions of Jews.
Many Germans faced being murdered themselves, if they objected.
so what was your post about FGN saying? Is it a truth that FGM is bad! Is it a truth that what the law says is right?
-
As nasty as it is, if stoning becomes the law in a country, those objecting often suffer a nasty fate themselves.
Isis in some places rules and makes the law, and for a while in those places beheading becomes acceptable.
-
As nasty as it is, if stoning becomes the law in a country, those objecting often suffer a nasty fate themselves.
Isis in some places rules and makes the law, and for a while in those places beheading becomes acceptable.
That is true, is it truth? You seem entirely confused.
-
As nasty as it is, if stoning becomes the law in a country, those objecting often suffer a nasty fate themselves.
Isis in some places rules and makes the law, and for a while in those places beheading becomes acceptable.
and while we are on this what is the relation to the article from your posts as they seem like complete non sequiturs?
-
so what was your post about FGN saying? Is it a truth that FGM is bad! Is it a truth that what the law says is right?
IMO the truth is that many things are bad but people accept authority from others,that one set of personal truths are correc over others, so these things become acceptable.
The law is not always right, it depends on the lawmakers.
ATM those things are not acceptable in the uk.
Hopefully they never will be.
-
The defense that something criminal, was in obedience to the law was rejected at Nuremberg, I think. Befehl ist Befehl, orders are orders, was used by various defendants, including Eichmann (in Israel). It was rejected normally, since individuals can still make moral choices, although at times, it has been allowed, for example, under duress.
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
The classic case in WWII was the execution of prisoners, which some German officers justified as direct orders from Hitler, but some of them were still executed after the war.
-
and while we are on this what is the relation to the article from your posts as they seem like complete non sequiturs?
Groups like Isis do things like they do, because they are working from their own set of personal truths.
People who want a violent version of Sharia law in the uk are working from the assumption that our truths are wrong and theirs are right.
ATM in the uk you can have your own truths provided they don't break the uk laws.
So people can believe whatever they want, provided they don't break the law.
-
Groups like Isis do things like they do, because they are working from their own set of personal truths.
People who want a violent version of Sharia law in the uk are working from the assumption that our truths are wrong and theirs are right.
ATM in the uk you can have your own truths provided they don't break the uk laws.
So people can believe whatever they want, provided they don't break the law.
so the law can then be whatever the people have chosen, and people would just have to obey it. Which means if FGM is legal you would just have to agree. You need to try and make a consistent point here as you are contradicting yourself, and also not making any point in relation to the article.
-
so the law can then be whatever the people have chosen, and people would just have to obey it. Which means if FGM is legal you would just have to agree. You need to try and make a consistent point here as you are contradicting yourself, and also not making any point in relation to the article.
Why is it you can never discuss the subject at hand , but degenerate to nit picking?
-
Yes!
If we believe the law of the land is wrong, we can work to change it. That has happened with a few issues in my lifetime, eg capital punishment, laws about homosexuality. People campaigned relentlessly and demonstrated, winning others over, and eventually the laws were changed.
Other laws with lower profiles, such as the rights of children and young people under majority, also changed bit by bit.
It must be very, very difficult to live in a place where the law is inhumane because the only way to effect change would be by breaking the law. That happened in apartheid South Africa. It takes great courage to put your own freedom and maybe your life, in danger. We are not all the stuff of martyrs made.
Throughout their history, Quakers have risked everything to aid those in need, such as running networks to help slaves to freedom. I really admire that.
Obviously it's far better if reforms can be effected within the law and with non-violent direct action.
-
Why is it you can never discuss the subject at hand , but degenerate to nit picking?
I am discussing it, I am pointing out that you are inconsistent in your thinking on it.
-
I am discussing it, I am pointing out that you are inconsistent in your thinking on it.
Not really, different countries are inconsistent.
Are we entitled to our own truth? The answer is inconsistent, depending on the country you are in.
-
Not really, different countries are inconsistent.
Are we entitled to our own truth? The answer is inconsistent, depending on the country you are in.
I still don't see how inconsistency related to the article, could you reference the bit in the article you see this point being relevant to?
-
I still don't see how inconsistency related to the article, could you reference the bit in the article you see this point being relevant to?
I've taken the article wider than it actually is.
But lots of people having their own truths means they are inconsistant.
inconsistent
ɪnkənˈsɪst(ə)nt/
adjective
1.
not staying the same throughout.
"police interpretation of the law was often inconsistent"
2.
not compatible or in keeping with.
"he had done nothing inconsistent with his morality"
synonyms: incompatible with, conflicting with, in conflict with, at odds with, at variance with, differing from, different to, in disagreement with, disagreeing with, not in accord with, contrary to, in opposition to, opposed to, irreconcilable with, not in keeping with, out of keeping with, out of place with, out of step with, not in harmony with, incongruous with, discordant with, discrepant with; More
Feedback
Because people's beliefs, if everyone has their own truths, are inconsistant.
So it's asking if this will lead in the end, to the demise of democracy.
I took it further because one area where people have their own truths is in religion and they expect their truth to be honoured.
I was also thinking that in places like Saudi Arabia you are not allowed to express your own truth, and freedom of expression is curtailed unless it fits in with approved Islamic " truths".
Religion as in creationism is a personal truth held by some who want an equal status of their truth being taught in schools. If that happens in some schools but not others that makes teaching inconsistant.
Although he doesn't mention those things, it was what sprang to mind.
If I'm inconsistant it's probably that I see lots of different angles you could approach this, depending on the country you lived in.
-
#30
OK, that is an answer
however judging from many of your posts you accept things without 'observational evidence' to be true.
Why is that, Sword?
Because in some cases, faith is necessary, e.g. when the evidence is not observational.
#32
Okay, but which ones will you reject, or not accept?
Pretty much anything that tries to get round the problem of an external cause being responsible for a gain, by claiming that it is an increase, so can therefore come (emerge) from itself.
#33
Having done Chemistry, the damage that some acids (e.g. sulphuric, hydrochloric acids) can do has been verified, so I can accept these.
So, since you accept knowledge regarding the actions of acids as being justified: ...
Knowledge that has been verified.
then presumably you'd agree that the basis of the justification needs to be sound for the associated knowledge claim to be accepted as sound: yes?
Where this is possible, yes.
-
Because in some cases, faith is necessary, e.g. when the evidence is not observational.
Then you need a non-observational basis to evaluate what is claimed as evidence - such as?
Pretty much anything that tries to get round the problem of an external cause being responsible for a gain, by claiming that it is an increase, so can therefore come (emerge) from itself.
Which presumes an 'external cause', which in this case would be begging the question (a fallacy), followed by yet more personal incredulity (another fallacy).
Where this is possible, yes.
If justification isn't possible, or the justification doesn't stand scrutiny, then you have speculation and not knowledge.
-
Thank you for a direct answer!
Maybe, the main difference between believers and non-believers is that the latter have faith in millions of things, but all of those things are backed up by observational evidence. If that evidence has as yet many gaps and needs many more years of tests still to do, then it’s a ‘don’t know’ and remains that way until it becomes knowledge.
What is it, do you think, that encourages you to believe things on 100% faith? Could you perhapsmention a few?
-
NO
-
To 're-visit' the OP question: probably. We all experience life in different ways, and what might be overbearingly hot for some might be pleasantly warm for others, or porridge might be the only 'real' breakfast cereal for some, whilst it might be Corn Flakes or Shredded Wheat or All Bran for others.*
Similarly, if you live permanently at an altitude of, say, 2000m, the boiling point is always going to be different to that for someone who lives permanently at sea level.
Does Christmas always occur in the winter?
*PS, other cereals are available.