RocketGirl: Animator

[Segovia]

To comander K I did see the irony when I posted it.

To angela alot of these things were tl;dr situations so I technically didn't read them but based on the events of yesterdays flame war I know the general topic of it all.

[RocketGirl]

I've allowed this debate to continue because it's a pretty intelligent discussion and by no means inflammatory.

It's been a little inflammatory:

...you would seriously say that? that's being way too much of an asshole.

Now here's Rocketgirl being a total jerk saying how my faith is fake and blah blah blah.

And yes you are being a total jerk debunking others beliefs.

that's seriously the dumbest, butthurtest thing I've ever read.

You're ignorant of diversity. pants, it's REALLY hard to not invoke Godwin's Law right now (oh wait, I just did).

...and so on. That I took these barbs--these, frankly, personal attacks--with aplomb, and did my damnedest not to respond in kind may well be the only thing that kept this thread from outright bursting into flames. Not to say they didn't rankle--they did--but I'm genuinely after intelligent, reasoned discourse here, and felt discretion was the better part an' all that.

Yes, I know...but sometimes you can even find that on the internet, if you know where to look.

If it annoys you, you don't have to read it. This is, after all, RocketGirl's thread.

Aw, shucks.

I do genuinely want feedback, and these vids were made to spark discussion and debate, but yeah...if this is my thread, then I'd prefer if you were only here to have honest debate free of personal attacks, thankyouverymuchindeed.

[RocketGirl]

This is where I take issue. Again, the "pending contradictory data." It's basically a statement that x is true based on current evidence. Because current evidence supports the assertion that x is true, we know x is true.

First of all, quote-mining wins you no points...especially when you've clearly not understood what is being said.

Second, your characterization of my position is wholly inaccurate. The statement is not merely that "x is true based on current evidence," but actually that "x has been demonstrated to be true based on current evidence, investigation, experimentation, and application". That's actually quite a bit different than merely having evidence; evidence by itself is not enough, which is why we have vetting processes like peer-review.

Basically, I want to know what your in between is.

It's the state of being in the process of collecting and collating data while eliminating possibilities as they are precluded by that data.

Or, in a word, investigation.

It seems some folks here have a problem with the state of "I don't know," and are asserting that one must have a strongly held opinion of some kind or another. Black-and-white reasoning wins you no points.

[Arloest]

It's been a little inflammatory:

...you would seriously say that? that's being way too much of an asshole.

Now here's Rocketgirl being a total jerk saying how my faith is fake and blah blah blah.

And yes you are being a total jerk debunking others beliefs.

that's seriously the dumbest, butthurtest thing I've ever read.

You're ignorant of diversity. pants, it's REALLY hard to not invoke Godwin's Law right now (oh wait, I just did).

It's funny how I managed to overlook all of that.

Oh well, don't to it again, guys?


WHOOO attentiveness.

[Comrade K]

As I've said, I already live in the state of "I don't know."

I was simply pointing out what my original issue with your argument was. Also, I use "evidence" as a catch-all for your "x has been demonstrated to be true based on current evidence, investigation, experimentation, and application" and all that. Investigation, experimentation, peer-review and application all yield more evidence, more data, more certainty, more whatever you want to call it, either in favour or against an assertion. I'm saying that no matter how much data/evidence/application etc. you have, you cannot be absolutely certain, you cannot know. My argument is that it's always gray, never black or white.

You seem to agree in a sense.
What it is that I'm arguing here is that you give the impression that you know things, when really they are "still under investigation." Given the nature of our existence, everything will be perpetually "under investigation" until the end of time or our existence.

I don't think we're really arguing two different things, I just find your arguments come off in such a way that it seems we are.

[RocketGirl]

You seem to agree in a sense.
What it is that I'm arguing here is that you give the impression that you know things, when really they are "still under investigation."

I would put it as, "Know with such a high degree of accuracy due to empirical data and investigation--skeptical inquiry--that believing otherwise without new and contradictory data would be ludicrous."

[Comrade K]

You seem to agree in a sense.
What it is that I'm arguing here is that you give the impression that you know things, when really they are "still under investigation."

I would put it as, "Know with such a high degree of accuracy due to empirical data and investigation--skeptical inquiry--that believing otherwise without new and contradictory data would be ludicrous."

Indeed. See, I see things the same way, I'm just saying that that "new and contradictory data" may just be out there, and we can never be sure, so we never truly, fully know with complete and absolute certainty. We can only get progressively closer.


I define not knowing absolutely for certain as believing, even if it should be "with such a high degree of accuracy due to empirical data and investigation--skeptical inquiry--that believing otherwise without new and contradictory data would be ludicrous." See, to me, that's still "belief." It's a very well-justified belief, but still not absolutely 100% certain. To you, that's "under investigation."

My concern is that you will state that it's "case closed" and that we know the answer, before having absolute proof (which we'll never have anyway).
I was getting the impression that you were claiming that you were absolutely correct in your statements, even though that was never explicitly stated.

[RocketGirl]

I define not knowing absolutely for certain as believing

I don't. And I've posted the definition I belief that I use often enough; you should know it by now.

I hate haggling over terminology, though, so...

[Comrade K]

But the manner in which you denied that what you "knew" through scientific inquiry was "belief" seemed to give both myself and others the impression that you considered the observations of the scientific process to be absolute truths, regardless of your actual intent. Then there was a clash of definitions.

[RocketGirl]

But the manner in which you denied that what you "knew" through scientific inquiry was "belief" seemed to give both myself and others the impression that you considered the observations of the scientific process to be absolute truths, regardless of your actual intent.

Then I can't help feeling rather ignored; I was pretty clear about the kind of evidence and investigation I required to call it knowledge.

[Hyperion]

For the record: I have no opinion on all this. Anyway...

[RocketGirl]

For the record: I have no opinion on all this.

"Opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one and most of the stink."

[Comrade K]

Sorry, I was preoccupied for some time there.

The predominant issue in your argument was that you initially failed to define what lay between absolute knowledge and your definition of belief. You said something to the effect of "empirical evidence etc. makes belief redundant" but that doesn't say what an observer is to make of these empirical findings.

So, data gained through scientific inquiry can only allow us to make presumptions, not ascertain absolute facts, and because of this, we are perpetually in a state of "under investigation." So, we can never have truly absolute knowledge, because there is always a possibility that contradictory evidence exists. In this case, as you've mentioned, we'd say "I don't know."
It all makes sense.

Yet I am still irked by this:

"I consider knowing to be absolute...pending contradictory data."

Yes quote mining earns me no points etc. etc....That fails to answer my question. I still don't feel that you've sufficiently explained this position. You've clarified that mere evidence is not all that is involved in determining what can be known, but not how based on all the things you laid out, one can have absolute knowledge (which is what I interpret "knowing to be absolute" to mean), which can subsequently be disproved by an influx of new data.

Saying "pending contradictory data" implies that this issue is still "under investigation" and not "absolute knowledge" as we are still studying it and recording findings. And if it's still being investigated-if there's still a possibility that new data could emerge, then how can we "know?"

Anyway, I have to be up early tomorrow, so this will probably be my last post for tonight. We can continue this debate tomorrow afternoon or night or whenever. If you have the time, maybe write a nice big comprehensive argument, address all the issues you see at once and all that, so it'll be easier to see all your points in one thought out stream, rather than scattered randomly according to how the debate was flowing.

Night!

[RocketGirl]

Sorry, I was preoccupied for some time there.

You are NOT forgiven...in fact, I think I may have you flogged.

The predominant issue in your argument was that you initially failed to define what lay between absolute knowledge and your definition of belief.

...largely because a myriad of things can.

You said something to the effect of "empirical evidence etc. makes belief redundant" but that doesn't say what an observer is to make of these empirical findings.

Experiments to verify that their observations are as they have interpreted them, for a start. Calling observed data "empirical" without corroborative observation is a fallacy.

So, data gained through scientific inquiry can only allow us to make presumptions, not ascertain absolute facts, and because of this, we are perpetually in a state of "under investigation." So, we can never have truly absolute knowledge, because there is always a possibility that contradictory evidence exists.

And once again, I have to post the definition of "belief" which I am using, which you continuously ignore:

"confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"

Yet I am still irked by this:

"I consider knowing to be absolute...pending contradictory data."

Yes, I know you're still irked by that. Inordinately so; it'd be like still being cranky at not being thanked for dinner by your opponent prior to a swordfight breaking out between the two of you. There are bigger fish to fry than one sentence out of twelve pages worth of debate.
You're just going to have to let that one go, since obviously it doesn't mean the same thing to you that it does to me.

Yes quote mining earns me no points etc. etc....That fails to answer my question.

Your question is amply answered; you're just so lock-focused on a wording you don't care for that you're missing the forest for the trees.
Let. It. Go.

[nickspoon]

If we may dig ourselves out of semantics for a moment, I honestly cannot see what actual issue is being debated here. RocketGirl concedes that it is possible for something we conclude from even strong evidence to be false; that rather than searching for certainty, a concept which simply cannot exist with an inductive epistemology, we should investigate any plausible hypothesis and, when evidence for that hypothesis is sufficient to place it above other hypotheses then we accept that, in a purely practical sense, as fact, although this acceptance does not preclude further investigation into the hypothesis and it is conceivable that any accepted scientific theory may be shown to be false in light of new data.

Which seems to be what Comrade is arguing, too; the difference seems to be largely in how they are described. My issue, concerning the term 'belief', has as far as I can tell been resolved, although quite why the definition of belief I put forward - from dictionary.com, no less - is irrelevant I do not understand.

I do apologise if I have misunderstood anyone's position.