Is basing your beliefs off of evidence circular reasoning? What reason is there to base your belief off of evidence? Why does it have more credibility than personal experience, where is the line that people draw and why do they draw it?
Fug
Is basing your beliefs off of evidence circular reasoning? What reason is there to base your belief off of evidence...
Samuel Gutierrez
Isaac Ortiz
Wtf is wrong with your face?
Ryder Reyes
Evidence is objective so it's the only thing we can base our ideas on.
Asher Sanders
Yes everything is confirmation bias and circular reasoning because humans cannot actually possess objective data, we merely convey objective data to varying degrees of accuracy. The more the objectivity is conveyed, the more intelligent you will be perceived and thus gain stock control.
But nobody actually “owns” the data and logistics of it all. It’s just a smoke and mirror show and the best performance, wins. Does that make sense?
Matthew Miller
Evidence consistently gets rendered obsolete by future technology and ideas. Think of the world being flat in 30,000BC. You would have been correct in assuming so at the time due to available evidence, yet now thanks to technology we can see we where wrong then. What's changed about our ignorance today? judging based on history tech consistently gets rendered obsolete and so do ideas. If you can't say it's true 5000 years from now, it's not objective.
Ian Price
So truth is real but we struggle to obtain it, thanks user. It seems everything always comes back to this :(
inb4 someone makes a "cultural relativism" point. The statement "there is no truth" is truth in of itself, begone 2nd year uni student.
Aaron Cox
Well, if there was actually a mode of “truth” that wasn’t subjective to this guy or that guy, it would be like God telling the Israelites that they are his favorites. Aka a political agenda.
Where in reality, we live in a world so wholly undefinable that even a virus has the chance to destroy all of the complexity that we are so certain makes up the demonstratively complex “truth” of the world: ourselves
Easton Ramirez
It's funny how the idea of objectivity is actually subjective.
Ayden Collins
There's no such thing as subjective truth, subjective truth is belief, they're literally the same thing. Truth can only be objective. People for some reason (I'm guessing emotional) interchange truth and belief, they're not the same. You can say all things are a matter of belief and subjective but that then would mean that truth is subjective and therefore making the former objective truth. Truth can only be objective because like in the example I gave, if you say "truth is subjective" then that means that "truth being subjective" is now objective. It sounds like wordplay but it isn't, truth can only exist.
Elijah Taylor
Yes I know. What I mean is that people's ideas of what is objectivity are actually subjective
Carson Brooks
Oh so truth exists and we struggle to obtain it or view it, hence the subjective views on it.
How do people come to the conclusion that objectivity is anything other than the ability to exist independent of our beliefs/perception? So for example: If I believe I don't need to breathe and then stop breathing, then later I have to breathe regardless of the belief and that turns out to be the case for every other person, does that not mean that the need to breathe exists independent of, or outside of belief and therefore is objective? therefore rendered true?
I really don't understand how people can confuse the word and distort it
Evan Harris
I'm not doing your homework Michael so stop asking these fucking losers.
Lucas Hill
Pls dad I need a hand, I'm STUMPED
Brandon Harris
>Evidence consistently gets rendered obsolete by future technology and ideas.
It's not really about correctness; it's about what you have most reason to think is the case. It's an old problem though.
Jackson Wright
Well, because when we say : 2+ 2 = 4
That’s in the realm of public domain as such that literally everyone can say they host this objective information, as fact. And they would be right.
But if I say, the moon landing was fake, or, trump is a good president, the cause/effect as well the intended realm of “objectivity” gathers so many dimensions immediately that it becomes pointless to even argue about it because the frame of reference only exists as a symbol in the mind of the other person.
Mason Cox
>Is basing your beliefs off of evidence circular reasoning?
No.
>What reason is there to base your belief off of evidence?
Because evidence is objective. Interpretation is the only thing that is subjective and some people interpret better than others. Evidence exists independently of the interpretation. The correct way to interpret evidence is to deduct, evidence can never prove, it can only deduct. Or to paraphrase the words of Feynman: nothing can ever be proved true, it can only either be proved false or not proved false.
>Why does it have more credibility than personal experience, where is the line that people draw and why do they draw it?
Personal experience is a form of evidence so this part of your questioning is moot.
Bentley Martin
I've heard of applying a credence score to ideas and judging them based on the likelihood of them being true. I guess though that's how scientific evidence works now to some extent.
What I don't get is that it's fucking odd that if I have trouble obtaining the truth and consistently fall short of it, then that means if I choose to believe something, it's likely not the truth. Then why is it we're so confident we have rights? I guess the old wise cunt Socrates was right
>That’s in the realm of public domain as such that literally everyone can say they host this objective information, as fact. And they would be right.
We judge mathematics off of mathematics itself. If it doesn't work or apply in mathematics then it's wrong, it's only objectivity is on the basis of maths. If something defies mathematics then it's classed as wrong instead of realising that possibly we're ignorant. If we then incorporate the thing that defies mathematics into mathematics, then the way used to apply maths before was false. Therefore not objective. Also would you say that mathematics is a perfectly figured out system? That it incorporates everything?
Read the thread for examples, evidence isn't objective. Some more examples would be our fallible senses informing our fallible perception which means the way we read data can be/is fallible.
Mason Price
Well, math is the actual objectivity that we are genetically hardwired to emulate, I suppose. That’s how humans think. Reductionism. Smash it, count the pieces, find out what the catalyst IS by identifying what it ISNT.
Obviously we are not robots, so where each person’s natural reductionism fails, they use societal input to close the gap.
The closer you are to the middle of the tribe in a bell curve, the more insulated you are from “outlandish” ideas that make you prone to ridicule. NPC dna basically.
That is how we create crude models of objectivity, by combining the mean of cultural bell curve with the best reductionism we have. And then we pass that off as being “actual” objectivity, instead of just a model.
Christopher Morgan
>Read the thread for examples, evidence isn't objective.
Yes it is. The interpretation of the person observing the evidence can be subjective, but the evidence itself cannot.
>Some more examples would be our fallible senses informing our fallible perception which means the way we read data can be/is fallible.
That's interpretation issues. The evidence exists independently of this. This why multiple trials and deduction are the only way to move toward truth. The more trials the less likely a fallacious interpretation will invalidate the finding. The scientific method is specifically engineered to minimise the effect of flawed interpretation.
Carson Ward
This shit is too big for my retard brain, there's so much reasoning that goes into one thing being true (objective). Think about how many people in your daily life operate on behvaiours based upon their beliefs that they think are true. Then realise it's been this way all throughout history.
How can we even conceive of truth if we can't actually attain it due to our flawed state? How does the notion of objectivity even exist if we can't ever perceive it? Is the only thing that's objectively true is that we can't actually know anything for certain?
Thomas Torres
I’m pretending I’m choking u to death right now
Evan Gray
If the thing we use to gather evidence (telescope, microscope, maths) is created by our flawed perception, then wouldn't the evidence itself be flawed? We could be only reading half of something or leaving something out due to external circumstances we can't conceive of. The interpretation of the evidence is as crucial as gathering it because it's the previous assumptions that allow/start/inform the way we gather 'evidence' in the future.
Josiah Richardson
Please stop, I'm only curious :(
Ryan Wilson
2 + 2 = 4 bro lol
And from a purist perspective, everything already is objective because it exists. Thats what I was saying earlier about a political perspective. No matter what stance you take with the information as a human, you make it political and therefore flawed.
But every molecule that exists already does so objectively, don’t you agree? You can’t find something that isn’t existing objectively already. Literally everything, natural and man made does something as opposed to not doing something, subjectively.
But I realize that’s not an easy viewpoint to internalize from where we are on the ground, it’s essentially saying; enlightenment exists already it’s just of no constructive use to the human ego. Lol
Dominic Reed
the instruments are part of the interpretation. The evidence is not the instruments, nor is it the data we gather from them. Evidence exists independently of interpretation.
Deductive reasoning is the only reasoning in science, which is why we test against a null hypothesis, and it is very easy to prove something false. If you prove enough things false fewer options remain. Then you prove things related to those few options false until only one of those is viable. And if you repeat it enough times you remove the likelihood of gallery positives or negatives, if you share the method and let others repeat it enough times then they remove the likelihood of personal idiosyncratic errors, you get closer to truth.
We may never be absolutely certain that we are AT the truth, but we can always be certain that we are closer to it by the elimination of that which is false. The evidence itself is objective, so eventually the interpretations close in on the truth of it
Nolan Rodriguez
can you not post this fucking picture? it's disgusting and stupid
William Nelson
Jaxson Ramirez
I get what you mean man and thanks for your perspective, it helps a ton. But here's what my gigatism does:
>No matter what stance you take with the information as a human, you make it political and therefore flawed
Why is this true? and then why is the answer to the previous question true?
>every molecule that exists already does so objectively, don’t you agree?
What reason do you have for believing this and why is it true?
>You can’t find something that isn’t existing objectively already
This one here is a good one, I've never thought about it like this. I guess this is where people would say that perception comes in and ask why perception is worth basing your beliefs off of but ultimately no matter how hard I think, I can't make any of it disappear. Then again, there's nothing to say that it's actually there but ultimately, simulation or not, it doesn't change the fact that I have to interact with things around me so ultimately regardless of my thoughts I still have to exist. Cheers for this mate.
If you look at the 5th reply in the thread you'll see that I actually agree with you, that we can't know it and ultimately truth exists but we can't attain it due to our flawed state. It's just that I don't know what to base my beliefs off of and why, hence the thread looking for insight from my fellow tards.
I get the process of elimination argument but ultimately you get left with one thing, if you ask "why is this true?" would that then never be a never ending cycle of questions? It seems that the only logical conclusion (at the moment) is something created us and they have the answers. I don't see how you can stop the path of "why is this true?" without saying "x created it and x operates on a higher level than I" but then again I am operating in ignorance. In your opinion, if you think as an atheist would, is there a stopping point the question "why is this true?"
Austin Harris
YOU ARE CORRECT. you can not prove ANYTHING. but you can KNOW everything. KNOWING requires no evidence, research, schooling, books NOTHING. it IS as the TRUTH is.
Camden Wilson
How do you perceive/know the truth without research?
Jonathan Rogers
>make it political and therefore flawed
I would say this is true because what is “objectively true” and what is “true according to our evolutionary drive and symbolism” is not always congruent. We don’t really want the highest apex of truth, we want to appease our love of symbols and from an animal sense, stay alive. The two overlap and become ambiguous in our reasoning.
That’s why the statement, “everything is god” should be the most profound statement that could ever exist. And yet it is so simple that it becomes absurd to the human mind and impossible to emulate.
And I don’t “know” that molecules exist objectively in the sense that I can empirical map out how they exist in time/space, I’m just taking a binary approach to the situation. I exist. You exist. The computer and conversation that links us exists, all objectively. And yet, once we internalize that as truth, the human mind goes searching for a more abstract symbolism, to bring us pleasure and validation. Symbolism that the machine is not prepared to deliver at our request because quite simply our imagination would destroy all the layers of stability and complexity underneath. I mean, look around you, it already has. And that’s just the machine and ourselves on casual autopilot lol.
Justin Cook
the same way a mighty oak grows from a tiny seed. everything is in the seed. everything is IN YOU.
John Powell
user....consider this:
you are the center of reality
everything OUTSIDE your self is FILTERED through your senses & ONLY YOUR SENSES.
very important point EVERYTHING comes through YOU and this is why you can not rely on 'someone else' as evidence
You create your reality
YOU ARE ALONE
everything is ILLUSION due to one thing MOTION
MOTION arises from DESIRE
your DESIRE creates reality
and you can not prove this
BUT
you can know this.
Jayden Smith
This is like a syllogism, it starts with:
>you are the center of reality
And then draws conclusions based on the assumption that the first point is true. Why am I the center of reality? rather than me having a perception of reality?
Cooper Cruz
>It's just that I don't know what to base my beliefs off of and why, hence the thread looking for insight from my fellow tards.
>I get the process of elimination argument but ultimately you get left with one thing, if you ask "why is this true?" would that then never be a never ending cycle of questions?
Possibly. Possibly not. No way to know this until the final elimination. Which is why elimination is the best thing to base beliefs on. It's the closest we can get to truth. The most important thing is the willingness to shed beliefs when they are proved false.
>It seems that the only logical conclusion (at the moment) is something created us and they have the answers.
There is absolutely no logical route to this conclusion. This conclusion rests entirely on assumption. It requires a leap and a lot of ego to ascribe intent to the way or universe works.
>In your opinion, if you think as an atheist would, is there a stopping point the question "why is this true?"
Since I am an atheist and agnostic, this one is easy: I don't know. Based entirely on the evidence for what we have already proved false, I don't know if there is a stopping point, but if there is I doubt that what we stop on will be something with intent, like a deity. We've already seen too much disproving a deterministic universe to really think that there is a root cause. Most of everything is built on a bedrock of fluctuations.
Brandon Foster
samefag here
even posting this appears that i am talking with someone else trying to help them, but im really helping myself by uncovering my self.
even telling MYSELF that the information here cones from a book called:
THE SECRET OF LIGHT
by WALTER RUSSELL
its actually a book I my SELF wrote & rediscovered at the preset time to HELP MY SELF
TO KNOW.....that KNOWING comes with communion with GOD and that GOD is in me &i am everything and everywhere
Jonathan Wilson
> This conclusion rests entirely on assumption
As demonstrated, we can only have the assumption. We cannot know truth due to our fallible state so if you are judging this false based on the fact that it an assumption then all other reasoning is false therein.
>to ascribe intent to the way or universe works
> I doubt that what we stop on will be something with intent
I'm not defending the position of a God here but I'm genuinely curious because this question has stumped me also. Is there creation without intent? Is that not how things come to be? judging based on what we can observe (for what that's worth) beavers build for safety, as do we, but there's the intent. Safety. What is created in this world without intent? Then I guess the following question would be, what makes us being here any different?
Nathan Diaz
Intent comes from time itself.
Random asteroids = zero intent
Little bugs on the ground = a little bit of intent
Humans = a lot of intent
And all of that came from the machine slowly stretching itself over time
You could say that the universe is recursive, another words, it only knows what it knows, just like you do. It can only perform at the level at where it has been enabled to perform
Nathaniel Edwards
incorrect here is an example from the book
Man cannot know transient effect. He can KNOW
cause only. He can but comprehend effect. Man cannot know a sunset sky, for example, but he can comprehend it if he knows its cause. Knowledge is, therefore, limited to cause. All knowledge exists. All mankind can have it for the asking. It is within man, awaiting his awareness of its
all-presence.
Asher King
>As demonstrated, we can only have the assumption. We cannot know truth due to our fallible state so if you are judging this false based on the fact that it an assumption then all other reasoning is false therein.
I didn't say it was false, just that there is no logical route to the assumption.
>I'm not defending the position of a God here
Given than you openly admitted that you come to the conclusion that one exists, with no logical route to reach that conclusion, I find that doubtful.
>Is there creation without intent?
To answer this you have to answer the more basic question
>Is there creation?
Because
>judging based on what we can observe (for what that's worth) beavers build for safety, as do we, but there's the intent.
But neither beavers nor we CREATE. We REARRANGE. There is no creation that we can see, evidence or demonstrate. Even the big bang theory doesn't actually constitute an act of CREATION, but rearrangement. The postulated singularity heaving therein the entire mass-energy content of the universe which we DO know cannot be created nor destroyed (because we already eliminated that possibility).
Sebastian Johnson
Not the guy you replied to.
Also not the guy and a weird preachy faggot to boot.
Me, the guy you replied to.
For clarity, . You could probably tell them apart anyway.
Logan Fisher
Yeah I've been replying to like 5-6 different people and the only one I can tell apart is the one caps locking words. I deleted it, my bad. Sorry
Chase Ortiz
>Given than you openly admitted that you come to the conclusion that one exists, with no logical route to reach that conclusion, I find that doubtful.
I meant creator, I should have said that but I interchange them cause I'm a tard.
>To answer this you have to answer the more basic question; is there creation?
In which you answer because, so yes there is creation therefore me asking is there creation without intent is just one additional step.
You say rearrangement yet buildings don't come into being unless we have the intent to build them (rearrange materials). You typing the reply and sending it created a response, through the intent of whatever desire you used to create it. Creation is making something abstractly in your mind and bringing into being. Which is the logical route to a creator. So I guess the question is, how can something come into being? You will probably answer something along the lines of "I don't know or because", which is probably fine for you. The only reason I ask is for a retarded reason, it's not enough for me.
Colton Powell
I caps a word occasionally for emphasis. Anyway, I actually have to go. I wish you luck in understanding how best to use evidence to inform belief. It's a difficult road. I walked it myself a number of years ago. Believing things to be true and holding that belief when it is challenged by evidence is the enemy of truth. Feynman is essential listening. "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."
Josiah Gonzalez
>Is basing your beliefs off of evidence circular reasoning?
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here. Reasoning based on evidence is the complete opposite of circular reasoning.
Lincoln Lopez
If something is true "because evidence" is that not circular? You're assuming evidence is objective, yet judging based on history and it being consistently rendered obsolete, it's not.
Blake Scott
something comes into being
its described in THE SECRET OF LIGHT
dont want to read it
illusion due to motion
Logan Ortiz
Why is what walter russel says true?
Sebastian Carter
read it and find out
Joseph Morales
Can you give me a reason as to why what he says is true? Or do you have to cite whatever he says? What reason is he true and others are false? Why should you believe anything he says?
Grayson Parker
Couldn't help myself. After this post I'm gone. Good night and good luck.
I didn't create anything. I rearranged some electrons in my brain and that lead to this appearing on a computer. That's the distinction. Things get rearranged all the time with no detectable intent behind them. There is no reason to believe that intent is NECESSARY for rearrangement to occur, especially in a universe where we know utter random chance can occur. The universe is not wholly deterministic, this we eliminated. It is not entirely probabilistic either, this we can eliminate by observing any cause-effect situation. The only option is that it is a bit of both, and since at the most fundamental level is where the determinism stops working there is no reason to conclude that there is a creator. No need for a cause for all this effect. As I've said, I'm agnostic. I don't know that a creator ISN'T responsible, but the certainty with which people mistakenly assert one MUST doesn't stand up to logic, and based on other things that have been proved false I doubt one is. Should be evidence arise invalidating mass-energy conservation then I'm sure I'll revise my stance to being an agnostic theist.
Carson Martinez
Hi, newfriend
Aiden Perry
All good mate, thanks for the chat. I'm probably off myself. Stay safe big man
Ryder Garcia
the point he makes is that you can KNOW
knowing is cosmic it cant be explained, you just know. children KNOW and they learn to not know
you can not trust your senses because they are not real, they are made of the same stuff the material universe is made of......MOTION
cause & effect
you can KNOW cause you can not KNOW effect......
Jason Gray
Why do you KNOW what he says is TRUE? and therefore BELIEVE what he is SAYING?
Camden Allen
witness the double sixes of truth
these two posts are a message from god
Michael Cook
because it resonates in your heart. YOU KNOW. there is no explanation required. if you dont know, then it is not meant for you, keep rolling forward on your journey
Chase Martin
Read this & fuck off
“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage.”
Suppose … I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself….
“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle—but no dragon.
“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.
“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.
“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”
Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”
You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
“Good idea, except she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.
Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it is true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Elijah Morris
The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility….
Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you they have dragons in their garages—but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths after all…
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself: On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence”—no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it—is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strangedelusion
Benjamin King
-Carl Sagan
Christopher White
I would say that the dragon exists in your mind is not measurable with the tools we have developed. Stop being obtuse ya cunt, this was about truth, not the practicality of using evidence.
Asher Butler
>be open to future data
Got that covered
John Jenkins
>I would say that the dragon exists in your mind is not measurable with the tools we have developed. Stop being obtuse ya cunt, this was about truth, not the practicality of using evidence.
>Is basing your beliefs off of evidence circular reasoning? What reason is there to base your belief off of evidence? Why does it have more credibility than personal experience, where is the line that people draw and why do they draw it?
Seems like it was 100% about the practicality of using evidence.