@ WW III Angry.
You have opened a thread with an interesting theme of epistemology,
but the content of your posts shows that you want a non-epistemological
theme.
@ THE OTHERS.
Imagine you inhabit an epistemological house with two floors. The first
floor as the lower floor is your belief and the second floor as the upper
floor your knowledge. If you take away your first floor, you are not able
anymore to inhabit your house; but if you take away your second floor,
you can remain in your house and just inhabit the first floor.
Belief and knowledge have the same roots, but they are not equal, because
belief is more relevant than knowledge when it comes to epistomological
certainty. Knowledge can be easier destroyed than belief. If you are uncertain,
then remember your epistemological beliefs, because your beliefs make
you more certain again than knowledge. The conclusion that knowledge can
give you more epistemological certainty than belief is a fallacy. If you
want to maintain your knowledge, then support it with your belief - like
the lower floor supports the upper floor. This does not men that knowledge
is not relevant. No! Knowledge is jeweled, but it is more fragile than
belief. That is the reason why knowledge needs more to be maintained or
nursed than belief. But this maintaining or nursing is not possible without
belief. That is the reason why belief is more relevant than knowledge.
Your knowledge is of no benefit to you without belief. It is worthless
without belief.
If someone wants to make out of knowledge belief or/and out of belief
knowledge, then the most effective way is to change the semantics of both
words, namely by exchanging both meanings. That is what the rulers and
their functionaries have been doing for so long by their so called „political
correctness“, which is just not more than rhetoric, propaganda, semantical
supremacy. They are destroying knowledge, because they try to replace
it by belief, which they call „knowledge“.
Surreptitious 57 wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»Humans are not capable of knowing everything and anything
- regardless whether there is philosophy or science, whether there
is enlightenment or counter-enlightenment, whether there is idealism
or realism, whether there is kynism or cynism ....« **
**
This is one of the two greatest truths of all time (the other one
is that there is no objective meaning or purpose to life).“ **
It is also the greatest semantical war theater of all time.
Moreno wrote:
„Some things that are knowledge turn out later to have merely
been beliefs, even within science.“ **
Yes. of course. And that fact is what we should know and even can know
with more certainty than scientific knowledge. Do you know what I mean?
Moreno wrote:
„But more importantly, it is useful to consider knowledge belief
because it is something we believe. We may believe things that are not
knowledge to be true, but we certainly also believe what we consider
knowledge.
I don't see what the harm is to consider knowlegde rigorously arrived
at belief.
I know it common usage, belief is sometimes referring only to superstitions
and religions beliefs. But this is only one of the ways belief is used,
even outside of philosophy. In philosophy belief is used for anything
that we believe is true. The noun to the verb. They fit each other precisely.
Since we know by this that when we refer to knowledge as a specific
kind of belief, it does not mean that therefore knowledge is merely
a belief.
WW III Angry wrote:
»Moreno wrote_
›Knowledge is a subset of belief.
Beliefs are things one believes are true.
Those things considered knowledge must meet certain criteria.
Both beliefs that are considered knowledge and beliefs that are
not may be true or false.
Calling something knowledge means the belief in question has made
it through some gauntlet.‹ **
I don't agree that knowledge is a belief. I see good reason to separate
the two conceptually, and see no reason why knowledge is considered
belief. Can you clarify why that has to be the case?« **
It doesnt have to be the case. We use words and can use them as we
like. Non philosophers often get very upset because, I think, to them
saying knowledge is a kind of belief means that believing the world
is flat is a solid as believing that the earth revolves around the sun
or something. But given that we precisely label, though not all of us
in the same ways, the characteristics of knowledge that separate it
out from other beliefs, this is simply a nonissue.
The first advantage of saying knowledge is a belief is that, well,
we believe what we consider knowledge.
The second more practical reason is it allows us to easily lay out how
we form our beliefs and what makes some knowledge and some not.“
**
I agree with you, Moreno.
Uccisore wrote:
„When you can't get somebody to admit that they'd trust the word
of a physicist on matters of physics over that of a little kid, then
you've arrived at one of the limitations of arguing over the internet.
A person never has to admit when they're wrong if they never have to
look you in the eye when they're spouting preposterous nonsense. Maniacal
Mongoose demonstrates another limitation- if you stick to your guns
long enough, sooner or later *somebody* out there will wipe the drool
off their chin long enough to mutter some agreement. Even Ecmandu threads
will get some new guy stumbling in to say »That's a good point,
Ecmandu!« if they go on long enough.“ **
This reminds me of the following:
What has always been a good method too is what the famous pied piper
of Hameln stands for. So a ratcatcher just needs rats (they are currently
almost everywhere and becoming more and more) and kids (they are currently
becoming more and more in the so-called „Third World“). In this
ILP example the „rats“ stand for certain „arguments“
and the „kids“ for the „innocents“ or „simpletons“.
And what does the ratcatcher do? Or: What did the pied piper of Hameln
do?
But there is certainly no ILP ratcatcher. No, no .... Or? What do you
think?
„Think for yourself, question authority.“ Alright - but: said
by whom?
WW III Angry wrote:
„Uccisore wrote:
»When you can't get somebody to admit that they'd trust the
word of a physicist on matters of physics over that of a little kid,
then you've arrived at one of the limitations of arguing over the
internet. A person never has to admit when they're wrong if they never
have to look you in the eye when they're spouting preposterous nonsense.
Maniacal Mongoose demonstrates another limitation- if you stick to
your guns long enough, sooner or later *somebody* out there will wipe
the drool off their chin long enough to mutter some agreement. Even
Ecmandu threads will get some new guy stumbling in to say "That's
a good point, Ecmandu!" if they go on long enough.« **
I'm not saying to trust, that's exactly what the traps people into
thinking that someone is right because they are the authority. That
is not correct reasoning and not how to operate. Trust no one, think
for yourself, do not fall to the snake charmers, the authorities, etc,
because they are »shiny«.“ **
Said by the one who does not think for himself and not
question authority.
Most of what you are saying is politically correct, so it is mostly
what the political authority wants you to think and to say, just to not
question the current authority.
WW III Angry wrote:
„Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
»WW, I commend you for your effort of going against the grain
of 'how knowledge is supposed to be acquired as well as leaving the
door ajar on who's authority it is based' in your hypothetical. Even
if that wasn't your aim, it was big of you to trudge uphill none-the-less.
Thanks WW! You made my day!
It's 50%/50% either way, right or wrong. Say the 5 year old is psychic
where as the physicist has only a house of cards built in mid-air
(theories). That's what could actually be the case based off WW's
hypothetical.
I tend to be a risk taker so I would go with the kid, even though
it "seems" unbelievable that he could (let alone would)
have the true, correct answer. Both the kid and the physicist would
have to be tested via the appropriate line of questioning which does
not exist in science today. Science is waiting for philosophy to expand
it's horizons.
Wrapping one's logical head around such a foreign possibility shuts
down rationality I fear. Does not compute Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!
If philosophy refuses (kicking and screaming all the way) to acknowledge
the possibilities, how is science ever going to progress?« **
Well thank you Mongoose - it was left open because it should be left
open. It's for the sake of intellectual "honesty" - not to
be deceptive or to trick. If knowledge is, then how knowledge got there
is irrelevant to it being knowledge, for the sake of it being knowledge.
So you're right, say the 5 year old is a psychic. Perhaps the child
is a genius. Perhaps the physicist made a simple mistake, or miscommunicated
something. Perhaps the physicist cheated through college. Perhaps the
physicist is a sociopathic liar. Perhaps the child got lucky.
The point of this whole thread is that reason and logic, coupled with
your values essentially are the authority, not people.“ **
Are you one of the the new ratcatchers? Are you the modern pied piper
of Hameln?
WW III Angry wrote:
„Plato described knowledge as »justified true belief“.
However, would that in turn mean that belief is not justified and possibly
not true?
.... Beliefs are in many ways not a good thing to have.“ **
You are just not capable of knowing what beliefs
are and what they mean. So it is no wonder that you are also not capable
of believing in knowledge.
WW III Angry wrote:
„My reality is a subjective ....“ **
So it is not objective. 
WW III Angry wrote:
„Sure - so it's actually I don't believe that I »have grasped
the truth of your meaning through the words or expression others use«
due to the complexities of language as I already explained elsewhere.
I know that I don't know.“ **
So you admit that you contradict yourself.
Thanks.
WW III Angry wrote:
„I am always agnostic about it. It is ingrained in my thought
process. I am not shocked by believing I understood what you meant when
you correct me on your meaning, or anyone else, because I don't have
that belief that I think my understanding of your meaning is true, or
necessarily true. There is doubt, not belief.“ **
You mean: There is angriness, not fun.
Moreno wrote:
„WW III Angry wrote:
»Sure - so it's actually I don't believe that I "have
grasped the truth of your meaning through the words or expression
others use " due to the complexities of language as I already
explained elsewhere. I know that I don't know. I am always agnostic
about it. It is ingrained in my thought process. I am not shocked
by believing I understood what you meant when you correct me on your
meaning, or anyone else, because I don't have that belief that I think
my understanding of your meaning is true, or necessarily true. There
is doubt, not belief.«
So you walk around all day doubting all the communication you hear
and read. You never simply believe Jimmy wanted you to check the figures
on that file, you spend time doubting what you heard was what you heard
and further what Jimmy meant.
You never believe that you have evaluated something well and trust
your evaluation, but doubt your evaluations of your interpretations
of what people say.
You doubt your own epistemology.“ **
Yes. Of course. Always having an epistemology and always being agnostic
about it. Such an „epistemology“ is no epistemology.
Moreno wrote:
„You doubt your own evaluation of your doubting. You considered,
after reading Uccisore's last post, if you really did always doubt,
then decided that you did doubt, rather than believe, and then evaluated
this evaluation, since you doubted that one also. After infinite time
(or is it like the hare, simply infinite fractions of time that add
up to one) you wrote your response to Uccisore and caught up with the
tortoise.
If your wife asks for the salt, you actually ratiocinate before reaching
for it, since she might have said »too much salt« or »is
that all?«.
I cannot imagine what reading a newpaper would be like for you, always
having to build from the bottom up again, since past evaluations of
what Congress is and does, for example, that you made back then, may
be incorrect. You cannot simply believe in your memory and past conclusions
you made, you have to doubt these, each time a topic comes up, because
those past evaluations you made may not have been as correct as they
seemed, back then, or your memory has distorted them.
How do you find time for anything other then the mind bogglingly complex,
endless process of reading even the first article?“ **
Maybe he is Sisyphus.
All European communists were hopefully awaiting the arrival of
the First World War, because they thought that war would lead to communism.
According to the communistic theory communism should appear when a nation
was industrialized enough. So it was expected to appear in Germany or
England.
But where did it appear in reality?
In Russia! In a land of medieval feudalism and without any industry!
.... Hey ! .... ?
Odd .... Or?
James S. Saint wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»If a solution is possible, then they have to know a certain
number range, thus the upper limit and the lower limit of the range
of their numbers, and they have to know another aspect, for example:
a possible sum, a possible difference, a possible product, a. possible
quotient of their two numbers (for instance: Gerry only knows a sum
of the two numbers of a certain number range, whereas John only knows
a product of the two numbers of the same certain number range).«
**
**
A little vague.“ **
No.
John and Gerry, who are walking along with a clearly visible number
written on their foreheads, have to know a certain number range, thus
the upper limit and the lower limit of the range of their numbers, and
they have to know another aspect, for example: a possible sum, a possible
difference, a possible product, a. possible quotient of their two numbers
(for instance: Gerry only knows a sum of the two numbers of a certain
number range, whereas John only knows a product of the two numbers of
the same certain number range). So they know enough, even more than enough
(!), in order to solve the riddle.
The primises in the riddle „Perfect Logicians“ (**|**)
are enough too. Again:
Arminius wrote:
„Perfect Logicians.
Players A and B have got the number 12 written on their foreheads.
Everyone sees the number on the front of the other but does not know
the own number. The game master tells them that the sum of their numbers
is either 24 or 27 and that this numbers are positive integers (thus
also no zero).
Then the game master asks repeatedly A and B alternately, if they
can determine the number on the own forehead.“ **
**
A and B know enough in order to solve the riddle.
If it is said that two humans see a number, then we can surely assume
that this humans are capable of seeing and reading, and of knowing what
they see and read. That is common sense.
WW III Angry wrote:
„Now my model:
Please note that I allow belief to be truths, but most aren't. You
can get lucky. Please note that some knowledge is not truth, but most
is. Also please note the vastness of »truth« compared to
belief and knowledge. Of course, it's not to any sort of scale, but
representative of sentiment that truth is far more voluminous compared
to what we can ever know or believe.“ **
If your model could, would, or should be accepted, then rather in the
following way:
Truth is more than this model can show. If you wanted to model truth,
then you would try to model the impossibility or God.
The r-strategy and the k-strategy have not primarily
to do with selection or even with the sexual selection. Primarily they
have to do with reproduction. They are reproduction strategies. So the
English wording „r/k selection“ or even „r/k sexual selection“
is misleading.
Ordinate (y-axis): Quantity of the survivors.
Abscissa (x-axis): Achieved age in % terms of the maximal lifespan.
Who is depicted here? **
**
The following solution is false:
Hahaha wrote:
„Walking to work this morning.
“ **
Temperature?
Wizard wrote:
„Sex is reproduction, so, same thing.“ **
Not all reproduction is sex. That was my point (**|**).
I was not or not primarily talking about „reproduction
and sex“ but about „reproduction and selection“,
secondarily also about „reproduction and sexual selection“.
Sex is not necessary for reproduction. There are many living beings
which have no sex and nonetheless offspring. They reproduce themselves
without sex, and they are very successful without sex.
The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual
reproduction.
Uccisore wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»You are just not capable of knowing what beliefs are and
what they mean. So it is no wonder that you are also not capable of
believing in knowledge.« **
**
He's more than capable, he just has ideological reasons for insisting
on using the word wrong. If it was a lack of understanding, one of us
would have cleared it up by now.“ **
I think it is both: an understanding problem and an ideological problem.
And this seeming unsurmountability would be solvable, if it was not a
mix of both: an understanding problem and an ideological problem.
Probably you remember the follwing conversation:
Arminius wrote:
„Uccisore wrote:
»Well, there it is in his new update- doing exactly as I predicted
for the reasons I predicted.
It sucks that the only rebuttal is to just say again all the things
he ignored when they were said before. I mean holy shit:
›3. Religion, faith, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism,
Greek Mythology, Jainism, Taosim, are beliefs, not knowledge.‹
How are you supposed to deal with something like that in any sort
of rigorous way?« **
Good question. .... Hmmm .... Should one just ignore him? .... Probably
.... However: It sucks very much.“ **
**
Again: Ignore him?
Uccisore wrote:
„You have to distance yourself from the notion that the people
you meet are just one good turn of phrase away from agreeing with you.
Some are, but many, perhaps most, have no interest at all in listening
to anything you have to say, and only make counter points as a sort
of excuse, or an attempt to win a game.“ **
During my study at the university I have met many types of students
who were back then exactly like he is now. It is their ideological conceitedness
that makes them so cocksure and ignorant, so that they do not only appear
like stupid people but really are stupid people. You do really not have
to care whether their incapacity is based on genetic defects or on ideological
defects, because the effect is the same old stupidity as ever.
Such people like certain ILP members can be successful, and the main
reason why they can be successful is (a) that they merely have to repeat
their texts again and again, (b) that they get attention (!).
Probably you remember the follwing conversation:
Arminius wrote:
„Uccisore wrote:
»Well, there it is in his new update- doing exactly as I predicted
for the reasons I predicted.
It sucks that the only rebuttal is to just say again all the things
he ignored when they were said before. I mean holy shit:
›3. Religion, faith, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism,
Greek Mythology, Jainism, Taosim, are beliefs, not knowledge.‹
How are you supposed to deal with something like that in any sort
of rigorous way?« **
Good question. .... Hmmm .... Should one just ignore him? .... Probably
.... However: It sucks very much.“ **
**
During my study at the university I have met many types of students
who were back then exactlylike the said certain ILP members are now. It
is their ideological conceitedness that makes them so cocksure and ignorant,
so that they do not only appear like stupid people but really are stupid
people. You do really not have to care whether their incapacity is based
on genetic defects or on ideological defects, because the effect is the
same old stupidity as ever.
So we have two options of reacting to them legally:
1) Applying their methods too, especially by repeating our texts again
and again.
2) Divesting them our attention by ignoring them (consequently, of course!).
Moreno wrote:
„So if someone arrives on their own independently, somehow, from
others, to values that you WWW disagree with strongly the values can
be correct, perhaps.“ **
Yes.
But: „WWW“? .... WW III Angry is not the World Wide Web, although
he probably wants to be, but he is not ... - ... not yet.
Wizard wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.«
“ **
**
Lol no.
Very wrong. Lower animals don't have »sex for pleasure«
....“ **
I was talking about ALL living beings and the fact that the PRIMITIVE
living beings NEED NO SEX FOR THEIR REPRODUCTION. Why is that so difficult
to understand?
Sex is a relatively new phenomenon of evolution.
Wizard wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.«
“ **
**
Yes but even asexual reproduction of single-cell organisms demonstrates
R/K-type mechanisms.“ **
I did NOT say that the r-strategy and the k-strategy had nothing to
do with asexual reproduction.
I remind you of what I said in my first post of this thread (**|**):
„The r-strategy and the k-strategy have not primarily to do with
selection or even with the se}xual selection. Primarily they have to
do with reproduction. They are reproduction strategies. So the English
wording „r/k selection“ or even „r/k sexual selection“
is misleading.
Ordinate (y-axis): Quantity of the survivors.
Abscissa (x-axis): Achieved age in % terms of the maximal lifespan.“
** **
So I did NOT say that the r-strategy and the k-strategy had nothing
to do with asexual reproduction.
WW III Angry wrote:
„Today, people don't kill adulterers ....“ **
This is true for Christians but not for Moslems.
In islamic societies killing adulterers has been increasing.
|
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz 
“ ** **
