Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > Thread of Interesting Stuff Spam Thread

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Thread of Interesting Stuff Spam Thread

Quantum1.0This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. posted this thread...
Aug. 12, 2013 at 3:58 pm

So...I'm bringing the argument from Destinee's thread here at her request.
 
DrBug: "Well hey, he's looking at the evidence with the presuposition that the bible is not true!"
 
As stuntddude already (correctly) argued for me I do not presuppose the Bible is true. In fact I am completely baffled how you could think this. I agree that going into things with no presuppositions is hard, but that is exactly what I force myself to do. Your whole "world view" argument you go into so often simply doesn't work here. I don't think the Bible is true because objective evidence shows it not to be. 
 
It is not the inverse as you seem to think (i.e. I think the Bible isn't true, so I adapt the evidence to support that (aka lying) )
 
"I mean, if you were to truly have no presuppositions, your worldview would be changing every time something new came into contact with it. Even the smallest new fact would rock your world back and forth."
 
Not if the new fact objectively fits into your framework.
 
"And nobody does that. I dare you to find one signle person that does not have any presupositions about the universe."
 
That would be impossible to find - I agree. But presupositions can be put aside.
 
"Your presupositions color the way you see the evidence. You literally see the world the way you want to see it."
 
I agree that this is a tendency, but it is not impossible to avoid - and the goal of scientists is to do that and put their presuppositions aside and let the evidence speak for itself.
 
"I know I see the world the way I want to see it."
 
Don't worry. I know that. :P
 
"At least I'm aware of it though, at least I understand why I think the way I think. "
 
I understand the way I think too. And I realize that while I have preconceptions they can be put aside.
 
"As far as reality and 99.99% of reputable Christians go."
 
This simply isn't true. No where near 99.9% of Christians believe the Bible literally.
 
" That is why any worldview that attempts to model its beliefs by subjective evidence and subjective evidence only, is a worldview where truth is subjective. "
 
Ummm...i.e. religion. Science is the only thing that avoids that to the largest degree possible.
 
"Quantum has said to me and other people many times that he does not believe the bible is true. And since he has said that, that means any evidence he looks at, he will be viewing in light of that belief."
 
You're right I don't believe in the Bible, but you have it backwards in terms of evidence vs. conclusions. And if evidence for the veracity of the Bible was given to me I would weigh it objectively like every other piece of evidence that led me to the opposit conclusion. My current worldview has next to nothing to do with it.
 
"However, if he has not been telling me the truth...well then, it won't really have been my fault for coming to the wrong conclusion." 
 
I've been telling you this all along. I won't blame you for coming to the wrong conclusion, but its certainly not my fault.
 
"don't call me a liar with no proof provided to back up your claim. "
 
Do the same for me please.
 
"It is impossible to not have a worldview."
 
True. But you can have a dynamic worldview that depends on objective fact rather than subjective personal judgements and faith.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 12, 2013 at 8:41 pm

Quantum:
 
“I agree that going into things with no presuppositions is hard, but that is exactly what I force myself to do.”
 
Not hard, mon ami—impossible. There's no way you can force yourself. You automatically assume that you can understand other people. You automatically assume that the laws of physics are universal and constant. However, I think I know what you mean. Are you saying you force yourself to enter into a situation without letting your previous experiences influence your thinking processes?
 
I know this is impossible to do as well, but I know one can almost succeed in doing it by ignoring most previous experiences. However, I'm not sure it's a good idea. Suppose you enter into a crime investigation. You'd want to use previous experiences to catch your criminal, would you not?
 
“I don't think the Bible is true because objective evidence shows it not to be.”
 
The bible is a history book. That is the way it was meant to be taken. You take other history books as fact do you not? So why not take the bible as well? It is because you have taken the facts, and interpreted them the way your worldview instructed you to. And that meant taking some history books as fact and others as not fact. I do the exact same thing, only because my worldview is different from yours, I take the bible as a valid history book whereas you do not.
 
“Not if the new fact objectively fits into your framework.”
 
Yes, but having no presuppositions means having no framework. And even when you came into contact with new facts, you would not be allowed to start forming a framework from them as you are not allowed to have any presuppositions within the scenario.
 
“That would be impossible to find - I agree. But presuppositions can be put aside.”
 
How? The only way I can think of is if you had all the knowledge in the universe, and we're not gods, so I doubt that's the case.
 
“...and let the evidence speak for itself.”
 
Evidence speaks?
 
“And I realize that while I have preconceptions they can be put aside.”
 
How? I mean, it would be suicide even if you could. You have the preconception that the universe is understandable. To get rid of that assumption (which would logically have to be replaced with another, but let's pretend that you don't have to), would put you in a position where...uh...it basically equals suicide.
 
“This simply isn't true. No where near 99.9% of Christians believe the Bible literally.”
 
Which is why I didn't say “Christians”. I said “reputable Christians”, which, according to me, are the ones that believe in a literal bible :P. The statement was just to demonstrate how absurd saying “reputable biologists” is. There are quite a few creationists that are biologists. Only...they're not reputable, are they? Stuntdudde conveniently excluded creationist biologists when he said that (I.e No True Scotsman), despite that fact that some of those biologists used to be reputable evolutionist biologists before they became disreputable creationist biologist.
 
“Ummm...i.e. religion. Science is the only thing that avoids that to the largest degree possible.”
 
Explain?
 
“"don't call me a liar with no proof provided to back up your claim. "

Do the same for me please.””
 
When did I do this? If I have, I apologize. I do prefer to have civil conversations :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 12, 2013 at 8:43 pm

SSD:
 
"Because I am not attacking your character as a means of arguing for or against something."
 
Then why, pray tell, are you attacking my character if it's irrelevant to the descussion? Let's just not attack anyone anymore, please. A person's motives are not relevant during a debate.
 
""You commit No True Scotsman"
Do explain."
 
When you say "reputable"? Why add that word? Why not just say, "biologist", not "reputible biologist". The only reason I can think of is because if you just say "biologist" you'd be including the creationist biologists as well...and they're just not "reputable" are they?
 
"and Appeal to Majority."
Are you sure you know what that fallacy is? Here's a definition: 
"a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it."
Notice how starkly different this is from pointing out a consensus among actual experts in the field, and not even as the crux of the argument, let alone a sole step in reaching a conclusion.""
 
If you are not pointing out a consensus among actual experts in a field as proof or evidence for a position, than why bring it up?
 
"You haven't answered the question, so I'll ask it in a way that conforms to the scenario you've given: Which is better, rigorously tested subjective evidence or no evidence at all?"
 
Original question: "Would you agree that modeling your beliefs on the evidence is a better way of finding truth than trying to interpret the evidence so that it fits your preconceived conclusions?”
 
Worldview is subjective to objective evidence OR objective evidence is subjective to worldview? That is how I understood the above question. You cannot have this senario in reality because there's no such thing as objective evidence. It is interpreted through our subjective minds. However, down on paper, I'd prefer my worldview to be subjective to objective evidence. Unfortunately for me, that is impossible.
 
Your new question: "Which is better, rigorously tested subjective evidence or no evidence at all?"
 
You have two problems. First: why would rigorously testing subjective evidence make it any less subjective? Second: rigorously tested with what? With the scientific method? The scientific method is not a history book, it cannot tell you about the past. The past is subjective to our interpretation of the facts the scientific method allows us to discover. Facts are hard. They don't change. The sky is blue. That is a fact. Objects fall to the earth at a rate of 32 ft/sec². That is a fact. However, the interpretation of of those facts, are subjective to our worldviews.
 
What you should ask, is, “Which is correct: my worldview, or your worldview?”. Which worldview makes the correct interpretation of the facts? The wrong worldview will bring you to the wrong conclusions, but the right one will allow you to see the world with "corrective lenses" instead of foggy ones. There is a way to tell who's worldview is wrong. Since truth cannot contradict itself, then it follows that the true worldview should not contradict itself. It also follows that the correct worldview should be able to explain the physical and immaterial in a coherent, logical fashion, without being arbitrary.
 
“As you've previously stated, you believe that all evidence is subjective, so you seem to be telling me that you believe truth is subjective. Unless this is your answer to the previous question and you're saying that you don't base your beliefs on evidence?”
 
I believe that all (physical) facts are subjective to our interpretation. However, I also believe that logic outranks the facts, as logic is not subjective to our interpretation. Ever notice how everyone agrees upon the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics, yet almost nobody agrees on the evidence (interpretation of the facts)? That is because evidence is subjective and logic is objective.
 
So in answer to your question, I believe the way to find truth, is to start with logic as a foundation for your worldview, and then use your logical worldview to interpret the facts. Of course I must first have faith that there is such a thing as unchanging logic...otherwise I wouldn't have justification to presuppose the universe is understandable.
 
“That it's probably a magic trick, of course! I've seen magicians before and it's common knowledge that the entire point of a magician's show in the first place is to demonstrate their ability to cause illusions.”
 
I said “first observe a magician”. That was a necessary condition to avoid explaining how previous experiences are null if you don't have presuppositions/cannot form them. If you saw a person one day cut a person in half and then resurrect them, you would believe it. But if they told you it was a trick, you'd believe that. However, the next day, when the experience is repeated, you'd be back at square one as you have not formed any suppositions about magic tricks and people getting cut in half from the day before. It is also important to note, that although you have seen other magicians before, you have been presupposing from the very first time you saw one, that a living person cannot be cut in half and still live.
 
But what is important is not what would happen if you had no presuppositions (which, I admit, I may be completely wrong about, as I have had no first hand experience—and I know of no one that has had first hand experience—with the phenomenon of having no presuppositions). What is important, is that having no presuppositions in the first place is impossible. I don't even know how to set up a perfect scenario where someone has no presuppositions because it is inconceivable. Saying, “I don't have any presuppositions” in of itself, is a presupposition that you have no presuppositions.
 
“"The conclusion you draw will be influenced not only by the evidence, but also by your general understanding of the universe.”
...which is based on evidence (or it should be).””
 
That would be a vicious circle if what you were suppose to interpret the evidence by, was based upon the interpretation of the evidence.
 
“The goal is to show you where your mistakes are in hopes to correct them.”
 
Just making sure this isn't a stupid argument with no other purpose than to argue, lolz!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 13, 2013 at 11:43 pm

"Not hard, mon ami—impossible. There's no way you can force yourself. You automatically assume that you can understand other people. You automatically assume that the laws of physics are universal and constant."
 
Ugh. No. This isn't the same thing that you were talking about earlier -- necessary fundamental assumptions aside, it is entirely possible to be without presuppositions.
 
"Are you saying you force yourself to enter into a situation without letting your previous experiences influence your thinking processes?"
 
I'm fairly sure this is not what is being said, and I'm entirely sure that this is not at all the same as being without presuppositions. Why would anyone do this? Why abandon all your previous knowledge and experience at the door when you enter a room? That would be incredibly unhelpful and would lead you to worse conclusions more often than better ones.
 
"The bible is a history book. That is the way it was meant to be taken."
 
And yet this isn't the way you take it. You believe it's a guidebook to the universe, and you take its factual claims as literal truths as well as its historical ones. Rather hypocritical, don't you think?
 
"You take other history books as fact do you not?"
 
Because real history books have evidence behind them. The bible does not. Nobody in their right mind believes whatever they read in a history book. If a history book told you that Albert Einstein flew across the Pacific on a winged horse, would you believe it?
 
"I do the exact same thing, only because my worldview is different from yours, I take the bible as a valid history book whereas you do not."
 
Except that the rejection of the bible is based on evidence, not preconcieved notions or blind guesswork like you're saying it is. So no, we're not all doing the same thing by any stretch of the imagination, and it's entirely dishonest of you to say that we are.
 
"Yes, but having no presuppositions means having no framework."
 
Simply not true. This has been explained to you time and time again, and I'm tired of your pretending otherwise.
 
"“That would be impossible to find - I agree. But presuppositions can be put aside.” 
  
How?"
 
By forming conclusions based on evidence and not interpreting evidence with the intent to make it fit your preconcieved conclusion. It's really that simple.
 
"“...and let the evidence speak for itself.” 
  
Evidence speaks?"
 
Seriously!? Why would you add that in there!? That's not even a nitpick, that's just lexical white noise to extend your post!
 
"How? I mean, it would be suicide even if you could. You have the preconception that the universe is understandable."
 
Ugh. You keep switching between talking solely about necessary assumptions and ignoring them entirely, often clearly against the context of what you are responding to, and always (it seems) in whatever way benefits the prolonging of your deliberate ignorance.
 
"Which is why I didn't say “Christians”. I said “reputable Christians”, which, according to me, are the ones that believe in a literal bible :P."
 
According to you. As in, you've basically just made up whatever criteria best suits your quest to keep convincing yourself that you're right.
 
"Stuntdudde conveniently excluded creationist biologists when he said that"
 
No, I did not, see below post.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 14, 2013 at 3:55 am

"Then why, pray tell, are you attacking my character if it's irrelevant to the descussion?"
 
I'm not and it isn't. In what you responded to I wasn't even talking about your character at all, and I tend not to do so anyways -- I generally don't point out character flaws unless they're relevant in some way.
 
Out of curiosity, if I tell you you're being dishonest about something, how do you interpret that?
 
"When you say "reputable"? Why add that word?"
 
To distinguish that not just anyone who's picked up a biology textbook counts as a biologist. When I say "reputable biologists," I mean people who have good credentials, study biology as their profession, and actively contribute to research in the subject as part of their career. Would you agree with that standard? If not, why?
 
If I had wanted to exclude creationists by definition I could have just said "all reputable biologists." Interesting how you can go so far just off me using the word "reputable," assuming the absolute worst of me that you possibly could at every turn, when really you could have just asked what I meant.
 
"If you are not pointing out a consensus among actual experts in a field as proof or evidence for a position, than why bring it up?"
 
If nearly every expert in a field agrees on something, don't you think you should generally ask for more rigorous evidence for a claim to the contrary than you normally would? Nowhere did I say I wasn't pointing to it as part of my case. Read carefully what I actually said: "not even as the crux of the argument, let alone a sole step in reaching a conclusion."
 
"Worldview is subjective to objective evidence OR objective evidence is subjective to worldview? That is how I understood the above question."
 
No, you don't need to completely change the phrasing of the question. Don't draw some crazy convoluted interpretation, just interpret the question literally, exactly as written. It's not that hard.
 
"You cannot have this senario in reality because there's no such thing as objective evidence."
 
Did I ever say "objective evidence"? No. I just said "evidence" in the original question, and then "subjective evidence" in the second question. Please don't put your words in my mouth, no matter how tempting it is.
 
"I'd prefer my worldview to be subjective to objective evidence. Unfortunately for me, that is impossible."
 
Yeah, we've seen that much clearly :/
 
"First: why would rigorously testing subjective evidence make it any less subjective?"
 
I never said it would. Can you just answer the question for once? Like, I'm seriously getting tired of you playing dodgeball here.
 
"The scientific method is not a history book,"
 
True.
 
"it cannot tell you about the past."
 
False. The scientific method can tell us a lot about the past. The moon was once closer to the Earth. There was once either liquid (whether water or otherwise) or moving glaciers on the surface of Mars. Native Americans crafted arrowheads hunreds of years ago. We know all this through the scientific method. Historic documents are not the only things that can tell us about the past.
 
"The past is subjective"
 
Um... explain? That's a quite a tall claim to make.
 
"Objects fall to the earth at a rate of 32 ft/sec²"
 
You mean 9.8 m/s/s ;)
 
"There is a way to tell who's worldview is wrong. Since truth cannot contradict itself, then it follows that the true worldview should not contradict itself. It also follows that the correct worldview should be able to explain the physical and immaterial in a coherent, logical fashion, without being arbitrary."
 
How do you know this is not just a subjective part of your worldview? And what is your frame of reference for judging whether or not something like a fundamental assumption is "arbitrary"? Your personal world view as well, I assume?
 
"However, I also believe that logic outranks the facts, as logic is not subjective to our interpretation. Ever notice how everyone agrees upon the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics, yet almost nobody agrees on the evidence (interpretation of the facts)?"
 
Congratulations, you just fallaciously compared the uninterpreted bare of one thing with the interpretation of another.
 
It should be noted, as well, that you must have something (fact and evidence) for logic to work with, otherwise logic is useless.
 
"So in answer to your question, I believe the way to find truth, is to start with logic as a foundation for your worldview, and then use your logical worldview to interpret the facts."
 
This is exactly what you were arguing was impossible earlier in the same post.
 
"Of course I must first have faith that there is such a thing as unchanging logic...otherwise I wouldn't have justification to presuppose the universe is understandable."
 
Not true. You don't need that specific assumption -- why not save a step and assume that the universe is understandable straight-up? "It is possible to understand the universe" is a much more minimal assumption than "the logical laws that I believe in are fundamental and unchanging to all the universe."
 
"I said “first observe a magician”."
 
If you've never seen a magician perform a trick before and didn't know anything about them, you would still suspect there's trickery involved, since in your experience people don't recover immediately from being cut open, and you have seen people use trickery before and understand it's a possibility. I predict you'd be much less sure, though.
 
"If you saw a person one day cut a person in half and then resurrect them, you would believe it."
 
Fortunately for me, no, I'm not so gullible.
 
"However, the next day, when the experience is repeated, you'd be back at square one as you have not formed any presuppositions about magic tricks and people getting cut in half from the day before."
 
No you wouldn't, that's absurd and I have no idea where you're getting it from. You'd have your knowledge from before. To say you wouldn't is just ridiculous, there's no reason for it.
 
"Saying, “I don't have any presuppositions” in of itself, is a presupposition that you have no presuppositions."
 
No it isn't, that's stupid. See my previous explanation of what a presupposition is. Conclusions =/= presuppositions.
 
"That would be a vicious circle if what you were suppose to interpret the evidence by, was based upon the interpretation of the evidence."
 
Oh god, could you at least try to make some effort not to completely misrepresent what I'm saying?
 
The conclusion is based on two things.
1. evidence
2. your understanding of the universe
If your understanding of the universe is based on evidence, then it becomes:
1. evidence
2. evidence
So the conclusion is based on evidence. Do you understand?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 11:35 am

""“...and let the evidence speak for itself.”
Evidence speaks?"
Seriously!? Why would you add that in there!? That's not even a nitpick, that's just lexical white noise to extend your post!"
 
No, stuntddude, I'm serious. Answer the question. Does evidence speak? It's a simple yes or no answer.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 12:02 pm

"This is exactly what you were arguing was impossible earlier in the same post."
 
Okay, here is what I am arguing:
 
It is impossible for facts to speak for themselves, just as it is impossible for language to speak for itself. One must interpret the facts, just as they interpret the writing on a page.
 
I am also arguing:
 
There are different worldviews. My worldview will will interpret the facts different from yours, because I have a different instruction manual. Just like if I was trying to translate some writing with my instruction manual, I'd get a certain message out of it. But when you do the same thing, you will get a different message because you have a different instruction manual.
 
The way to tell who's instruction manual is correct, is the one who's end result translation of the writing is not contradictory.
 
Now, here is a question for either Quantum or Stuntddude: how is one to find knowledge? Through evidence? Is all knowledge come to through studying the evidence?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Quantum1.0This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 4:06 pm

"“...and let the evidence speak for itself.” 
Evidence speaks?"
 
Metaphorically yes. Good evidence should be clear to anyone trying to be objective.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Quantum1.0This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 4:07 pm

"how is one to find knowledge? Through evidence? Is all knowledge come to through studying the evidence?"
 
Yep.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 4:49 pm

"Good evidence should be clear to anyone trying to be objective."
 
Um...isn't that just repeating with different words, "Evidence speaks for itself?"
 
"Yep."
 
You 100% sure about that? Or 99%--whatever works for you. And what do you think, stuntddude? Can knowledge only be gained through evidence?
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm

"The way to tell who's instruction manual is correct, is the one who's end result translation of the writing is not contradictory."
 
Again, for one, how do you know this idea is not part of your personal, subjective worldview? I find it incredibly ironic that you have just asserted this as the single method to obtaining truth, without even justifying it, directly after a paragraph claiming that everything about how we obtain truth is totally subjective to our worldviews.
 
Given what you say, that self-contradiction (and lack thereof) is the way to tell which worldview is correct, then you have already failed your own test, because your own test contradicts your worldview about worldviews. That's really meta. Congratulations.
 
 
 
Further, if two (contradictory) worldviews are both internally consistent, what then? Do you believe that they're both correct? How does that work? I could tell you that I believe I am the only mind in existence, subconsciously imagining everything about my life in the universe. That worldview is totally internally consistent. How are you to say, then, that it is wrong?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 5:35 pm

“Again, for one, how do you know this idea is not part of your personal, subjective worldview?”
 
That is my worldview. My worldview is based on logic, which is objective. My worldview literally = logic. So in a sense, you are asking me if I know what I know based upon logic. Which the answer to is yes, all knowledge I have is subjective to logic, including what I just said.
 
“Further, if two (contradictory) worldviews are both internally consistent, what then?”
 
I gave three criteria earlier but only repeated one (consistency).
 
A worldview must first not be contradictory. It second must not be arbitrary, and it third must make sense of why we know the things we know. I know this because:
 
A) my worldview is internally consistent
B) my worldview is not arbitrary.
And C) my worldview makes sense.
 
In other words, I take it for granted. I take for granted that the universe is understandable. And the theory of worldviews makes perfect sense of the universe. It is not contradictory and it is not arbitrary. One must understand the nature of knowledge and also the nature of an ultimate standard. Do you know what an ultimate standard is? It is the thing by which you measure all other standards. It is, in a sense, your standard for gaining all knowledge. Quantum just stated that his ultimate standard is “empiricism”—the theory that all knowledge is gained through observation (evidence). Unfortunately for him, this standard fails the very first test—self-consistency.
 
Does Quantum know that all knowledge is gained through observation by observation? Did he observe somewhere that this statement is true? Surely the standard of empiricism falls under “all knowledge”. But the standard of empiricism states that all knowledge is gained through observation, yet you cannot observe the very standard of empiricism. Which means that according to the standard of empiricism’s own criteria it does not fall under “all knowledge”, therefore according to empiricism, you cannot know that empiricism is true.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 5:56 pm

"My worldview is based on logic, which is objective."
 
It is objective according to your worldview, which does not rid you of the problem.
 
"A worldview must first not be contradictory. It second must not be arbitrary, and it third must make sense of why we know the things we know. I know this because: 
  
A) my worldview is internally consistent 
B) my worldview is not arbitrary. 
And C) my worldview makes sense."
 
You literally just said that you know what the criteria are for a correct worldview because your worldview follows them. That's a failure if I've ever seen one...
 
"Unfortunately for him, this standard fails the very first test—self-consistency."
 
For one thing, you've never once shown this to be the case, and for another, I've just shown that your own views fail the test of internat consistency anyways. So that statement is worthless.
 
"Does Quantum know that all knowledge is gained through observation by observation?"
 
Do you know that all knowledge can be figured out through logic by using logic? At some point you have to make fundamental assumptions. There is no escaping this. Further, logic requires premises (facts and evidence) to apply anyways, so you have to use facts and evidence to come to any conclusions regardless how much you claim to reject the use of evidence (a ridiculous standpoint no matter how you slice it).

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jade.I.AmThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 7:16 pm

Umm, I don't know if I'm welcome here (this seems to be between you three), so if it's exclusive, just ignore me. 
 
But I had written something earlier, helping out a friend..with something (irrelevant...anyways), about world views. And being objective/biased. 
 
 




















"Everyone, no matter where they come from, or which culture they were born into, comes into the world with an established set of beliefs. Some are inherent in human nature, and some are acquired subtly through the first few years of your life. Without these certain behaviors and beliefs, you’d be completely lost. However, there is such a thing as being too close-minded, just as there is fault in not believing in anything.










What people call being “open-minded” doesn’t necessarily mean accepting every belief. In fact, to do so would be not only tiring, but contradictory and inevitably meaningless. What it means to be “open-minded” is to be aware that we don’t have all the answers yet, and in the beginning (the beginning of your journey, looking for the answers to life’s biggest questions) each path holds the equal possibility of being right. To find the path you think is right, you must first go down that path and see what it is. To quote the wise philosopher Aristotle, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” I think this is true in many ways—that we should be able, as individuals, to be open enough to think about things and explore different options, but keen enough to see truth, whatever that ends up being. It’s not to say that anybody will find truth (there may be no truth at all). But at least they will have tried their best, and in such a way that they don’t look down on others for having different ideas.










Being open-mind has many benefits to growth as an individual, and it exercises the mind. For example, it lets you remember that you’re not in control. Worldviews can change any moment just because of experience. One moment you believe in God, and two months later your three-year-old son dies. You no longer see God in your life. Is this your fault? Life happened. You didn’t expect it. Your worldview has changed. Events happen beyond our control, so it’s best to be flexible enough to change your mindset as well. This build strength in character, and it admits a sense of honesty—that you don’t have it all figured out but you’re learning. And that’s the key to life. You live and you learn.










It’s important to remember that this (being accepting of other beliefs) is a worldview all on its own. Nothing is completely objective. Therefore, while it’s important to remain open, it’s not everything. If you decide that you really want to stick to a certain path—you think you’ve found that truth you’ve been searching for—by all means, nobody’s going to blame you for adhering to it. Just remember that others might not have gotten to that point yet. You can still be open-minded in the sense that, though you’ve found your truth, you recognize that that’s subjective to you and isn’t the same for everybody. "










 










~ This is gonna post SO weird, I can feel it. Apologies in advance. 










 










But yeah, do with that what you will. I'm not exactly sure what's going on here.










 













 



 





 

 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jade.I.AmThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 7:17 pm

Yup--ugh. Sorry

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 8:49 pm

Good post, Jade. I will add something though -- it's one thing for a person to believe they've found the one path and want to stick to it. I can accept that. But when you start applying it to others expecting them to feel the same, or when you try to have a conversation when you're set on not changing your mind, that's when I have a problem. A conversation should be a two-way exchange. When you're deliberately set in your ways, that's impossible.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jade.I.AmThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 15, 2013 at 8:51 pm

I agree :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Aug. 28, 2013 at 10:37 pm

Izuo: 
 
"We are a group on Teenink. Everything we do and posts on here represents us. If we ignored Stuntddude every time he gave us a rude post then what would it look like to the newcomers? What would we look like?"
 
Just out of curiosity, are you Asian? Cuz this is such an Asian thing to say XD (Not criticising you, since I say it too (about my family)). Just made me laugh :D
 
As for the actual thing, part of my problem was (as like I told him he's getting better - though he claimed he wasn't trying - ps I hope SDD reads this cuz I don't want to backbite...) that he was scaring away people. Personally (and this is just me), I get stressed a lot with online rudeness (and rudeness in general). It's not even funny. I've had times when I haven't been able to sleep properly because I thought I offended someone, and when someone is rude online, I don't just go like, "Shut up" in my head. I actually have trouble breathing sometimes. I think it's some sort of weird psychological thing (Canadian Syndrome? :O haha) It actually really interferes with my life, and that's also why I want it to stop. Or I can leave. Either way.
 
{And this is just a general thing. Not specific to SDD, but to online arguments in general.}
 
"Besides that fact, have you thought about all the pros and cons? If you ignore SDD's rude posts all the time there are a few outcomes: 
  
1) He changes and starts posting less rude comments. 
  
2) He leaves TeenInk. 
  
3) He doesn't necessarily change his comments, nor does he leave; instead he stays but talks with people who don't ignore him and don't hate him. This starts a social tension and it ruins Teenink. "
 
I'm hoping for (1) XD As for tension... I don't think so. I think rude comments create more tension than not replying does. (I often forget to reply to people and there is no tension, I don't think...) 

  
"And have you tried to understand *SDD*? Even at the very least?"
 
I don't understand? :S 
 
Cheers bud. *

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Aug. 28, 2013 at 10:38 pm

Also I think discussing this so publicly will be more embarrassing to SDD than anything else. If there was a PM system I would Private Message him, but there isn't on TI (dunno if I like that or not XD)
 
*

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Aug. 28, 2013 at 10:46 pm

I said:
 
"As for the actual thing, part of my problem was (as like I told him he's getting better - though he claimed he wasn't trying - ps I hope SDD reads this cuz I don't want to backbite...) that he was scaring away people. Personally (and this is just me), I get stressed a lot with online rudeness (and rudeness in general). It's not even funny. I've had times when I haven't been able to sleep properly because I thought I offended someone, and when someone is rude online, I don't just go like, "Shut up" in my head. I actually have trouble breathing sometimes. I think it's some sort of weird psychological thing (Canadian Syndrome? :O haha) It actually really interferes with my life, and that's also why I want it to stop. Or I can leave. Either way."
 
Incidentally, this is also why I am deeply sorry for when I was rude/harsh/abrupt/curt or in any way less than perfect (okay a little joke) to some people. Please forgive me if y'allz read this. *

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback