Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

A question to AronRa

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 28 posts ] 
A question to AronRa
Author Message
*SD*User avatarPosts: 128Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: A question to AronRa

Laurens wrote:I'm a bit confused.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that we can't know anything for certain, but within a certain set of assumptions and given a certain probability within those assumptions we can say we know some things?


Well this isn't really what I've been going after, but to answer your question (as best I can) - I have no problem with what are usually referred to as 'basal assumptions' - ie the universe exists and we can learn things about it etc etc. As for 100% 'absolute' certainty with zero possibility of being wrong, no, I don't believe that. But I don't really want to go here because it might turn into that semantics argument over what knowledge really is. Back to my toe stubbing (sick of hearing about my toe yet?!) example. I'm happy to say I KNOW it happened. But seeing as I can't show it to any degree at all, and mindful of Aron's catchphrase, should I be claiming I know this?
Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:19 pm
WWW
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2948Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: A question to AronRa

*SD* wrote:
Laurens wrote:I'm a bit confused.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that we can't know anything for certain, but within a certain set of assumptions and given a certain probability within those assumptions we can say we know some things?


Well this isn't really what I've been going after, but to answer your question (as best I can) - I have no problem with what are usually referred to as 'basal assumptions' - ie the universe exists and we can learn things about it etc etc. As for 100% 'absolute' certainty with zero possibility of being wrong, no, I don't believe that. But I don't really want to go here because it might turn into that semantics argument over what knowledge really is. Back to my toe stubbing (sick of hearing about my toe yet?!) example. I'm happy to say I KNOW it happened. But seeing as I can't show it to any degree at all, and mindful of Aron's catchphrase, should I be claiming I know this?


I don't think there is anything wrong with claiming you know it, if you feel given the basal assumptions we've discussed that you know you did stub your toe. You might not be able to show it to anyone else, if they weren't there. In this instance they'd have reason to doubt you if they wanted to, but it would be a pretty pointless debate to have.

Subjective experience with no corroboration is different to the claim of something existing. Sticking with the mundane, if I tell you my parents have a dog, I can show that. I might have pictures, I could even take you to meet him. You'd be pretty unreasonable to turn around and say I can't claim to know that my parents have a dog.

Even in the case of stubbing your toe, you probably could show it if you really needed to. Whether it is a toe print on the object, or tiny fragments of the object on your sock (or vice versa), or minor damage to the toe itself.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:10 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 128Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: A question to AronRa

Laurens wrote:I don't think there is anything wrong with claiming you know it


Neither do I. Whilst I wouldn't speak on Aron's behalf, I think he would. He's said, or at least strongly implied that I perhaps shouldn't be saying I know it. I don't want to sound like a stuck record, or get into the completely ridiculous, but as I suggested earlier - go touch a cushion and make sure no one sees you do it. You are unlikely to leave a fingerprint, I doubt even the most thorough medical examination would find even a miniscule fracture on your finger. Do you know you touched that cushion? It's not about being able to demonstrate it to me, it's a question of whether YOU should be saying you know you did it. "If you can't show it - YOU don't know it" as opposed to "If you can't show it then my cousins best friend can't know it" kinda thing.


Laurens wrote: if you feel given the basal assumptions we've discussed that you know you did stub your toe. You might not be able to show it to anyone else, if they weren't there. In this instance they'd have reason to doubt you if they wanted to, but it would be a pretty pointless debate to have.


Indeed it would be pointless, however Aron is (apparently) not restricting his criteria to extraordinary claims, I pondered for quite a while on this because it's always bugged me, before deciding to ask him about it. That's why I've emphasised over and over that I'm DELIBERATELY talking about trivial crap that doesn't really matter - because he doesn't seem to be restricting it to just the unlikely or improbable, if he said (as I've already mentioned) he was, this wouldn't have got to page 2.

Laurens wrote:Subjective experience with no corroboration is different to the claim of something existing. Sticking with the mundane, if I tell you my parents have a dog, I can show that. I might have pictures, I could even take you to meet him. You'd be pretty unreasonable to turn around and say I can't claim to know that my parents have a dog.


I know you could show that your parents have a dog, that's why that example doesn't work, I want to stick with things that CAN'T be shown. What say your parents dog sniffs your crotch when no one else is around? You can prove the dog exists, and I'll risk it and say you can prove your crotch exists too! We also know that dogs enjoy sniffing crotches - this is a totally probable thing to happen, no reason for me to doubt you. Doesn't matter whether I do or not, do YOU know the dog sniffed your crotch? The fact that you have nothing to gain in lying is besides my point, Aron's phrase is "If you can't show it YOU don't know it" It is not "If Laurens can't show it then SD can't know it"

Laurens wrote:Even in the case of stubbing your toe, you probably could show it if you really needed to. Whether it is a toe print on the object, or tiny fragments of the object on your sock (or vice versa), or minor damage to the toe itself.


Ok so I'll go to something even MORE trivial - it's currently 16:30 my time and I've just looked out of the window.
No one else is here.
By what means can this be proven? It surely can't, right? So do I know I just looked out of the window?

I'm honestly not trying to come up with stupid crap here, I just feel like my point is lost, maybe I'm not making it well enough.
Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:34 pm
WWW
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2948Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: A question to AronRa

*SD* wrote:
Ok so I'll go to something even MORE trivial - it's currently 16:30 my time and I've just looked out of the window.
No one else is here.
By what means can this be proven? It surely can't, right? So do I know I just looked out of the window?

I'm honestly not trying to come up with stupid crap here, I just feel like my point is lost, maybe I'm not making it well enough.


It can't be proven to me at least.

But I'd say you can know to within a certain degree of probability that it happened despite not being able to prove it to me, or even necessarily to yourself. Unless you have reason to think your memories are false, that you are prone to hallucination etc, you can quite reasonably say you know (as far as you can know) that you looked out of the window just now.

You don't know in the strictest sense, but you can be reasonably certain.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:45 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 128Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: A question to AronRa

Laurens wrote:
*SD* wrote:
Ok so I'll go to something even MORE trivial - it's currently 16:30 my time and I've just looked out of the window.
No one else is here.
By what means can this be proven? It surely can't, right? So do I know I just looked out of the window?

I'm honestly not trying to come up with stupid crap here, I just feel like my point is lost, maybe I'm not making it well enough.


It can't be proven to me at least.

But I'd say you can know to within a certain degree of probability that it happened despite not being able to prove it to me, or even necessarily to yourself. Unless you have reason to think your memories are false, that you are prone to hallucination etc, you can quite reasonably say you know (as far as you can know) that you looked out of the window just now.

You don't know in the strictest sense, but you can be reasonably certain.


AronRa wrote:Again, if you can't confirm it to any degree at all by any means whatsoever, then how would you know if you really know that?


Unless I'm misunderstanding this, Aron doesn't agree.
I can't confirm it to any degree by any means whatsoever. So how do I know if I really know I looked out of the window when I said I did? I don't (according to this standard) - yes?
Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:54 pm
WWW
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2948Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: A question to AronRa

*SD* wrote:
AronRa wrote:Again, if you can't confirm it to any degree at all by any means whatsoever, then how would you know if you really know that?


Unless I'm misunderstanding this, Aron doesn't agree.
I can't confirm it to any degree by any means whatsoever. So how do I know if I really know I looked out of the window when I said I did? I don't (according to this standard) - yes?


I would not want to speak for Aron, but from what I can see it's basically what I've said.

You can't 100% confirm that looking out of the window actually happened. It could have been a rare one off hallucination or something. Or you could be a brain in a jar if we want to take it that far.

But there are degrees at which you can confirm it to yourself. You know whether or not you are suffering from any mental health issues that are characterized by hallucination, etc etc. You can describe what you saw out of the window and look again to see whether its still there. These are degrees of confirmation and given that it is not an unreasonable claim, that's all you really need to say that it happened.

If you had taken magic mushrooms, not slept for 3 days and were prone to hallucination anyway then you might have reasons to doubt, but I think the reasons I mention about count as 'degrees' by which you can confirm it.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:06 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3164Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: A question to AronRa

*SD* wrote:
AronRa wrote:Again, if you can't confirm it to any degree at all by any means whatsoever, then how would you know if you really know that?


Unless I'm misunderstanding this, Aron doesn't agree.
I can't confirm it to any degree by any means whatsoever. So how do I know if I really know I looked out of the window when I said I did? I don't (according to this standard) - yes?


You could just ask the NSA for the video to confirm it.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:09 pm
YIM WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: A question to AronRa

Greetings,

This article, care of Laurens, may be of interest, as it pertains to evidence for claims.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:29 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 28 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests
cron