Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

[CV75]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s because of the unique claim of healing which can be objectively evaluated.  My love for my wife has no similar claim that I can see.  

A claim is a claim no matter its "sphere" and is evaluable across different systems, according to your earlier posts. Just as someone claims to know the future, or how to heal by magic, or the reasons for spiritual well-being, someone claims to know the reasons for marrying his wife. This knowledge “is in another sphere of evaluating" and "can be objectively evaluated," according to what you have been saying. How many times was he right or wrong in knowing these reasons, and how did this relate what their  marriage actually is?

[hope_for_things]

57 minutes ago, CV75 said:

A claim is a claim no matter its "sphere" and is evaluable across different systems, according to your earlier posts. Just as someone claims to know the future, or how to heal by magic, or the reasons for spiritual well-being, someone claims to know the reasons for marrying his wife. This knowledge “is in another sphere of evaluating" and "can be objectively evaluated," according to what you have been saying. How many times was he right or wrong in knowing these reasons, and how did this relate what their  marriage actually is?

You're saying that the reasons for marrying my wife are a claim of some kind that could be evaluated?  This is a stretch way beyond what I asserted earlier.  I was using the example of love of my wife to say precisely that this kind of experience can't be evaluated in the same way as other claims can.  You're really stretching here.  If you have some kind of point to make over the last few back and forth exchanges on this line of questioning maybe you should just come out an say your point.  

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're saying that the reasons for marrying my wife are a claim of some kind that could be evaluated?  This is a stretch way beyond what I asserted earlier.  I was using the example of love of my wife to say precisely that this kind of experience can't be evaluated in the same way as other claims can.  You're really stretching here.  If you have some kind of point to make over the last few back and forth exchanges on this line of questioning maybe you should just come out an say your point.  

test

Edited December 13, 2018 by CV75
I was getting 403 messages and could not reply. Not teh first time! :)

[CV75]

On 12/13/2018 at 11:41 AM, hope_for_things said:

You're saying that the reasons for marrying my wife are a claim of some kind that could be evaluated?  This is a stretch way beyond what I asserted earlier.  I was using the example of love of my wife to say precisely that this kind of experience can't be evaluated in the same way as other claims can.  You're really stretching here.  If you have some kind of point to make over the last few back and forth exchanges on this line of questioning maybe you should just come out an say your point.  

On one hand, you are now saying that some claims can be evaluated and others cannot. On the other hand, you've been saying that the methods from one system (e.g. science) can effectively evaluate claims made under the auspices of another (e.g. religion). I'm not sure why claims made in a social construct like marriage would be so different from claims made in a social construct like religion. Very contradictory.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

On one hand, you are now saying that some claims can be evaluated and others cannot. On the other hand, you've been saying that the methods from one system (e.g. science) can effectively evaluate claims made under the auspices of another (e.g. religion). I'm not sure why claims made in a social construct like marriage would be so different from claims made in a social construct like religion. Very contradictory.  

It depends on the claim.  If the religious claim has to do with someone's personal feelings about the religion or personal visionary experience these things are very difficult if not impossible to evaluate using the tools of science.   If the religious claim is something that crosses over into a scholarly discipline, i.e. a claim of ancient historicity for a civilization of people, then that claim clearly can be evaluated using scholarly tools.  

[CV75]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It depends on the claim.  If the religious claim has to do with someone's personal feelings about the religion or personal visionary experience these things are very difficult if not impossible to evaluate using the tools of science.   If the religious claim is something that crosses over into a scholarly discipline, i.e. a claim of ancient historicity for a civilization of people, then that claim clearly can be evaluated using scholarly tools.  

This still doesn't support why you see claims made in a social construct like marriage ("crossover" or otherwise) would be so different from claims made in a social construct like religion. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It depends on the claim.  If the religious claim has to do with someone's personal feelings about the religion or personal visionary experience these things are very difficult if not impossible to evaluate using the tools of science.   If the religious claim is something that crosses over into a scholarly discipline, i.e. a claim of ancient historicity for a civilization of people, then that claim clearly can be evaluated using scholarly tools.  

This still doesn't support why you see claims made in a social construct like marriage ("crossover" or otherwise) would be so different from claims made in a social construct like religion. 

I just gave the example of a historical claim being made by religion.  I can give others.  How about an age of the earth claim, or a claim about Noah's flood, or claim about who the first humans were and where they lived, or a claim about the power of prayer to heal.  I can keep giving examples, but I thought it was pretty clear where religion crosses over into scholarly disciplines.  

If a claim about marriages crossed over into a scholarly discipline, it too would be subject to evaluation using scholarly tools.  If for example a person claimed that their marriage union was so special that it was predicted by an ancient civilization thousands of years ago, then we could look for archaeological evidence to support that claim. 

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I just gave the example of a historical claim being made by religion.  I can give others.  How about an age of the earth claim, or a claim about Noah's flood, or claim about who the first humans were and where they lived, or a claim about the power of prayer to heal.  I can keep giving examples, but I thought it was pretty clear where religion crosses over into scholarly disciplines.  

If a claim about marriages crossed over into a scholarly discipline, it too would be subject to evaluation using scholarly tools.  If for example a person claimed that their marriage union was so special that it was predicted by an ancient civilization thousands of years ago, then we could look for archaeological evidence to support that claim. 

Yes, you describe these claims as "crossing over" which to me really creates a third category of claim requiring some kind of "hybrid" evaluation system, which I don't think many people subscribe to. To simply evaluate such claims by one system or the other will typical render the claim confirmed by one system and denied by the other.

To me, it makes sense that if the claim is made from a religious standpoint, it is still fundamentally religious and any sense of "crossing over" is subjectively and even arbitrarily determined. The same with claims made from scientific or secular standpoints crossing over into other disciplines. Now there is good scholarship and poor scholarship; what kind of scholar is going to spend his wherewithal on what?

Some people claim they married for love, but the evidence points to the fact that they married to get better tax rate, or to legitimize a birth, get a better job, etc.

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, you describe these claims as "crossing over" which to me really creates a third category of claim requiring some kind of "hybrid" evaluation system, which I don't think many people subscribe to. To simply evaluate such claims by one system or the other will typical render the claim confirmed by one system and denied by the other.

To me, it makes sense that if the claim is made from a religious standpoint, it is still fundamentally religious and any sense of "crossing over" is subjectively and even arbitrarily determined. The same with claims made from scientific or secular standpoints crossing over into other disciplines. Now there is good scholarship and poor scholarship; what kind of scholar is going to spend his wherewithal on what?

Some people claim they married for love, but the evidence points to the fact that they married to get better tax rate, or to legitimize a birth, get a better job, etc.

Can you elaborate when a third category is needed for these claims?  Are you suggesting that a religious person that believes the earth is literally 6000 years old, isn't making a claim that can be evaluated using science and scholarship, but instead should have a different category for this claim?  I might argue that the person making the claim themselves would reject your idea that a new category should exist.  Every biblical literalist that I've ever encountered has always expected that their claims literal reality, they just often don't believe in the science and have alternate explanations for why scientific theories are flawed.  I've never encountered one of these people who thought that their claims shouldn't be evaluated by science because their claims deserve a different category of evaluation.  

[cdowis]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've never encountered one of these people who thought that their claims shouldn't be evaluated by science because their claims deserve a different category of evaluation.  

Just curious, what is your sample size?  👀

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you elaborate when a third category is needed for these claims?  Are you suggesting that a religious person that believes the earth is literally 6000 years old, isn't making a claim that can be evaluated using science and scholarship, but instead should have a different category for this claim?  I might argue that the person making the claim themselves would reject your idea that a new category should exist.  Every biblical literalist that I've ever encountered has always expected that their claims literal reality, they just often don't believe in the science and have alternate explanations for why scientific theories are flawed.  I've never encountered one of these people who thought that their claims shouldn't be evaluated by science because their claims deserve a different category of evaluation.  

I’m suggesting that you need a third category to accomplish what you are trying to do. A religious person who believes and claims the earth is literally 6,000 years old is not making a scientific claim. If you insist that he is, then you’re the one who needs a “crossover” type of evaluation, not him, and you need to come up with one. If he insists that he is, and you reject his science as readily as he rejects yours, what’s the problem? 

You say you've never encountered someone who thought that their claims shouldn't be evaluated by science because they deserve a different category of evaluation, but I bet you’ve seen over and over on this board something similar said in a different way: there are differences between spiritual/religious and scientific/secular evidence. Pages and pages of that in this very thread! I hear the same thing in general conference talks and Sunday lessons.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Just curious, what is your sample size?  👀

1 Billion

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m suggesting that you need a third category to accomplish what you are trying to do. A religious person who believes and claims the earth is literally 6,000 years old is not making a scientific claim. If you insist that he is, then you’re the one who needs a “crossover” type of evaluation, not him, and you need to come up with one. If he insists that he is, and you reject his science as readily as he rejects yours, what’s the problem? 

You say you've never encountered someone who thought that their claims shouldn't be evaluated by science because they deserve a different category of evaluation, but I bet you’ve seen over and over on this board something similar said in a different way: there are differences between spiritual/religious and scientific/secular evidence. Pages and pages of that in this very thread! I hear the same thing in general conference talks and Sunday lessons.

I would challenge you to find a person who thinks the earth is literally 6000 years old who doesn't believe that his/her claim will eventually be validated through accurate science.  These people are sincere believers in the literal reality of their claims from what I've encountered.  They aren't nuanced believers that have views about the meaning of truth in different contexts and paradigms.  They are black and white fundamentalists.  

To clarify what I said, I was talking about biblical literalists specifically, not the many different philosophical approaches that I encounter on this message board.  

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would challenge you to find a person who thinks the earth is literally 6000 years old who doesn't believe that his/her claim will eventually be validated through accurate science.  These people are sincere believers in the literal reality of their claims from what I've encountered.  They aren't nuanced believers that have views about the meaning of truth in different contexts and paradigms.  They are black and white fundamentalists.  

To clarify what I said, I was talking about biblical literalists specifically, not the many different philosophical approaches that I encounter on this message board.  

I can imagine that there are such people as you describe having encountered, and that you take special interest in them, scientifically test their claims and present your findings to them. 

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can imagine that there are such people as you describe having encountered, and that you take special interest in them, scientifically test their claims and present your findings to them. 

Unfortunately, I can't imagine the kind of people that you're claiming exist, people that believe in a literal 6000 year old earth, yet don't expect that a true science could confirm that belief, but instead they think their belief in a literal 6000 year old earth somehow exists in a category that can't be confirmed or refuted through any scientific means.  The people I'm talking about are the kind of people that come up with theories like Joseph Fielding Smith, that the bones of the dinosaurs are real and very old, but that God brought them here from another planet in order to fool people into thinking that the earth is older than it really is.  

I've never encountered the kind of thinking that you are suggesting exists.  The premise for someone believing in a very literal 6000 year old earth suggests that they interpret scripture very naively and are unaware of different ways of reading scripture perhaps as metaphor.  Or alternatively considering an idea that ancient people and their cosmology about how the universe and earth were created and operate might reflect an uniformed view of reality.  Instead they read scripture through a lens that interprets these passages at face value and expects the descriptions as literal explanations for how God created this earth.  

These same people also think that Noah's ark is a literal construction according to the precise dimensions explained in the bible, that a real live donkey really did speak words to Balaam, that Lot's wife was literally turned into a pillar of salt, that the events in the Moses narrative happened literally, etc.  Everything is literal to them, they have no comprehension for how to interpret things differently.  Its like a child's way of believing in Santa Clause and they think Santa literally has flying reindeer.  

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

1 Billion

Requesting CFR under the rules of the forum.

How did you conduct this survey of  one billion individuals, and show us your work product.  Your credibility is in question.

Edited December 29, 2018 by cdowis

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, cdowis said:

Requesting CFR under the rules of the forum.

How did you conduct this survey of  one billion individuals, and show us your work product.  Your credibility is in question.

🤣

[CV75]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Unfortunately, I can't imagine the kind of people that you're claiming exist, people that believe in a literal 6000 year old earth, yet don't expect that a true science could confirm that belief, but instead they think their belief in a literal 6000 year old earth somehow exists in a category that can't be confirmed or refuted through any scientific means.  The people I'm talking about are the kind of people that come up with theories like Joseph Fielding Smith, that the bones of the dinosaurs are real and very old, but that God brought them here from another planet in order to fool people into thinking that the earth is older than it really is.  

I've never encountered the kind of thinking that you are suggesting exists.  The premise for someone believing in a very literal 6000 year old earth suggests that they interpret scripture very naively and are unaware of different ways of reading scripture perhaps as metaphor.  Or alternatively considering an idea that ancient people and their cosmology about how the universe and earth were created and operate might reflect an uniformed view of reality.  Instead they read scripture through a lens that interprets these passages at face value and expects the descriptions as literal explanations for how God created this earth.  

These same people also think that Noah's ark is a literal construction according to the precise dimensions explained in the bible, that a real live donkey really did speak words to Balaam, that Lot's wife was literally turned into a pillar of salt, that the events in the Moses narrative happened literally, etc.  Everything is literal to them, they have no comprehension for how to interpret things differently.  Its like a child's way of believing in Santa Clause and they think Santa literally has flying reindeer.  

I was suggesting something you would have to do to test particular claims given your "crossover" paradigm, and not describing the people you view as "crossing over," since I don't view them that way. Posted yesterday at 02:08 PM

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

🤣

Yes, the sample size is actually limited to some subjectively, sufficiently acceptable level derived from your own experience, but it might as well be a billion people as far as you are concerned, right? There really doesn't have to be a scientific methodology at all, hence you are quite in line with the title of this thread.

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I was suggesting something you would have to do to test particular claims given your "crossover" paradigm, and not describing the people you view as "crossing over," since I don't view them that way. Posted yesterday at 02:08 PM

I don’t agree with your idea that a third category of evaluation is necessary and I already provided a number of examples as to why.  You haven’t supported your assertion with any logical arguments.  

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t agree with your idea that a third category of evaluation is necessary and I already provided a number of examples as to why.  You haven’t supported your assertion with any logical arguments.  

No, he's right.

To resolve competing claims between paradigms on the same "level" you have to take it up a notch to a metaparadigm. Or a meta-narrative if you want to use that terminology. 

Often it is a semantic problem.

Essentially The Meta narrative has to include a statement ABOUT one of the narratives which itself can be shown to be true or false within the meta narrative context.

Like this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

Edited December 29, 2018 by mfbukowski
More relevant

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

🤣

👌🤢

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, he's right.

To resolve competing claims between paradigms on the same "level" you have to take it up a notch to a metaparadigm. Or a meta-narrative if you want to use that terminology. 

Often it is a semantic problem.

Essentially The Meta narrative has to include a statement ABOUT one of the narratives which itself can be shown to be true or false within the meta narrative context.

Like this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

How would this apply to the example of a biblical literalist believing the earth is 6000 years old?  This same literalist would likely reject the dialetheism construction in the first place.  The 6000 year old earth believer thinks that any specific scientific theories proving the earth is older are incorrect or insufficient, not that there is some meta narrative about how both the science and their religious beliefs are simultaneously true. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How would this apply to the example of a biblical literalist believing the earth is 6000 years old?  This same literalist would likely reject the dialetheism construction in the first place.  The 6000 year old earth believer thinks that any specific scientific theories proving the earth is older are incorrect or insufficient, not that there is some meta narrative about how both the science and their religious beliefs are simultaneously true. 

So what? 

These folks have not been educated in philosophy. "Apply"? I suppose it wouldn't, they might not understand it.

Trust me. I have tried.

Know anyone like that?

 

 

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So what? 

These folks have not been educated in philosophy. "Apply"? I suppose it wouldn't, they might not understand it.

Trust me. I have tried.

Know anyone like that?

 

 

It’s relevant because CV75 is arguing that instead of evaluating the validity of certain claims using a scientific paradigm, we instead need to switch paradigms.  And I’m pointing out that the very people who are making the claims are rooted in a binary paradigm.  

To introduce an alternative approach would also violate their very strong convictions.  They would arguably be just as opposed to a post modern philosophical approach as they are opposed to the idea that their claims are proven false through modern scholarship.

Essentially I’m saying that the ground rules for paradigm evaluation are set by the people who subscribe to a certain way of thinking.  

Also, the claims can still be evaluated using a scientific lens and found to be false scientifically.  At the same time they could be true in some other meta narrative sense.  Both can be correct according to what you’re suggesting.  You can hold both ideas simultaneously which those biblical literalists could not.