Jump to content

'Lazy learner'


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet religious claims like in Nelson's talk are not provable, cannot be independently verified, and do rely on personal bias. Yet they are spoken about otherwise, as if they are provable. Furthermore they are presented to the world as if they are accessible to everyone, with the implication that there is something lacking in the person who tries but does not prove them. The message becomes something like, try harder, be more faithful, learn more, be more devout.

Then people who "fail" to prove the claim for themselves are considered to be in the wrong, instead of an open acknowledgement that there can be something wrong with the claim.

No confusion here at all, I agree with President Nelson. 

Your claims were about intellectual honesty, not about whether or not something is empirically provable.

If you want to discuss whether or not the gospel is empirically verifiable, that is another question.

It IS verifiable through truly RADICAL empiricism as an analysis of the full experiences of millions of people.

Millions have had the same experience. 

Surely you see that Alma 32 IS the scientific method.

Radical Empiricism: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism#:~:text=Radical empiricism is a philosophical,a place in our explanations.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
12 hours ago, CV75 said:

The claims of the Restoration are provable through the religious process.

No they are not provable. 

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

Those who fail to prove the claims for themselves have simply opted for another process, 

No, that is not the way that result is treated. I wish it was, but it is not.

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

 such as those who replace or conflate the Restoration with science or an opposing religious principle.

Hold up here. The Restoration was presented as truth including scientific truth.

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

 such as those who replace or conflate the Restoration with science or an opposing religious principle.

Not sure what you mean by "conflate the Restoration with...an opposing religious principle. " Would you like to elaborate?

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

According to this description, the reasoning (not the bias) has to be intentionally fallacious to qualify as intellectual dishonesty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

President Nelson’s 5-point method favors intellectual honesty as indicated by the highlighted words: Prayerfully study the scriptures. Given that belief in Christ is a subset of all that you know, prayerfully choose to believe in Jesus Christ (allow the Lord to lead you). Act accordingly, in good faith. Practice your religion. Ask God for help.

That is only part of the description on intellectual honesty:

Quote

 

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterised by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

  • One's personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
  • Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
  • Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
  • References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".[1]

Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 hours ago, bluebell said:

I haven’t misunderstood your claim, I’ve pointed out (twice) that none of that makes a claim intellectually dishonest.

You can believe the claim is wrong.  The claim can even actually be wrong. But none of that means it was intellectually dishonest for the person to make the claim. 

I cannot say what you have understood, but your comments have mischaracterized my argument. 

Link to post
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Your claims were about intellectual honesty, not about whether or not something is empirically provable.

Yes they are about intellectual honesty:

Quote

 

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterised by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

  • One's personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
  • Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
  • Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
  • References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".[1]

Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.

 

Intellectual honesty is an intentional process, it is not merely about sincerity of belief.

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No they are not provable. 

No, that is not the way that result is treated. I wish it was, but it is not.

Hold up here. The Restoration was presented as truth including scientific truth.

Not sure what you mean by "conflate the Restoration with...an opposing religious principle. " Would you like to elaborate?

That is only part of the description on intellectual honesty:

 

You have no understanding of these branches of the philosophy of science and are simply displaying that.  The cognitive science and psychology of belief is highly complex and nuanced and your ham fisted approach is inappropriate.

You are examining a spiderweb with a blowtorch.

Your first introduction would be to study Radical Empiricism, which is now about 120 years old, and has been developing all that time while you are still stuck on positivism.

You are a very intelligent person, but your arguments are not relevant today.

We are all trying to tell you that, but you won't listen.

I suggest you ponder that in relation to the OP

Link to post
8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes they are about intellectual honesty:

Intellectual honesty is an intentional process, it is not merely about sincerity of belief.

Good quote, I agree with it and see no examples here which are relevant.

Surely you see that all those judgement points are based on subjective criteria, which is actually detrimental to your position.

"Intellectual dishonesty" itself then has no empirical basis, which is fine with me.

It is an epithet 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Hold up here. The Restoration was presented as truth including scientific truth.

Which holds, in radical empiricism,  based on the experience of millions.

There is ample evidence for its effectiveness in people's lives, and experience

Link to post
8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I cannot say what you have understood, but your comments have mischaracterized my argument. 

I apologize for my part in that.  I think some of it may be from your misunderstanding of what constitutes "intellectual honesty".  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I don't see what the big deal is with this. I think anything worthwhile takes work and that is what I took from the OP part of the talk.  Of course the president of the church is going to assume he has the correct position and is on the correct path.  He is the prophet.  So it seems perfectly obvious that he would take the position that those who don't follow the correct path are in error and perhaps aren't doing enough, even lazy learners.  Perhaps some need to be a little more thick skinned and not so easily offended at this or that?  We seem to have gone a little overboard with the victimhood mentality imo.

Link to post
40 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I don't see what the big deal is with this. I think anything worthwhile takes work and that is what I took from the OP part of the talk.  Of course the president of the church is going to assume he has the correct position and is on the correct path.  He is the prophet.  So it seems perfectly obvious that he would take the position that those who don't follow the correct path are in error and perhaps aren't doing enough, even lazy learners.  Perhaps some need to be a little more thick skinned and not so easily offended at this or that?  We seem to have gone a little overboard with the victimhood mentality imo.

I’d expect nothing less from someone that makes all their decisions on blind faith ;)

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to post
39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d expect nothing less from someone that makes all their decisions on blind faith ;)

Faith is blind as much as understanding is not seen.  Interesting that you say you are SeekingUnderstanding.  Please let us all know when you see what you understand.

Link to post
56 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Of course the president of the church is going to assume he has the correct position and is on the correct path.  He is the prophet.  So it seems perfectly obvious that he would take the position that those who don't follow the correct path are in error and perhaps aren't doing enough, even lazy learners.  Perhaps some need to be a little more thick skinned and not so easily offended at this or that?

So you wouldn't be offended by someone labeling the talk as gullible guidance?

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You have no understanding of these branches of the philosophy of science and are simply displaying that.  The cognitive science and psychology of belief is highly complex and nuanced and your ham fisted approach is inappropriate.

You are examining a spiderweb with a blowtorch.

Your first introduction would be to study Radical Empiricism, which is now about 120 years old, and has been developing all that time while you are still stuck on positivism.

You are a very intelligent person, but your arguments are not relevant today.

We are all trying to tell you that, but you won't listen.

I suggest you ponder that in relation to the OP

So in other words she has no idea what she is talking about because she does not understand philosophy like you do.  This is your constant approach.  But why does philosophy trump everything.  I am not convened it does and think you operate in a false world view perhaps?

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

Faith is blind as much as understanding is not seen.  Interesting that you say you are SeekingUnderstanding.  Please let us all know when you see what you understand.

 

4 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

Faith is blind as much as understanding is not seen.  Interesting that you say you are SeekingUnderstanding.  Please let us all know when you see what you understand.

You missed the point. “Perhaps some need to be a little more thick skinned and not so easily offended at this or that?  We seem to have gone a little overboard with thevictimhood mentality imo.”


Seems some can dish it out but not take it?

Link to post
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

You missed the point. “Perhaps some need to be a little more thick skinned and not so easily offended at this or that?  We seem to have gone a little overboard with thevictimhood mentality imo.”


Seems some can dish it out but not take it?

Dish what out?  Take what?  Understanding is the key to everything and while all of us have some things we do not understand there are some things that some people do understand that others of us do not.

Do you now "see" all that I understand?

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

Dish what out?  Take what?  Understanding is the key to everything and while all of us have some things we do not understand there are some things that some people do understand that others of us do not.

Do you now "see" all that I understand?

What's with the latest change in moniker from "Ahab" to "Zeniff?"  Wasn't "Batman" the one before "Ahab," too? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Zeniff said:

Dish what out?  Take what?  Understanding is the key to everything and while all of us have some things we do not understand there are some things that some people do understand that others of us do not.

Do you now "see" all that I understand?

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about. My only point in my post  that you quoted was the following: if no one should get upset over being called a “lazy learner” then surely no one would be upset by being told they follow “blindly”. If you are making a point about this then please elucidate. 
 

If you have an issue with the label “blind faith” applied to you then we are surely on the same page in regards to lazy learner. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to post
Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about. My only point in my post  that you quoted was the following: if no one should get upset over being called a “lazy learner” then surely no one would be upset by being told they follow “blindly”. If you are making a point about this then please elucidate. 

Good luck making any sense of Ahab/Zeniff.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about.

I figured as much.  You not understanding is what we could refer to as blind faith.

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My only point in my post  that you quoted was the following: if no one should get upset over being called a “lazy learner” then surely no one would be upset by being told they follow “blindly”. If you are making a point about this then please elucidate. 

Okay.  I will now elucidate, again.

The term "blind faith" makes just as much sense as understanding what is not seen.  That is what I meant when I said faith is blind as much as understanding is not seen.  Do you see or understand now are are you still SeekingUnderstanding?

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you have an issue with the label “blind faith” applied to you then we are surely on the same page in regards to lazy learner. 

Sure, I have an iisue with blind faith, although it isn't much of an issue.  I like it.  I like how I can understand without having to see something.  And I like a lot of lazy forms of learning.  Learning while sitting in a chair while watching TV is one of my favorites.

Link to post
18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Good luck making any sense of Ahab/Zeniff.

May the force be with you as you try to learn anything.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So in other words she has no idea what she is talking about because she does not understand philosophy like you do.  This is your constant approach.  But why does philosophy trump everything.  I am not convened it does and think you operate in a false world view perhaps?

You are actually begging the question that there IS a "true" world view.  You are doing your own philosophy, which is highly questionable by even asking the question.

Prove it.

Oh wait. That requires wading through 2500 years of others who have debated and given their opinions and some who claim their view is the "truth".  Some think that there may be several hundred "true" approaches.  Golly gee- how do we decide who is right?  Perhaps if you studied philosophy, as I have suggested then you don't have to go through 2500 years of studying for your self.

Notice I vitually never use the word "true", unless I explain it.  Truth is a statement of agreement or certainty based within a partiular community.  Republicans think they have the truth and so do Democrats, 

If you are going to argue philosophy, I would suggest you actually learn something about it.  Or we could pick a topic none of us know anything about and debate that just for fun?  How about particuar discussions in astrophysics?

Heck you don't need to know anything about that, right?   Of course then again we would have no idea what we were talking about, but apparently who cares about knowing what you are arguing about?

 

Link to post
33 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Good luck making any sense of Ahab/Zeniff.

Is that sockpuppet pretty much confirmed?   I had my suspiciions...

Link to post
2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So you wouldn't be offended by someone labeling the talk as gullible guidance?

No.  People can have their own views without offending me.  And I think in this case, inviting someone to work at the gospel, gently chiding the lazy learners among us isn't inviting gullibility.  It is asking those who are struggling to work a little harder.  I don't know President Nelson personally but I assume the "lazy learner" quote comes from a good place.

Link to post
28 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

May the force be with you as you try to learn anything.

But seriously, what's with the name change(s)?

Link to post
14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Is that sockpuppet pretty much confirmed?   I had my suspiciions...

Explicitly? No.

By the posts?  You betcha.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...