NationStates Jolt Archive

So, knowledge and belief do not match, and truth cannot be determined.

nobody has claimed that belief and knowledge are identical. the claim is that knowledge is a subset of belief.

and if you hold that truth can be determined, that leads to skepticism and a lack of knowledge.

So, knowledge and belief do not match

Define match.


, and truth cannot be determined.

I don't know how you could possibly infer that from my post.

in addition to being really weird, that makes your attempt to get billy off the hook of knowing that 2 and 2 make 19 by saying that he does know such fall right the fuck apart. unless you further seek to claim that 'fact' means any sort of cognitive content at all or something.

I'm not sure quite what this rather excitable paragraph means. Unless I miss my guess, it looks like you're saying that me using 'know' to mean what I've been saying 'know' means... is suddenly confusing to you.

I assume (for the sake of argument) that we are allowing that there are agnostic theists? (Personally, I'd argue that MOST theists fall into that bracket).

Define match.


The 'belief' is that god exists, the 'knowledge' isn't that god exists.


I don't know how you could possibly infer that from my post.

Unless I missed the part where you stated that god is real (or even stated that god was un-real) then I have to assume that you were acknowledging that the 'truth' of that matter can't be determined by ANY of us. Not in this life.

nobody has claimed that belief and knowledge are identical. the claim is that knowledge is a subset of belief.


Ah. So the 'knowledge' that "god may or may not exist" is somehow a subset of the 'belief' that "god DOES exist"?

I feel like I should say something like "that's the worst sets I have ever had in my life", here.


and if you hold that truth can be determined, that leads to skepticism and a lack of knowledge.

Irrelevent. The 'belief' and the 'knowledge' in this example cannot be determined to be 'true', or not.

Sorry, I thought you were replying to a different post. Yes, the truth cannot be determined (according to an agnostic theist)


The 'belief' is that god exists, the 'knowledge' isn't that god exists.


Yeah, I never said belief and knowledge are the same, neither did FS, see his post. I'm saying it's possible to believe x is true, without knowing x is true. But it's not possible to know x is true, without believing x is true.

Ah. So the 'knowledge' that "god may or may not exist" is somehow a subset of the 'belief' that "god DOES exist"?


No, it's a subset of the belief that "god may or may not exist", it's really not hard.

I'm not sure quite what this rather excitable paragraph means. Unless I miss my guess, it looks like you're saying that me using 'know' to mean what I've been saying 'know' means... is suddenly confusing to you.

billy 'knows' that 2+2=19

if knowing something consists entirely in having some fact in your head (whether you accept that that bit of cognitive content is true or not), then in order for the above to hold, "2+2=19" must be a fact. this is not only a very strange definition of knowledge, but a fundamentally useless definition of 'fact'.

I assume (for the sake of argument) that we are allowing that there are agnostic theists? (Personally, I'd argue that MOST theists fall into that bracket).
Hold on a mo, what is this example meant to show?

That the theist believes in a God without knowing one exists? I wouldn't argue against that, and unless I'm mistaken neither would FS. We're not saying that one can't believe without knowing, but the other way around; we're claiming one can't know without believing.

Or is everyone at cross-purposes here?

Ah. So the 'knowledge' that "god may or may not exist" is somehow a subset of the 'belief' that "god DOES exist"?

what? for it to work we need relevantly similar constructions - "i believe that x" and "i know that x". i make no claims about the set relations between "i believe that x" and "i know that b".

Your last paragraph comes close... and we disagree. I don't see how you justify 'knowing' with the assertion it must be 'true', and I think we thrashed that one a few pages back.

No, I think you believe you did. But believing in something doesn't make it true.

It's simple. You can not know a false thing. Something known must be true. Otherwise you don't know it. You might believe you know it.

You'd be wrong.

Billy can never know 2+2=19 since 2+2 does not equal 19. He believes it is. He believes he knows it is.

He is wrong.

No, I think you believe you did. But believing in something doesn't make it true.

It's simple. You can not know a false thing. Something known must be true. Otherwise you don't know it. You might believe you know it.

You'd be wrong.

Billy can never know 2+2=19 since 2+2 does not equal 19. He believes it is. He believes he knows it is.

He is wrong.

This begs the question of how you know what is true. And that puts you back at square one.

This begs the question of how you know what is true. And that puts you back at square one.

nah, that's just pushing the analysis back another layer - how do i know that i know?

nah, that's just pushing the analysis back another layer - how do i know that i know?

But by predicating 'knowledge' on 'truth' aren't you already doing that?

What is truth a subset of?

Great, because here, in the real world, the majority of people on the planet believe in a deity or group of deities who created the Earth/the Universe; they believe in a creationist theory. When discussing these theories in RE/theology courses I've taken in the past, they're described as 'creationist'; along with no other term being more suitable, I don't see why the term should have to be solely linked to a bunch of YEC folks who've got a lot of attention recently.

EDIT: Contrary to your suggestion, the term is used to describe those who believe in evolution and a creator God. I attended an amusing little discussion at my parent's church recently where they, the minister and the rest of the congregation attested to being creationists, while all happily accepting evolution. Indeed, they were discussing just this problem; this tarring of all.

What would you call those non-Christian religious theories which posit a creator god(s)?

could, but won't. especially since there actually are people who call themselves evolutionary creationists - even eugenie scott has used the term (http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum)

http://ncseweb.org/files/images/Fig-3-1-continuum-agnostic.jpg
You two are very in love with showing off how erudite and in-the-know you are. Too bad your points are often off the mark and do not actually contradict the person you are so hot to appear smarter than. FS, your little diagram does not actually contradict what I said. You probably don't realize that, if, as usual, you have not actually read my posts. Chumbly, repeating your argument with more words in it is not going to change my stance. I told you why am I rejecting your argument. Nothing you posted above adds anything that changes my view that the current debate uses the terms in the way that I said it did.

As usual, you both fail to debunk my statement, but I am willing to bet that will not stop either of you from claiming the opposite. I would also be willing to bet it will not stop FS from saying that the only reason I think this is because I'm stupid and illiterate. I would not be surprised if Chumbly also takes this opportunity to tell me how emotional and potentially unstable I am, as well, but since Chumbly is less consistent than FS, I won't risk any money on it.

And as I said, you boys can play NSG Scrabble Wars with GnI all you like. I'm not interested. You have failed to convince me that you are right. There is nothing further to be said on this particular point of vocabulary.

This begs the question of how you know what is true. And that puts you back at square one.

Whether we don't really know anything, that doesn't help GnI's point or anything.

What is truth a subset of?

Propositions?

No, it's a subset of the belief that "god may or may not exist", it's really not hard.

But that ISN'T the belief. The agnostic theist doesn't believe that god may or may not exist. The agnostic theist believes that god exists - hence the 'theist' part of the 'agnostic theist'. The 'agnostic' part means that they don't 'know'.

But that ISN'T the belief. The agnostic theist doesn't believe that god may or may not exist. The agnostic theist believes that god exists - hence the 'theist' part of the 'agnostic theist'. The 'agnostic' part means that they don't 'know'.

That's an additional belief however. For instance, I believe that the light is either on, or off, I also believe that the light is currently on. On, is a subset of on or off.

billy 'knows' that 2+2=19

if knowing something consists entirely in having some fact in your head (whether you accept that that bit of cognitive content is true or not), then in order for the above to hold, "2+2=19" must be a fact. this is not only a very strange definition of knowledge, but a fundamentally useless definition of 'fact'.

A 'fact' has no inherent truth to it. Facts are the fruit in the yogurt of data. Whether they turn out to be cherries (truth) or prunes (untruth) doesn't affect their status as 'facts'.

"2+2=19" is a 'fact'.

Whether we don't really know anything, that doesn't help GnI's point or anything.

It just seems like everyone is running around in ever-decreasing semantic circles, based on their starting point.

Is truth a subset of all propositions that can be known? Does it even follow, without the notion of truth being inherent in the concept of knowledge?

A 'fact' has no inherent truth to it. Facts are the fruit in the yogurt of data. Whether they turn out to be cherries (truth) or prunes (untruth) doesn't affect their status as 'facts'.

"2+2=19" is a 'fact'.

I don't think anyone has this definition of fact.

That's an additional belief however. For instance, I believe that the light is either on, or off, I also believe that the light is currently on. On, is a subset of on or off.

But your belief, specifically, is that - of the two choices - that light is on.

What you 'know', from your OWN argument, would have to correspond to THAT subset. What you 'know' has to be what you 'believe'... so yo9u keep saying.

So the agnostic theist is a conundrum because the knowledge isn't a subset of the claimed belief set.

A 'fact' has no inherent truth to it. Facts are the fruit in the yogurt of data. Whether they turn out to be cherries (truth) or prunes (untruth) doesn't affect their status as 'facts'.

"2+2=19" is a 'fact'.

Worst metaphor ever. Leave it to the experts, GnI.

Alright, I understand and sympathise.

Although, the same could be said as an argument against atheism / science, simply by replacing some words...

"it is a bit of a downer to see the degree to which education about what creationism is has failed to reach so many Americans. What is bad is when people try to replace faith with science by injecting science into areas in which it creates immorality and evil. Like teaching science classes and neglecting creationism. Or like using science as the foundation for laws governing morals and values, or medical research."

See? I'm not trying to attack anyone here. Just trying to make clear that your arguments can be used in the same way against you. What I'm trying to say is, your argument only sounds reasonable to a person already thinking science>religion, while the opposite of your argument only appeals to persons thinking religion>science, etc...

so you still didn't quite answer my question :(

To be completely honest, I think it would be perfect if a balance between the two could be found. Like a smart fella once said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Well, as soon as scientists start demanding that science be taught in Bible study classes as an alternative to religion, you will have a point to argue. But since that does not happen, you really don't. It's all very well to wish for balance, but if there is no flipside, then there is not much point in discussion one, now is there?

I also find it hilariously charming the way you decide that merely teaching science in a class "creates immorality and evil."

And then you talk about establishing a balace. Of what? If the mere teaching of science "creates immorality and evil", how much immorality and evil are you willing to accept?

But that ISN'T the belief. The agnostic theist doesn't believe that god may or may not exist. The agnostic theist believes that god exists - hence the 'theist' part of the 'agnostic theist'. The 'agnostic' part means that they don't 'know'.

the agnostic theist believes that god exists, but denies that they (and usually anyone) knows that god exists. she both believes and knows that god may or may not exist.

Is truth a subset of all propositions that can be known? Does it even follow, without the notion of truth being inherent in the concept of knowledge?

Not sure what you're trying to say there. Also, we need to differentiate between two definitions of knowledge. There is knowledge, the way it's more commonly used, as just information stored in your brain. There is also knowledge, the way I think it was originally used in the context of this thread, which is just the collective term for things that are known.

But your belief, specifically, is that - of the two choices - that light is on.


No, I have two beliefs.

a) That the light can either be on or off, I also happen to know this.
b) That the light in this case, is on.

I know and believe a, and I believe b, but I (if you're gonna be really solipsist), do not know b.


What you 'know', from your OWN argument, would have to correspond to THAT subset. What you 'know' has to be what you 'believe'... so yo9u keep saying.

So the agnostic theist is a conundrum because the knowledge isn't a subset of the claimed belief set.

It's not a conundrum, replace light with God, and on with exist, and the same thing applies. He knows and believes a, he believes b, but he doesn't know b.

A 'fact' has no inherent truth to it.

and now we have fact and fiction being synonyms. how is this not ludicrous?

I don't think anyone has this definition of fact.

Never having noticed it contested before, I looked that up: "Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[9] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English".

Apparently, my usage of 'fact' is somewhat alternative - even if historied.

the agnostic theist believes that god exists, but denies that they (and usually anyone) knows that god exists. she both believes and knows that god may or may not exist.

Wow. In your example, even the 'belief' and the... errr... 'belief', don't match.

Never having noticed it contested before, I looked that up: "Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[9] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English".

Apparently, my usage of 'fact' is somewhat alternative - even if historied.

Well we're not using that definition of fact.

Worst metaphor ever. Leave it to the experts, GnI.

That should have been 'fruit' (facts), shouldn't it.

And it's a bit of a dodgy yogurt, I admit. Keep you regular, though.

and now we have fact and fiction being synonyms. how is this not ludicrous?

Actually, no. Fiction is intentional. Fact can be used in a way to reference things you believe to be true, but may or may not be. For example, "get your facts straight" or "he's got his facts confused." If the usage requires that it be true, then both of those usages would not exist.

That should have been 'fruit' (facts), shouldn't it.

And it's a bit of a dodgy yogurt, I admit. Keep you regular, though.

Very dodgy. Seriously, I expected you to talk about finding curds and switch to talking about cottage cheese right in the middle. Now, shush, Heroes is on.

I think you are just mistaken about the details of the Miller-Urey experiment. Or your school science teacher was just making shit up.
I have heard vague stories from long ago about an experiment in spontaneous regeneration, but it was a worm species, not a noodle.

Well we're not using that definition of fact.

Why? It's a perfectly common usage.

"The facts have been called into question" is a nonsense if you totally ignore the alternative meaning.

The fact that I use an 'alternative' definition of facts doesn't make it wrong - it just means I don't carry the assumption that most people do - that 'facts' are 'truths'.

Actually, no. Fiction is intentional. Fact can be used in a way to reference things you believe to be true, but may or may not be. For example, "get your facts straight" or "he's got his facts confused." If the usage requires that it be true, then both of those usages would not exist.

nah, that just means what we took to be facts either weren't, or shouldn't actually have led us to the conclusions we thought they did.

but you are right, they wouldn't be synonyms. rather, fiction would be a type of fact.

Wow. In your example, even the 'belief' and the... errr... 'belief', don't match.

I don't think so. In the example, this person believes (and knows) that God must fall into one of two categories: things that exist or things that do not exist. She further believes-- but does not know (and does not believe she knows)-- that God falls into the category of things that exist.

Very dodgy. Seriously, I expected you to talk about finding curds and switch to talking about cottage cheese right in the middle. Now, shush, Heroes is on.

No "Heroes" for me.

But, yeah, forget the yogurt. It's more like a game of cricket. The goalie (truth) is trying to through the ball through the hoop (untruth)... um...

Why? It's a perfectly common usage.

"The facts have been called into question" is a nonsense if you totally ignore the alternative meaning.

The fact that I use an 'alternative' definition of facts doesn't make it wrong - it just means I don't carry the assumption that most people do - that 'facts' are 'truths'.

Could you really not work out, given the context, what definition we are using? Nevertheless, we are not using that definition of fact, so I suggest that, if you have any arguments based on the assumption that this is the definition, you drop or adapt them.

That's an additional belief however. For instance, I believe that the light is either on, or off, I also believe that the light is currently on. On, is a subset of on or off.

Oh dear. Is this going to lead to zombie cats? :(

Oh dear. Is this going to lead to zombie cats? :(

I believe so, but I do not know. ;)

I have heard vague stories from long ago about an experiment in spontaneous regeneration, but it was a worm species, not a noodle.

If you wade through the spam, I already nailed the vermicelli conundrum. He's (apparently) talking about Darwin's "vorticella". The question is just whether he was thinking a passage from "Frankenstein" was a valid source, or if he's been trawling the 'Creation Science' propaganda sites.

nah, that just means what we took to be facts either weren't, or shouldn't actually have led us to the conclusions we thought they did

No, it doesn't. It's specifically referencing the alternate meaning that GnI presented. You can't ignore the usage there. It's saying, specifically, that anything you believe to be true is a fact in that context. It's a valid usage per the sayings and the dictionary. You can't just wave it away.

It's also true that we accept as rational people that everything we call facts could, in an absolute sense, be shown to be false. There are only things we believe to be true based on whatever evidence we accept. Some things have greater evidence, obviously, but that doesn't change the rational sense of our usage of "fact".

Could you really not work out, given the context, what definition we are using? Nevertheless, we are not using that definition of fact,


That's remarkable draconian and unilateral of you.

so I suggest that, if you have any arguments based on the assumption that this is the definition, you drop or adapt them.

It was an aside, anyway - responding to someone else's use of the word 'facts'. It doesn't affect the central premises.

Could you really not work out, given the context, what definition we are using? Nevertheless, we are not using that definition of fact, so I suggest that, if you have any arguments based on the assumption that this is the definition, you drop or adapt them.

For the record, I'm in agreement with this. I think it's rather obvious that the usage of facts in this thread doesn't match the usage that accepts all things that people believe to be true as facts.

You two are very in love with showing off how erudite and in-the-know you are.
Why hide my light under a bushel?

As usual, you both fail to debunk my statement...
Oh aye?
Creationism is a very specific idea that states that the world was created as described in the Bible.
...it's perfectly valid to use 'creationist' to describe "anybody who believes in a creator deity", which includes most religious people.
No, I'm sorry, but I completely disagree and reject this argument. I am only interested in using terms as they are currently used by the majority of people currently involved in the current issue. Currently. In the real world.
Great, because here, in the real world, the majority of people on the planet believe in a deity or group of deities who created the Earth/the Universe; they believe in a creationist theory. When discussing these theories in RE/theology courses I've taken in the past, they're described as 'creationist'
Debunked like a motherfucker.

...but I am willing to bet that will not stop either of you from claiming the opposite.
A wonderful defence: 'If you claim that I'm wrong, it's only more proof that I'm right.'

I would not be surprised if Chumbly also takes this opportunity to tell me how emotional and potentially unstable I am, as well, but since Chumbly is less consistent than FS, I won't risk any money on it.
I've never claimed that you were "emotional and potentially unstable", I think you get very hot-headed very quickly in debates, and have said so.

But, don't let that stop you from further dodging of the question I asked a while back:

What would you call those non-Christian religious theories which posit a creator god(s)?

*prepares to be ignored*

That's remarkable draconian and unilateral of you.


It's not draconian to call for consistency in debate, we would never get anywhere if people were operating under different basic assumptions. It's practical.

That's remarkable draconian and unilateral of you.



It was an aside, anyway - responding to someone else's use of the word 'facts'. It doesn't affect the central premises.

That's where we part ways. It's not "Draconian" to require you not to commit equivocation. In fact, it's simply rational. They have a whole fallacy designed to deal with arguments that try to switch from one meaning to another of a word in mid-argument. Why do you think it's called a fallacy?

No, it doesn't. It's specifically referencing the alternate meaning that GnI presented. You can't ignore the usage there. It's saying, specifically, that anything you believe to be true is a fact in that context. It's a valid usage per the sayings and the dictionary. You can't just wave it away.

It's also true that we accept as rational people that everything we call facts could, in an absolute sense, be shown to be false. There are only things we believe to be true based on whatever evidence we accept. Some things have greater evidence, obviously, but that doesn't change the rational sense of our usage of "fact".

And many things considered 'facts' today (almost certainly) will be laughed at tomorrow (if history is any guide) and pigeon-holed as superstition, naivety, or worse.

I admit my usage is probably coloured by data handling. The 'facts' are the data you type/process, regardless of whether they are true, or even meaningful.

This (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=creationism&searchmode=none) site, which cites its sources on its front page, notes that 'creationism' was used as the religious reaction to Darwinism in the 1800s, though it does recognise that 'Creator', as supreme being, was used as far back as the 1300s.

And I'd you ask the question I asked Mura, what would you call those religious theories which posit a creator god(s) as the progenitor(s) of the universe?
I would call them religious people. I would not apply a modern and specific label broadly and retroactively. I suppose you would call religious people who believe their creator god set the process of abiogenesis and evolution in motion and that all of science is as their god set it up to run "creationists." Earlier generations called some of them "deists."

And many things considered 'facts' today (almost certainly) will be laughed at tomorrow (if history is any guide) and pigeon-holed as superstition, naivety, or worse.

I admit my usage is probably coloured by data handling. The 'facts' are the data you type/process, regardless of whether they are true, or even meaningful.

I, of course, recognize it. However, you are correct that either usage doesn't dramatically change the argument, as we're all rational enough to accept we're not infallible.

That's where we part ways. It's not "Draconian" to require you not to commit equivocation. In fact, it's simply rational. They have a whole fallacy designed to deal with arguments that try to switch from one meaning to another of a word in mid-argument. Why do you think it's called a fallacy?

I thought it was called a fallacy because it showed that you were a penis if you did it? Possible confusion of 'fallacy' and 'phallus-y' I admit.


But, the reason I called it draconian is that the 'alternative' meaning isn't actually all that 'alternative'. It's just that the assumption connected with the word 'fact' is that it will refer to something 'true'. Both usages are common and, even, usual.

For Hydey to turn around and say 'tough buns, we don't like that definition' is a little unilateral, and a little heavyhanded/severe/'unusually rigourous'.

No, it doesn't. It's specifically referencing the alternate meaning that GnI presented. You can't ignore the usage there. It's saying, specifically, that anything you believe to be true is a fact in that context. It's a valid usage per the sayings and the dictionary.

actually, GnI's intended meaning involved even things thought to be false (billy knowing that 2+2=19 but also believing that it is 4, with 2 and 2 making 19 being a fact)

It's also true that we accept as rational people that everything we call facts could, in an absolute sense, be shown to be false. There are only things we believe to be true based on whatever evidence we accept. Some things have greater evidence, obviously, but that doesn't change the rational sense of our usage of "fact".

my sense is that when the things we called facts are shown to be wrong, we no longer accept them as facts at all. it is their truth that determines their categorization.

and holy fuck have we wandered far afield at this point.

It's not draconian to call for consistency in debate, we would never get anywhere if people were operating under different basic assumptions. It's practical.

But we ARE operating under different basic assumptions.

I've used an a priori approach to illustrate my definitions of, for example, 'knowledge' and 'belief' as different and not-intrinsically-related entities... and you've operated on the basic (and, I'd say, unsupported, even through a priori approach) assumption that they are intimate and indivisible.

But we ARE operating under different basic assumptions.


I mean definitions, wrong word.

It's not draconian to call for consistency in debate, we would never get anywhere if people were operating under different basic assumptions. It's practical.
But much of this discussion is exactly about these basic assumptions/definitions, i.e., 'does knowledge consist of justified true belief?'.

But much of this discussion is exactly about these basic assumptions, i.e., 'does knowledge consist of justified true belief?'.

See above

I've used an a priori approach to illustrate my definitions of, for example, 'knowledge' and 'belief' as different and not-intrinsically-related entities

unfortunately for your position, it was shown that the examples you used to illustrate them clearly hinged on a bit of equivocation over the subjects of the believing and knowing;
x knows y about z
vs.
x believe in z

actually, GnI's intended meaning involved even things thought to be false (billy knowing that 2+2=19 but also believing that it is 4, with 2 and 2 making 19 being a fact)

I'm assuming you're referencing a post I didn't see, because then he would be using an invalid usage.


my sense is that when the things we called facts are shown to be wrong, we no longer accept them as facts at all. it is their truth that determines their categorization.

and holy fuck have we wandered far afield at this point.

Uh, no, it isn't their truth that determines whether we call them facts, since there are ONLY things we believe to be true. There is a definition of facts that includes a belief that it's truth is absolute (that we present it as objective truth) and one that doesn't. That's really the difference.

If you wade through the spam, I already nailed the vermicelli conundrum. He's (apparently) talking about Darwin's "vorticella". The question is just whether he was thinking a passage from "Frankenstein" was a valid source, or if he's been trawling the 'Creation Science' propaganda sites.
I admire your ability to notice things like that through the spam and prune yogurt blizzard. :D Thank you.

unfortunately for your position, it was shown that the examples you used to illustrate them clearly hinged on a bit of equivocation over the subjects of the believing and knowing;
x knows y about z
vs.
x knows that z

Yeah, you keep saying things like that.

Whenever presented with a situation where the belief and the knowledge contradict, you fall back on 'ahhh, but the knowledge of the belief agrees with the belief', or something equally self-serving.

I admire your ability to notice things like that through the spam and prune yogurt blizzard. :D Thank you.

There's spam in my yogurt, too? I really don't think I want that yogurt any more.

:(

But Dubsy will!

I figured my earlier response to the 'vermicelli conundrum' is unlikely to actually get a response, and your comment even less likely, in the wake of the 'vorticella revelation'. Figured I'd save you from turning blue, holding your breath, waiting. :)

Yeah, you keep saying things like that.


But every single example you give, falls under that category:

Agnostic theists know z (is either true or not true) about x (God exists).
Agnostic theists believe x (God exists)

You know z (this is what culture/religion/society 'a' says/writes/believes) about x (their history)
You do not believe x (their history).

There's spam in my yogurt, too? I really don't think I want that yogurt any more.

:(

But Dubsy will!

I figured my earlier response to the 'vermicelli conundrum' is unlikely to actually get a response, and your comment even less likely, in the wake of the 'vorticella revelation'. Figured I'd save you from turning blue, holding your breath, waiting. :)
Ah, thanks. *breathes* Aaahhh...much better. ;)

Whenever presented with a situation where the belief and the knowledge contradict

i must be getting old, because i appear to have forgotten the examples. would you be so kind as to present another situation where somebody knows x and also believes not-x?

Whenever presented with a situation where the belief and the knowledge contradict, you fall back on 'ahhh, but the knowledge of the belief agrees with the belief', or something equally self-serving.
Let's recap.

Your position is that I can happily know x without believing x.

One of your examples was the notion that I can have knowledge of angels without believing in angels, i.e., I can know that Gabriel is an angel without believing Gabriel is actually an angel.

The objection being that I don't know Gabriel is an angel that exists, I merely know that Gabriel is an angel according to Christianity. I know and believe that according to Christianity Gabriel is an angel, but I neither believe nor know that Gabriel exists.

Let's recap.

Your position is that we can happily know x without believing x.

One of your examples was the notion that I can have knowledge of angels without believing in angels, i.e., I can know that Gabriel is an angel without believing Gabriel is actually an angel.

The objection being that you don't know Gabriel is an angel that exists, you merely know that Gabriel is an angel according to Christianity. You know and believe that according to Christianity Gabriel is an angel, but you neither believe nor know that Gabriel exists.

But, I do know that 'Gabriel' (Djibril, whichever) 'is an angel'. There's mountains of evidence. That piece of data, I know.

I don't know that he's an angel that exists, and I certainly don't believe that he's an angel.

But, I do know that 'Gabriel' (Djibril, whichever) 'is an angel'. There's mountains of evidence. That piece of data, I know.

I don't know that he's an angel that exists, and I certainly don't believe that he's an angel.

The 'exists' being the 'z' about x.

The 'exists' being the 'z' about x.

This conversation is hilariously pedantic, even for me.

This conversation is hilariously pedantic, even for me.

That's because, as FS noted at the very beginning, GnI's error is incredibly trivial.

That's because, as FS noted at the very beginning, GnI's error is incredibly trivial.

Those are the best kind, because you guys will bicker about it and eventually people will show up who don't remember the original post and think you guys are ridiculous and petty. Ask me how I know.

By the above is exactly the problem with being here so long and why so many people take off over time. Eventually, the only people we really enjoy arguing with are people we know are intelligent and capable of debate and the only things we can find to argue about are incredibly pedantic.

I've seen the style of GnI, myself and various others completely change as we look for little nibs on which to take the edge off our debating appetites.

In Soviet Russia, facts know YOU!

In Soviet Russia, facts know YOU!

But do they believe you?

But, I do know that 'Gabriel' (Djibril, whichever) 'is an angel'. There's mountains of evidence. That piece of data, I know.

I don't know that he's an angel that exists, and I certainly don't believe that he's an angel.
No, you don't know that Gabriel is an angel, because Gabriel is not an angel. Gabriel is only an angel in certain mythoi. You know that Gabriel is an angel in those mythoi. You do not know Gabriel is an angel in general, because that is false. You cannot ignore a portion of the item of knowledge, even if it means that the position you were taking is wrong.

No, you don't know that Gabriel is an angel, because Gabriel is not an angel. Gabriel is only an angel in certain mythoi. You know that Gabriel is an angel in those mythoi. You do not know Gabriel is an angel in general, because that is false. You cannot ignore a portion of the item of knowledge, even if it means that the position you were taking is wrong.

You can't make such claims. What evidence do you have?

You can't make such claims. What evidence do you have?

it's not really an empirical evidence sort of question.

if you can 'know' false things, then to know something is merely to state it. everyone would be an expert at everything they felt like claiming, as they would be just as 'knowledgeable' about the subject as anyone else.

it's not really an empirical evidence sort of question.

He's the one who framed it as such, not me.

it's not really an empirical evidence sort of question.

if you can 'know' false things, then to know something is merely to state it. everyone would be an expert at everything they felt like claiming, as they would be just as 'knowledgeable' about the subject as anyone else.

So - 'it's not so' because you don't WANT it to be so? That's about what it boils down to.

So - 'it's not so' because you don't WANT it to be so? That's about what it boils down to.

if that's what you got out of what i said, i'm really starting to lose hope for this conversation progressing

Funny, I am an American, I believe in God, I also believe in science and evolution, I am NOT a bald morbidly obese guy, and I KNOW you are flamebaiting.

You're warned.

No you don't know. At least it is based on a belief, a mini-religion, but not facts.

Are you aware that creationism can be flamebaiting and very provoking for cultures outside USA?

So.... Who here knows whether the present king of France isn't bald?


*runs*

So.... Who here knows whether the present king of France isn't bald?

well, at least he isn't trying to figure out who shaves the barber who shaves all and only those that do not shave themselves

well, at least he isn't trying to figure out who shaves the barber who shaves all and only those that do not shave themselves

Obviously the barber is a woman or has a beard

Obviously the barber is a woman or has a beard

or has an amazingly yeti-ish beard. the full paradox, of course, rules these out but it's not quite snappy enough.

No you don't know. At least it is based on a belief, a mini-religion, but not facts.

It was flamebaiting. You clearly stated that all Americans were like the guy in your post, and Kat, I know, clearly isn't. In fact, not all are like "this guy". By not adding in a modifier like "some" or "a few" or any variation thereof, you have effectively made the statement apply to all Americans. The warning stands.

Americans, like this guy (http://freddyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ugly_fat_man_picture-_funfry1.jpg), believe all is created by some god.


Are you aware that creationism can be flamebaiting and very provoking for cultures outside USA?

Anything for any culture whether inside or outside the USA, or in the world can be provoking; it is dependant on the audience and how the idea is presented. The warning still stands.

The question is - are you lying or do you genuinely not know?

See - I read a wide variety of stuff, and I have come up with three options, two of which make your 'I was taught it at school' story either a lie, or a complete mis-recollection on your part.

The first - you read this 'vermicelli' story where lots of other people have read it - in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein". It IS there, but it's a little dishonest to say you were taught it at school - unless you 'mean' that you studied that book in English, maybe.

The second option - you are familiar with the work of the 'Creation Scientist' Jospeh Mastropaolo, who has several times referred to the Mary Shelley phrasing in his attacks on evolution. Again - this doesn't really tie in very well with your 'they taught us at school' paradigm.

The third option, is that Joseph Mastropaolo was your teacher. That's possible IF you were studying physiology of biomechanics, at California State University between 1968 or 1994. It doesn't REALLY fit your 'at school' answer, either.


There is actually a fourth option. You've encountered the same research that Mary Shelley was confused about, and are similarly confused about it. It seems unlikely , given what else you've said, and how much science you seem familiar with.

The story you are referring to (as was Mary Shelley), is Darwin's account of re-activation of microscopic 'wheel animals' (also known as vorticella) from a dormant state, with the addition of water.

Mary Shelley may have been making a joke, she may have misunderstood or she may have mis-remembered. It's an outlier possibility that you have been doing the same. But it doesn't seem likely.

Which leaves you with trying to pass off "Frankenstein" as a scientific source... or with recycling Mastropaolo's propaganda.

Either the event occurred, my teacher was a dumbass, or I misremembered it. I am not a liar and I never had Mastropaolo as a teacher.

A scientific theory is an explanation of how things happen(ed), not observed fact.

By your definition, every scientific theory is accepted just as a matter of faith.

No. It is not. A scientific theory comes from a synthesis of observed facts. You might be thinking of a hypothesis.

No. It is not. A scientific theory comes from a synthesis of observed facts. You might be thinking of a hypothesis.

No, a hypothesis is what it is before it is tested. After it has been tested enough and has not been disproved, it becomes a theory.

But every theory is still open to being disproved. If new evidence contradicts the theory or a new test shows it to be incorrect, it is either modified or discarded.

That's how science works.

No, a hypothesis is what it is before it is tested. After it has been tested enough and has not been disproved, it becomes a theory.

But every theory is still open to being disproved. If new evidence contradicts the theory or a new test shows it to be incorrect, it is either modified or discarded.

That's how science works.

But how can you test a hypothesis without observations? I do not think it is possible. A hypothesis without any obserations remains a hypothesis.

But how can you test a hypothesis without observations?

You can't. But you can't test it enough to prove it as fact, either.

If you fail to disprove it with your testing, you have supported it. Once it gets enough support, it becomes a theory.

I do not think it is possible. A hypothesis without any obserations remains a hypothesis.

You seem a bit confused. I never suggested that a theory was formed without observations. I said that a theory is not, itself, observed.

But how can you test a hypothesis without observations? I do not think it is possible. A hypothesis without any obserations remains a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a testable explanation for an observation. So without observations something is merely an idea ;)

It was flamebaiting. You clearly stated that all Americans were like the guy in your post, and Kat, I know, clearly isn't. In fact, not all are like "this guy". By not adding in a modifier like "some" or "a few" or any variation thereof, you have effectively made the statement apply to all Americans. The warning stands.






Anything for any culture whether inside or outside the USA, or in the world can be provoking; it is dependant on the audience and how the idea is presented. The warning still stands.

Ok, my English isn't perfect, but how is yours?

Americans, like this guy (http://freddyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ugly_fat_man_picture-_funfry1.jpg), believe all is created by some god.

There's written "Americans, like this guy, believe all is created by some god". I'm only talking about Americans who are looking like this one.

I didn't post 'All Americans are looking like this one.' or I didn't post 'All Americans believe all is created by some god'

Further on, it would be a little dumb to assume that all Americans would look like this guy. I know for sure it is not. Some looks worse, other looks better.
And I'm also sure that not all American believe in a god.


Oh well, why am I reacting to this anyway?

There's written "Americans, like this guy, believe all is created by some god". I'm only talking about Americans who are looking like this one.
I'm no English major, but I believe Americans, like this guy refers to Americans as all looking like "this guy". If you had put Americans like this guy, then you would only be referring to Americans who looked like "this guy".

I'm no English major, but I believe Americans, like this guy refers to Americans as all looking like "this guy". If you had put Americans like this guy, then you would only be referring to Americans who looked like "this guy".

Ok, communication errors can occur. To make it final I was only pointing to Americans looking like him.

A lots of turbulence for nothing. :)

Ok, communication errors can occur. To make it final I was only pointing to Americans looking like him.

A lots of turbulence for nothing. :)

Doesn't hold. To take a slightly more extreme example, suppose you had said:

"YX, like Y, are idiots"

While you might then clarify that you actually meant

"X who are like Y are idiots"

Your original statement doesn't mean that, it means that all X are idiots in the same way that Y is/are.

It was possibly badly phrased, but definitely an attack on the entire group. Which was exactly the way I (not a mod) interpreted it when I read it.

Ok, my English isn't perfect, but how is yours?



There's written "Americans, like this guy, believe all is created by some god". I'm only talking about Americans who are looking like this one.

I didn't post 'All Americans are looking like this one.' or I didn't post 'All Americans believe all is created by some god'

Further on, it would be a little dumb to assume that all Americans would look like this guy. I know for sure it is not. Some looks worse, other looks better.
And I'm also sure that not all American believe in a god.


Oh well, why am I reacting to this anyway?

I'm no English major, but I believe Americans, like this guy refers to Americans as all looking like "this guy". If you had put Americans like this guy, then you would only be referring to Americans who looked like "this guy".

Ok, communication errors can occur. To make it final I was only pointing to Americans looking like him.

A lots of turbulence for nothing. :)

Doesn't hold. To take a slightly more extreme example, suppose you had said:

"YX, like Y, are idiots"

While you might then clarify that you actually meant

"X who are like Y are idiots"

Your original statement doesn't mean that, it means that all X are idiots in the same way that Y is/are.

It was possibly badly phrased, but definitely an attack on the entire group. Which was exactly the way I (not a mod) interpreted it when I read it.

"Americans, like this guy, believe all is created by some god."

Let's break it down, shall we?

If you meant to talk only about Americans who were like the person you decided to show in your link, it would have been punctuated as

"Americans like this guy believe all is created by some god."

Instead, you introduced a clause which likened all Americans to the particularly unappealing picture you selected.

"Americans, like this guy, believe all is created by some god."


What it means is "Americans believe all is created by some god," while making a very unflattering comparison of Americans to a morbidly obese person.

Not all Americans believe in God; certainly not all Americans look like the picture you chose to post, and even those who believe in God can still believe in science trumping religion in matters relating to the physical world.

It's amazing that such a pointedly insulting remark, and childish use of a photo to mock, is just a "miscommunication." Especially since we do happen to notice patterns in the kinds of remarks players make over time.

Ok, communication errors can occur. To make it final I was only pointing to Americans looking like him.

A lots of turbulence for nothing. :)

You know what's funny... even your reinterpreted post is flamebaiting. One way, you're instulting all Americans saying they are all morbidly obese (which obviously has no direct connection to being American).

The other way, you're insulting all Americans who believe all is created by God are morbidly obese (which also obviously has no direct connection).

Either way, you're putting out an unrelated insult toward an entire group of people without an argument. You made an attempt to annoy and anger people of a group rather than debate. Are you really shocked you were expected to do better?

You know what's funny... even your reinterpreted post is flamebaiting. One way, you're instulting all Americans saying they are all morbidly obese (which obviously has no direct connection to being American).

The other way, you're insulting all Americans who believe all is created by God are morbidly obese (which also obviously has no direct connection).

Either way, you're putting out an unrelated insult toward an entire group of people without an argument. You made an attempt to annoy and anger people of a group rather than debate. Are you really shocked you were expected to do better?

Oh poor souls. They always can follow some therapy for the enormous damage I created.

Oh poor souls. They always can follow some therapy for the enormous damage I created.
So, when it's pointed out to you that you were rude, your response is a sarcastic reply that suggests everyone should just get over it and let you keep being rude without calling you on it?

You're new to the internet, aren't you.

So, when it's pointed out to you that you were rude, your response is a sarcastic reply that suggests everyone should just get over it and let you keep being rude without calling you on it?

You're new to the internet, aren't you.

On this and other boards, I saw already stuff which was 3.8743 zillion times ruder.

Few complained.

I don't understand the bigh rush for a single silly picture of just a fat man. It's even a beautiful picture.

On this and other boards, I saw already stuff which was 3.8743 zillion times ruder.

Few complained.

I don't understand the bigh rush for a single silly picture of just a fat man. It's even a beautiful picture.

You stepped over the rules, and got your wrist slapped by the mods for it. It could have stopped there, nothing more said. Instead, you made a huge issue of it, and now complain that it has become a huge issue.

You stepped over the rules, and got your wrist slapped by the mods for it. It could have stopped there, nothing more said. Instead, you made a huge issue of it, and now complain that it has become a huge issue.

Uhu, a comma is used to determine a pause in Dutch and so is it in English

If I say "Dogs, like this pitbull, could be dangerous" then every serious and sane man is understanding that some specific pitbulls could be dangerous and not all dogs.

Maybe the mod should do his job and arrest people that say that you should kill homosexuals or that Palestine people do not exist or that Muslims are terrorists instead of doing some 'comma-fucking'.

But it's so typical for presenttime boards, you can say whatever hateful nonsense you want, no one will react. But watch out when you created a spelling mistake or created a silly joke, then you get a 'warning'.

But I don't mind, many people have no job anymore (including me), have an awful sex-life, yelling kids and need to pester other people, just to give their life some worth.

Can we close this silly chat about that stupid comma? :)

Uhu, a comma is used to determine a pause in Dutch and so is it in English


Can we close this silly chat about that stupid comma? :)

Do you know in fact that is what the guy in your picture believes? How about is it true that only fat people believe in that?

It was a minor flame attempt.....

Uhu, a comma is used to determine a pause in Dutch and so is it in English
Technically, no. The comma denotes a pause in spoken language, but the rules of its usage are far more complicated than that.

Oh poor souls. They always can follow some therapy for the enormous damage I created.

You can do as you like, but you've been warned by a mod for your behavior. You can lie about your intentions as you prefer, but it's rather obvious what you intended to her and us and even your failed attempts to change your statement to say something else violates the same rule. In other words, let it go. You broke the rules. You got caught. It's done.

Technically, no. The comma denotes a pause in spoken language, but the rules of its usage are far more complicated than that.

I don't, know.

Uhu, a comma is used to determine a pause in Dutch and so is it in English

If I say "Dogs, like this pitbull, could be dangerous" then every serious and sane man is understanding that some specific pitbulls could be dangerous and not all dogs.

Maybe the mod should do his job and arrest people that say that you should kill homosexuals or that Palestine people do not exist or that Muslims are terrorists instead of doing some 'comma-fucking'.

But it's so typical for presenttime boards, you can say whatever hateful nonsense you want, no one will react. But watch out when you created a spelling mistake or created a silly joke, then you get a 'warning'.

But I don't mind, many people have no job anymore (including me), have an awful sex-life, yelling kids and need to pester other people, just to give their life some worth.

Can we close this silly chat about that stupid comma? :)

Yes, and in doing my job, you can have a three day ban for continuing your flamebaiting, too.

Btw, you're completely wrong in your lesson on clauses. "Dogs like this pitbull are dangerous" means dogs of the pitbull type are dangerous. "Dogs, like this pitbull, are dangerous," means all dogs, including this pitbull and related types, are dangerous. But given the very pointed insults aimed at mods you just made, I think the question of "my English is not perfect although I will teach you that all you English speakers are wrong" has been definitively disproven. You certainly knew enough to tell us we're not doing our jobs by warning flamebaiters, that we are 'comma-fuckers', and implied we have terrible sex lives, screaming kids, and the need to pester other people to give our lives some worth.

In summation, if your English is so terrible you don't have any understanding whatsoever of what you're saying, take a refresher course before returning here and learn where you're going wrong. Otherwise your "mistakes" will continue to be treated as the insults they are, and you dealt with according to the site rules just like everyone else.