Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:

donathos said:

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:
A.  If you HAVE a worldview that involves your senses being accurate, and they TELL you something that contradicts another part of your worldview, then PART of your worldview is wrong.  I really, really don't see how you disagree with that.
[...]

A.  You can't have a worldview that says your senses are accurate; only one that says your judgements are accurate.

I don't think we're on the same page. The essential issue is that as we both agree sense data is evidence for any worldview (or rather, particular beliefs), this irrevocably means that sense data does not offer a means of establishing the correct worldview/beliefs, amidst equal options. In recognizing this, one should know that any chosen worldview/belief is, therefore, arbitrary (the opposite of a method of truth).

B.  I meant "why you have to" as in "the most practical choice" or "most likely to be correct choice". 

But we're not getting input that just supports "living, eating, breathing" (VGChartz, essentially).  All of our input, sense data, supports anything, because, as we've agreed, it says nothing for itself and our judgements on sense data are arbitrary.  In other words the input, sense data, indicates everything, whether it be the Matrix or the real world (and the real world can have several of it's own positions; the moon is made of cheese, for example).

@ Final-Fan:  If I may attempt to paraphrase appolose's point B, I believe he's saying that we are getting INPUT that we're in the Matrix, if we choose to interpret our INPUT in that way.

And that there's no reason not to interpret it that way (or at least, no more or less reason for interpreting our INPUT any given way).

(Is this a good approximation, appolose?)

Yes, that's a pretty good of way of putting it.

A.  wat.  Did you just say that we both agree on what we are disagreeing about? 

Seriously, though, "You can't have a worldview that says your senses are accurate; only one that says your judgements are accurate."  If this was all over that technicality ... okay ... deep breaths ...

Fine.  Your worldview includes THE JUDGEMENT that YOUR INTERPRETATION of your SENSE DATA is accurate in that cheese has such and such texture, color, etc. etc. and that rock has such and such totally different texture, color, etc.  It also includes THE POSITION that the moon is made of cheese and not rock and that you can reliably JUDGE the difference.  Now you go to the moon and receive SENSE DATA that what you believe to be your brain INTERPRETS as texture and color consistent with rock and not cheese IN YOUR JUDGEMENT.  This worldview has thus contradicted itself. 

I consider the above paragraph to be substantially the same, for the practical purposes of this discussion, as what I have said in several posts above.  Do you still have a problem with it? 

B.  Well, it's not "more likely to be the correct choice", as you've thrown out all basis for comparing it to, well, anything, which is necessary for something to be more or less "likely" (I think). 

But it is the "best choice", defined as the choice that has the least reliance on hypotheticals in addition to INPUT that has been received.  You may disagree with this definition of "best". 

And it is the most "practical" IMO, as it is the only choice that can possibly be acted on practically.  I don't actually see any way to consider empiricism not the most practical choice.  I would be interested in hearing you why you do.

A.  I've read your response several times and I'm really not sure what you mean. I'll get right to the essential issue. I'm not sure if you thought you were positing my position just then and if you were trying to demonstrate a problem with it or not but here is what I would make clear if that is the case:
    1. You seem to be saying that, while we just recognized sense data can supports any worldview/belief... you could just take a worldview in which your interpretation of sense data... only supports your worldview/beliefs. I understood this from the pronouncement made in believing one has the ability to make an "accurate judgment" on sense data: "Your worldview includes THE JUDGEMENT that YOUR INTERPRETATION of your SENSE DATA is accurate". I hope you realize the problem in saying this because I don't know how to explain a contradiction any more than exposing it. 

   In short: You recognized empiricism supports any worldview/belief about the world then contradicted that by saying you'll just assume a worldview in which this isn't the case.

   2. Even if there wasn't a contradiction, the real question would be, regarding a method of truth, why did you pick that particular worldview/belief since they're all just as possibly true or possibly false? That's the issue. A method of truth is looking... for a method.

B. Least reliant on hypotheticals? Empiricism only gives you hypotheticals. It gives evidence of an infinite number of possible truths (the ol' Matrix and prankster God being the simplest for exposing the problem).

    I'm not denying sense data as evidence. What it is evidence of is the question. Empiricism doesn't give us a method to find that out. Calling it practical doesn't change the fact that it's useless as a method. (lol)

A1.1.  "we just recognized sense data can supports any worldview/belief"  When did I say that?  (If you think "Fine" was conceding all of the above, it was not; it was merely expressing a sentiment akin to "okay, let's try again".) 

A1.2  Please try harder; I don't see where there might be a contradiction in my intended communication.  Should I have said "belief" in the place of the first "judgment"? 

A2.1  O. M. F. G.  I have been asserting that it is possible for a worldview to make assertions that, combined with sense data, contradict the same worldview and therefore disprove itself.  So even though potentially infinite numbers of worldviews would not be disproven, some would, and so the statement "sense data can support ANY worldview/belief" is not correct. 

A2.2  Hell, let me try simplifying things.  Isn't it possible for a worldview to contradict ITSELF with regard to sense data, so that whichever way it comes out it's still wrong? 

B1  What I meant was, although all interpretations relied on hypotheticals, empiricism had fewer/less complex.  i.e. having senses seems simpler to me than robots or God faking it for their own purposes.  Especially robots, because that posits ANOTHER world. 

B2  "Calling it practical doesn't change the fact that it's useless as a method. (lol)"  Being the only one that we can interact with, how is it not the most practical?