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

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Confusion

   Look I’ve had this argument with a lot of people and I don’t think I’ve ever had this much difficulty in maintaining relevancy and communication with someone. Don’t take me wrong, not saying it’s your fault, I just don’t know why it’s happening.

   We are having an incredible amount of misunderstanding and my attempt has been to conform to your terminology from the start. I’ll try to explain any confusion throughout.

 

My Fundamental Issue

    Again, I only now began using the term “legitimate’ in place of “arriving at absolute knowledge through a method of truth”. I thought this discussion had started out pretty clearly in that direction and I thought that’s what I was clearly trying to communicate – a method of truth to establish absolute knowledge (I think I used “method of truth” several times previously).

    I was never involving arbitrary beliefs (aka illegitimate beliefs). (Regarding the “any” statement issue: ) So it was never relevant for me to address how an arbitrary belief can be made of sense data (the gray/hard moon is made of rock) that can contradict another arbitrary belief (the texture of cheese).

   So we’re not talking about legitimate beliefs as you say, so moving on.

 

Confusion 2

   “Also, I think you were being tautologous, because if I'm right you are defining legitimate beliefs by the fact that they are consistent with sense data. “

    No, if that’s what you think I mean by legitimate beliefs we have a misunderstanding. First, my understanding is it that both illegitimate beliefs and legitimate beliefs can be consistent with the same blob of sense data. The question has been (in regards to my issue of legitimate beliefs), how do you figure out which belief is the legitimate one, that is to say, the truth? Thus by legitimate belief I mean the one gained from a method of truth that grantees truth and leaves no possibility of being wrong. 0_o does that help?

 

Side Note to MFI

    I think here is an example of a term you’re using that’s switching the way it’s presented to me somehow. The distinction you seem to be making at this point is between absolute knowledge and “practicality”. I’ve heard a whole thing on input/output, regular beliefs, beliefs within beliefs, knowledge within beliefs, etc. and I haven’t been able to tie them together just by seeing you introduce them at different points. I’m gonna go out on a limb here… are you trying to soley establish what you mean by the term “practicality”? I mean, would that embody your issue with empiricism – to arrive at ‘practicality’? If you answer yes, I have a clear issue with it. I just need to know what it is you’re trying to establish altogether still.

    As for the math issue I think you understood the point I was making with it, yes. There is one truth and we are looking at it through an infinite list of possibilities and no reason to take one or the other in terms of ‘absolute knowledge’. You contend for practicality though (I think), so I’ll leave that to be confirmed before I address that point.

 

B.

   Too much to untangle here. I think still the issue remains that I need to just know that you’re aiming for practicality and not ‘absolute knowledge’.

 

Conclusion

   Confused still but I think if you can simply tell me you are trying to establish “practicality” and not absolute knowledge through the method of empiricism I’ll have direction.

 

   About the  Fundamental issue: I’m sorry if I’ve upset you if I didn’t make my fundamental issue clear enough from the start; it was completely unintentional to be confusing about that J

"Confusion"
I believe this is commentary/introduction that does not require a reply. 

"My Fundamental Issue"
"I only now began using the term “legitimate’ in place of “arriving at absolute knowledge through a method of truth”."
     I interpret this to mean that a "legitimate belief" by your definition is "a belief whereby one can apply a method of truth to arrive at absolute knowledge."  I do not see what else could be meant here. 

Now, unless "method of truth" means something TRULY bizarre, this implies to me that you have the position that no legitimate beliefs exist that interpret sense data.  Since that would mean getting absolute knowledge out of sense data. 

So when you said "any belief set is supported by sense data" (and you now say that you meant "legitimate belief" instead of "ANY belief"), it makes no sense to me that you meant "any set of beliefs whereby one can apply a method of truth to arrive at absolute knowledge is supported by sense data", this makes no sense because you also have the position that sense data cannot be reliable evidence at all.  Therefore sense data can neither support nor discredit a legitimate belief, since it by necessity does not rely on sense data.  ...wait.
     Okay, forgot that you just meant "is consistent with" instead of actually "supports".  But ... wait again. 

IMO either your explanation or your previous posts are complete nonsense.  Behold: 
     "I thought it was understood but what I was referring to was AT ANY POINT in your sense data it could support any* worldview/belief. If a guy changes his mind over a period of time from a different interpretation of sense data… well then, ya, he’s contradicted his original interpretation. He’s changed his belief on the matter.
     "*What I mean by ‘any’ and ‘anything’ in context here is anything that you can find to fit with sense data, which I figure is infinite. Now, I’m not necessarily saying every belief would fit with sense data (e.g. regarding knowledge of sense data itself: we sense what we call the color blue and believe it’s actually red)."
     Here you appear to be claiming that your statement is accurate because even though his worldview (now "belief set" or supposedly "legitimate belief set") has contradicted what it used to be, its changed state is still supported by the sense data so it's all good.  You appear IMO to mean "interpretation of sense data" when you say "belief".*  I do not understand how your previous explanation is compatible with your current explanation.  Notably, how is it possible for a legitimate belief to be contradicted, if it is a method of absolute truth? 

*Further evidence:  "He lands on the moon and could now believe either 1. The ‘cheese moon’ apparently turned to rock by a scientific phenomenon well beyond his explanation. 2. God, again, changed the moon to rock while in flight 3. He’s hallucinating. 4. The cheese got very hard and changed color. Etc. (Need I say again, the Matrix murders all hope in interpreting correctly or looking for consistency or probability.)"
     "I've said our judgements on sense data are totally arbitrary (apart from consistency), so any judgement you make could be made to fit any theory. Like the Matrix: "Everything is a simulated computer experience, and everything I sense is made to perfectly fit what would be sensed otherwise.  I sense this and detect nothing unusual" would make perfect use of sense data judgement." (This is the  ancestral post that started this.)

I DEMAND YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHERE I WENT OFF THE RAILS (ALL THE PLACES) FROM YOUR REASONING OR DEFINITIONS OR POSITIONS OR ANYTHING IN THE ABOVE SECTION! 

The Rest ("Side Note", "B.", and "Conclusion")

So, THIS ENTIRE TIME, for pages and pages, you have been thinking that I was trying to derive a way to arrive at absolute knowledge.  This despite pages and pages of me saying that I am doing no such thing.  Urge to kill...rising. 

If you thought I was trying to do something I said IN THE SAME BREATH that I wasn't trying to do, you should have fucking spoken up.  I realize that you said, "I don't understand", but you should have said "I don't understand:  it looks to me like you are contradicting yourself and here's why." 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "would that embody your issue with empiricism – to arrive at ‘practicality’?"  My goal is to show that empiricism is practical, not that it is a WAY to "arrive" at practicality, whatever that means, although I have my suspicions. 

As for BWIB, KWIB, input/output etc. being introduced separately, I did put them all together in a post recently for your convenience. 
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2005591
(I also put together a montage of me saying this part of the discussion isn't about absolute knowledge.)
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2009969

So I am certainly not trying to establish absolute knowledge via empiricism, and I am frankly astonished that you have managed to hold on to that misconception with such incredible tenacity. 
     As for practicality, I am trying to show that empiricism is the practical belief set type (vs. non-empiricism-based ones).  See the second link just above for a partial definition of practicality I gave.  Also, usefulness or utility might be synonyms for this purpose.