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

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:
"What do you mean by saying sense data is all we have? (If we were talking about a method of truth for absolute knowledge I’d say that empiricism was not the only proposed method of truth)."
To address the parenthesized first:  No, that's not what I mean, if I understand "method of truth" correctly.  I mean that the input we consciously receive is sense data, so in order to "do" anything (i.e. operate an input/output system) it is necessary to interpret sense data (the input). 
     And since an interactive input/output system pretty much by definition requires feedback to be effective (no?) then to be effective or "useful/practical" the I/O system must be capable of output that in turn affects the input.  None of this is contingent on the I/O system producing absolute truth. 
     What do you not understand or disagree with in the above three sentences?  And what, if anything, is amiss about the next most previous sentence?  You must tell me -- separately if possible.

Confusion
You say "OMFG I have no idea what you are talking about" and yet you don't tell me if my interpretation DIRECTLY ABOVE THAT is correct and (if not) where I am wrong and in what way. 

   Right, because I can’t understand you. I’m sorry. The interpretations you are giving are apart of what you are saying. Thus apart of what I’m having great difficulty understanding.
   I could painstakingly go through all my difficulties with what you said and give you the possibilities running through my mind of what you meant and then give a response to every single one. But, seeing that much of our terminology apparently isn’t understood between us I’m not sure if it would make it clearer or just make it worse. I would rather just start over and make up new terms somehow step by step but it seems we have a different subject now anyway (empiricism is practical, not a way of gaining absolute knowledge). Hopefully we don’t have to use the former terminology much or in the same way on this subject.

lol you’ve had me speechless at misunderstanding too, but I’m not making accusations.

You have COMPLETELY IGNORED my assertion that your current defense of the assertion "any belief set is supported by sense data" stands in stark contradiction of earlier defenses of it. 

I believe this is what you are referring to:

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.

   This is just an example of how difficult it is for me to grasp what’s happening in our confusion here. I never said only legitimate beliefs can be supported by sense data. I always stood by “any” beliefs. I think I once phrased it: legitimate and illegitimate beliefs could be supported by sense data. So apparently somewhere my terminology isn’t being understood and you’re able to induce this.
   Besides that misunderstanding over my use of “any”, the difficulty also comes in the fact that I think I’ve elsewhere seen you use ‘legitimate belief’ in a way that confused me too. So it’s like I don’t know where to start explaining myself. I don’t know how far back in the scheme of explanation our terminology is being misunderstood.
   You then said "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". I don’t know what that means. I know I never said that explicitly so our confusion on terminology has allowed you to induce that apparently.
  You then say “you also have the position that sense data cannot be reliable evidence at all”. Nope. Nope I don’t. But this is certainly tedious terminology if said that way. Sense data is “evidence” for any belief (aka supports any belief). Thus it’s why it can’t be used to determine the correct belief. Anyway, that’s just an example of the confusion I’m having.
   Alas, on to our new issue.

Blurring the Distinction
   The links lead me to a page (they both appeared to be the same) combining several things you said before in attempting to explain your “practical something thing” (not being sarcastic, I just don’t know what you prefer to call it in this way). They’re still just as confusing to me I’m afraid. You did have an addition at the end that seemed new.
   And…*sigh*… I’m sorry but the more you explain your position the more confusion I have. In this new bit you defined “knowledge that is not absolute” as “would not necessarily be true for any belief set”. What does that mean? Stated conversely you would define absolute knowledge as that which would necessarily be true for any belief set. That still doesn’t make sense to me. I mean… if taken one way in my mind it would seem to contradict your view which is dependent on assumptions.
   But but forget it, do you just mean something like “If we assume sense data is accurate we have a dependable system to operate within”?
   Or do you mean something like “there is an assumption made for each particular arrangement of sense data you receive and it’s interaction with you is dependable”?
  
“Previous Three Sentences” and “Next Most Previous Sentence”
   Um, how about did I just present your position correctly in two possibilities mentioned above? Otherwise I’m just gonna be giving you all my confusion again over those sentences or giving you a bunch of possibilities in my mind of what you meant.

Isn’t this the “next most previous sentence” before the three?
No, that's not what I mean, if I understand "method of truth" correctly.
Is that what you were asking what is amiss about?

My Original Issue Over Absolute Knowledge
Not to get back into my original issue but I’m just curious as to why you think empiricism doesn’t give absolute knowledge (if not for the explanation I give of it).

ps I find your tag line humorous in relation to all this: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

"Confusion" 
Maybe the train wreck is so severe at this point it's not worth it to go through the wreckage, but next time, please do go line by line detailing anything you don't understand. 

Contradictory defenses: 
Close, but no.  That is my criticism of your CURRENT defense.  My assertion that your current defense is incompatible with your previous defense of the SAME ASSERTION is repeated below for your convenience (original): 

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!

Note that my objection becomes even stronger now that I know that "legitimate belief" = "absolute knowledge".  And I didn't apparently explicitly mention that your current interpretation of "belief" as meaning "legitimate belief" AKA "absolute knowledge" is completely contradictory to your old interpretation of "belief" as "interpretation of sense data", since you certainly cannot be suggesting that interpretations of sense data are absolute knowledge? 

Is it possible that you have forgotten what the original assertion was, and re-interpreted it as something different and are now defending a completely different position than what I originally objected to?

The current defense: 
1.  "I never said only legitimate beliefs can be supported by sense data. I always stood by “any” beliefs. I think I once phrased it: legitimate and illegitimate beliefs could be supported by sense data."
     YOU SAID THIS:  "I was never involving arbitrary beliefs (aka illegitimate beliefs). (Regarding the “any” statement issue)"
     THEREFORE I believed that "illegitimate beliefs" could be thrown out of the discussion entirely since your "ANY" assertion did not refer to them.  Why are you contradicting yourself?  How can I be expected to debate with a person who gives me contradictory positions to argue against?  Or am I somehow misunderstanding two sentences that appear crystal clear to me?

2.  "You then said "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". I don’t know what that means."
     I had thought that a legitimate belief was a belief that allowed one to apply a method of getting absolute knowledge. 

3.  "You then say “you also have the position that sense data cannot be reliable evidence at all”. Nope. Nope I don’t. But this is certainly tedious terminology if said that way. Sense data is “evidence” for any belief (aka supports any belief). Thus it’s why it can’t be used to determine the correct belief."
     I think we have conflicting definitions of "evidence" and "support".  To me, "evidence" is data that can be used to infer information.  I.e. fingerprints, to an empiricist, are evidence that a particular person was likely in a particular place at some point.  For example, if I thought that you, Colonel Mustard, had killed the Clue guy in the drawing room with the pipe; and if you not only denied that you had done so but furthermore denied that you had even been in that room in your life, then finding your fingerprints in that room would "support" my hypothesis and "discredit" your assertion. 
     If sense data is compatible with any belief at all, then it is hardly "evidence" of anything.  It is not capable of discrediting anything, nor IMO "supporting" anything (since it does not actually lend credence, or (dare I say it?) support to any belief in particular).  It is COMPATIBLE with any theory, which is different altogether.  I am prepared to admit that one of the definitions of "support" is compatibility, but anyway the key term was "evidence. 
     Also, didn't you notice the word "reliable"?  Are you saying that we can indeed "rely" on sense data as "evidence" for something?  If so, what?  And how is this not empiricism? 

"Blurring the Distinction"
1.  "The links lead me to a page (they both appeared to be the same)"
     No.  No, they aren't.  Just ....
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2005591
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2009969
     See the number at the end?  See how they're different?  That's because they're DIFFERENT POSTS.  And no, the content is not identical.  I double checked. 

2.  "Stated conversely you would define absolute knowledge as that which would necessarily be true for any belief set. That still doesn’t make sense to me. I mean… if taken one way in my mind it would seem to contradict your view which is dependent on assumptions."
     Yes, exactly.  How else could it be absolute?  The belief set might not BELIEVE it, but it would remain true, because it's true absolutely. 
     Conversely, non-absolute truth is true only once you have made certain assumptions (such as those necessary to engage in empiricism).  So in a belief set that did not subscribe to those assumptions, naturally that knowledge would no longer necessarily be true. 
     Think of it like a logic problem.  You start with ASSUMPTIONS like "P is true" or whatever.  So if you instead assumed P was false, you wouldn't necessarily get the same answer.  The answer is only true within the belief set of the presumptions the logic problem lays out.  Whereas the mechanisms you employ in the solving of the logic problem are absolute.  (I suppose "P is true" could hypothetically be an absolute truth, but let's not get into that -- the example is valid.)
     Does that help? 

3.  "do you just mean something like “If we assume sense data is accurate we have a dependable system to operate within”?"
     That statement is one that I agree with, but it is not the entirety of what I am talking about -- in particular it does not touch at all on why I assert that empiricism is more practical than other internally consistent belief sets. 

4.  "Or do you mean something like “there is an assumption made for each particular arrangement of sense data you receive and its interaction with you is dependable”?"
     If I understand this correctly -- and I'm not sure I do (the first part) -- then no, I don't think that each sense-data-arrangement gets its very own assumption.  In any case I don't think this is something my position hinges on.  But I suppose it might be more crucial than I think, since I'm not 100% on it. 

"The Three Sentences"
     No, as I said above, your hypotheses above didn't really address the "practical" thrust of my argument at all.  (Even the second one -- I'm quite sure of that.)  Let me start by quoting them:
     "I mean that the input we consciously receive is sense data, so in order to "do" anything (i.e. operate an input/output system) it is necessary to interpret sense data (the input). 
     "And since an interactive input/output system pretty much by definition requires feedback to be effective (no?) then to be effective or "useful/practical" the I/O system must be capable of output that in turn affects the input.  None of this is contingent on the I/O system producing absolute truth." 
     The first sentence:  (a) does not consider non-sensed yet consciously received data, since (1) I think all input consciously received can be considered "sensed" and (2) even input that is somehow non-sensed yet consciously received (such as revelation, I presume?) is in the same boat as sensed data IMCO as far as fallibility goes;
     (b) (is there anything unclear about what "consciously received" means?  You receive data and are aware of the fact);
     ( c ) defines "doing" as operating an input/output system (any objections?);
     (d) asserts that you have to interpret the input in order to operate said system (any objections?);
     (e) does not consider input that is not consciously received (i.e. your mind/memories/beliefs are altered and you are not aware of it), because you cannot use it in any deliberate fashion.  It is an unknown factor that by definition cannot be accounted for except by reexamining one's own thoughts.  In any case it is totally useless as far as input/output systems go.  (... isn't it?) 
     The second sentence:  (a) asserts that an input/output system where there is no feedback response at all is useless; (b) ("feedback response" being the input in some way acknowledging or responding to output)
     The third sentence:  notes that neither the first nor second sentences depend on the input (or output) being absolute truth.  (Do you disagree, and if so, why?)
     Have I left any stone unturned?  I sure hope not, because that's pretty long already.  Is there any remaining confusion about what I was saying in those three sentences? 

Next most previous sentence:
Yes.  (If there was some discrepancy to you between the first sentence and the next three, then there was probably a serious issue; if no discrepancy was apparent, then I didn't want to mess with it in that discussion, since I wanted to focus on replying to the question, rather than the parenthetical remark.)

"My Original Issue over Absolute Knowledge"
To be honest I don't actually remember your explanation.  But anyway, Descartes asked how we could know absolutely for sure that we weren't dreaming all of our existence (or in the Matrix or whatever), and I don't have an answer ... so obviously if the world we sense isn't absolute beyond question, then observation-based science (or any sense-based belief set) is not absolute either.  But that doesn't mean it's not practical.