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

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

To you the term "belief" can only refer to what I might call "doubtable belief" -- good to know.
     I see dubitability and indubitability both as reference to belief.  It is a reference to the state of mind of us having an opinion of something.  Dubitability is simply there being a possibility of us thinking, "could I be wrong?" and indubitability is (also simply) the impossibility of that.  I do not think that either of those states can affect whether the opinion is actually in accord with the truth. 

   We’re still toying with the definition of belief and since we’re not accepting each others meaning I’ll just say it’s irrelevant. We accept the difference between dubitable and indubitable. You say that indubitability is not what (alone perhaps) makes something knowledge. I need to know what you think does make it knowledge, how justification performs that (or what “establishing” entails as I’ve seen you use recently), and (or rather) what justification means to you (in a way that isn’t the inapplicable conception I’ve exposed it to be).
 
    Without distracting from those fundamental questions to you: In my understanding certainly/indubitability is simply the essential characteristic of knowledge. If “knowledge” can be doubted, if we can conjure up an equal possibility in our mind, then we are right back to good ol’ Descartes looking for certainty among them, looking for a method to become certain.
    Again, I don’t wish to hear a comment on this, some further addition, aspect of disagreement, or thought. I just say it to put my position in perspective of yours when I ask for those former questions to be answered.

I ... look, you're saying I'm being intellectually dishonest, and you can say "now don't take this the wrong way" all day long but it doesn't change what you're suggesting.  Not saying you shouldn't call people out on shit they try to pull (even unconsciously or inadvertently) but don't pretend you're not accusing them of anything.  Because you are.  If I say someone has misspelled a word, I'm ACCUSING them of misspelling.  And I'm right.  And sometimes they get indignant.  But I'm still right.  In this case I'm insulted, and say you're wrong. 

   Right, I suggested that you were engaged in sophistry. I didn’t deny that afterward either. I also didn’t claim it was intentional. If an error in thinking is not intentional, can you call it intellectual dishonesty? But anyway, if it was taken as a mere insult, then I apologize.
   Regarding any purposeful ‘negativity’, I do feel, however, that any such subliminal sarcasm within the content of the contentions I’ve brought to this discussion have been fairly mild and not so irrelevantly abrasive in nature. Rather it’s been more the language and attitude of a formal, respectable debate. I think your expressions of frustration and indictments have been a tad more abrasive in my perspective.

Well ... so you are saying that if the meanings of the words are what you think they are, then I, as an at least somewhat rational person, could not mean that when I said those words? 

   No, I’m saying I don’t understand what you mean by those group of words together. I’ve mentioned my suspicion that it’s going to be ultimately meaningless (like many philosophies seem to be to me) or morphed into something else upon nit picking but go ahead and explain it more so I’ll have a chance to figure that out.
   I of course hold that many adhere to propositions thought to be coherent and meaningful but which are not upon deeper examination. I don’t think they have to be idiots to do that.

Would it be too much to ask you to take a look at my previous posts (relevant to that point) and take a stab at what you think I did mean (or might have meant)?

I did. I still don’t know what you mean. I’d say it comes off as “gibberish” but I would wonder if I’d be accused of being insulting.

Here is where we are at:
   This is the fundamental issue and my responses have been attempting to point back to it. I either don’t see how your previous responses have related to it (as I haven’t understood most of it for one) or they really don’t relate to it.
   This is the only thing I see as primary at this point so I’m obviously hoping you can merely respond to this (as opposed to each previous “point” which I’ve attempted to dig back to this root.)

1. Explain to me what justification means to you (In specific regards to, and in a way which isn’t the ‘inapplicable conception’ I’ve explained it to be).
2. (If truly separate from the first question:) Explain to me what justification/establishing was supposed to do to “that which is not knowledge” to make it knowledge if not merely to make it indubitable. (I prefer the question in that language but you could say rather: What is your formula of knowledge? Obviously do not respond to all this by just saying in some way “it needs to be justified/established” as what you mean justification is what I’m at a loss for – hence my “first question”.)

   Since there’s so much trouble understanding each other, please present your case in baby-steps, if you will. Much of the time you explain something to me again it looks different, like there’s an additional piece of information you’re giving me or coming from some totally different aspect (or it’s irrelevant etc. etc.). Connect the dots really slowly and explicitly, leaving no relationship unturned, if you find that doable.

In light of your evident desire to boil this down, I did not respond to points individually.  Feel free to reinsert anything you wish a specific response to. 

NOTE:  One part is going to get revision for clarity, see below NOTE.  (UPDATE:  the UPDATE has been delivered.)
[edit:  edited in a period lasting approximately from 2009 July 03 04:38 to 05:30.]

Belief
I know we have different ideas of "belief", but I at least think we understand each others' concepts of it.  (At least mostly?)  Let me know if you do not feel the same way. 

Truth
I don't recall at the moment having had any disagreements lately on what "truth" is. 

Justification
Justification is something that connects what I call belief to truth.  [edit: (Hereafter in "Justification", "belief" always refers to what I call belief, which if I have understood correctly includes what you call beliefs as well as what you call certainties (since I don't think that certainties necessarily equate to knowledge; see the following and "Knowledge" and "Certainty").)]  Belief is not true or false in and of itself, although the belief can be OF a position that is true or false.  Truth is similarly unconnected to belief; it is fact, a state of being of the universe.  Personal perception and opinion is irrelevant to whether something is true (aside, obviously, from the truth of what you perceive or opine). 

So justification is what establishes that which is believed as also being true, or connects the belief to truth.  Until justification occurs, the belief is not connected to truth, even if it coincides with truth by chance.  That is my biggest problem with indubitability/certainty; there is nothing that ensures that the certainty is true, unless there is some agent or agency that either I overlooked in some post or you have not mentioned.  The certainty is only certain TO ONESELF; there is no actual, universal truth value attached, only one's opinion, however absolutely certain that opinion may be.  Without justification, there is only belief, because none of us can literally have "truth". 

Justification can justify either conditionally (If A is true, then B is true) or absolutely (B is true) -- at least theoretically; whether or not anything could ever actually be absolutely justified is in question, of course. 

Inapplicable Conception
Now what does that remind me of...?

But seriously, I believe you refer to the following objection:  that justification requires preexisting knowledge in order to prove anything as knowledge [edit: (in other words, in order to justify what I would call a belief, which would create knowledge, which is awareness of the justification of the truth of that belief)], so it's useless if you don't already have knowledge or another way of getting it.  [edit:  (You said "meaningless", not "useless", which may imply a different type of objection, but I did not notice an objection to justification other than along those lines upon this review.  And, in fact, further review seems to support the idea that you were attacking it as being useless.)]

My response is twofold:
(1) In certain cases preexisting knowledge is not required (using the "(aside, obviously, from the truth of what you perceive or opine)" loophole for obtaining truth). 
(2) There is not an alternative method for establishing that a relationship exists between (what I call belief) and the truth [edit:  and what that relationship is], which is a necessary part of knowledge IMO (see "Knowledge").[*] 

You also spoke of sense data being (epistemological) knowledge without justification, through lack of doubt.  This is basically a statement of your "indubitable = knowledge" idea, which I did not yet see.  You can see in my response at the time that it was basically, "but that's just belief".  (Well, to be honest, that's pretty much still how I see it.)  My response also stated my idea that in this type of case our belief of our own perception was by itself justification for the truth of our own perception, which is how we can know we percieve what we believe we percieve.  (As in (1) above.) 

NOTE:  I recognize that this may be a bit muddled, but I'm posting anyway as I'm leaving for work.  I will check back to revise later.
UPDATE:  Instead of revising the above, I simply added the above example and explanation:
Let's recall an earlier part of the thread, where you talked about the problem with using our perceptions to make judgments about reality.  The problem is simply that our perceptions don't give 100% accurate reflections of reality (the piano illusion and so on).  But our perceptions are 100% accurate reflections of our perceptions (although "reflections" might not be the word anymore), right?  So that is why we can use them to make judgments about reality regarding our perceptions.  Everybody simply accepts their senses; but only a person who makes the above realization can be said to know (epistemologically) that he sees what appears to him to be a piano, while others are merely certain of it (and their certainty, in the case of personal perceptions, coincides with truth).  Complete and utter acceptance, without that understanding, which is what "certainty" appears to me to be (see "Certainty"), is still not knowledge (see "Knowledge" and "Certainty"). 

[* edit:  It occurs to me that that's a fairly obvious thing to say, as I'm only defining justification as something that establishes such a relationship.  But my key point is that it's necessary and certainty doesn't do it.]

Knowledge
Obviously (that which I call belief) and truth that are united by mere chance don't qualify as knowledge, don't you agree?  So knowledge needs to contain an element that excludes that from the definition.  Justification does this.  IMO certainty does not (see "Justification" and "Certainty"). 

[edit:  Oh, I just put this in an above edit and liked its succinctness:  knowledge is "awareness of the justification of the truth of a belief" (by my definition of belief).]

Certainty
While I'm at it, I should take a moment to check on something.  I've come to have doubt that I really got what you meant.  I now have two possibilities in my mind: 
(1) One is unable to concieve of a world wherein the certainty is not true.  (Implies (2), obviously.)
(2) One is unable to honestly entertain the possibility of the certainty not being true. 
Please let me know which is the best descriptor of what you mean, or (sigh) if neither are close, then please try to spell it out (again?). 

Either way, IMO, certainty does nothing but specify how strong the (thing I call belief) is, so unless (for some reason) we are/can be certain of a (belief) ONLY IF it is true, then no (belief)-to-truth connection has been established.  (In that case, certainty would still accomplish nothing in and of itself (IMO), but its sheer existence would imply that the (belief) is true.)

Re: Sophistry
Oh, I'll certainly admit I've been more abrasive.  On the other hand, I prefer attacks to be open, so I don't think "subliminal sarcasm" is preferable to open scorn, which I've tried to avoid (although if "subliminal" means what I think it means then I suppose you couldn't help it).  Of course, if I was engaging in one of those as well as general abrasiveness, then that is a failure on my part. 

Gibberish
"I did. I still don’t know what you mean. I’d say it comes off as “gibberish” but I would wonder if I’d be accused of being insulting."

One.  I dislike sly sarcasm, at least when it pretends to be innocent.  I find it hard to believe that was subliminal. 
Two.  If the question is made irrelevant by the above post, please take (Three.) as advice for future reference.
Three.  You didn't answer the question.  Is it "yes"?  Was it indeed too much to ask?  If so, fine.  If not, take your best damn guess, not just keep on saying LOL WUT.

Where we're at
I'm pretty happy with how the above turned out (except the NOTE, which I've since UPDATEd) and I certainly hope you find the answers to your two requests -- because if you don't, I don't know if it wouldn't be better to abandon this even after all these months of not giving up.