How we know what we know: utter denial in human beings

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm declining a trip to la-la land.

[9th Engineer]

The link between truth and scientific fact is stronger than personal belief, mostly because belief is inseparable from personal experiences and science strives to be completely isolated from the person doing the experament. We have seen bad science frequently these days (both sides of the global warming debate need to step away from the politics verrrrrryyyyy slowly) and it's giving it a very wishy-washy appearence. This is not real science. The express reason for requiring that all experaments be recreatable is to eliminate personal bias and error, and ensure that the data holds true for the defined set of circumstances. Behaviors are truths, matter will always exert a force on other matter, light will always propogate in a predictable fashion as long as you know the properties of the surrounding space. The only things that changes based on perception are people. It's not your surroundings that change, it's you.

The most basic reason I don't like the word truth used like that is that it takes all meaning away from the word. It's like saying "I'll love you forever", you won't be here forever but using a strong word puts emphasis on the intention. What we experience are not individual truths, just perceptions that are so important to us that we call them truths to emphasize how strongly we adhear to them.

p.s. quantum mechanics does not apply as long as you have more mass than an electron. don't go there. please

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

TThe express reason for requiring that all experaments be recreatable is to eliminate personal bias and error, and ensure that the data holds true for the defined set of circumstances. Behaviors are truths, matter will always exert a force on other matter, light will always propogate in a predictable fashion as long as you know the properties of the surrounding space. The only things that changes based on perception are people. It's not your surroundings that change, it's you.

yes, and I think as long as we have to filter truth through our senses we can't really be sure unless we are open to all options and test what we percieve to be true.

A good test here. What you think is true turns out to be not true at all. http://www.icerix.com/icerix.php?adr...nge/senses.swf

[BlueSky_TheMan]

Hello again 9th engineer.

I read your post several times in order to, hopefully, understand everything you’ve presented. I feel it contains very insightful and sincere concepts. I respectfully add my reflections as follows:

Scientific truth is higher than personal belief truth’s

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

The link between truth and scientific fact is stronger than personal belief

I thought it might be interesting to think about this statement in this manner: My understanding is that we’ve established that it is reasonable to accept that each of us usually perceives the world around us based on the filter of our past experiences and beliefs. If the above quote is a belief someone holds, how would this filter affect his or her daily experiences? Also: how would this filter make a person feel about themselves?

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

The express reason for requiring that all experiments be recreatable is to eliminate personal bias and error, and ensure that the data holds true for the defined set of circumstances. Behaviors are truths, matter will always exert a force on other matter, light will always propagate in a predictable fashion as long as you know the properties of the surrounding space

If we attempt to define levels of truth I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head in that scientific facts are higher than “normal” personal beliefs because scientists make a strenuous effort in eliminating personal bias. I say normal because I believe there is a way to construct a personal belief that makes it altogether different in nature than the ones most of us have accepted. I wonder if you feel that it is possible to have/create a personal belief system that is in no way based on past experiences/comprehensions in a similar manner that scientific procedure attempts

A lengthy article, but good information about intentions changing our very DNA structure, and a measurable field of energy emanating from our hearts that has effects on people/substances nearby. Could not these energies effect every Science experiment ever observed or performed near a human ?


Hard to get through, but basically we’re seeing light photons becoming ordered by the mere presence of human DNA. (this doesn’t appear to be a predictable fashion does it ?)

Look at just how complex the structure is to get all this information to our brains. Can it be that hard to believe our intentions can make the minute chemical and electric pulses needed to drastically alter what we perceive around us ?

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I don't like the word truth used like that is that it takes all meaning away from the word

I can understand your concern, but taking all meaning away from the word truth was my goal. I agree that there appears to be “levels” of observable reality (truth/belief/fact). The point is that they are all subjective in some manner. Why put my faith in any of them?

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by BlueSky_TheMan

~snip~..................I can understand your concern, but taking all meaning away from the word truth was my goal. I agree that there appears to be “levels” of observable reality (truth/belief/fact). The point is that they are all subjective in some manner. Why put my faith in any of them?

So, in essence, you are a Nihilist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth. In its more extreme forms, such a belief is difficult to justify, because it contains a variation on the liar paradox: if it is true that truth does not exist, the statement "truth does not exist" is itself a truth, therefore showing itself to be inconsistent. A formally identical criticism has been leveled against relativism and the verifiability theory of meaning of logical positivism.

[BlueSky_TheMan]

Nihilism is a philosophical position which argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.[1]

I don't consider Nihilism a correct description of my belief system. I see great meaning beyond all things, I do believe there is purpose and a comprehensible truth. I just don't think those things are within physical form. I believe in God. I believe all living/conscious beings are much more than their physical form and for some reason we have all decided to share this illusion we appear to work, play , and die within.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'm declining a trip to la-la land.

what is la la land? What are you against here? 'cause I don't see it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

glatt and stormieweather gave perfectly good examples of what I was describing. Having seen how BlueSky_The Man analyzed them, changed the parameters and went off tangentially, I can see how he thinks....or doesn't.

I think it's flawed logic.
Occam is spinning in his grave.
I will never agree with that approach to any question.
I think it would be fruitless to even enter into a discussion of it.
If anyone, buys his reasoning....fine, have at it.
I don't and prefer not to waste my time.

[BlueSky_TheMan]

Bruce,

I respect your decision to discontinue this thread, and thank you for the interaction that we did share.

I think it's important to note that when describing another's viewpoint using words such as "la-la land","flawed","fruitless",and "waste of time" you are diminishing yourself. You can only successfully insult another if you truly believe insults are painful and detrimental to YOUR OWN SELF. Every time you enforce this by insulting another you are only adding to the pain your carrying around already. I would not wish for you to carry around more pain because of a simple philosophical conversation.

Sincerely,
BlueSky

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

glatt and stormieweather gave perfectly good examples of what I was describing. Having seen how BlueSky_The Man analyzed them, changed the parameters and went off tangentially, I can see how he thinks....or doesn't.

I think it's flawed logic.
Occam is spinning in his grave.
I will never agree with that approach to any question.
I think it would be fruitless to even enter into a discussion of it.
If anyone, buys his reasoning....fine, have at it.
I don't and prefer not to waste my time.

I feel funny talking about another poster but since you addressed my question by referring glatt and stormie about bluesky I should say what I see.


I'm looking and I only see postitive. Blue Sky is affirming their beliefs and thoughts by positive affirmations. In the discussion between stormy and bluesky there was a lot of give and take.

Even with Glatt I saw bluesky not try to tear down but build up their own beliefs before presenting his own. Somehow I think that's cool.



Here is bluesky affirming their beliefs.

Originally Posted by BlueSky_TheMan

Hi Glatt !

Your perception of the cousins advice sounds logical and I would guess acceptable to the majority of people.

Originally Posted by BlueSky_TheMan

Stormie,

I really, really, really, really love your post. It is exactly the type of thoughtful and kind discussion that is needed to allow us to learn from each other.

I respectfully add my reflections as follows:




You have a knack for explaining things clearly. Is teaching a part of your current lifework?

Originally Posted by stormieweather

Originally Posted by Stormieweather
Tolerance allows us to understand that everyone has their own 'truth', even when it is directly opposed to our own. Understanding it doesn't mean condoning or accepting it, just that we acknowledge that others feel as strongly about their truths as we do about our own.

Bluesky picked out this part of stormies comments to quote and then replied with a beautiful.

Originally Posted by BlueSky_TheMan

Beautiful!

As far as buying his reasoning?? How about just reading it and picking out the best parts?? Isn't that what we do in a discussion is pick out those ones we like or don't like.I think if you arn't going to like something you should give your own examples.

I picked out the affirmation of others comments and I forgot the rest because typed words on a message board don't equal major thought process changes do they? You picked out the negative aspects and forgot the rest. We are only bantering ideas back and forth and I actually miss hearing a reasoning argument from you bruce. Lastly, You might be surprised with whom I actually do agree with regardless of what little part of me I type out because untimatly it isn't the whole truth is it? Anyway who I agree with is 9th Engineer and his thought was this.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I think that the word 'truth' is being misused here. Truths rarely exist outside of science, and things that change in different contexts (or persons) are not truths. When people have been saying things like 'that persons truths' it's not really a set of truths that's being refered to, rather, that persons beliefs. Saying that a person has a unique set of truths is pointless because it completely takes all meaning out of the word. That person might feel very strongly about something, but if it doesn't hold true under all circumstances it cannot be a truth.

The whole idea sounds like something you'd hear a motivational speaker use, it just allows people to get wrapped up in their view of the world because it's their truth (said with nose held high) and no one has a right to challenge a truth.

Or maybe it's the stigma surrounding the word 'belief' these days. Being PC sucks.

I think 9th Engineer wraps it up for me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

How about just reading it and picking out the best parts??

In a word, NO.
Is that what you do with an instruction manual?
I told you, if you want to play that game, have at it.
I'm not interested in disconnected thoughts that have no logical progression, no matter how genteel the presentation.
Positive bullshit, is still bullshit.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Is that what you do with an instruction manual?

um yes, sort of.....but you gave me the chuckle of my week thanks.