I attribute it to the fact that I don't have an absolutely perfect connection between my brain and reality. Everything I percieve is exactly that, percieved, it's filtered through a set of preconceptions, related information, the nature of the source, all sorts of things. Reality is inherently unknowable because two people will look at the same thing but see two different things.
Although it doesn't stop me from acting like we all know absolute truth because the alternative is locking myself in a box and never coming out.
<!--quoteo(post=1758848:date=Mar 12 2010, 12:07 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 12 2010, 12:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758848"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I attribute it to the fact that I don't have an absolutely perfect connection between my brain and reality. Everything I percieve is exactly that, percieved, it's filtered through a set of preconceptions, related information, the nature of the source, all sorts of things. Reality is inherently unknowable because two people will look at the same thing but see two different things.
Although it doesn't stop me from acting like we all know absolute truth because the alternative is locking myself in a box and never coming out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's all silly. You just need to understand your limitations and make due with what you have. Easy.
BadMouthIt ceases to be exclusive when you can have a custom member titlJoin Date: 2004-05-21Member: 28815Members
I don't think it is right to say that one issue is more important than the next, especially since most issues are not directly relevant to each other. It can be said that the murder one one innocent is not as important as the murder of a hundred. We can make that kind of contrast since the act and issues are on a similar level. The magnitude is just different.
But it wouldn't be fair to say that the issue of homosexual rights is less important on the issue of rising obesity. There is no way to correctly compare and rank these issues. No doubt, most people consider issues of life the most important issue, such as wrongful killings and tragedies that result in thousands dead or injured. While this might be the case, how can one say that homosexual rights and such are not as important?
It all depends on what is more important to the individual. To a raging fan, britney's haircut might be pivotal to their life. It would be wrong to say that issue isn't of significance, since to one person out there in the world, it is significant.
For me, piracy is a huge issue. I wouldn't pirate. To my friends, that is the most inane thing to be concerned about. Everybody pirates and downloads music/movies/games. But to me, it is a big issue. And I would first rather tackle piracy, than tackle starvation in a third world country.
Both are important issues. I recognise both need to be dealt with but to say one is more important than the other is simply wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1758950:date=Mar 12 2010, 12:48 PM:name=BadMouth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BadMouth @ Mar 12 2010, 12:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758950"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think it is right to say that one issue is more important than the next<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think you think that. I think if someone exclaimed their broken nail demands more attention that the plight of war victims, you'd slap them in face just like I would.
<!--quoteo(post=1758950:date=Mar 12 2010, 12:48 PM:name=BadMouth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BadMouth @ Mar 12 2010, 12:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758950"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It all depends on what is more important to the individual. To a raging fan, britney's haircut might be pivotal to their life. It would be wrong to say that issue isn't of significance, since to one person out there in the world, it is significant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's kind of the point, isn't it: we can't see past our own nose. And not even in egotistical sense, but to extent of ignoring major issues that affect ourselves as well, regardless of social status, gender, race, orientation, fandom, interest, and whatever else, on a much bigger scale than plain vanity. I'm not even talking about citizens of some wealthy country compared to something like Africa, but about issues that exist in that very country.
It's exactly as you said: we don't prioritize. It's a ludicrous thing to do.
The reason I compare different countries is because they are merely territorial distinctions, fictitious, and I find it hard to differentiate: if Saudi Arabia is running out of oil, it's not just them, it's the whole world running out of oil.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1758797:date=Mar 11 2010, 04:47 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 11 2010, 04:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758797"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Agnosticism as in the philosophical belief that knowledge is impossible, not the religious standpoint.
Religious agnostics would say they don't know whether god exists or they can't know whether god exists, I say that about everything. I either don't know for sure or can never know for sure whether anything is a certain way.
The internet is a good argument for it because you'll come across people who believe all sorts of stuff, and nothing makes certainty harder than seeing lots of other people all certain about different contradictory things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Knowledge is only impossible if empiricism has no value. I don't really think people on the web believing all sorts of things is a reasonable argument against it. Certainty is one thing, but evidence is what matters.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
You are 100% correct Insane, however, in the court of public opinion, it is air-time that matters.
If you look at the ID farce, a lot of what they want to achieve is to get talk-shows and other debates to have a pro-evolution guy debating with a pro-ID guy. To the casual listener who does not employ evidence based reasoning, they put a lot of weight on the 50% of airtime the pro-ID guy gets.
<!--quoteo(post=1758848:date=Mar 11 2010, 03:07 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 11 2010, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758848"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I attribute it to the fact that I don't have an absolutely perfect connection between my brain and reality. Everything I percieve is exactly that, percieved, it's filtered through a set of preconceptions, related information, the nature of the source, all sorts of things. Reality is inherently unknowable because two people will look at the same thing but see two different things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The scientific method solves this issue by repeated testing by multiple people in multiple locations with every person involved being able to verify or reveal as flawed another person's hypothesis or theory with the overall group agreement being the current explanation. The scientific method is used knowing full well that not everything is explained and any current explanation can be replaced in the future with new knowledge, and there is no expectation that everything will be known at any point. The scientific method currently supports atheism simply because there is no reliable hypothesis to test to confirm the existence of a supernatural being (and a 'supernatural' distinction would make it scientifically untestable, as if it was testable it would become natural). Science shows that reality is knowable, and that knowing it will take time and energy.
In science, a god could be proven if there was a way to test and reliably repeat that test.
Religion focuses on conforming to someone else's perception of reality by requiring an acceptance of that belief to participate. Schisms happen when people disagree on the perception, and since it is all subjective there is no actual basis for anything, just stories and conformity. Religion also promotes ignorance of reality by attributing real cause and effect to supernatural occurrences (floods, disease, fire from the sky...).
Religion accepts a god based on the word of others.
Agnosticism is the lazy approach. If the same thing was applied to other previous 'supernatural' topics like disease we wouldn't have vaccines, antibiotics, transplants or a low mortality rate.
The three views in action: Cancer. Atheist: Cancer is a mutated cell that causes damage to the body by spreading and causing other cells to also become cancerous, eventually destroying the body's ability to function. We can stop cancer if we continue to study and design possible cures. Religious: God gave them cancer as a test/punishment for sins. God controls the outcome of medical treatment so if the person is cured by science it is still the will of God. Agnostic: We can never know what causes cancer, so no use trying to understand it.
Oh that's great. Ever since I created the topic I was hoping someone would mention religion so we can all engage in yet another flamewar
I believe Chris had already explained that he wasn't referring to agnosticism as religious standpoint.
Please don't threadjack. A dead thread is worth more than one filled with trolling.
---
On a more constructive note: "Truth of the highest bidder" couldn't possibly be more relevant to the thread. While I am talking about our collective value shift, we don't just form opinions spontaneously. We feed from the environment, and if all that environment contains is discussions about vanity fairs outright lies, what choice is there?
The way modern systems of public informations are structured are outright dangerous in that regard, as they have no priority to inform, but to entertain and to sell. "The most awesome propaganda force in the entire godless world" indeed. Internet is our saviour in that regard, as it is still relatively free from monopolization. You won't hear a plea to ignore vain issues on national television, I can promise you that much.
<!--quoteo(post=1758974:date=Mar 12 2010, 01:03 PM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Mar 12 2010, 01:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758974"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Knowledge is only impossible if empiricism has no value. I don't really think people on the web believing all sorts of things is a reasonable argument against it. Certainty is one thing, but evidence is what matters.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not quite so crazy as to completely ignore empiricism. Certainly operating under the assumption that we percieve reality accurately and that we all see the same thing can get you some pretty good results, I more or less just go to great lengths to remeber that it's an assumption, not a fact, or rather it is a fact but a fact is whatever most people say it is.
Same with science, it's damned useful and does some very impressive things, I studied it for the better part of my education and live by several of the ideas behind it, but I always remember that it doesn't produce absolutes, it produces probabilities, sometimes it produces very very high probabilities, but they're still only probable and can be subject to change. Science can't create objectivity, all a scientific review does is tell you that a lot of other people also think what you think, it doesn't tell you that it's any more right, you could simply all be wrong together. In fairness you <i>probably</i> aren't, but again it's only probable, and that's the best you can get.
Doubt is critical to science, believing science gives you the absolute truth makes it difficult to practise it well, because chances are you'll need to revise the absolute truth a few times to improve the results you get. Agnosticism is the fundamental basis of science, because saying 'I don't know' is required before you can say 'let's find out'. Just because it's probably futile doesn't mean you can't try, it's never stopped anyone before.
Agnosticism would be more like 'It's very unlikely that we'll ever know for sure completely what causes cancer in all situations' and probably not much else, agnosticism does not really require or neccesarily cause apathy, that's down to the person. You could follow it with 'so let's never bother doing anything ever again because if we can't attain perfect knowledge it's useless' or you could follow it with 'but we could probably get some decent repeatable results if we research it a bit.' That's practicality versus idealism though.
Comments
Although it doesn't stop me from acting like we all know absolute truth because the alternative is locking myself in a box and never coming out.
Although it doesn't stop me from acting like we all know absolute truth because the alternative is locking myself in a box and never coming out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's all silly. You just need to understand your limitations and make due with what you have. Easy.
But it wouldn't be fair to say that the issue of homosexual rights is less important on the issue of rising obesity. There is no way to correctly compare and rank these issues. No doubt, most people consider issues of life the most important issue, such as wrongful killings and tragedies that result in thousands dead or injured. While this might be the case, how can one say that homosexual rights and such are not as important?
It all depends on what is more important to the individual. To a raging fan, britney's haircut might be pivotal to their life. It would be wrong to say that issue isn't of significance, since to one person out there in the world, it is significant.
For me, piracy is a huge issue. I wouldn't pirate. To my friends, that is the most inane thing to be concerned about. Everybody pirates and downloads music/movies/games. But to me, it is a big issue. And I would first rather tackle piracy, than tackle starvation in a third world country.
Both are important issues. I recognise both need to be dealt with but to say one is more important than the other is simply wrong.
I don't think you think that. I think if someone exclaimed their broken nail demands more attention that the plight of war victims, you'd slap them in face just like I would.
<!--quoteo(post=1758950:date=Mar 12 2010, 12:48 PM:name=BadMouth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BadMouth @ Mar 12 2010, 12:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758950"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It all depends on what is more important to the individual. To a raging fan, britney's haircut might be pivotal to their life. It would be wrong to say that issue isn't of significance, since to one person out there in the world, it is significant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's kind of the point, isn't it: we can't see past our own nose. And not even in egotistical sense, but to extent of ignoring major issues that affect ourselves as well, regardless of social status, gender, race, orientation, fandom, interest, and whatever else, on a much bigger scale than plain vanity. I'm not even talking about citizens of some wealthy country compared to something like Africa, but about issues that exist in that very country.
It's exactly as you said: we don't prioritize. It's a ludicrous thing to do.
The reason I compare different countries is because they are merely territorial distinctions, fictitious, and I find it hard to differentiate: if Saudi Arabia is running out of oil, it's not just them, it's the whole world running out of oil.
Religious agnostics would say they don't know whether god exists or they can't know whether god exists, I say that about everything. I either don't know for sure or can never know for sure whether anything is a certain way.
The internet is a good argument for it because you'll come across people who believe all sorts of stuff, and nothing makes certainty harder than seeing lots of other people all certain about different contradictory things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Knowledge is only impossible if empiricism has no value. I don't really think people on the web believing all sorts of things is a reasonable argument against it. Certainty is one thing, but evidence is what matters.
If you look at the ID farce, a lot of what they want to achieve is to get talk-shows and other debates to have a pro-evolution guy debating with a pro-ID guy. To the casual listener who does not employ evidence based reasoning, they put a lot of weight on the 50% of airtime the pro-ID guy gets.
It's a sad fact that when public opinion is at stake, the truth increasingly belongs to the highest bidder.
The scientific method solves this issue by repeated testing by multiple people in multiple locations with every person involved being able to verify or reveal as flawed another person's hypothesis or theory with the overall group agreement being the current explanation. The scientific method is used knowing full well that not everything is explained and any current explanation can be replaced in the future with new knowledge, and there is no expectation that everything will be known at any point. The scientific method currently supports atheism simply because there is no reliable hypothesis to test to confirm the existence of a supernatural being (and a 'supernatural' distinction would make it scientifically untestable, as if it was testable it would become natural). Science shows that reality is knowable, and that knowing it will take time and energy.
In science, a god could be proven if there was a way to test and reliably repeat that test.
Religion focuses on conforming to someone else's perception of reality by requiring an acceptance of that belief to participate. Schisms happen when people disagree on the perception, and since it is all subjective there is no actual basis for anything, just stories and conformity. Religion also promotes ignorance of reality by attributing real cause and effect to supernatural occurrences (floods, disease, fire from the sky...).
Religion accepts a god based on the word of others.
Agnosticism is the lazy approach. If the same thing was applied to other previous 'supernatural' topics like disease we wouldn't have vaccines, antibiotics, transplants or a low mortality rate.
The three views in action: Cancer.
Atheist: Cancer is a mutated cell that causes damage to the body by spreading and causing other cells to also become cancerous, eventually destroying the body's ability to function. We can stop cancer if we continue to study and design possible cures.
Religious: God gave them cancer as a test/punishment for sins. God controls the outcome of medical treatment so if the person is cured by science it is still the will of God.
Agnostic: We can never know what causes cancer, so no use trying to understand it.
I believe Chris had already explained that he wasn't referring to agnosticism as religious standpoint.
Please don't threadjack. A dead thread is worth more than one filled with trolling.
---
On a more constructive note: "Truth of the highest bidder" couldn't possibly be more relevant to the thread. While I am talking about our collective value shift, we don't just form opinions spontaneously. We feed from the environment, and if all that environment contains is discussions about vanity fairs outright lies, what choice is there?
The way modern systems of public informations are structured are outright dangerous in that regard, as they have no priority to inform, but to entertain and to sell. "The most awesome propaganda force in the entire godless world" indeed. Internet is our saviour in that regard, as it is still relatively free from monopolization. You won't hear a plea to ignore vain issues on national television, I can promise you that much.
I'm not quite so crazy as to completely ignore empiricism. Certainly operating under the assumption that we percieve reality accurately and that we all see the same thing can get you some pretty good results, I more or less just go to great lengths to remeber that it's an assumption, not a fact, or rather it is a fact but a fact is whatever most people say it is.
Same with science, it's damned useful and does some very impressive things, I studied it for the better part of my education and live by several of the ideas behind it, but I always remember that it doesn't produce absolutes, it produces probabilities, sometimes it produces very very high probabilities, but they're still only probable and can be subject to change. Science can't create objectivity, all a scientific review does is tell you that a lot of other people also think what you think, it doesn't tell you that it's any more right, you could simply all be wrong together. In fairness you <i>probably</i> aren't, but again it's only probable, and that's the best you can get.
Doubt is critical to science, believing science gives you the absolute truth makes it difficult to practise it well, because chances are you'll need to revise the absolute truth a few times to improve the results you get. Agnosticism is the fundamental basis of science, because saying 'I don't know' is required before you can say 'let's find out'. Just because it's probably futile doesn't mean you can't try, it's never stopped anyone before.
Agnosticism would be more like 'It's very unlikely that we'll ever know for sure completely what causes cancer in all situations' and probably not much else, agnosticism does not really require or neccesarily cause apathy, that's down to the person. You could follow it with 'so let's never bother doing anything ever again because if we can't attain perfect knowledge it's useless' or you could follow it with 'but we could probably get some decent repeatable results if we research it a bit.' That's practicality versus idealism though.