Before The Common Era.

[Shwa]

This is an important point:

The earth being round is objective and true to everyone regardless of who and what they are. This is knowledge because it is universal and cannot be proven wrong in any way. The earth is round objectively and without doubt. An absolute truth.

Is the earth "round" to all blind people? That is, do all blind people have "knowledge" that the earth is round?

If so, how did they get this knowledge?

If not, then can we describe objectivity or knowledge in terms of "universal" or "everyone regardless of who and what they are?" It would seem that some things, which we call objective or absolute truths, have a sensory or mental capacity requirement, wouldn't you agree?

[Guest TrueMetis]

If not, then can we describe objectivity or knowledge in terms of "universal" or "everyone regardless of who and what they are?" It would seem that some things, which we call objective or absolute truths, have a sensory or mental capacity requirement, wouldn't you agree?

No because the Earth is spherical whether there are humans or not.

[Oleg Bach]

Humanity could totally disappear and nature would continue - right form the smallest plant to the grandest and biggest cosmic bang imaginable - If we do not believe in a God - it really does not matter much - because God probably does not give a shit.

[Shwa]

No because the Earth is spherical whether there are humans or not.

According to the definition of knowledge above, this is not testable, thus not knowledge. If you wish to modify or extend the definition of knowledge we have so far, please do.

[Guest TrueMetis]

According to the definition of knowledge above, this is not testable, thus not knowledge. If you wish to modify or extend the definition of knowledge we have so far, please do.

I don't agree with that definition. My definition of knowledge is that knowledge is objectively true even if there is no one to observe it. (That definition could probably use a little bit of tweaking)

[GostHacked]

This is an important point:

I feel the 'gotcha' coming on.

Is the earth "round" to all blind people? That is, do all blind people have "knowledge" that the earth is round?

Regardless of them being blind, can you dispute the fact that the earth is not round in any way? Blind people have logic as well. When given all the information, they will independently come to the conclusion that yes, the earth is round.

And I think the point you want to make in your next post will be that, atheists can't have knowledge because they are faith blind. But I think that is more subjective than anything. Because faith is 100% subjective. The fact that blind people can't see does not invalidate the fact that the earth is round. If we were all blind then we would have a collective subjectiveness about the shape of the earth.

If so, how did they get this knowledge?

Take two blind people. Give them each a radio. Tell them to walk away from each other. For this experiment, we will say the signal of the radios can reach each other regardless of distance, But must take into account that physical objects do absorb sound and radio waves. Eventually if they walk far enough, they will lose the signal to each other because the curve of the earth. The signal is eventually blocked because of the earth. So even if you are missing one of your senses, you can still do tests that will objectively bring you to the conclusion that the earth is round.

So yes even if you are blind, the fact remains that the earth being round is a universal and objective truth.

If not, then can we describe objectivity or knowledge in terms of "universal" or "everyone regardless of who and what they are?" It would seem that some things, which we call objective or absolute truths, have a sensory or mental capacity requirement, wouldn't you agree?

I don't buy this. What about being deaf? Does that invalidate the truth that sound exists?

Edited January 22, 2010 by GostHacked

[ToadBrother]

Not the equivalent at all. You are comparing things of which people are/were convinced about whereas not even you are convinced of your own assertion.

I'm asking you what, epistemologically, is the difference between a claim made in jest and a claim made in earnest. That lots of people believe something has been shown to be a rather inadequate system of determining truth.

[Shwa]

Regardless of them being blind, can you dispute the fact that the earth is not round in any way?

That is entirely beside the point. We two agree that the earth is round, but should we not try and ascertain whether universals are indeed just that? We could agree on many things, but our agreement does not make them truths. By saying that the earth is round is an objective universal and absolute truth then it must be true for everyone, even all blind people.

When given all the information, they will independently come to the conclusion that yes, the earth is round...

Are you certain of this in the sense that you 'know' that statement to be true? How do we 'give' them the correct information and how can they 'receive' it? Is there some form of mediation required? I mean, we can't show them the geometry or math on a blackboard, we can't show them pictures of earth from space. Even your example misses the mark because they could as easily conclude that the world was essentially flat, but full of rounded mountains that block radio waves. So if you hold on to universal, I think that we need to recognize that while knowledge can be objective, universality is subjective. That is, what may be true for some, may not be true for others. Do you agree or disagree?

And I think the point you want to make in your next post will be that...

Nope.

[Shwa]

I'm asking you what, epistemologically, is the difference between a claim made in jest and a claim made in earnest. That lots of people believe something has been shown to be a rather inadequate system of determining truth.

The conviction of the claimant about their claim is the difference.

[ToadBrother]

The conviction of the claimant about their claim is the difference.

So you're saying sincerity increases the likelihood of a claim being true? Does that mean all those Christians who used to believe in Blood Libel made the accusations against Jews true? I can probably think of a half a dozen other absurd beliefs that were commonly held to be true.

But I'm curious. Why does conviction matter in the least?

[GostHacked]

That is entirely beside the point.

It is the point. Because you and I obviously hold different 'faiths' or beliefs. But yet we do agree the earth is round. Why? Undeniable proof shows us that the earth is round. It's like 2+2=4. There is only one answer for 2+2 and that is 4. Universal objective truth. It cannot be argued against in any way shape or form.

We two agree that the earth is round, but should we not try and ascertain whether universals are indeed just that?

Universals are universals no matter what they are, simply because different groups working independently of each other will come to the same conclusion. The tests themselves may be quite different, but in the end the answer will be the same among them and at that point it becomes an objective universal truth for everyone.

We could agree on many things, but our agreement does not make them truths. By saying that the earth is round is an objective universal and absolute truth then it must be true for everyone, even all blind people.

The earth is round. And that is a universal truth. Regardless of the blind not being able to actually see, there is other sensory input and testing that can be done to have blind people come to the conclusion that the earth is round. It would be different testing compared to a person who can see.

Are you certain of this in the sense that you 'know' that statement to be true? How do we 'give' them the correct information and how can they 'receive' it?

We don't give them anything besides the theory you want to test and the testing equipment they need. This way they can test it themselves and come to their own conclusion. You can't objectively get to a universal truth if you are giving them information to instill a pre-bias if you will.

Is there some form of mediation required?

Why would there be? It's a blind test!

I mean, we can't show them the geometry or math on a blackboard, we can't show them pictures of earth from space. Even your example misses the mark because they could as easily conclude that the world was essentially flat, but full of rounded mountains that block radio waves.

Well, when one test fails, more testing needs to be done to make the flat earth a truth. We can now do the test on a 'flat' desert, or perhaps a calm ocean. And you can show geometry to a blind person. Pick up a ball. They feel it is round. Pick up a box, they feel it is square. Being blind does not prevent them from 'seeing'.

So if you hold on to universal, I think that we need to recognize that while knowledge can be objective, universality is subjective.

No. Because a universaly objective truth is true for everyone. Regardless of what they believe. There is evidence that proves beyond a doubt that the earth is flat.

That is, what may be true for some, may not be true for others. Do you agree or disagree?

In of itself this statement is correct, but does not seem to fit in with your line of questioning.

[Shwa]

The earth is round. And that is a universal truth. Regardless of the blind not being able to actually see, there is other sensory input and testing that can be done to have blind people come to the conclusion that the earth is round. It would be different testing compared to a person who can see.

At one time it was a 'universal truth' that the earth was a flat disk, that man could not fly nor live and breathe under water; it was a universal truth that the earth was the centre of the universe. People accepted these things, they went about their lives with this knowledge. But these facts have changed over time. How is this possible?

[Shwa]

So you're saying sincerity increases the likelihood of a claim being true? Does that mean all those Christians who used to believe in Blood Libel made the accusations against Jews true? I can probably think of a half a dozen other absurd beliefs that were commonly held to be true.

But I'm curious. Why does conviction matter in the least?

Because conviction is required as impetus for caring enough to spend the time investigating something. If you are not convinced of the substance of your own claim, then why should I be? What you are trying to do is allow nonsense into a debate about a real phenomenon. That sounds like a fool's errand to me.

[GostHacked]

At one time it was a 'universal truth' that the earth was a flat disk, that man could not fly nor live and breathe under water; it was a universal truth that the earth was the centre of the universe. People accepted these things, they went about their lives with this knowledge. But these facts have changed over time. How is this possible?

Science. !!!!!!!

[ToadBrother]

Because conviction is required as impetus for caring enough to spend the time investigating something.

Lots of energy has been wasted on meaningless, false things. Look at the thousands of years that trying to read future events from the stars, animal entrails and sniffing volcanic gases occupied.

If you are not convinced of the substance of your own claim, then why should I be? What you are trying to do is allow nonsense into a debate about a real phenomenon. That sounds like a fool's errand to me.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am asking you, epistemologically, what the difference is. You return with various forms of the Ad Populum fallacy, but seem unwilling to admit that, from a strictly logical sense, there is no difference between claiming, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe and saying Yahweh did.

[Shwa]

Lots of energy has been wasted on meaningless, false things. Look at the thousands of years that trying to read future events from the stars, animal entrails and sniffing volcanic gases occupied.

Precisely. So why would I wasted my time?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am asking you, epistemologically, what the difference is. You return with various forms of the Ad Populum fallacy, but seem unwilling to admit that, from a strictly logical sense, there is no difference between claiming, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe and saying Yahweh did.

No fallacy here, just simple disinterest in comparing apples to oranges. If you wish to, by all means, please do.

[Shwa]

Science. !!!!!!!

So are you saying that objective truth requires mediation from science?

[Guest TrueMetis]

At one time it was a 'universal truth' that the earth was a flat disk, that man could not fly nor live and breathe under water; it was a universal truth that the earth was the centre of the universe. People accepted these things, they went about their lives with this knowledge. But these facts have changed over time. How is this possible?

None of those were true. I don't care how many people think something is true that does not make it true. The truth is not a democracy.

[charter.rights]

None of those were true. I don't care how many people think something is true that does not make it true. The truth is not a democracy.

The science - as rudimentary as it was of the day - suggested it was true. On further investigation it was proven wrong. And while it was established that the world was not flat when sailors started to circumvent the earth, their belief that it was round has since been proven wrong. It took until scientists were able to get to space to establish that the earth is really egg-shaped - not necessarily flat but certainly not round either.

Those who rely on science as proof of anything are in for a rude awakening as we advance.

Another example.....300 year ago death was believed (and confirmed through the science of the day)to be the loss of movement and function. 150 years ago it was modified by the science of the day to mean when the breath stopped. 75 years ago it was modified again to mean the heart stopped. Today the current determination of death is the cessation of brain function. That's quite an evolution.......

[ToadBrother]

No fallacy here, just simple disinterest in comparing apples to oranges. If you wish to, by all means, please do.

What do you mean apples and oranges? The FSM claim and the Yahweh claim are functionally equivalent.

[GostHacked]

So are you saying that objective truth requires mediation from science?

Sure why not. (Waiting for the GOTCHA part still.... ) How else would you come to an objective truth? Surely one does not turn to the bible for objective truths? Do they?

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

Mediation, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or "appropriate dispute resolution", aims to adetermine the conditions of any settlements reached— rather than accepting something imposed by a third party. The disputes may involve (as parties) states, organizations, communities, individuals or other representatives with a vested interest in the outcome.

Mediators use appropriate techniques and/or skills to open and/or improve dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with concrete effects) on the disputed matter. Normally, all parties must view the mediator as impartial.

But I don't think mediation is the right term you wanted to use. Religion and Science are irreconcilable to begin with. How can you use science to mediate it's debate with religion?

[charter.rights]

Religion and Science are irreconcilable to begin with.

Prove it. I mean you say that you need mediation (or its derivative)in science to prove truth, then prove it using your own dependencies.

Edited January 25, 2010 by charter.rights

[GostHacked]

The science - as rudimentary as it was of the day - suggested it was true. On further investigation it was proven wrong. And while it was established that the world was not flat when sailors started to circumvent the earth, their belief that it was round has since been proven wrong. It took until scientists were able to get to space to establish that the earth is really egg-shaped - not necessarily flat but certainly not round either.

Wow. Egg shaped. That is the first time I have heard of it.

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

Shape

The shape of the Earth is very close to that of an oblate spheroid, a sphere squished along the orientation from pole to pole such that there is a bulge around the equator.[50] This bulge results from the rotation of the Earth, and causes the diameter at the equator to be 43 km larger than the pole to pole diameter.[51] The average diameter of the reference spheroid is about 12,742 km, which is approximately 40,000 km/π, as the meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the North Pole through Paris, France.[52]

Local topography deviates from this idealized spheroid, though on a global scale, these deviations are very small: Earth has a tolerance of about one part in about 584, or 0.17%, from the reference spheroid, which is less than the 0.22% tolerance allowed in billiard balls.[53] The largest local deviations in the rocky surface of the Earth are Mount Everest (8,848 m above local sea level) and the Mariana Trench (10,911 m below local sea level). Because of the equatorial bulge, the feature farthest from the center of the Earth is actually Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador.[54][55]

Those who rely on science as proof of anything are in for a rude awakening as we advance.

Science has given you almost everything you have. Your house was built using math and engineering. Your new flat screen TV was invented and made possible by using science! Your computer and the Internet you use to say that relying on science is dumb, was built by science!

Another example.....300 year ago death was believed (and confirmed through the science of the day)to be the loss of movement and function. 150 years ago it was modified by the science of the day to mean when the breath stopped. 75 years ago it was modified again to mean the heart stopped. Today the current determination of death is the cessation of brain function. That's quite an evolution.......

Because science does and will evolve. Science understands that new evidence may change what was accepted as fact. This will always be the case and should not be considered useless because of that fact.

Edited January 25, 2010 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

Prove it. I mean you say that you need mediation (or its derivative)in science to prove truth, then prove it using your own dependencies.

Science is kind of it's own mediator, this is how bad science and dead ends are found. Science does not deal with the spiritual, mystical, beliefs. So I fail to see how science can be a moderator to the divide between science and religion. You need an impartial 3rd party to do that. I said it could be used, but in the end I said it is probably not the correct term Shwa was looking for.

Science does not deal with religion, because it can't. Even if science wanted to deal with religion, it still can't. The desire may be there, but the means are not. Sure this may change in the future. I have stated that in many threads on MLW. Religion does not deal with science, because it can't. Hence, Irreconcilable.

Edited January 25, 2010 by GostHacked

[Guest TrueMetis]

The science - as rudimentary as it was of the day - suggested it was true.

And? Science is proven wrong and advances. Is that a bad thing? My understanding is that is what makes science great its ability to correct its mistakes. Also although I sometimes forget myself the whole flat earth thing is a myth.

On further investigation it was proven wrong. And while it was established that the world was not flat when sailors started to circumvent the earth, their belief that it was round has since been proven wrong.

Actually we have known that the earth is basically round since 300 B.C. when Eratosthenes caculated it's diameter and people thought it was round before that. Science wins again.

It took until scientists were able to get to space to establish that the earth is really egg-shaped - not necessarily flat but certainly not round either.

It's pretty damn close as was Eratosthenes calculation. Seriously this is just nitpicking.

Those who rely on science as proof of anything are in for a rude awakening as we advance.

Good that means science is working. People were rudely awakened when they found out the earth was older than 6000 years, they were rudely awakened when they found out animals went extinct, and they were rudely awakened when they found out things evolved and we came from monkeys. When people are rudely awakened that means that we are advancing our knowledge.

Another example.....300 year ago death was believed (and confirmed through the science of the day)to be the loss of movement and function. 150 years ago it was modified by the science of the day to mean when the breath stopped. 75 years ago it was modified again to mean the heart stopped. Today the current determination of death is the cessation of brain function. That's quite an evolution.......

Again the science is advancing which is a good thing a proves that scientific method works. What's you point? And today many people dispute that definition as people have been brought back after there brain function has stopped.

The more we learn the more we realize we don't know.

Edited January 25, 2010 by TrueMetis