DanDare wrote:
No, Rainbow. argumentativealex just told you very precisely how one is accepted and the other rejected. The existence of multiple sources of corroborating evidence helps to support the claims of one, the lack of it speaks against the claims of another. Where a corroborating source can be shown to have nothing to gain by fabricating evidence for the target then that evidence is even stronger.

So JPS, birth certificates, letters to and from that have been preserved, civic documents, discussion of JPS by contemporaries, records of JPS' attendance at school, and so on. Many corroborating pieces, very little likely hood of a hoax.

JC, written about in "The Bible", a document first put on paper long after the main character was said to live. No external documents corroborating the presence of the character or the major world events surrounding the characters tale. So, not very convincing.

It simply comes down to which documents you're prepared to accept as evidence. There are thousands of documents in the Vatican Archives, that might present a different point of view.
You've not read them all. Neither have I.
...so how do you state that one is true and the other false?

chairman bill wrote:

rainbow wrote:... What it comes down to is that you accept as real those books which support your preconceptions, wheras you reject those which don't.

...a bit subjective wouldn't you say?

Is it deliberate abtuseness or something that is genetically determined? I'm open to both as possibilities, with no preconceptions.

I've no idea.
I assume you're speaking for yourself?

rainbow wrote:
What it comes down to is that you accept as real those books which support your preconceptions, wheras you reject those which don't.

...a bit subjective wouldn't you say?

Knowledge is ultimately a consensus of what is likely to be true and, to an extent, we rely on the work of others to tell us what is objectively true. We make a subjective choice on what we accept is objective. What other options are there?

Real means non-ficitonal. A non-fictional hstorical person could have fictional characteristics attributed to them.

The past existence of a real person is ultimately determined by historical documents and even eyewitness accounts but the latter are the least reliable (e.g. Elvis witnesses after he died). Can documents be forged or created? Yes, so you either rely on the credibility of historians and even scientists to review the data to determine whether the evidence for this person is valid or perform your own investigation.

Humans have been keeping records for quite a long time. If there is very little historical record then you would review the data you have and determine the likeliness existence. If I make a cliam that my ancestor was an Aztec farmer, people may accept that with very little data and determne that if my ancestors lived in a certain region, the likelihood is good enough to make a conclusion. However, if I claim that I am decendent of Aztec royalty, people will ask for documentation to support this. The more outrageous or specific the claim is the more demanding and objective the historical evidence needs to be to accept this.

argumentativealex wrote:

What it comes down to is that you accept as real those books which support your preconceptions, wheras you reject those which don't.

...a bit subjective wouldn't you say?

I accept as 'real' that for which there is evidence of 'reality'; I recognise as 'not-real' that for which there is either no evidence of 'reality' or actual evidence of 'non-reality' - what is the problem with that?

Nothing at all wrong with tautology, just as long as you recognise it as such.

Jean-Paul Sartre was 'real', Harry Potter was 'not-real'.

Possibly. You're not getting the point though.
You are basing your views on reality on what has been presented to you. What you read may be lies, or inaccurate due to mistakes. Perhaps you misread what is there.
As convinced as you are, there are other people that are as convinced as you that certain religious books are true.
How are we to determine the truth of one book over another?

ElDiablo wrote:

rainbow wrote:
What it comes down to is that you accept as real those books which support your preconceptions, wheras you reject those which don't.

...a bit subjective wouldn't you say?

Knowledge is ultimately a consensus of what is likely to be true and, to an extent, we rely on the work of others to tell us what is objectively true. We make a subjective choice on what we accept is objective. What other options are there?

Err no.
Based on this logic if you were in a small Catholic village, the consensus might be that the Virgin Mary weeps whenever you think an impure thought.
That doesn't make it necessarily true.
...or do you disagree?

rainbow wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

rainbow wrote:
What it comes down to is that you accept as real those books which support your preconceptions, wheras you reject those which don't.

...a bit subjective wouldn't you say?

Knowledge is ultimately a consensus of what is likely to be true and, to an extent, we rely on the work of others to tell us what is objectively true. We make a subjective choice on what we accept is objective. What other options are there?

Err no.
Based on this logic if you were in a small Catholic village, the consensus might be that the Virgin Mary weeps whenever you think an impure thought.
That doesn't make it necessarily true.
...or do you disagree?

That's not what he was saying. He was saying we often rely on others to give us information, and depending on what they say and how well we know them, we might accept their claims. He didn't say that it MAKES it true, only that you may or may not accept it.

It simply comes down to which documents you're prepared to accept as evidence.

No it doesn't, it comes down to the quality of evidence that supports those documents. No written document is proof of the reality of anything on just the say-so of the author in the absence of supporting evidence, and other 'eye-witness' accounts saying 'yes, I agree' don't count! We don't accept the 'reality' of Satre simply on the basis of de Beauvoir's memoir - after all, she could have just made him up (although what a twisted work of imagination that would have been!) - but on the tangible supporting evidence. Conversely, there may be a whole L-space of documents in the Vatican saying 'Jesus was the Son of God' but in the absence of one shred of actual evidence to support that view it means nothing at all. There are shed-loads of eye-witness accounts of the Loch Ness monster but until someone finds a washed-up corpse or its equivalent Nessie is just a myth. At the end of the day, Jesus was the Son of God only because he said so and that is not enough.

I accept as 'real' that for which there is evidence of 'reality'; I recognise as 'not-real' that for which there is either no evidence of 'reality' or actual evidence of 'non-reality' - what is the problem with that?

Nothing at all wrong with tautology, just as long as you recognise it as such.

Jean-Paul Sartre was 'real', Harry Potter was 'not-real'.

Possibly. You're not getting the point though.
You are basing your views on reality on what has been presented to you. What you read may be lies, or inaccurate due to mistakes. Perhaps you misread what is there.
As convinced as you are, there are other people that are as convinced as you that certain religious books are true.
How are we to determine the truth of one book over another?

Evidence, dear boy, evidence.

argumentativealex wrote:

It simply comes down to which documents you're prepared to accept as evidence.

No it doesn't, it comes down to the quality of evidence that supports those documents. No written document is proof of the reality of anything on just the say-so of the author in the absence of supporting evidence, and other 'eye-witness' accounts saying 'yes, I agree' don't count! We don't accept the 'reality' of Satre simply on the basis of de Beauvoir's memoir - after all, she could have just made him up (although what a twisted work of imagination that would have been!) - but on the tangible supporting evidence. Conversely, there may be a whole L-space of documents in the Vatican saying 'Jesus was the Son of God' but in the absence of one shred of actual evidence to support that view it means nothing at all. There are shed-loads of eye-witness accounts of the Loch Ness monster but until someone finds a washed-up corpse or its equivalent Nessie is just a myth. At the end of the day, Jesus was the Son of God only because he said so and that is not enough.

...so a whole lot of eye-witnesses to Satre's funeral wouldn't convince you that he was actually buried in the grave in Cimetière de Montparnasse?
You'd want to see the actual corpse, and get some DNA tests done - to be really sure?

rainbow wrote:...
I assume you're speaking for yourself?

No you don't. You know full well who I was referring to. Your argument seems to have similarities to the old 'head in a jar' argument. I can see it now ...

"The moon is made of blue cheese."

"Don't be daft!"

"Yes it is."

"No, it's made up of rock."

"How do you know?"

"Because scientists have analysed it."

"They might be lying."

"Look, pick up any science book about the moon & it will tell you it's made of rock!"

"Well, I've got this book that says it's made of blue cheese."

"Yes, but that's a children's book. It's not science."

"Might be. Science doesn't have a monopoly on truth you know. Out of the mouths of babes and all that."

"OK. What if we fly you to the moon & you can see for yourself?"

"Ah, but cosmic rays might interfere with my senses. Or you might drug me, take me to a film set in the Nevada desert & pretend we were on the moon."

And so it goes on. Ah but ..., being the response to just about everything. Like I said, abtuse. Did I mention that we're all just brains in jars? Ah, but you just think you're not.

chairman bill wrote:

rainbow wrote:...
I assume you're speaking for yourself?

No you don't. You know full well who I was referring to. Your argument seems to have similarities to the old 'head in a jar' argument. I can see it now ...

Listen, if you're going to make this into a personal attack, then at least be open about it. I do suggest you read FUA, before you continue in this line.

No, not a personal attack, but one on your style of argument.

rainbow wrote:
Err no.
Based on this logic if you were in a small Catholic village, the consensus might be that the Virgin Mary weeps whenever you think an impure thought.
That doesn't make it necessarily true.
...or do you disagree?

No this is a good summarization of what I'm saying.

Rumraket wrote:
He was saying we often rely on others to give us information, and depending on what they say and how well we know them, we might accept their claims. He didn't say that it MAKES it true, only that you may or may not accept it.

It would appear to be true to these people in the small Catholic Village but not necessailry be true. Just like past mythologies - societies based much of their lives on what they thought was real. The earth seemed flat, dieties brought rain, harvest and plagues, etc... The better tools we have the better we are able to interpret data.

superstition n.


1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
   
2. 1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
   2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
   3. Idolatry.
www.answers.com

I think the relationship between superstition and truth is pretty clear. Arguing over the nature of truth is a complete distraction.

...so a whole lot of eye-witnesses to Satre's funeral wouldn't convince you that he was actually buried in the grave in Cimetière de Montparnasse?
You'd want to see the actual corpse, and get some DNA tests done - to be really sure?

I would say that eye-witness accounts backed up by news reports, family documents, coroners reports, undertakers records etc would be ok and, on balance, I would say that JPS was a real person. (Actually I don't care one way or the other and am rapidly losing the will to live... ).

On less evidence but for much the same reasons I would say that Jesus was a real person...

...BUT

no matter how many time Jesus (or for that matter Sartre) is reported to have said that he was the Son of God and how many books describe his miracles and no matter how many documents detail the opinions of someone who met someone who told him that it was so IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE there is no PROOF that he actually was!

rainbow wrote:

Perfect analogy. How do you tell the real characters from the made up ones?

Sigh. I repeat. Harry Potter is a book character. JP Sartre (or Rowling, for that matter) is a book author. I would think anybody can see the difference.
The Bible was written by people whose existence I don't dispute (although their identity might be questionable, as in the case of the Gospel authours). But you can't seriously expect me to accept the existence of god, the character in their book, on the basis of their writings the same way I accept the existence of the writers.

You're dodging the question. How do YOU know which characters are real, and which are fiction?

Dodging? Rather say you still aren't reading my answers. I'm saying that Sartre is not a book character. One of the distinguishing features of a real person as opposed to a fictional character is the physical existence of the former, while the latter only exists as an intentional object (i.e., only in your imagination). Good luck finding Harry Potter and having a chat with him, or even just finding his grave.

katja z wrote:Good luck finding Harry Potter and having a chat with him, or even just finding his grave.

Or god

THWOTH wrote:

superstition n.


1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
   
2. 1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
   2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
   3. Idolatry.
www.answers.com

I think the relationship between superstition and truth is pretty clear. Arguing over the nature of truth is a complete distraction.

I agree with you, however looking at the history of humans shows that following something fictional can be just as effective a survival strategy as following some thing real. We are no longer bound as individuals to correctly percieve reality in order to survive, aka. seeing the predator for what it really is. In a social group we are protected by the mass of the group and the group is bound by a common belief, even if not supported by fact. If survival odds are improved by binding a group through fictional means, and makes them stronger than one that following fact, then they will dominate. The interesting point to note is the fiction (when used this way) must be dressed up as fact as it is with religion. In order to be effective it must present itself as a truth and not a fiction. Note the research to suggest that women have a fundamental disconnect between the objective and subjective realms in their sexual response.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magaz ... ire-t.html

Here is an indicator that an entire gender might live in a fictional world wrt to sexual arousal and presumably its adaptive. Why not entire populations following contrived syupernatural characters. The failing of religion comes from its past trils, between polytheism (Greek, Roman, Norse etc) and current discord between the montheist groups, each claiming to be exclusively right. Yte even this does not deter a believer. This ability is a human trait not restricted to theists, we are all bound by the same adaptive mechanism to conform to group think.

You haven't actually presented evidence that fallacious groupthink is best because it seems adequate. There is a difference between what is tolerable and what is to be preferred. You have made some kind of claim here that if we were all rational it would be a social catastrophe. You could be right, but I'm just not seeing that. If I--and presumably the other people who disagree with you--are right, then what is ideal is to increase rationality whereever possible. To you, this sounds like a mistake, but I don't believe you've convinced anyone of this. I know that you will point to selfless rescuers--taking some risk with their own lives--and whatnot, but by-and-large I believe you can pay people to be like that or that a wholly superior system of distributed risk is to be preferred; and, in the extremes of war, you can either damage the mind of a person to make him (her?) be the 'first up the hill', or you can just say that the person is dying one way or the other. Besides, the rescuing needed and the wars fought stem largely, if not entirely, from irrationality. I'm not absolutely rejecting your Social Darwinism, but it requires some more analysis than you seem to have at your disposal. The orgasm thing seems (mostly) off-topic ('Presumably adaptive' is almost meaningless; plus you're talking about sexual behavior and thoughts surrounding it, this has very little to do with the kinds of truths this thread is about, and it may be connected to a global patriarchy in any case).

Someone said,

You haven't actually presented evidence that fallacious groupthink is best because it seems adequate.

I have not made a moral judgement about groupthink being ‘best’, I have said that it (since it exists in such abundance) must be adaptive. Adaptive is a morally neutral scenario. I agree that I have not offered evidence o any degree, except pointing out that there are large groups of people who disconnect objective and subjective – as an example look at the argument within this thread. This indicates very little in the way of rational analysis, more defending ones position regardless. This is what you would expect from a being evolved through natural selection. Ie. Just ensure you stay in control under all circumstances, if you do not do so, you will become extinct. The disconnect between women’s sexual arousal is also evidence that survival does not require a rational concord between objective and subjective reality (at least not for women).

There is a difference between what is tolerable and what is to be preferred.

Agreed, I have not claimed otherwise. Someone living on their income might find life tolerable but would prefer to win the lottery. We might find our physical appearance tolerable but might prefer to look like Brangelina. What does this show us? That we are driven to compete with each other in relative terms because that is the logical outcome from natural selection. Only the fittest survive and this must be in relative terms.

You have made some kind of claim here that if we were all rational it would be a social catastrophe. You could be right, but I'm just not seeing that.

Once again, I have not made a moral judgement on a loaded words and avoided terms like catastrophe.
I would say that it is the only way we have been able to operate in such large groups, by contrast 20 million chimps living in the space of New York would not be able to live in relative harmony. If we were to become rational and see the objective as it is, these groups would break down. There are various mechanism that exist to manage these, the allowance of privacy, through clothing, the ability to disguise oneself, again through clothing, cosmetics etc, all provide means for taking the sting out of living an irrational life.
Look at the experiment showing that humans are prepared to pursue irrational behaviour wrt to chimps regardless of outcomes.

http://www.hellofelix.com/childhood-soc ... -kids.html

If I--and presumably the other people who disagree with you--are right, then what is ideal is to increase rationality whereever possible.

I suppose that depends upon what you consider to be ideal. I am not sure we get closer to the truth making moral judgements until we have established the objective reality, that way we are not driven by a priori assumptions – just as we see on arguments from theists so strongly – again this supports the idea that we are already imposing a subjective reality and will bend the objective one to match.

On what basis do you consider that an increase in rationality is ideal? I assume there are criteria that are aceptable to all for this to be so?

To you, this sounds like a mistake, but I don't believe you've convinced anyone of this.

I am not sure why you imagine I have a moral position on this – I certainly have not intended to do this, and cannot see one in my post? Where are you seeing this?

I know that you will point to selfless rescuers--taking some risk with their own lives--and whatnot, but by-and-large I believe you can pay people to be like that or that a wholly superior system of distributed risk is to be preferred; and, in the extremes of war, you can either damage the mind of a person to make him (her?) be the 'first up the hill', or you can just say that the person is dying one way or the other.

You are inferring what you think is behind my post. Selfless altruism might be one aspect of this, but I have not considered it to this point. There are other far stronger signals that show our objective/subjective disconnect. Appealing to social pressure through shame, disgust, honor etc usually works quite well in getting people to sacrifice themselves for non kin (as kin altruism seems supported by selfish genetics). This does not mean there is a disconnect between objective and subjective reality, they might be deluded to the reality of honor, but this is still a social reality, but they often do understand the consequences of war.(as far as is it possible to understand something you have yet to experience)

Besides, the rescuing needed and the wars fought stem largely, if not entirely, from irrationality.

Irrational behavior is a disconnect between objective and subjective reality or lack of logical process between what is observed and the conclusions drawn. War is a mechanism of domination, and done as part of humans striving for dominance over others in various group contexts. I have no doubt that there are many irrational mechanisms in the execution of war, but I cannot see how war itself is irrational. I would rather say that the justification of war is usually irrational. The fact that it is brutal and bloody and appears to achieve very little in the terms of what we consider valuable does not make it irrational.

I'm not absolutely rejecting your Social Darwinism, but it requires some more analysis than you seem to have at your disposal.

That is good because I am not proposing Social Darwinism. I am as much a fan of labels as the next citizen, in fact the use of labels is another example of how we disconnect objective with subjective. SD (not that I know much about it), is quite different to what I am talking about. I have no issue with being able to analyse what I have suggested, do not expect that a single paragraph will suffice unless you have spent some time going through the background to this topic – also note that given the subject itself it tends to be self concealing. Our tendency to separate objective from subjective makes the unmasking of this all the more difficult, rather like the combination being inside the safe – once you are inside you no longer need it.

The orgasm thing seems (mostly) off-topic ('Presumably adaptive' is almost meaningless;

I am not sure where you read about orgasms, I did not see this discussed, it was talking about arousal only and the disconnect between the womans body and perception of what the body was experiencing. OK then let us say that unless there is evidence to show this to either be a space between two biological arches, or else it is adaptive.

plus you're talking about sexual behavior and thoughts surrounding it, this has very little to do with the kinds of truths this thread is about, and it may be connected to a global patriarchy in any case).

Are you suggesting that if there is a disconnect between a womans perception of her arousal and the arousal itself, that this evidence of irrationality does not exist in other spheres of human behaviour? I would imagine that irrational behaviour is something at a deeper level than our sexual drive, and as the article points out other research shows this disconnect to extend beyond just sex.

You appear to suggest that irrational minds might operate as rational minds when considering different thiings. I would say this needs qualification. If there are no deeper drives around the particual subject then I am sure you are correct (one might agree that banging ones head on the wall is not a good thing to do, and so avoid it), however in fundamental topics like sex, politics, power, life and death an irrational mind will serve them all equally. Consider the construction of a deity to calm existential anxiety. If we are programmed to avoid death (which could arise for something that has successfully survied through billions of generations), then inevitable death becomes an anxiety issue. Bring in an afterlife and this problem no longer exists. The same person can quite easily conduct a chemistry experiment and draw rational conclusions. You will need more support to argue that irrational perception of arousal has no connection with other spheres of life.

What do you mean that this irrationality may be connected to the patriarchy? Read around the findings and you will see that various things have been tested. No question people are strongly moulded by social forces, men to women, men to men, women to women, and social to individual, and no doubt it accounts for some of irrational behaviour. However cultural forces must be acting upon something innate in the entity to get this result, culture cannot operate in a vacuum. Either way, how does this affect the outcome if we do discover that irrational behaviour does occur in this context. The mechanism might differ, but we are asking if the outcome is irrational behaviour, in this case it happens to be in women. There are other mechanism that males are subject to. This should not be a gender political point, unless we are not really trying to understand objective reality.