Why You Believe

[Ishtar Shakti]

Quote:

The point at which reasonable doubt is dispelled for some people is divorced from that of others... and the assumption that a person is lying because they do not meet the standard of reason for the consensus is not knowledge, merely accepted givens.
Bereft of the immediate experience itself, we can only believe and conjecture.

Accepted Givens is Not knowledge

TADA my point

Just because you Accept something as true doesn't make it true. There is a point at which you take a leap of faith.

Bereft experience we can only believe and conjecture

Wow... soo nicely put

Though I also go to the added extreme that we trust our senses to be right when they've done studies that have proven that our memories are less then perfect and that bias affects what we perceive before we perceive it.

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Psychology-and-mental-health/The-false-consensus-effect-and-overconfidence-flaws-in-judgment-or-flaws-in-how-we-study-judgment.html

Memory errors
Further information: Memory bias

* Consistency bias — incorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as resembling present attitudes and behaviour.
* Cryptomnesia — a form of misattribution where a memory is mistaken for imagination.
* Egocentric bias — recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g. remembering one's exam grades as being better than they were, or remembering a caught fish as being bigger than it was
* False memory — confusion of imagination with memory, or the confusion of true memories with false memories.
* Hindsight bias — filtering memory of past events through present knowledge, so that those events look more predictable than they actually were; also known as the 'I-knew-it-all-along effect'.
* Reminiscence bump — the effect that people tend to recall more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than from other lifetime periods.
* Rosy retrospection — the tendency to rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred.
* Self-serving bias — perceiving oneself responsible for desirable outcomes but not responsible for undesirable ones.
* Suggestibility — a form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Memory_errors

Quote:

Human judgment and decision making is distorted by an
array of cognitive, perceptual and motivational biases.
Recent evidence suggests that people tend to recognize
(and even overestimate) the operation of bias in human
judgment – except when that bias is their own. Aside
from the general motive to self-enhance, two primary
sources of this ‘bias blind spot’ have been identified.
One involves people’s heavy weighting of introspective
evidence when assessing their own bias, despite the
tendency for bias to occur nonconsciously. The other
involves people’s conviction that their perceptions
directly reflect reality, and that those who see things
differently are therefore biased. People’s tendency to
deny their own bias, even while recognizing bias in
others, reveals a profound shortcoming in self-awareness,
with important consequences for interpersonal
and intergroup conflict.

http://weblamp.princeton.edu/~psych/psychology/research/pronin/pubs/2007 Bias Perception.pdf

Quote:

These findings indicate that people are flexible in the manner in which they code visual–spatial information.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0G-4KKWW12-C&_user=6861066&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1095912221&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000055858&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6861066&md5=b38de04c01ed577aedf0901726ef610f

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NpaehYQ-5YsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA175&dq=witness+misperception&ots=n38A0LSkGu&sig=A5xEMqj1Fyy1kz8DD8pRm9XAqEE#v=onepage&q=witness misperception&f=false

There is alot of information on the subject of bias misperception and the general flaws of the human mind are pretty well cataloged.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080411065959AAUv2ml



http://www.bk.psu.edu/faculty/Litvin/P212_Lab_Experimental_Error.pdf  

[TeaDidikai]

Ishtar Shakti

Accepted Givens is Not knowledge

So you lied when you said you were finished here?

Just as a point of reference, accepted givens are a form of knowledge, specifically known as Doxa. rolleyes

Would you perhaps be willing to educate yourself about knowledge theory and philosophy before you start relying on positions pulled from your ignorance and hoisting them up as truth?

It's insulting.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

TeaDidikai

Ishtar Shakti

Accepted Givens is Not knowledge

So you lied when you said you were finished here?

Just as a point of reference, accepted givens are a form of knowledge, specifically known as Doxa. rolleyes

Would you perhaps be willing to educate yourself about knowledge theory and philosophy before you start relying on positions pulled from your ignorance and hoisting them up as truth?

It's insulting.

You accepted a Given its not knowledge.
I said that I agreed with that persons point. I said that seemed as if it that they stated what I was saying.

That when they said it you didn't have a problem with accepting what they were saying. Yet when I Said it you decide to berate me. I mean... I can't help but find it hilarious. Mr. Green kind of inspired me to come back ^_^
You are definitely in a firm state of denial... and laughing at something someone says or does generally makes them stand even more firmly on whatever position they took in the first place. I understand this... but to see such obvious hypocricy. A person directly contradicting themselves... agreeing with one person and disagreeing when the same thing is restated. Its just funey. As if that its quoted with my name above it changes its meaning in anyway shape or form XD

It really depends on what you want to define knowledge as. There are multiple definitions. I don't think that any of this are in anyway a definite statement of reality and only a reflection of reality and as knowledge as being a finite state I say its impossible. No matter how good your idea or concept of anything may be you don't KNOW ANYTHING. I am talking within the context of My definition the one that I chose out of the multiple different definitions of knowledge which exist.

All you have is faith and idea's

If you want to use a specific definition of knowledge within that definition and subcontext I would agree with you but you didn't Argue THAT

You didn't Argue definitions you just told me mine was wrong while it does have a pretty good foundation and has a relevant context.  

[TeaDidikai]

Ishsha

You accepted a Given its not knowledge.

Show me where? I stated no such thing. I acknowledge that there is the potential for flaws, but that isn't the same as assuming it is flawed.

Quote:

That when they said it you didn't have a problem with accepting what they were saying.

Oh... So when you also said you cannot know what another person thinks, you lied then as well? For clearly, you are telling me what I do and do not have a problem with. stare

Quote:

Yet when I Said it you decide to berate me.

I corrected you. I also called you out because you lied.

Quote:

You are definitely in a firm state of denial...

Blah blah blah... more projection.

Quote:

A person directly contradicting themselves..

Prove I did so or shut I can and will report you for trolling.

Quote:

agreeing with one person and disagreeing when the same thing is restated.

Don't confuse restating with misstating.

Quote:

It really depends on what you want to define knowledge as.

More mental masturbation. I don't define knowledge. rolleyes

Quote:

There are multiple definitions.

Which is why we examine authority.

How hard is this for you to grasp?

Quote:

I don't think that any of this are in anyway a definite statement of reality and only a reflection of reality and as knowledge as being a finite state I say its impossible.

Your mental masturbation isn't worth anything.

Quote:

No matter how good your idea or concept of anything may be you don't KNOW ANYTHING

Can you kindly stop trolling the forum with your unsupported claims?

Quote:

I am talking within the context of My definition the one that I chose out of the multiple different definitions of knowledge which exist.

If you think your personal authority to define objective reality is worth anything, especially when your position isn't founded by anything but your own opinion, you really need to get some basic logic under your belt.

Quote:

All you have is faith and idea's

Actually, I have knowledge, in the form of phronesis, episteme, gnosis, doxa, theoria and poiesis.

Quote:

If you want to use a specific definition of knowledge within that definition and subcontext I would agree with you but you didn't Argue THAT

I habitually argued that. I also challenged your unsupported claims.

Quote:

You didn't Argue definitions you just told me mine was wrong while it does have a pretty good foundation and has a relevant context.

I pointed out that your position is logically flawed. Your response was to plug your ears and hum.

Your position is still logically flawed. Shall you answer the fallacies or indulge in argumentum ad nauseam?  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

I'm curious as to why you protest their right to hate, deride and disregard.

I am not omniscient.
I may be wrong.
They may be correct.
We may have the same point, yet our point of view of that point and the vaguerities of our presentations may leave it apparently otherwise.
I hate based on my emotion.
I try to curb my derision, yet I indulge when I see something that steps on my pet peeves and that I believe will damage my over-arching goals, or cause those that see it harm if the accept it.
I disregard based on my Knowledge and my reason/compatibility with causal structures that I am capable of conceiving.
I may establish that a person is wrong, yet I am loathe to deny them rights I claim for myself.

Quote:

example of this please?

Flat-earth.
Geocentricism.
The War 'twixt the states was fought over slavery alone.
Germany started World War 1.
Only Jews were targetted during the Holocaust.
Cigarettes promote good breathing and are a good medicine.
Laudanum isn't addictive.
Whatever models of atoms we used up to the current one.
4 element system.
Mind you... these are not guaranteed to be accurate either. However, they are examples of commonly held beliefs that were later "shown" to be inaccurate, or are accepted only by certain parties, often biased parties. These are all either contested or "disproven" however, they are presented/accepted as givens in different times/places.

Quote:

Objective reality. Not a version thereof- which would rely on Relativism.

How do non-omniscients establish the validity of their model for an objective reality?

Quote:

Demonstrable fact for a start.

Demonstrable to whom using what methods?

Quote:

When it is demonstrably wrong.

Unless it is merely misinformation?

Quote:

That which falls outside of the realm of falsifiability isn't commented upon.
That which is within what we can empirically examine and demonstrate that it contradicts the offered position- upon clinging to the false position, it becomes indisputably wrong through evidence.

Indisputably wrong?
A non-omnisceint claiming something is indisputably wrong.
So you would have me accept that the limitations of what we can examine (perceive) are acceptable to use as establishments for an Objective reality model?
So, what happens when what is indisputably wrong later is revealed to be correct?

Quote:

Is it a criticism of you, or your position I would wonder.

Both.
Depending on the critic.
I must needs remove my shoes to count them all on any given week. Some hate me, some hate my position. Some hate me for my position. Some hate my position because their position requires it. Some are civil, the remainder aren't. I generally care little. I was mentioning that more as a general gratitude for the public behavior towards me.

Here is a question then to the general populace...
If you change your mind about a matter which you previously positted a point on, have you lied?  

[maenad nuri]

IS: I'm afraid I can't make any sense of this and your argument. There's words there, but they aren't lining up into comprehensible English to this captain. Can you sum up, in a short paragraph, what you are attempting to say?

(This, this is what happens when I just don't have the spoons to deal with anything but my job.)  

[Maze]

Fiddlers Green

Here is a question then to the general populace...
If you change your mind about a matter which you previously positted a point on, have you lied?

Only if you state your new way of viewing it was the one you always held.

I tend to change my mind with disclaimers. "Look, I know I said 'x' back then, but I've since come to realise that, given 'y' and 'z', B is the answer that I currently view to be correct."

Unless it's not a rational decision I changed my mind on, in which case I may just go "*shrug* Changed my mind."

I don't feel like I would have been lying at the time, though, because, obviously, when I declared A to be my answer, I must have thought it correct.

Unless I knew it to be incorrect, in which case I totally would be a liar. But I would have been a liar prior to changing my mind 'in public' as well, then, and would continue to be one after.

But the act of changing my mind itself does not turn me into a liar, as it were. It just means that I have changed my mind.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

I am not omniscient.
I may be wrong.
They may be correct.
We may have the same point, yet our point of view of that point and the vaguerities of our presentations may leave it apparently otherwise.
I hate based on my emotion.
I try to curb my derision, yet I indulge when I see something that steps on my pet peeves and that I believe will damage my over-arching goals, or cause those that see it harm if the accept it.
I disregard based on my Knowledge and my reason/compatibility with causal structures that I am capable of conceiving.
I may establish that a person is wrong, yet I am loathe to deny them rights I claim for myself.

Ah. It didn't read that way. Thanks for the clarification.

Quote:

Flat-earth.
Geocentricism.
The War 'twixt the states was fought over slavery alone.
Germany started World War 1.
Only Jews were targetted during the Holocaust.
Cigarettes promote good breathing and are a good medicine.
Laudanum isn't addictive.
Whatever models of atoms we used up to the current one.
4 element system.
Mind you... these are not guaranteed to be accurate either. However, they are examples of commonly held beliefs that were later "shown" to be inaccurate, or are accepted only by certain parties, often biased parties. These are all either contested or "disproven" however, they are presented/accepted as givens in different times/places.

Most of these strike me less as an institutionalized lie, and more of either an initial theory that was later shown to be incomplete or in some cases, an oversimplification used as shorthand in an internally flawed education system.

Quote:

How do non-omniscients establish the validity of their model for an objective reality?

Empirical demonstration.

Quote:

Demonstrable to whom using what methods?

The notion is that it is equally demonstrable through empirical testing.

Quote:

Indisputably wrong?
A non-omnisceint claiming something is indisputably wrong.
So you would have me accept that the limitations of what we can examine (perceive) are acceptable to use as establishments for an Objective reality model?

Yes, because presuming there is a flaw simply because there is a potential for there to be a flaw is illogical.

Quote:

So, what happens when what is indisputably wrong later is revealed to be correct?

Perhaps you could provide an example of this?

Quote:

Here is a question then to the general populace...
If you change your mind about a matter which you previously positted a point on, have you lied?

Too vague to answer.
There are cases wherein you can change your mind, but the position you previously held is not voided except by action, but that would be the exception.  

[TeaDidikai]

maenad nuri

This, this is what happens when I just don't have the spoons to deal with anything but my job.

I'm short on spoons myself.  

[Collowrath]

TeaDidikai

maenad nuri

This, this is what happens when I just don't have the spoons to deal with anything but my job.

I'm short on spoons myself.

You can have some of my spoons. cry Both of you.  

[TeaDidikai]

Collowrath

You can have some of my spoons. cry Both of you.

I'd find that unethical.  

[Collowrath]

TeaDidikai

Collowrath

You can have some of my spoons. cry Both of you.

I'd find that unethical.

Well, my spoons are here if you need them.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

Ah. It didn't read that way. Thanks for the clarification.

My words often find a way to put themselves at odds with my intend in the space 'twixt my mind and those of others. Treacherous little beasties. wink

Quote:

Most of these strike me less as an institutionalized lie, and more of either an initial theory that was later shown to be incomplete or in some cases, an oversimplification used as shorthand in an internally flawed education system.

If information exists otherwise, and they are still presented as indisputable fact, is it not a lie? Must they not be presented as likely or considered, rather than objective?

Quote:

Empirical demonstration.

Conducted by and demonstrated to?

Quote:

The notion is that it is equally demonstrable through empirical testing.

The entire concept of empiricism hinges on observation. This makes it Consensually Perceptual rather than Objective.

Quote:

Yes, because presuming there is a flaw simply because there is a potential for there to be a flaw is illogical.

Nice try.
I am merely presuming there can be a flaw because there is the potential for a flaw. I am attempting to decry the use of absolutes. If something is indisputable, it is established as beyound dispute. Stating that there is the potential for a flaw, but not potential for dispute, seems more than slightly illogical to me.
I'm not aiming for complete collapse here, just an acknowledgment that reliance on observation, no matter how repeatable (as the phenomenon may only be repeatable within the confines of the perceiving entities perceptions for all they know), amongst non-omniscients cannot provide a complete and perfect model of an Objective system that extends beyound their (assisted or native)perceptions.

Quote:

Perhaps you could provide an example of this?

Classic (Newtonian) Physics.

Quote:

Too vague to answer.
There are cases wherein you can change your mind, but the position you previously held is not voided except by action, but that would be the exception.

So, one would have to take an action commiserate with the previous one in opposition to what they previously intended for it to void the aforementioned assertion?
Are statements of intent lies?
Given the vaguerities of our, apparently species endemic, grasp of dilated time would establishing a matter of the "future" be a statement of intent or a statement of action in another time?  

[Ishtar Shakti]

TeaDidikai

Ishsha

You accepted a Given its not knowledge.

Show me where? I stated no such thing. I acknowledge that there is the potential for flaws, but that isn't the same as assuming it is flawed.

Quote:

That when they said it you didn't have a problem with accepting what they were saying.

Oh... So when you also said you cannot know what another person thinks, you lied then as well? For clearly, you are telling me what I do and do not have a problem with. stare

Quote:

Yet when I Said it you decide to berate me.

I corrected you. I also called you out because you lied.

Quote:

You are definitely in a firm state of denial...

Blah blah blah... more projection.

Quote:

A person directly contradicting themselves..

Prove I did so or shut I can and will report you for trolling.

Quote:

agreeing with one person and disagreeing when the same thing is restated.

Don't confuse restating with misstating.

Quote:

It really depends on what you want to define knowledge as.

More mental masturbation. I don't define knowledge. rolleyes

Quote:

There are multiple definitions.

Which is why we examine authority.

How hard is this for you to grasp?

Quote:

I don't think that any of this are in anyway a definite statement of reality and only a reflection of reality and as knowledge as being a finite state I say its impossible.

Your mental masturbation isn't worth anything.

Quote:

No matter how good your idea or concept of anything may be you don't KNOW ANYTHING

Can you kindly stop trolling the forum with your unsupported claims?

Quote:

I am talking within the context of My definition the one that I chose out of the multiple different definitions of knowledge which exist.

If you think your personal authority to define objective reality is worth anything, especially when your position isn't founded by anything but your own opinion, you really need to get some basic logic under your belt.

Quote:

All you have is faith and idea's

Actually, I have knowledge, in the form of phronesis, episteme, gnosis, doxa, theoria and poiesis.

Quote:

If you want to use a specific definition of knowledge within that definition and subcontext I would agree with you but you didn't Argue THAT

I habitually argued that. I also challenged your unsupported claims.

Quote:

You didn't Argue definitions you just told me mine was wrong while it does have a pretty good foundation and has a relevant context.

I pointed out that your position is logically flawed. Your response was to plug your ears and hum.

Your position is still logically flawed. Shall you answer the fallacies or indulge in argumentum ad nauseam?

You accepted a given. This means you accepted what I said for truth. As how can something be seen as a lie unless it was predisposed to be true to begin with. It was also meant to be a joke.
This does depends on if your definition of a lie of course. Working from the contextual frame work of the person hearing or saying. It could be that you assumed that I would go back on my word and thus before I even stated anything you had a predisposition to believe that I would be back. I mean how can I lie to you if you already know what I will do? Also how can you know that I lied unless I knew when I stated something that it was untrue. This would mean you would know what I think ^_^
I like my joke better then I like calling you out

Soo... you accepted a given XD (the given was that I wasn't ever coming back if you haven't caught on yet)

I may be sick of something... down right tired of it and say I am at that moment. But this does not account for the changes of the world. I did not lie. I also didn't bother to read any responses after my own accept those that directly referenced Mr. Green. Its a bit pointless to argue with someone whose already convinced that you are wrong. I am effectively done arguing with you. At least on this point.

I am just giving you links that might help you gain a different perspective. That maybe perchance you Will go back through what you have written and what was said and figure out where things went astray. I already did that. I already tried pointing out possible places. I have tried pointing out your bias... I have defined it. I have shown an instance where this happened. I gave an example.

"Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective."
I only came back to point out that you Are biased thus why would I argue with someone whose going to automatically assume from the start that I am wrong. Bias is a natural state. I gave links supporting my position. I provided documentation.

I'm not going to try to talk to someone who refuses to provide links or proper definitions. Who refuses to rely on someone elses context or provide a context of there own. I mean considering how many philosophies and view points and ways of internalizing data...

Also if you aren't going to define knowledge then why the hell are you going to try to argue what it is. Now that is one of the most hilarious things I've heard all day!

I mean of all things to argue...

If I was to call myself a lier it would be because... hmmm
I believe that you can't know anything but I still even try to talk to other people. That seems a contradiction right there. But then I choose to take chances and believe and make constructs of knowledge and interact with other peoples frameworks independent of knowing anything. I make assertions based on what I perceive which seems to stem from a logical series of events. I make many assumptions and the only time I actually know that they are right is when those things in the chaotic place that is outside of me seems to resonate truly.

I gauge this through a number of ways... all of which end up being elaborate constructs that seem to work based on a semi regular basis. There is no actual knowledge there thus any statement I make is actually not a statement at all of anything objective but an observation that is supported by other peoples observations.

This would be done a number of ways. I prefer to rely on non biased observations of persons who don't understand the context of what is going on from a completely foreign frame work and I hope that through there frame work they can synthesize the information into some semblance of accuracy.

I take most of what your saying to be a matter of opinion especially since you don't seem to be supporting it with any sort of outside sources and you seem to be just picking at things that you think are weak points while refusing to synthesize what I'm saying as a whole.

I actually don't think anything I am saying is anything Close to objective reality. I say it from a point of ignorance much as you your self do. And at this point we are two ignorant people talking back and forth and there is nothing productive in talking to you because I already have read what your trying to say. I already received this information before I ever talked to you. I've understood your half of the argument. I got it a while ago.

I am being such a pain in the a** because of ire at the presumptions your making. I could probably argue your point for you if you Wanted me to. That would actually be a fun thought experiment. Your position isn't mutually exclusive.  

[Violet Song jat Shariff]

*puts on crew hat*
Ishtar Shatki, if you are done in this thread (as you said you were a page or two ago), then be done with it and move on. Do not revisit it. Do not continue to post in it. To keep posting in this thread anymore aside from responding to Nuri's request is viewed as trolling.