Could you be wrong
Forums › General Discussion › Could you be wrong-
im going to drop a question. Like to see your responses.
Could you (personally) be wrong about "anything" you claim to know?
If yes, does that logically follow that you couldnt know anything at all?
#theproblemofinduction
-
I know nothing about everything and everything about nothing ...
-
7, final answer
-
You still know things even if they're wrong
-
Does this lead us to a religious radio show or am i wrong?
-
〓ＤＥＲＥＬＩＣＴ〓 wrote:
What he saidI know nothing about everything and everything about nothing ...
-
There is only one answer...42
-
Yes, and no.
-
ғċṡṭ.ƿѧȗʟı♆яїн♆ wrote:
No lol. Unless you wanted it to!Does this lead us to a religious radio show or am i wrong?
-
If you think you could possibly be wrong, then you know you are uncertain. Therefore you still know what you think you know is right. 2+2=4. I know that is right, so logically is everything I know right? Wrong.
-
Just wanted to get some peoples thoughts on it. But then again i could be wrong about me wanting to get peoples thoughts on it 😫
-
What does wrong mean?
The patterns in your brain just are. They are neither right nor wrong.
Is it possible that a specific but arbitrary standard of testing may be applied to a given piece of knowledge to either strengthen or weaken the validity of that knowledge?
That seems plausible.
I reason that there is no absolute truth when it comes to human perception, and with an absence of verifiable absolute truth, you can never absolutely prove me wrong.
-
But allow me to clarify science for the audience here...
Induction may be selectively useful, but it IS useful.
The goal of science is to create models that can predict an outcome as reliably as possible.
Newton created models that work in most cases, but they break down in cases outside normal human experience. These models aren't truth, but they are immensely useful and work better than any other model thus far.
Newton's models got us to the moon and back. They gave us pictures of distant planets. They gave us satellites for GPS, and weather prediction.
Newton's models are based on induction. They are not truth. But they work for us most of the time. Science doesn't care about truth. It only wants our models of reality to work better so that we can get better results.
No?
-
But aren't scientific laws "truth"? If you can predict the outcome and yield the exact same results over and over.
-
pugshark wrote:
Will the sun rise tomorrow?But aren't scientific laws "truth"? If you can predict the outcome and yield the exact same results over and over.
Probably. You can say yes, because it always has, but it's not truth. We don't know to an absolute truth that the sun will be there tomorrow.
Science almost never uses the term "law" anymore. Law implies that it can never be changed, refuted, found to be incorrect, or improved upon.
That's why it's the theory of gravity now. The theory of evolution... Theory just means "body of knowledge". Science is not concerned with the philosophy of truth. It's not real.
-
Brown. If you reason that there is no absolute truth when it comes to human perception, then how can you possibly make that truth statement using your own subjective arbitrary standard?
Its self-refuting is it not?
I do agree that right and wrong does not develop by brain fizz, however, when applying your reasoning you can make statements that are either true or false. No matter if the evidence of the test is strengthened or weakened by application of your mental faculties. The problem isnt the test, its the assumption by the one whose running the test. So i would disagree with plausiblity of applying a arbitrary standard of testing because the problem still relies on the reasoning of the person applying such a test.
If he could be wrong about "anything" he claimed to know then he couldnt know that his "verifiable, observed, and even test" is anywhere close to showing anything close to truth.
-
Just take some shrooms and get it over with.
-
I've always been amazed at the model systems humans create.
Arithmetic, logic, and geometry in particular. The models themselves are absolutely perfect. 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4. A geometric line is a perfect and infinite one-dimensional object that exists in 3 dimensional space. A>B Therefore B<A.
The models are perfect and are guaranteed to be absolute truths forever. But they are just models.
A ruler is reality. It has marks to measure short distances in a very inaccurate way. The model of distance calculation is perfect, but the implementation of it in reality is imperfect. Rulers can't tell you how much distance there is from an electron to a nucleus, or from the moon to the sun, but the model can.
They are useful models, absolutely. But they don't reflect reality. They exceed it.
-
Augustine:
You are applying a perfect logical model of absolutes to human knowledge, which is a muddy reality that does not conform to the model.
Of course we can't be sure of anything. We can only be mostly sure at best. There is no truth in reality. Only in our fictional model of logic does truth and certainty exist.
The human brain is not digital. It is analog. Logic is digital.
-
For example:
Is it true that it is immoral for a 34 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl after leaving his unmarried lover of 19 years and their son?
You can't accurately apply absolute models to this question because it is entirely subjective. Sure, you can suppose that what St. Augustine did was immoral, but you can't say what he did was ABSOLUTELY wrong. Your model of morality is artificial and absolute, where as reality is entirely subjective and muddy.
-
Brown,
Is not truth is what comports with reality? That if it was not true then it would not be real?
Not sure what you mean by "perfect logical model of absolutes".
This is the problem dont you see? You make a human perspective knowledge claim by saying "we can only be mostly sure at best" on anything we claim to know. What is muddy is the consistent self-refuting circle we choose to engage with on knowledge.
"There is no in reality" is a declaritive statement of truth. The statement assumes its own validity without question of the truthfulness of the statement. That is why it does not seem logical. Truth is logical and what is logically true is real.
-
Truth is logical and wbat is logically true is real.
Would i have most people here agree with me on that statement?
-
Ѵɪɴᴎγ wrote:
How do you know your not on shrooms now? 😜 hahaJust take some shrooms and get it over with.
-
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.....nuff said
-
...inconceivable!
-
I like pizza
-
I'm a woman, we are never wrong......
Ask you wives and girlfriends, you'll see lol -
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote: ...
You do see the problem here, right? Once again you are suggesting that logic as a model is the same thing as reality. Logic is merely an abstract symbolism model much like arithmetic. 2+2=4 is true, but there is no such thing as 2+2=4 in reality. They are just symbols and rules that can be applied to reality, just like logic."There is no in reality" is a declaritive statement of truth. The statement assumes its own validity without question of the truthfulness of the statement. That is why it does not seem logical. Truth is logical and what is logically true is real.
"A statement is what it is." That is applying logic to reality. If logic creates a self refutation, the model has broken down, or you are mistaken somewhere.
"There are no truths" when CONVERTED to a logic statement is self refuting. Me saying there are no truths is perfectly accurate to any reasonable person, and therefore as true as reality permits.
-
Umm... 69?
-
Some very insightful comments on both sides.
I knew they were going to say that! 🐢 -
I once saw a naked woman.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC