Freedom from the illusion of knowing, and having safe ground to stand on

[Jim]

You tend to post laughable things, but not real
funny, as such.

I was serious about your roasting not being as entertaining as it is sometimes, and wondering if you aren’t feeling well.

 

[Audie]

I was serious about your roasting not being as entertaining as it is sometimes, and wondering if you aren’t feeling well.

If you just find it "entertaining" to have it pointed out
when you are full of it, I guess I will put you on ig
so I wont bother with you.

I was serious asking if you are just blathering or have
something real to say.

 

[Heyo]

The illusion of knowing that I’m talking about is people thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.

Yes, I know that kind of person. *cough*Theists*cough*
We have methods to verify our knowledge, science for the material world and philosophy for the immaterial. But you can't help someone who rejects the methods. In the end, reality usually gets you. We can just hope that it gets to them before they reproduce.

“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.” - Douglas Adams

 

[Jim]

If you just find it "entertaining" to have it pointed out
when you are full of it, I guess I will put you on ig
so I wont bother with you.

I was serious asking if you are just blathering or have
something real to say.

to you, too.

 

[Jim]

If you just find it "entertaining" to have it pointed out
when you are full of it, ...

Sorry, I was forgetting, it isn’t only for entertainment. Sometimes you really do help me see some errors in my ways, things that I’m saying or doing wrong. Sorry.

 

[exchemist]

That is all in the word "knowable". If there is no reality or if we can't perceive reality, we can't know. Now, there are problems with our perception but we assume that we can overcome them, for example through repeated, independent observations.

Exactly. I have been challenged on this forum as to why we imagine that even the results of corroborated observation are truly objective - and it is a valid point. After all, we all share a human perspective at the very least, which may in some way limit or bias our perception of nature.

I have also come across the extreme relativist view that there is no objective physical reality, since nobody can get inside somebody else's skull, i.e. all is a matter of individual perception. But I think that to do science one has to believe there is an objective physical reality "out there" to model. The predictive success of science seems to me to bear that out.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That isn’t what I mean by people thinking that they know. I mean people thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.

But isn't this down to accepting a particular belief, or system of beliefs? Many seem to argue as if there is no possibility for them being wrong - and usually from a religious perspective - when many others will admit to not knowing. I hardly need to point out the many here who do such - and all the time.

 

[Audie]

Exactly. I have been challenged on this forum as to why we imagine that even the results of corroborated observation are truly objective - and it is a valid point. After all, we all share a human perspective at the very least, which may in some way limit or bias our perception of nature.

I have also come across the extreme relativist view that there is no objective physical reality, since nobody can get inside somebody else's skull, i.e. all is a matter of individual perception. But I think that to do science one has to believe there is an objective physical reality "out there" to model. The predictive success of science seems to me to bear that out.

I think it is worth noting that a highest value in science is to
try to be objective, and procedures including peer review are
there to help push it that way.

Like any ideal, it cannot be fully realized but in science one
is supposed to at least try his best.

Religion requires doing the opposite.
Intellectual dishonesty is embraced as a
prime virtue.

This quote from a noted yec scientist sums it up-
, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. [

 

[Nakosis]

One of the ways that I see people excusing their prejudices, animosities and hostilities is with what they think they know from science or from religious scriptures, some safe ground that they think they’re standing on. Just now I was wondering what ground I think I’m standing on, and it might be that I don’t have any illusion any more of knowing anything or having any safe ground to stand on. Then I was wondering, where does my assurance or confidence come from, to do anything that I’m doing?

Is there anyone else here who doesn’t feel any need to know anything or to have any safe ground to stand on? If so, where do you think your assurance or confidence comes from, to do what you do? Maybe, could it just be a natural consequence of freedom from the illusion of knowing and of having safe ground to stand on?

My "knowledge" is experiential. What has worked for me many time, continues to work for me successfully. What doesn't work also becomes part of your knowledge. I tend to feel my knowledge of what doesn't work is often more important than what does. That why I can avoid the consequences of actions/choices that don't work.

I try to be open to ideas that may work better but also but also know of things that others think to try but for myself have already found out they don't work.

Sometimes people listen to me, sometimes they don't. Often people have to find out for themselves what does/doesn't work so I don't stand in their way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The illusion of knowing that I’m talking about is people thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.

Take care, Jim. It is a double edged sword.

But I think that to do science one has to believe there is an objective physical reality "out there" to model.

Yeah, there is an objective reality of energy/space and fundamental forces, as we know today.

 

[Jim]

Take care, Jim. It is a double edged sword.

Caught me red-handed.

 

[Jim]

My "knowledge" is experiential. What has worked for me many time, continues to work for me successfully. What doesn't work also becomes part of your knowledge. I tend to feel my knowledge of what doesn't work is often more important than what does. That why I can avoid the consequences of actions/choices that don't work.

I try to be open to ideas that may work better but also but also know of things that others think to try but for myself have already found out they don't work.

Sometimes people listen to me, sometimes they don't. Often people have to find out for themselves what does/doesn't work so I don't stand in their way.

What I’m saying is not about everything that people call “knowledge.” This is not about whether there is such a thing as objective reality or truth. What I mean by what people think they know is thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.

 

[Twilight Hue]

One of the ways that I see people excusing their prejudices, animosities and hostilities is with what they think they know from science or from religious scriptures, some safe ground that they think they’re standing on. Just now I was wondering what ground I think I’m standing on, and it might be that I don’t have any illusion any more of knowing anything or having any safe ground to stand on. Then I was wondering, where does my assurance or confidence come from, to do anything that I’m doing?

Is there anyone else here who doesn’t feel any need to know anything or to have any safe ground to stand on? If so, where do you think your assurance or confidence comes from, to do what you do? Maybe, could it just be a natural consequence of freedom from the illusion of knowing and of having safe ground to stand on?

There's no such thing as safe ground.

Trouble always starts with complacency.

 

[Jim]

My question was for people who don’t have any views or beliefs that aren’t open to doubt or question, who don’t see any safe ground to stand on, and aren’t trying to find any. My question was, where do you think your confidence comes from, to do what you do? One possible answer that I see for me is that I’m not afraid of being wrong. I’ve faced and embraced the possibility that anything I think could be wrong.

 

[exchemist]

I think it is worth noting that a highest value in science is to
try to be objective, and procedures including peer review are
there to help push it that way.

Like any ideal, it cannot be fully realized but in science one
is supposed to at least try his best.

Religion requires doing the opposite.
Intellectual dishonesty is embraced as a
prime virtue.

This quote from a noted yec scientist sums it up-
, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. [

You can't generalise from Young Earth Creationism to the whole of religion, obviously.

 

[Heyo]

My question was for people who don’t have any views or beliefs that aren’t open to doubt or question, who don’t see any safe ground to stand on, and aren’t trying to find any. My question was, where do you think your confidence comes from, to do what you do? One possible answer that I see for me is that I’m not afraid of being wrong. I’ve faced and embraced the possibility that anything I think could be wrong.

My confidence comes from logic. There are things that have to be true, like "there is no married bachelor". That is ground I can stand on.

 

[Heyo]

You can't generalise from Young Earth Creationism to the whole of religion, obviously.

@Audie
To be fair, she didn't do that. She made a generalization and provided an example that supported her view. To be fair to you, an example doesn't prove the generalization.

 

[Mock Turtle]

My question was for people who don’t have any views or beliefs that aren’t open to doubt or question, who don’t see any safe ground to stand on, and aren’t trying to find any. My question was, where do you think your confidence comes from, to do what you do? One possible answer that I see for me is that I’m not afraid of being wrong. I’ve faced and embraced the possibility that anything I think could be wrong.

My confidence comes from knowing that I wouldn't behave any differently if I actually was to believe in some kind of God, but it would take a great deal to persuade me into any religion since I mostly view them as all the same (products of the human mind) and with as many deficits as in having any benefits. Mostly I don't see any benefits, and I can live with doubt quite comfortably apparently. Of course the possibility of being wrong is always there but I can live with that too.

 

[Jim]

I added this note to the OP:

This is not posted in a debate forum, and it is not about science and religion, or about objective reality or truth. It’s about a question that came to me while I was thinking about some ways that I think I see people misrepresenting and misusing research reports and religious scriptures.

My question is for people who don’t have any views or beliefs that aren’t open to doubt or question, who don’t see any safe ground to stand on, and aren’t trying to find any. My question was, where do you think your confidence comes from, to do what you do? One possible answer that I see for me is that I’m not afraid of being wrong. I’ve faced and embraced the possibility that anything I think could be wrong.

 

[Nakosis]

What I’m saying is not about everything that people call “knowledge.” This is not about whether there is such a thing as objective reality or truth. What I mean by what people think they know is thinking that they can’t be wrong about something that they’re saying.

Since consciousness is a subjective state, I believe there will always be a separation between us and any objective reality or "truth". For us right and wrong are even subjective.

Not saying there isn't an objective truth, just our experience of it will always be subjective.