When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

[ppp]

Incorrect. It is a fact, and only I know this, as I have seen it with my own eyes

You are taking this personally, and ignoring the fact that, like every other human, you can be wrong. That we (including you) are fallible. And that when what we humans (including yourself) think we know, conflicts with reality, that what we think we know is suspect.

But neither is truth for you; you have no experience

I am not saying that you did not have an experience. But if your sleeping room is otherwise intact, despite being occupied by an elephant, any ration person should question the cause of that experience.

 

[stvdv]

You are taking this personally, and ignoring the fact that, like every other human, you can be wrong. That we (including you) are fallible. And that when what we humans (including yourself) think we know, conflicts with reality, that what we think we know is suspect.

I am not saying that you did not have an experience. But if your sleeping room is otherwise intact, despite being occupied by an elephant, any ration person should question the cause of that experience.

I don't take it personal. I just trust my own eyes. I know I am fallible, but being fallible does not apply in this particular hypothetical example. This is just a simple fact which I have seen. So, here it comes down to "self-confidence". When I would have been blind, it would have been an entirely different story, because then I had to rely on touching the elephant for example. But that was not the case.

But I make it more simple:
Now it is you, and not me who sees the elephant. Same scenario. Do you have the guts and confidence to declare "I know as a fact that at least one Pink Elephant exists, because I saw it with my own eyes"?

 

[ppp]

I don't take it personal. I just trust my own eyes. I know I am fallible, but being fallible does not apply in this particular hypothetical example. This is just a simple fact which I have seen. So, here it comes down to "self-confidence". When I would have been blind, it would have been an entirely different story, because then I had to rely on touching the elephant for example. But that was not the case.

So, if there were no other evidence that there had been an elephant in your room other than the pic and the water, you would not question?

You seem to be focused on the pinkness, but that is a trivial point. Barely worth considering.

You have to explain all of the evidence against your claim:
Unless you have especially large doors, an elephant could not pass them Unless you have reinforced floors an elephant would break them. Unless your home is bare, an elephant would knock things over. An elephant would leave tracks on the ground and the floor. An elephant would leave hair and skin scraping where he forced himself in. Where did the elephant go? How did it get away without anyone else seeing it?

In light of all that disconfirming evidence (plus the fact that you were asleep), the more likely scenario is that you were fooled by one of your more clever friends...or enemies.

Now it is you, and not me who sees the elephant. Same scenario. Do you have the guts and confidence to declare "I know as a fact that at least one Pink Elephant exists, because I saw it with my own eyes"?

What you call "guts and confidence" is merely egocentric bravado and the fear of being uncertain. With such strong conflicting evidence (as listed above) I would have the wisdom to understand that the situation bears further investigation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People who are deaf usually excel in their other sense perception it seems to me. Less mental, more feeling. Recently I saw a deaf girl explaining in a very cute way how she perceived hearing people and their "dumb remarks". Really beautiful, so different from non-deaf people's replies, I almost shared this on RF, but was unsure if others have interest. One of my favorite detectives was "Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye" (the only one I bought on DVD)

I haven't seen that, but yes. There's a lot of sensitivity between Deaf and hearing in reference to cultural differences. Going by so far being here, even if there were interest, it would turn into a debate and do more harm than good.

I can't imagine people posting thousands of posts to remember them afterwards. And RF search is not my favorite (Google is much easier)
A few days ago I thought "What is the use of being on RF? Is it finding information, or just virtual learning in the moment, doing introspection etc. I never take notes. Sometimes I think "wow, this is nice to remember". For me RF is most useful for doing introspection and learning about myself through little virtual interaction

I actually don't know why I'm on RF anymore other than habit and taking a break in between work. A lot of things I can learn just by googling or reading a book. Some things I remember and few I learned from, and ironically, they are from people (their theology) I highly disagree with, for lack of strong words, on topics that come to heart. Beyond theology and more about human decadently, respect, and self-awareness.

Makes you wise. My favorite books when young were "Winnetou & Old Shatterhand", native american Indian stories. I hated the injustice though.

True. We have a lot of Native American history in the States and reservations et cetera. Some federally recognized and many others are not. The details I'm not sure, but it's sad there is still confrontation between reservations and the U.S. when it comes to land use and such. History books record history but don't erase it.

Internet plays a big factor in al of this. Copyrights are violated, not even known anymore. Difficult to protect "your things". In a way this can be used to realize what the old native american Indian said "no words are mine for they all came from god.". Everything can be used to transform ourselves

Yeah. To tell you honestly, I don't know of any information I would keep to myself in regards to religious experiences and opinions about politics et cetera if I knew sharing the information would be appropriate and beneficial in a given topic-more so interest between two parties rather than not sharing because the other is a stranger. Religion is safer, though. Legality doesn't really come into play, so sharing experiences and not wanting to sounds more of a personal issue. Whereas, if someone committed a crime or so have you, I can see why one wouldn't share their business-logically rather than ethically.

I was amazed to hear people say this
But actually they only declare one thing "I lack compassion, empathy", and they might be drifting into "matrix-type-of-people". Scary thought

Hm. Yeah. I'll be dead honest, I never heard anyone be so mean and put down people in person than what I read on RF. Opinions et cetera people hold I really thought maybe I'm being more optimistic than I give myself credit for. Some justified others, in my opinion, not so much but very bothersome nonetheless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your confusing attempt at clarification represents a confusing misunderstanding of the 'objective' versus 'subjective' as defined in the English language, and confusing erroneous view of the nature of judgement in terms of science. Judgement in science is based on 'objective verifiable evidence.' Subjective is defined in clear plane English as of the 'mind only,' and objective relates to physical evidence outside the mind.

You see, if we were to go through your answer and check it using the scientific methodology as in humanistic science (Danish cultural version of science as different than natural science as a cultural version of science) against your claims as such, the answer would be this:

The thoughts expressed in this text quoted above are in part subjective and do not relate to only physical evidence. Rather they express a certain cultural and thus limited and relative view of what science is. The text is a cultural product and can be understood as such, because it express a certain human view of how to understand the world and this certain view is a cultural product and as such not with just physical evidence. Rather it is in the mind of the author a subjective view of how to categorize the world and this categorization itself is subjective.

You see, while you have a lot of experience in natural science, logic and philosophy you are biased by being form natural science. Just as I am biased as not being from natural science, but rather being from in part cultural and humanistic science.
I can see both our biases though they are different, but apparently you can only see mine? Is that correct?

What science is, is not science as such as with only objective verifiable evidence. Science is a cultural human behavior and reflects different cultural traditions.
As such if we try to categorize our behavior then it appears that we are connected to different schools of thoughts of how to understand the world or if you like reality:

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

In short you use a subjective definition of science and apparently refuse to acknowledge that your definition in its totality is nowhere but in the mind. Now of course there is more to the world than your or my mind, but they are apparently both in the world and can't be only understood with objective verifiable evidence.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, if there were no other evidence that there had been an elephant in your room other than the pic and the water, you would not question?

You seem to be focused on the pinkness, but that is a trivial point. Barely worth considering.

You have to explain all of the evidence against your claim:
Unless you have especially large doors, an elephant could not pass them Unless you have reinforced floors an elephant would break them. Unless your home is bare, an elephant would knock things over. An elephant would leave tracks on the ground and the floor. An elephant would leave hair and skin scraping where he forced himself in. Where did the elephant go? How did it get away without anyone else seeing it?

In light of all that disconfirming evidence (plus the fact that you were asleep), the more likely scenario is that you were fooled by one of your more clever friends...or enemies.


What you call "guts and confidence" is merely egocentric bravado and the fear of being uncertain. With such strong conflicting evidence (as listed above) I would have the wisdom to understand that the situation bears further investigation.

See, @stvdv
As long as you are in practice capable of navigating the difference between natural science and religion, you will do fine. Don't play with strong atheists because they in effect not as atheists but as strong atheists don't subjectively understand that there are aspects of the everyday world that we share, which can't be evaluated with only science.

Let me show to you what they in effect do.
We as humans can in a limited sense use science, but it is limited in practice.
We as humans can in a limited sense use religion, but it is limited in practice.

From these 2 understandings they conclude that they can use science only because religion is "wrong" according to science.
Now some religious humans do it in the other sense. Science is "wrong" according to religion.
I do both without claiming neither are right or wrong, they just have different usages.
As long as you in effect can differentiate between the 2 for this everyday world we are in, you will do fine.

Regards and love
Mikkel

PS I can explain science as science for what it believes in in practice and how that works, but you really don't need that to have a life.

 

[stvdv]

So, if there were no other evidence that there had been an elephant in your room other than the pic and the water, you would not question?

Whether or not I would question depends on the person AND if I really want/need to know

You seem to be focused on the pinkness, but that is a trivial point. Barely worth considering.

No, you assumed wrong. I just used Pink Elephant, because I saw Atheists on RF using this example, so I expected to not have to explain

You have to explain all of the evidence against your claim:
Unless you have especially large doors, an elephant could not pass them Unless you have reinforced floors an elephant would break them. Unless your home is bare, an elephant would knock things over. An elephant would leave tracks on the ground and the floor. An elephant would leave hair and skin scraping where he forced himself in. Where did the elephant go? How did it get away without anyone else seeing it?

In light of all that disconfirming evidence (plus the fact that you were asleep), the more likely scenario is that you were fooled by one of your more clever friends...or enemies.

That would be true if the purpose of my scenario was focused on the Pink Elephant. It was not though, hence these details are not important now
The purpose I asked this question in this way, was solely to see if others trust their own eyes or not

With such strong conflicting evidence (as listed above) I would have the wisdom to understand that the situation bears further investigation.

That is fine, further investigation usually does not hurt and if you feel you need it, then I would say "go for it"
I already have enough confidence in my own perception in such a case I described, so I need not do further investigation

I do understand that my confidence would not be enough for others to believe such an unbelievable story; I probably would not even try it
I also would be very surprised if this Pink Elephant really appeared in my house; even if it was a small Pink Elephant, not able to do any damage

 

[stvdv]

What you call "guts and confidence" is merely egocentric bravado and the fear of being uncertain

Stating this as a fact is wrong. At best you could say "merely egocentric bravado and the fear of being uncertain IMHO". It's not an established fact

 

[stvdv]

See, @stvdv
As long as you are in practice capable of navigating the difference between natural science and religion, you will do fine. Don't play with strong atheists because they in effect not as atheists but as strong atheists don't subjectively understand that there are aspects of the everyday world that we share, which can't be evaluated with only science.

I appreciate the friendly heads-up on strong Atheists. I keep that in mind. Hence I started this thread to better understand how they reason

Let me show to you what they in effect do.
We as humans can in a limited sense use science, but it is limited in practice.
We as humans can in a limited sense use religion, but it is limited in practice.

From these 2 understandings they conclude that they can use science only because religion is "wrong" according to science.
Now some religious humans do it in the other sense. Science is "wrong" according to religion.
I do both without claiming neither are right or wrong, they just have different usages.
As long as you in effect can differentiate between the 2 for this everyday world we are in, you will do fine.
PS I can explain science as science for what it believes in in practice and how that works, but you really don't need that to have a life.

I agree. My Master explained it simple and beautiful: "Science is below the mind, Spirituality is above the mind"
Use both, as both have their value. One is not better than the other, both are needed to understand all

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Stating this as a fact is wrong. At best you could say "merely egocentric bravado and the fear of being uncertain IMHO". It's not an established fact

I will try to explain how I view this variant of non-religion. I have come across it before and it works in both directions, though also differently as weird as it might seem. Now this is not IMHO, but it is not a judgment, because it applies to virtual humans. And as far as I can tell it applies to you, Joe W and me. We just deal with it differently.

So forget evidence for a moment. It works like this: Take 2 or more humans and find something where they with logic it appears, that one or more must be wrong. E.g. if there is a God or not. If that can be known or not. The list goes on. For all cases where this happens apparently as per objectivity because it is independent of the mind, it must be a contradiction. Well, it is not.

How? Because the reason for all behaviors are subjective and will works as subjective behaviors as long as it doesn't violate the objective part of reality. Let me explain. I believe in God and as long as my behavior that follows from that works in reality in general I can believe as I do. But that applies to all such behavior and here it is for some non-religious people. They subjectively in effect believe that reality is objective. They don't notice that this belief is subjective, because it subjectively works for them and they don't believe, that they have this belief. To them it is an objective fact. It is not.

They don't understand that reality as it works for us while we are here is an interconnected duality of the physical and spiritual.
Some people overdo the spiritual and try to do it as physical. That never works, but to believe that everything can be done as physical works, because the belief is spiritual. Now of course these non-religious people will admit to have opinions and the like. But that doesn't really count, because of reasons... Now these reasons are in effect not physical, but rather spiritual.

So here is why you should stay away from them, when it comes to the spiritual. They can't do it, because they deny that they do it. So you can't talk to them about it. Now in general in the context of, if it is about morality, ethics, the mental and psychological or politics you can sometimes do it and learn from them. But if you go spiritual on the hardcore non-religious people it won't work. So you can "mask" your examples and "cheat" if you want to stay neutral and still try to understand what they believe and sometimes know about the world as such or the physical part of reality. Some of them are good at that, the physical part as long it is physical.
But stay away for debates with them about what reality really is unless you want that.

Now notice something. I am a practical realist and I can spot a lot of cases, where something physical is claimed to be spiritual. I general don't comment on those cases, but you can ask if you like.
But I also know that my beliefs are in effect always mine and if you can do it differently, then there is no reason for you to ask.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[stvdv]

I actually don't know why I'm on RF anymore other than habit and taking a break in between work

Maybe time for a break?
I recently had this thought myself, but I decided to finish at least 3 years on RF (feb 2021), and by then 9000+ post should be enough

I can see why one wouldn't share their business-logically rather than ethically.

Better be careful what to share. Recently people were jail over some posts on facebook. Makes me wonder. Maybe I should stop soc.media

Hm. Yeah. I'll be dead honest, I never heard anyone be so mean and put down people in person than what I read on RF.

Lucky you having such a friendly "real life". I heard maybe 10 times or so in real life people being that mean.

Opinions et cetera people hold I really thought maybe I'm being more optimistic than I give myself credit for

You seem to me a very honest and friendly person. And optimistic also.
Wish you all the best

 

[shunyadragon]

<snip> for excessive wordynees.

In short you use a subjective definition of science and apparently refuse to acknowledge that your definition in its totality is nowhere but in the mind. Now of course there is more to the world than your or my mind, but they are apparently both in the world and can't be only understood with objective verifiable evidence.

Regards
Mikkel

You are still not understand basic English concerning the definition of objective and subjective as far as science and philosophy. Subjetive is of 'the mind only' without reference to objective verifiable evidence in the physical world. The subjective reason of the 'thinking' human philosophy makes no reference to objective verifiable evidence.

Objective in science is the necessary reference to objective verifiable evidence outside the mind in conjunction with the the logical reasoning of the mind

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Objective in science is the necessary reference to objective verifiable evidence outside the mind in conjunction with the the logical reasoning of the mind

Now explain how you know that it is outside the mind and what you know about it. That is Kant and yes, I am checking you in regards to philosophy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Now explain how you know that it is outside the mind and what you know about it. That is Kant and yes, I am checking you in regards to philosophy.

By the simple definitions in the English language. This is the acceptable universal academic and everyday understanding of what is the objective and subjective. . . ah, unless you are of the Vedic traditions and everything is an illusion of the mind, or you have a limited understanding of English.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By the simple definitions in the English language. This is the acceptable universal academic and everyday understanding of what is the objective and subjective. . . ah, unless you are of the Vedic traditions and everything is an illusion of the mind, or you have a limited understanding of English.

Well, in regards to objective reality in itself I am of the tradition of Kant. So you might have missed that in your study of philosophy.

 

[stvdv]

Stating this as a fact is wrong. At best you could say "merely egocentric bravado and the fear of being uncertain IMHO". It's not an established fact

I will try to explain how I view this variant of non-religion. I have come across it before and it works in both directions, though also differently as weird as it might seem. Now this is not IMHO, but it is not a judgment, because it applies to virtual humans. And as far as I can tell it applies to you, Joe W and me. We just deal with it differently.

So forget evidence for a moment. It works like this: Take 2 or more humans and find something where they with logic it appears, that one or more must be wrong. E.g. if there is a God or not. If that can be known or not. The list goes on. For all cases where this happens apparently as per objectivity because it is independent of the mind, it must be a contradiction. Well, it is not.

You missed the point, I think. Do you know why I said that, and why it is indeed wrong what he did?

 

[ppp]

Whether or not I would question depends on the person AND if I really want/need to know

Well, if you don't care about whether or not what you believe is true, don't pretend that your "guts and confidence" in holding to your assertion are anything but hollow bravado.

That would be true if the purpose of my scenario was focused on the Pink Elephant. It was not though, hence these details are not important now
The purpose I asked this question in this way, was solely to see if others trust their own eyes or not

Your scenario is focused on the pink elephant. Your purpose for focusing on the pink elephant is to see if others trust their own eyes or not. It's a crappy test because a) it falsely assumes that trust is binary (all or nothing), and b) assumes that one scenario that you concoct in your head is representative.

No, you assumed wrong. I just used Pink Elephant, because I saw Atheists on RF using this example, so I expected to not have to explain

The next time you pick up someone else's prop you should first have an understanding what it is, what its for, and how to use it.

I already have enough confidence in my own perception in such a case I described, so I need not do further investigation

You say that as though you think your overweening confidence is admirable.

 

[stvdv]

How? Because the reason for all behaviors are subjective and will works as subjective behaviors as long as it doesn't violate the objective part of reality. Let me explain. I believe in God and as long as my behavior that follows from that works in reality in general I can believe as I do. But that applies to all such behavior and here it is for some non-religious people. They subjectively in effect believe that reality is objective. They don't notice that this belief is subjective, because it subjectively works for them and they don't believe, that they have this belief. To them it is an objective fact. It is not.

I like that way of thinking. Advaita tells us that everything on earth is an illusion (mental picture, unreal), or maybe better a delusion (false perception).

They don't understand that reality as it works for us while we are here is an interconnected duality of the physical and spiritual.
Some people overdo the spiritual and try to do it as physical. That never works, but to believe that everything can be done as physical works, because the belief is spiritual. Now of course these non-religious people will admit to have opinions and the like. But that doesn't really count, because of reasons... Now these reasons are in effect not physical, but rather spiritual.

Admitting to have opinions is admitting it's subjective. I don't understand why you say "that does not really count"?

So here is why you should stay away from them, when it comes to the spiritual. They can't do it, because they deny that they do it. So you can't talk to them about it. Now in general in the context of, if it is about morality, ethics, the mental and psychological or politics you can sometimes do it and learn from them. But if you go spiritual on the hardcore non-religious people it won't work. So you can "mask" your examples and "cheat" if you want to stay neutral and still try to understand what they believe and sometimes know about the world as such or the physical part of reality. Some of them are good at that, the physical part as long it is physical.
But stay away for debates with them about what reality really is unless you want that.

I think you are right with this, that they really don't get it, otherwise they would not strongly reject it. And will avoid "masked" examples

Now notice something. I am a practical realist and I can spot a lot of cases, where something physical is claimed to be spiritual. I general don't comment on those cases, but you can ask if you like.
But I also know that my beliefs are in effect always mine and if you can do it differently, then there is no reason for you to ask.

Physical is "things I do". Spiritual is "how I do"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You missed the point, I think. Do you know why I said that, and why it is indeed wrong what he did?

It is getting late for me and I to used to think clearly. I will check in tomorrow.

 

[stvdv]

Well, if you don't care about whether or not what you believe is true, don't pretend that your "guts and confidence" in holding to your assertion are anything but hollow bravado.

Don't twist my words

Your scenario is focused on the pink elephant. Your purpose for focusing on the pink elephant is to see if others trust their own eyes or not. It's a crappy test because a) it falsely assumes that trust is binary (all or nothing), and b) assumes that one scenario that you concoct in your head is representative.

Your opinion

The next time you pick up someone else's prop you should first have an understanding what it is, what its for, and how to use it.

I can't help it that you don't get it

You say that as though you think your overweening confidence is admirable.

Your monkey mind, not mine