Page 1 of 2
#1
These are a series of observations I've made based primarily on my own logic as it regards certain aspects of reality.

When a claim is made the claim(X) is either true or false.

The default position is not to assume either but to embrace or reject X based on evidence.

Embracing X based on evidence makes X true because there is evidence to support the claim that X is indeed true.

Rejecting X based on evidence is not equivalent to saying that X is false because the rejection is based on evidence and a lack of evidence is not evidence itself it is only a criteria by which to reject a claim that has been made.

In other words, if there is no evidence for X, it is neither true nor false, it is only rejected because it lacks evidence.

X can be shown to be false. If the claim can be proven to be false X is both rejected because of evidence that counters it and false.

Example -

Cl.. There is an elephant in the trunk of my car.

The simplest means of verifying this fantastic claim is to check the trunk of my car for an elephant.

If there is an elephant in my car the claim(X) is true because I have evidence which verifies it.

If the claim is made but it is also said that the car is sunk beneath the oceans and there is no physical means of verifying X, then X can be neither true or false because there isn't the data to prove either.

Based on the aforementioned, however, X can be rejected because it lacks evidence but this lack of evidence does not translate to it being false.

If I check my car and there is no elephant then my claim(X) is false and can be rejected because there is evidence which counters it.

So in summary:
X is either true or false.
X is rejected or embraced based on evidence.
Embracing X by default requires evidence which suggests X to be only true.
X can be rejected by lack of evidence but it is then neither true nor false.
X can be rejected by evidence which counters it and it is then false.


Tell me if my logic makes sense.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#3
it makes sense.. could have also been explained in much shorter words

ie: if you have evidence to prove yourself right, then you are... if not, don't bother
sim simma

who got the keys to my beema
#6
You're saying that we're sceptical of news without a reliable source?

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#7
This is nothing new - at all.

Also, if proposition X cannot be, even hypothetically, verified empirically, it is a nonsensical claim. Propositions are true, false, or nonsensical.

Proposition X can only ever be deemed as likely - never, ever certain. New evidence can always blow previously held 'certain' ideas out of the water. Mathematical statements are not propositions as they do not tell us anything factual - this is changed when they are put into context.
Last edited by Craigo at Jun 25, 2009,
#9
Quote by VengeanceIsMine
When a claim is made the claim(X) is either true or false.
That's where you're wrong. Ever heard of Schrodinger's cat?
kill all humans
#10
Quote by Craigo
This is nothing new - at all.

Also, if proposition X cannot be, even hypothetically, verified empirically, it is a nonsensical claim. Propositions are true, false, or nonsensical.

Proposition X can only ever be deemed as likely - never, ever certain. New evidence can always blow previously held 'certain' ideas out of the water. Mathematical statements are not propositions as they do not tell us anything factual - this is changed when they are put into context.

I know it is nothing new, I was merely asking if my understanding of this concept is even remotely correct.

Whether or not X is a nonsensical claim matters not because it is still subject to this line of reasoning. If X is nonsensical it can either be proven false by evidence that counters it and thus rejected or it can be said to be unknowable but highly improbable and even then it can still be rejected by this same line of logic even if it's not possible to prove it to be absolutely false. So the nonsensical claim "dilemma" is really hardly an issue.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#11
Quote by VengeanceIsMine
Rejecting X based on evidence is not equivalent to saying that X is false because the rejection is based on evidence and a lack of evidence is not evidence itself it is only a criteria by which to reject a claim that has been made.


The rest of it was okay (but unnecessarily long-winded).

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
#12
Quote by NakedInTheRain
This.

/thread




Thanks man!..

first time anyone has finalized a thread with my post!.. I'm truly bless.

#13
youve proved that things need evidence? damn, you used way too many words for that.

besides, perceptions can be lied to, evidence can be untrue, etc. evidence is also too unreliable to be counted on.
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
#16
Quote by Lt. Shinysides
MJ dying?

i sure dont want to believe its true.
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
#18
Quote by MusicalMinority

The rest of it was okay (but unnecessarily long-winded).

I'm sorry if I wrote too much I wanted to cover everything and be as specific about it as possible so there'd be no confusion to anyone who read it.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#19
Quote by Lt. Shinysides
MJ dying?

I was trying to be subtle and clever. Thanks for ruining it

EDIT:Not that MJ is actually dead, I am talking about the pedo accusation. Which isn't true btw.
Last edited by GuitarGod_92 at Jun 25, 2009,
#20
X can be true even if evidence points to X being false.


This can be proven by many many examples in crime where all evidence points to someone being innocent or guilty until they find the last fact. Once this last fact is found out then X can be proven true even if all other evidence points against it. It is near impossible to disprove anything but it only takes 1 thing to prove it correct.
#21
Quote by Zugunruhe
youve proved that things need evidence? damn, you used way too many words for that.

besides, perceptions can be lied to, evidence can be untrue, etc. evidence is also too unreliable to be counted on.

The point isn't that things need evidence but that to reject a claim isn't to say that it's false ultimately. The reason I wrote so much is because I wanted to cover everything and leave no detail out so there would be no confusion.

Indeed, evidence can be unreliable but evidence deemed unreliable can be refuted through other evidence or logic which counters it and/or renders it useless.

To say that all evidence is too unreliable to be counted on is a grand generalization.
It is safe to say that if a person is found dead with a bullet in their back that they were shot even if you weren't around to witness the shooting directly.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#22
Truths are contradictory.
I've gotten a lot of LOLs in my time but I choose not to sig them to not look like a pretentious douchebag





#23
Wow! You know this idea of yours could really catch on.
Mr. Butlertron are you A handsome B smart C scrap metal or D all of the above
Scangrade thats easy I'm A and B but not C, so it can't be all of the above, but you can't fill in two ovals Nooo!
Mr. Butlertron the answer is C... you fuckwad
#24
Quote by alaskan_ninja
That's where you're wrong. Ever heard of Schrodinger's cat?

Schrodinger's Cat was meant to be applied to quantum physics I believe and it doesn't prove my thesis wrong at all. In fact, even if one were to assume that the cat is both dead and alive before you can verify it's actual state, it's obvious that physically the cat can only be either dead or alive? Only one is possible even if they're both just as likely. Even if you can't see the current state of the cat while it is in the box after an hour, the cat can only be dead or alive. Ultimately, the cat will only be dead or alive when you open the box so my point remains.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#25
Truth in itself hold no value, for truth is merely a label accorded based on what is perceived to be valid evidence. In reality, true and false are by no means absolute terms, for the perceptions from which they are based are not absolute. In the end, nothing can be proven to be absolutly true or false.
Quote by jackson001
Ironbodom, I hate you.

Quote by SeveralSpecies
damnit Ironbodom.

Quote by Sleaze Disease
Yes, someone "was ate jam" while they were playing.
Brilliant observation.


Save SURGE
Last edited by Ironbodom at Jun 25, 2009,
#26
Quote by Misticalz
Truths are contradictory.

No, it is either true or false. If my truth contradicts your truth, one of us, perhaps both of us must be wrong.

If you make the claim that the sky is green and I make the claim that the sky is red our supposed truths contradict but in reality neither is true because anyone with half a brain can see that the sky is neither green nor red, it is actually blue.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#27
Quote by VengeanceIsMine
The point isn't that things need evidence but that to reject a claim isn't to say that it's false ultimately. The reason I wrote so much is because I wanted to cover everything and leave no detail out so there would be no confusion.

Indeed, evidence can be unreliable but evidence deemed unreliable can be refuted through other evidence or logic which counters it and/or renders it useless.

To say that all evidence is too unreliable to be counted on is a grand generalization.
It is safe to say that if a person is found dead with a bullet in their back that they were shot even if you weren't around to witness the shooting directly.

first of all, this whole thread has made me say nothing but "duh". youre pretty much just parroting out the principles of the scientific method. theres nothing at all original here, just the same old crap.

and evidence is often very unreliable. for instance, two thousand years ago, the evidence that humans had access to proved for them that the sun rotated around the earth. they were wrong.
nowadays we take it for granted that solid matter is solid, but its actually more empty space than it is actual stuff. we base our common sense belief on evidence that we get every day of our lives, but we are wrong.

and no, just seeing that someone has a bullet wound does not prove that they were killed by a bullet.


this is all not to mention skeptical arguments, or arguments that we are just minds, or arguments that reality is completely an illusion. youre rockin' the Decartes, which i can dig, but in this case im more with Hume.
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
#28
To sum up your post in one short sentence TS

Non-existence of evidence is not evidence of non-existence...

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
MaKing thE possiBlE...
...totaLlY impossible
#30
Quote by Ironbodom
Truth in itself hold no value, for truth is merely a label accorded based on what is perceived to be valid evidence. In reality, true and false are by no means absolute terms, for the perceptions from which they are based are not absolute. In the end, nothing can be proven to be true and nothing can be proven to be false.

I agree that truth cannot be absolute because we assign a standard to what we consider valid evidence to these truths. However, just because we assign a standard to evidence it does not demean or invalidate it. It is much more sensible to accept something based on evidence even if we set the standard for evidence that to accept it for it's own sake. Likewise, it is also sensible to reject something based on a lack of empirical evidence or based on evidence that contradicts the original claim.

This can become confusing because the standard for evidence is subjective. But when we have a somewhat unified system of knowing things such as science it becomes much easier to know when to accept or reject a claim.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#31
Quote by VengeanceIsMine
No, it is either true or false. If my truth contradicts your truth, one of us, perhaps both of us must be wrong.

If you make the claim that the sky is green and I make the claim that the sky is red our supposed truths contradict but in reality neither is true because anyone with half a brain can see that the sky is neither green nor red, it is actually blue.



Excuse me. Ahem.


Truths are contradictory in history and time.

Also, some truth can be applied to both of our said statements.
There's always 4 sides to a story, not 2. The truth, the two said parties and the public opinion (which usually wins).
I've gotten a lot of LOLs in my time but I choose not to sig them to not look like a pretentious douchebag





#32
Quote by VengeanceIsMine
Schrodinger's Cat was meant to be applied to quantum physics I believe and it doesn't prove my thesis wrong at all. In fact, even if one were to assume that the cat is both dead and alive before you can verify it's actual state, it's obvious that physically the cat can only be either dead or alive? Only one is possible even if they're both just as likely. Even if you can't see the current state of the cat while it is in the box after an hour, the cat can only be dead or alive. Ultimately, the cat will only be dead or alive when you open the box so my point remains.


actually the point of Schroedinger's Cat was to show in hypothetical terms that when the cat is in the box, it is in a stateless state as neither state (alive or dead) can be proven, so since it is neither it is stateless until the box is opened

in short, I agree with whoever originally posted about Schroedinger's Cat
Quote by fleajr_1412
You have amazing taste in men.


Are You a PROG-HEAD? I am.
#33
Quote by VengeanceIsMine
I agree that truth cannot be absolute because we assign a standard to what we consider valid evidence to these truths. However, just because we assign a standard to evidence it does not demean or invalidate it. It is much more sensible to accept something based on evidence even if we set the standard for evidence that to accept it for it's own sake. Likewise, it is also sensible to reject something based on a lack of empirical evidence or based on evidence that contradicts the original claim.

This can become confusing because the standard for evidence is subjective. But when we have a somewhat unified system of knowing things such as science it becomes much easier to know when to accept or reject a claim.

Ahh, I see what you mean. Indeed, nothing can be absolutely true or false. Thus, evidence does not PROVE anything, rather, it provides more substance. Therefore, it is not the validity or falsity of a claim that becomes the issue, it is instead the nature of its support.
Quote by jackson001
Ironbodom, I hate you.

Quote by SeveralSpecies
damnit Ironbodom.

Quote by Sleaze Disease
Yes, someone "was ate jam" while they were playing.
Brilliant observation.


Save SURGE
#34
Truth isn't bound by evidence, at least in a metaphysical way.

If you specify a truth as a statement that represents reality, then the statement alone can be true or not true only depending on reality, not anything else (supposedely).
With these point of view, it is kind of impossible to determine a truth if you don't determine reality first. Determining reality (as it goes) can't be done by us, since we are subject to logic, reason, physical circunstances, etc, and supposedely reality isn't bound by any pressuposition (if you determine your physical life as reality).

Then again, this determination about reality is limited itself, limited by logic, linguistics, and concepts respectively, and these are bound by other things too depending at how you look at them (concepts can be bound by how we conceive them if you take experience and what you learn about history for instance), but this is too relative to other presuppositions, endless cycle.
If it applies to reality, it also applies for truths, so the determination about truths may itself be false, which happens to fall under the category of truths again, generating another endless cycle.

This very text of me explaining the undetermination of truths is based on presuppositions too, meaning the undetermination of truths can be false too, meaning the determination of truths can be possible. I suppose you know what I mean by know with all these examples...

This can create contradictions and impossible scenarios, which we assume to be false by logic, and again, reality is not bound by logic (even though it can include it), so reality and truths can be outside of logic too (this may seem like a contradiction since we use logic to come up with these concepts and relate them, but hey, if they are outside of logic then they are not bound by contradictions either right?).

So truths are not bound by logic either, so even if your logical argument regarding truths made logical sense and had "true" (logically, hypothetically speaking) premises, it is not bound by it either an your conclusion may be wrong too.

Hmm, whatever..
#35
Quote by VengeanceIsMine
Schrodinger's Cat was meant to be applied to quantum physics I believe and it doesn't prove my thesis wrong at all. In fact, even if one were to assume that the cat is both dead and alive before you can verify it's actual state, it's obvious that physically the cat can only be either dead or alive? Only one is possible even if they're both just as likely. Even if you can't see the current state of the cat while it is in the box after an hour, the cat can only be dead or alive. Ultimately, the cat will only be dead or alive when you open the box so my point remains.



Dude let me tell you somthing, being wordy does not make you intelligent.

BTW: Shrodingers cat is bull****. It goes with stupid ego-centric ideas in philosophy, such as things only existing if they are perceived.
"Good and evil lay side by side as electric love penetrates the sky"
Last edited by GuitarNinja12 at Jun 25, 2009,
#36
In other words, if there is no evidence for X, it is neither true nor false, it is only rejected because it lacks evidence.

X can be shown to be false. If the claim can be proven to be false X is both rejected because of evidence that counters it and false.



what, thats it? I mean come on... no ****?
#37
Quote by Zugunruhe
first of all, this whole thread has made me say nothing but "duh". youre pretty much just parroting out the principles of the scientific method. theres nothing at all original here, just the same old crap.

and evidence is often very unreliable. for instance, two thousand years ago, the evidence that humans had access to proved for them that the sun rotated around the earth. they were wrong.
nowadays we take it for granted that solid matter is solid, but its actually more empty space than it is actual stuff. we base our common sense belief on evidence that we get every day of our lives, but we are wrong.

and no, just seeing that someone has a bullet wound does not prove that they were killed by a bullet.


this is all not to mention skeptical arguments, or arguments that we are just minds, or arguments that reality is completely an illusion. youre rockin' the Decartes, which i can dig, but in this case im more with Hume.

Humans believed the Sun rotated around the earth because they had this cosmic arrogance about them brought about by the ball and chain that is religion it has nothing to do with a respectable standard for evidence such as the scientific method.

The reason most people think solid matter is solid is because most people do not posses a sufficient understanding of science.

It might not be fair to say that they were killed by a bullet but it can be said they were shot.

Reality is what you make of it. The only thing you know for sure is your own existence. That is the ultimate truth to me. As long as I reside within this reality I will demand empirical evidence for a claim and that is the point.

I was merely asking if my understanding of the concept was correct.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#38
Quote by Ironbodom
Ahh, I see what you mean. Indeed, nothing can be absolutely true or false. Thus, evidence does not PROVE anything, rather, it provides more substance. Therefore, it is not the validity or falsity of a claim that becomes the issue, it is instead the nature of its support.

Good job.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#39
Quote by Misticalz
Excuse me. Ahem.


Truths are contradictory in history and time.

Also, some truth can be applied to both of our said statements.
There's always 4 sides to a story, not 2. The truth, the two said parties and the public opinion (which usually wins).


Time is a human idea. The measure or value of time depends solely on who's counting and/or when they began. History is written by the victors, so history is inherently an unreliable source.

There can be as many sides to a story as we can possibly assign to it, but ultimately only one can be really true.

There either is or isn't an elephant in the trunk of my car. Physically, there can't both be and not be an elephant in the trunk of my car. It doesn't matter if you think that the elephant is there but he's dead or if you think he's alive in my car, he either is or isn't there and I can choose to belief that he's there only based on whether or not I can even verify he's there or not or that he is or isn't there if I can verify it.

There's no need to complicate it.
I realized I was god when I prayed and saw that I was talking to myself.
#40
Quote by VengeanceIsMine
Humans believed the Sun rotated around the earth because they had this cosmic arrogance about them brought about by the ball and chain that is religion it has nothing to do with a respectable standard for evidence such as the scientific method.

The reason most people think solid matter is solid is because most people do not posses a sufficient understanding of science.

It might not be fair to say that they were killed by a bullet but it can be said they were shot.

Reality is what you make of it. The only thing you know for sure is your own existence. That is the ultimate truth to me. As long as I reside within this reality I will demand empirical evidence for a claim and that is the point.

I was merely asking if my understanding of the concept was correct.

someone's got a chip on his shoulder.

when you say that those beliefs are not based on evidence, you are making the evidence dependent on your assumed rightness of the idea. you say we have evidence that things are true, but only true things. we also had evidence that the sun went around the earth: it went around, and the earth stayed still. thats still basing a belief on evidence, even if they turned out to be wrong.

by saying that evidence is dependent on how correct an idea is, you are going in a gigantic circle: evidence proves that ideas are right, but only ideas that are right are based on evidence. its a chicken and egg argument. and arguments like that are logically invalid.

rehashing the scientific method with a bunch of verbose and poorly thought out arguments does not make you sound smart. and wanting to prove yourself smart to internet strangers makes you pathetic.
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
Page 1 of 2