[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] krici (was: Knowledge (was: Random lojban questions/annoyances

At 06:59 PM 03/21/2001 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:
> At 02:33 PM 03/20/2001 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >Using the common English definition of "evidence" (sense data or
> >information), there is never any belief without evidence.
> >
> >Using the technical epistemological definition of "evidence"
> >(propositions), which includes subliminal "obvious facts", there is never
> >any belief without evidence.
>
> That is an odd definition of evidence to me; "obvious facts" are NOT
> evidence.  By my understanding, the supernatural BY DEFINITION is that
> which does not manifest "natural" evidence of its existence.  Belief in God
> or in angels seems to require belief.

> Furthermore, abstract principles do not manifest sensorially.  That "all
> men are created equal" could be treated as an assumption if it were
> negotiable, but for someone who considers it a basic truth of the universe,
> it is a belief, and I don't see what "evidence" applies to this belief.

It's negotiable when discussing with somebody that disagrees, no?
I'm not sure. Some people will not negotiate their basic beliefs. People were put to the stake during the Inquisition for not being willing to negotiate their beliefs. 


When people say "all men are created equal", they mean that people
should ideally be treated equally under the law, without concern for their
social rank.


That is the most commonly assumed meaning for the phrase.


As as ideal, this is a type of desire. This is a creed, but
it is not a statement about reality.
What is reality, and why is it relevant to the statement? You are assuming a single objective reality in which all things either exist or do not exist, and all propositions are either true or false. But we are talking Lojban, where "possible worlds" are created at the drop of a cmavo %^) To the person who holds that belief, the ideal world may be the "reality" that person "observes", and not the world that manifests to yours and my senses. 


Therefore, no evidence is applicable; the
concept of evidence for such a statement is meaningless.
Precisely. So krici can at minimum apply to propositions for which evidence would be meaningless. 


But people have evidence that makes them follow one creed or another.
Not necessarily. Sometimes they adopt a creed merely as a way of interpreting the world, idealizing it. The WORLD is their "evidence" in that their creed allows them to make sense of the world, but there is no set of propositions about the world that necessarily (and consciously) constitutes evidence for their model of the world. 


People observe life, and draw conclusions on the ideal state of humanity,
and how it can be achieved. These are very controversial, not because
there's insufficient evidence but because there is too much evidence.
Enough to support contradicting creeds!
Some (most?) people draw conclusions without considering evidence at all, but merely using internal logic or analogy or even leaps of illogic to devise their creeds. 


> I strongly associate my definition of belief with the word "faith", and as
> commonly used means that you hold your beliefs even in the face of apparent
> evidence that contradicts that belief.

But this assumes there is an initial block of evidence to start with.
Nope. I can make a model of the world based solely on my ideas as to what a world "should be". 


Beliefs really don't spring up in the mind self-created. There's a lack of
skepticism and critical thought, not evidence.
It is precisely the lack of what I think you mean by "critical thought" that leads people to conclusions without evidence. 


I defy you to produce a religious person that claims there is no evidence
for their religion.
They are using a different definition of "evidence" than you, or you would not be able to disagree with them that these constitute evidence %^)
And in fact, I am such a person. I went through a phase of atheism because I could not see evidence, but in college suddenly went over to something I call Christianity though it probably differs in subtle ways from traditional Christianity, not because of any particular evidence, but because I psychologically needed something more, and the belief set I adopted satisfies my need for something to have faith in outside myself. I can make statements about evidence, but I don't really believe that this evidence is truly "evidence" unless you want it to be, nor do I need such evidence to maintain my faith. 


 They'll point to the Sun, plant leaves, and crying
babies for their evidence!
This is an expression of psychological need for the approval of others, not a statement of evidence necessary for their belief. The proof of this is that, when arguing with a "believer", if you poke enough holes in a particular piece of evidence, they may stop using that piece of evidence, but it won't shake their underlying beliefs in the least - nothing will shake that underlying belief (and oftentimes that exact piece of evidence will be trotted out later as if you hadn't ever poked it full of holes). 

I often experience this when arguing politics with libertarians %^)

lojbab
--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org