|Bob, did you even read my post?|
And? So we need our visual senses to even build the instrument and look at the instruments data, why would you say at one point your sense of sight is unreliable and then all of a sudden in the next step, it is reliable enough to build an instrument and see the data it produces? Isn't that an arbitrary assertion of where you think all of a sudden our senses are unreliable and then magically become reliable? How else do you know the instrument is right other than by looking at what it does? So the point I was making Bob it's pointless to say our senses are incomplete. Incomplete does not mean flawed or unreliable.
Our senses are incomplete to what? We know we are getting better descriptions of reality, but to say that are incomplete doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering we don't know what complete looks like so how do we know what is therefore incomplete? C'mon now. We can build an instrument that detects a larger light spectrum and come to a highly confident rational conclusion that our eyes only detect a small part of the spectrum.
Excuse me? Stupid argument? Pot calling the kettle black here? Who's the one that said these little gems of wisdom right after throwing a little temper tantrum and claiming others were making stupid arguments?
There can be no possible way you could know any errors one could make without relying on senses. Wrong. We must use senses AND logic to evaluate evidence to be confident we have discovered errors. What is arbitrary and non-sensical is to assert that somewhere down the line we can inherently trust our senses when we know they are fallible. The problem here is assuming that we need to have perfect confidence that we erred, but this is impossible if our senses aren't perfect. Fine, it's logically consistent, but it's a floating abstraction, not connected to reality. This is a stupid argument.
you can be deceived EVER, it is not possible to EVER be 100% sure
Conclusions are not 100% reliable........and so on. But to get back to the previous quote. You can't possibly know you are wrong unless you start somewhere. And since you start with sensory perception, there is no other starting point. So how could you know your wrong without relying on your senses? Simply put, if you find out you were wrong about something, how could you trust yourself in knowing this if your senses are unreliable? That is what doesn't make sense Bob. In every step of the way, you are relying on senses, both to accumulate data and to accumulate corroborative evidence to be able to change a wrong interpretation of that sensory data.
One is raw data, the accumulation of information through our senses, the other is the interpretation of that raw data. It seems like a pretty clear demarcation to me.Really?? Enlighten us to where exactly your eyes/vision end and your visual processing begins.
What? I don't even understand what you are asking, your sense of sight entails a visual process. I don't understand what you mean when you imply there is a beginning and an end to that process. When you see a waterfall it's instantaneous. When you see an object drop from someone's hands it's an instantaneous observation, when you start to integrate this observations into any kind of conceptual knowledge, you get laws and theorems, more specifically in this case Newtonian physics. There, you have been enlightened.:)
You just seem to be having trouble understanding the concept here, or you are consciously refusing to understand. I don't know which.In one case you see a exact representation of light as it appears/behaves through different media. The other examples are of things that ARE NOT THERE IN ANY WAY - DO NOT EXIST. Get it now? Accuse ME of REFUSAL? I'll forgive you if you're retarded. The stupid bent-stick is NOT an example of the problem, but every Objectivist when confronted with illusions pulls this out of his ass - who's refusing now?
Bob, the other example given shows the stick to be straight in air but bent in water, it's something that DOES NOT EXIST! What part of that don't you understand? This bending of the stick isn't occurring! It's still a straight stick, get it? It's the exact same thing in principle of seeing a line of light when there is none, in the other example you are seeing a bent stick when there is none, yet you accuse others of being retarded and throwing childish temper tantrums and this most basic a principle you don't get? Seriously are you just refusing to understand or is this really honest error on your part?
Cal explained/refuted the other crap about certaintyWouldn't you like to think so. Cal wrote:
You're ignoring the context. Bob was talking about conclusions we derive about the physical world on the basis of the data of our senses. There is no contradiction in saying that these conclusions are never 100% reliable, as this statement is a metastatement, the truth of which does not depend on 100% reliable senses. And even if you suppose that he is only 99% certain about that statement, so what? Are all statements that are "only" 99% certain bullshit because there is a very small probability that they are incorrect? Saying our conclusions are never 100% reliable implies the conclusion that "they are not 100% reliable" is not itself a 100% reliable conclusion. Which means there is a possibility the conclusion is 100% reliable, which is to then say our conclusions are 100% reliable. Which would make the statement our conclusions are never 100% reliable in Bob's eloquent terms a stupid argument. Or as I'd rather call it the fallacy of the stolen concept. Either take it or leave it Cal, no better way that I can think of to better convey this basic principle. And again, there is no such thing as saying something is 99% certain. Certain mean indisputable. You are either sure or unsure about something. The most basic of axioms here that keeps being dropped is that A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time. We have probabilities, we can be certain for example there is an 80% chance it will rain tomorrow. That we are certain of! You don't say we are 80% certain it will rain, that doesn't make any sense.
I'm taking a break from this nonsense.Wise choice, I think I'll follow your lead.