- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderObservation: "1 : the noting of a fact or occurrence (as in nature) often involving the measurement of some magnitude with suitable instruments ; also : a record so obtained "
You're changing the standard meanings of words and I'm not playing that game. Observe comes from a Latin word meaning "to watch". If you don't want to speak English fine but I'm not changing the standard meaning of words to fit your definition.
EDIT: And this was your original question:
If nothing is directly observable by human beings, how do you go about distinguishing between fact and fiction?
Stick to it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=observation
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are behaving like a child, and if you are suggesting everything is "indirect perception" (i.e. our direct experience is of some "sense-datum" or similar) you are walking into a philosophical elephant trap that far brighter people than you (Hume, Berkeley, Russell and others) have tried to escape with hideous results.
You're wasting both our times with this drivel; go back and respond to the actual point of my post.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou were the one that changed the meaning of the words.
You're changing the standard meanings of words and I'm not playing that game. Observe comes from a Latin word meaning "to watch". If you don't want to speak English fine but I'm not changing the standard meaning of words to fit your definition.
EDIT: And this was your original question:
If nothing is directly observable by human beings, how do you go about distinguishing between fact and fiction?
Stick to it.
Occording to the Latin "direct obsevation" would mean "to watch directly".
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by dottewellYou're soooooooooooooooo brilliant and I'm sooooooooooooo stupid!
You are behaving like a child, and if you are suggesting everything is "indirect perception" (i.e. our direct experience is of some "sense-datum" or similar) you are walking into a philosophical elephant trap that far brighter people than you (Hume, Berkeley, Russell and others) have tried to escape with hideous results.
Actually, I'm not saying any such thing; I'm saying that if you want to get down to brass tacks, nothing is observed "directly". If you had bothered to read my original post (which you obviously didn't past the first sentence), you would have seen that this little tidbit has no effect on my entire point, however. My point was, and continues to be though you and the other simpleton can't grasp it, is that what we believe is based on how we weigh the evidence we have.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe "direct" is the point, though that point is trivial. The main point is whether you want to call something direct observation or indirect observation, the evidence has to be weighed by human beings using their reason.
You were the one that changed the meaning of the words.
Occording to the Latin "direct obsevation" would mean "to watch directly".
08 Mar 06
Here's the salient part of my post, please respond to it as this other discussion is semantic bickering:
Whatever label you want to stick unto a belief, it must be measured against the evidence to believe in it. There is no hard and fast dividing line where this is "faith" and this is "probability" and this is "certainty". All human knowledge is to some extent situational. That being said, what dj is doing is playing semantic games - the quality of the evidence is what is important, not labels.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerAt last a definition for the word.
Observation: "1 : the noting of a fact or occurrence (as in nature) often involving the measurement of some magnitude with suitable instruments ; also : a record so obtained "
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=observation
I can now state that by definition 1 of Observation as given in your post:
Macro evolution can be observed.
God and the existence of God can be observed (by some people) but not involving the measurement of some magnitude with suitable instruments.
08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd my point was that if we perceive something directly, we need no more evidence.
You're soooooooooooooooo brilliant and I'm sooooooooooooo stupid!
Actually, I'm not saying any such thing; I'm saying that if you want to get down to brass tacks, nothing is observed "directly". If you had bothered to read my original post (which you obviously didn't past the first sentence), you would have seen that this little tidbit has no ...[text shortened]... n can't grasp it, is that what we believe is based on how we weigh the evidence we have.
I don't look at my brother and then "weigh the evidence" as to whether he exists.
08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellWhat if you're hallucinating? What if it's a mirage? Or a trick of light? Your so-called direct perceptions are not solid, 100% evidence; many people "directly observe" things that turn out to be false.
And my point was that if we perceive something directly, we need no more evidence.
I don't look at my brother and then "weigh the evidence" as to whether he exists.
Nit-picking argument about what a "direct observation" is to follow. My guess: circular argument headed my way - a direct observation in dottewell's terms must be true or it's not a direct observation.
08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo one ever directly observes something that is not there. They sometimes think they are directly observing something that is not there.
What if you're hallucinating? What if it's a mirage? Or a trick of light? Your so-called direct perceptions are not solid, 100% evidence; many people "directly observe" things that turn out to be false.
Nit-picking argument about what a "direct observation" is to follow. My guess: circular argument headed my way - a direct observation in dottewell's terms must be true or it's not a direct observation.
That is no reason to doubt that in everyday life we are directly experiencing things that are there. There are criteria for saying someone is hallucinating or "seeing" a mirage which do not apply to everyday experience.
It is fair to say that if I am crawling through the desert and think I see a lap-dancing club in the middle of nowhere, I perhaps should weigh the evidence as to whether it is actually there. But that contrast just shows that in everyday life, I don't weigh the evidence, and nor do I need to.
[To follow: something containing the words "soooooooo", "LMFAO" and possibly "parrot"]
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by dottewellPrediction correct.
No one ever directly observes something that is not there. They sometimes think they are directly observing something that is not there.
That is no reason to doubt that in everyday life we are directly experiencing things that are there. There are criteria for saying someone is hallucinating or "seeing" a mirage which do not apply to everyday experienc ...[text shortened]...
[To follow: something containing the words "soooooooo", "LMFAO" and possibly "parrot"]
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by dottewellAs are you. If you ever feel like discussing the real point, let me know. All you've done so far is change "direct observation" to something like "true observation" and/or merely show that human beings do the type of reasoning and sorting of evidence I was referring to every day without hardly thinking about it. That, of course, strongly supports my argument rather than refuting it, as you seem to believe.
You're nothing if not predictable.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI said this was a side-issue right at the beginning.
As are you. If you ever feel like discussing the real point, let me know. All you've done so far is change "direct observation" to something like "true observation" and/or merely show that human beings do the type of reasoning and sorting of evidence I was referring to every day without hardly thinking about it. That, of course, strongly supports my argument rather than refuting it, as you seem to believe.
It is simply not true to say that in everyday life, we weigh the evidence as to whether the things we see are "really there".
And, in my view, it is simply not true to say that we don't perceive things directly. This is hardly an off-the-wall point of view; I would bet the majority of philosophers these days adopt some form of direct realism.