When I say I am guessing...I AM guessing. — Frank Apisa

I thought maybe you are guessing that you are guessing. Possible?

I'm not sure what your point is? — ChatteringMonkey

We're on different topics.

Olivier5
185
When I say I am guessing...I AM guessing.
— Frank Apisa

I thought maybe you are guessing that you are guessing. Possible? — Olivier5

Anything not established as impossible...is possible.

But when I say I am guessing...I am guessing.

I'm not sure what your point is?
— ChatteringMonkey
We're on different topics. — tim wood

Ok yes I see, my bad.

Ok yes I see, my bad. — ChatteringMonkey

Not so, yours cogent, just a different target.

Ok so you’re at least certain of one thing.

↪Frank Apisa Don't act like the crazy man on the corner talking to himself. — tim wood

:smirk:

Olivier5
186
↪Frank Apisa
Ok so you’re at least certain of one thing. — Olivier5

I am certain of lots of things.

Do you suppose that because I am agnostic (small "a'", not an Agnostic) on issues of gods...I am agnostic on all things? Do you suppose because I do not find enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess on the existence of gods, I cannot find enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess on anything else? If one of our local small town football teams were to play the Kansas City Chiefs (the winner of the NFL Superbowl last year)...do you suppose I could not make a meaningful guess about who would win?

C'mon.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Don't act like the crazy man on the corner talking to himself.
— tim wood
:smirk: — 180 Proof

I never do.

I think that claims that there is no God, or it's likely there is no God, are typically made as responses to claims that there is a God or likely is a God. They're made in the context of God-claims. Can one think of any instance in which someone went about declaiming there is no God except in the context of God-claims? Not even Nietzsche did so. People don't go from door to door asking if we have heard there is No Good News, or to confirm that we have not accepted Jesus as our savior.

So, I'm inclined to think there are differences between such negative and affirmative claims, and true I suppose to my legal background I tend to feel that those who make an affirmative claim have the burden of proof, and nobody should be required to prove a negative. [A Judge actually asked me once to prove there was no law providing such-and-such, which would have required that I provide for review every existing law.]

That's not to say, though, that I encourage anyone to discuss or argue over whether or not there is a God.

I am certain of lots of things. — Frank Apisa

Good for you. The topic of the thread being ‘how do you know?’, you might wish to explain ‘how’, or in your own terms ‘how is it even possible to know anything’.

Adherence to ignorance, on the other hand, when identified as ignorance, I call stupidity, and practitioners stupid. Not to be confused with incapable or unintelligent. And these persistent stupid are eventually revealed as enemies. Of reason, understanding, knowledge itself, across history, of everything of worth. — tim wood

Exactly. Thats essentially the nature of politics and religion. These two branches of philosophy (they're actually part of the same branch, IMO) are where the use of logic and reason are typically abandoned in favor of pushing an agenda (proselytizing). The participants aren't interested in truth as they use statistics to support certain narratives while ignoring other stats that could support another narrative. They are unwilling to look at alternative explanations because they've been indoctrinated into believing that there is a right way to think and a wrong way to think, and logic doesn't determine what is right to think, rather it is their emotional state that determines what it right to think.

One solution would be to abolish the political parties and religious denominations. This would prevent people from thinking that they have to adhere to some type of group-think.

Ciceronianus the White
1.2k
I think that claims that there is no God, or it's likely there is no God, are typically made as responses to claims that there is a God or likely is a God. — Ciceronianus the White

I agree.

But the logical response would be, "I disagree with that assertion...and you have a burden of proof."

If, however, you go that not-required further step of saying, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...you transfer the burden of proof to yourself. Neither of those statements are "negative statements." Both are positive statements.

Olivier5
188
I am certain of lots of things.
— Frank Apisa

Good for you. The topic of the thread being ‘how do you know?’, you might wish to explain ‘how’, or in your own terms ‘how is it even possible to know anything’. — Olivier5

Richard Feynman was fond of saying (I paraphrase), "I know something about knowing things...and actually knowing things is a very, very difficult thing to achieve."

So, when I say I am certain of lots of things in response to what you asked, I am speaking in the informal sense of "I know."

I know, for instance, that the capital of England is London. If you have to ask me how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion.

I know my name is Frank...and that I am sitting at my desk in my den typing. If you have to ask how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion.

I would even venture to say that I know you understand what I am saying here...you are reading the words I typed and understanding what I am saying. I would venture a guess (perhaps wrongly) that you will continue playing your game and attempt to make this into something more than what prompted its instigation, namely me writing the words, "When I say I am guessing...I am guessing" which was prompted by your response to me earlier writing, "I call my guesses...guesses."

when I say I am certain of lots of things in response to what you asked, I am speaking in the informal sense of "I know." — Frank Apisa

Do you care explaining what you see as the formal and informal senses of the verb « to know »? For me it has one meaning only.

I would even venture to say that I know you understand what I am saying here... — Frank Apisa

I do. I understand you’re trying to draw me in some sort of word game. But I am more interested in talking to you.

Olivier5
189
when I say I am certain of lots of things in response to what you asked, I am speaking in the informal sense of "I know."
— Frank Apisa

Do you care explaining what you see as the formal and informal senses of the verb « to know »? For me it has one meaning only.

I would even venture to say that I know you understand what I am saying here...
— Frank Apisa

I do. I understand you’re trying to draw me in some sort of word game. But I am more interested in talking to you. — Olivier5

if my explanation of what I mean with an informal "I know" as: "I know, for instance, that the capital of England is London. If you have to ask me how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion. I know my name is Frank...and that I am sitting at my desk in my den typing. If you have to ask how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion"...is not enough for you...you will have to go without a further explanation, because you simply do not want to understand.

A formal I know will probably be limited to a solipsistic "I know the thing I call "I" exists."

you will have to go without a further explanation — Frank Apisa

So will you, apparently. You don’t seem quite certain about what you mean by ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ knowledge.

I suppose you mean ‘absolutely certain knowledge’ vs ‘not-100%-certain-but-close knowledge’. If that’s the case, you’re saying ’we can’t be certain of much’, or ‘we never know anything for sure’.

That’s something I tend to agree with. But precisely for this reason, I don’t equate knowledge with absolute certainty. It’s all about the shades of grey, the nuances. There is a difference between an uninformed guess and an informed one, and between an informed guess and a conclusion based on detailed analysis of available evidence.