Point me at a work of epistemology that uses the term "reject" in such a manner.The example is specific.
Non acceptance(rejection) includes Ps that we are not convinced of and Ps~ that we think they are false. — Nickolasgaspar
You didn't. I was responding to this:
you are the one who needs to provide evidence. — Relativist
-No you were promoting a no True Scotchman fallacy. When he is arguing and debating for his beliefs,all over the place so he needs to justify them. His excuse "its not a scientific claim so I get a free pass" is not acceptable....I am sorry if you can not see that.I was explaining why he doesn't "need to" do anything. You come off as overly aggressive. You can ask him to justify his beliefs, you can express skepticism that his position is justifiable. You can ask him to explain his reasoning. I just think you should soften it up, a bit.. — Relativist
Am I going to do this with you too? Really. After many months I got back in this forum and I had people denying the role of wisdom in philosophy, the role of knowledge in wisdom, the role of knowledge in soundness, the role of logic in Philosophy.....Point me at a work of epistemology that uses the term "reject" in such a manner. — Relativist
Hillary ...first be honest to your self and then to others. You act like a child. — Nickolasgaspar
If you weren't trying to convince people you wouldn't be whining about other scientists not listening to you — Nickolasgaspar
Now you deny that the act of Withholding judgment means that you don't accept a claim and non acceptance isn't synonymous to rejection?
And now you ask for a "work of epistemology that uses the term reject.....in such a manner".
Dude...open a dictionary. — Nickolasgaspar
Nick: "our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action"
Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy. Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. — Relativist
But you had. And now you're doing it again.Did I???...in fact I didn't point to a dictionary at all. — Nickolasgaspar
The arguments you use for your beliefs and for the excuses you use to avoid exposing your beliefs are ridiculous. — Nickolasgaspar
Listen,the Freddie chip replaced most on board logic enabling the production of cheaper boards. Also all daughter boards where remove in the previous update. The SIO connection was an early implimentation of the USB protocol allowing hot swap and daisychain of peripherals. The architecture consisting of one cpu and many co processors was adopted by the industry and it its the standard to this day! — Nickolasgaspar
For deeply religious people, their beliefs form a core part of their identity - to admit some deeply held belief is wrong is not something that comes easy. — EricH
Nick: "our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action"
-No they don't ,that is a claim you use to avoid being exposed by dictionaries.
Dictionaries provide common usages of words. We as thinkers need to decide which usage covers all our needs and addresses all aspect of a concept(philosophy). — Relativist
-I just pointed out where you can look up for synonyms of non acceptance.But you had. And now you're doing it again. — Relativist
I admire your efforts to try to get these good folks to think clearly, but you must realize just how extraordinarily hard it is for someone to change these deeply held beliefs.
It's not merely a case of correcting some non-essential belief (e..g. "Gee, I was certain that it was going to rain today - I guess I was wrong").
For deeply religious people, their beliefs form a core part of their identity - to admit some deeply held belief is wrong is not something that comes easy.
But don't let me discourage you. :wink: You may be planting some seeds that will bear fruit some time in the future.
BTW I don't believe Hillary et al are trolls, nor are they stupid. — EricH
Hillary is a lost cause in my opinion — Nickolasgaspar
I couldn't agree more! Do you need a chip replacement? — Hillary
"Coincidental"? Please identify the things upu consider coincidental.I just can't imagine we are the result of coincidental quantum fluctuation leading to an evolving universe. — Hillary
Notice that you assume there is a "purpose". If I flip a coin and it comes up tails, does that fulfill a purpose?Or that we are the result of evolving life whose only purpose it is to pass on genes or memes.
There's a lot that isn't explained today, and I see no reason to believe humanity will ever explain everything. The actual nature of reality may never be known, but this is a reflection of our limitations. So I don't see how one can draw conclusions from this.There has to be something unexplainable in the universe ...
"Forms? "Systems"? Sounds like a post-hoc classification scheme. — Relativist
Coincidental"? Please identify the things upu consider coincidental. — Relativist
Or that we are the result of evolving life whose only purpose it is to pass on genes or memes.
Notice that you assume there is a "purpose". If I flip a coin and it comes up tails, does that fulfill a purpose? — Relativist
There's a lot that isn't explained today, and I see no reason to believe humanity will ever explain everything. The actual nature of reality may never be known — Relativist
Before I made my first complaint about your semantic nonsense, I searched a number of sources (SEP. IEP, Blackwell,...) to see if your usage was common. It's not. I gave you the opportunity to provide such a source. You had nothing. You even lied by claiming you weren't appealing to a standard dictionary, right after doing so. You are hell-bent on playing semantic policeman based on the semantics you like. I'm not interested in spinning my wheels on such bullshit, so I'm done arguing with you about it. — Relativist
Here is your change!
1. When you reserve judgment for a claim do you go on and Accept the claim.
Since you going to tap dance the answer is NO. You won't accept, you will reject the claim until you are ready to make that judgment.
2. When you think a claim is wrong, do you go on and Accept it?
The answer again is NO — Nickolasgaspar
To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. It's a circular argument. — L'éléphant
That depends on it's actual nature. I think everything can actually be known. — Hillary
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle begs to differ. If you know the exact location of a particle you cannot know it’s velocity and vice versa. It’s like a dot verses a line on a piece of paper. If you have a dot you don’t know what direction it may make a line to and if you have a line you don’t know at which point along that line the original dot was drawn. It’s a simplified Illustration but mathematically Heisenbergs uncertainty principle appears to hold true. You cannot know all information simultaneously as information itself is change and change cannot stop even momentarily. — Benj96
My issue is that "purpose" suggests intentionality, and intentionality implies an intelligence directing it. Theists often reply, "of course there is!", but that's not a deduction, it's an interpretation from a theist point of view.The standard view on evolution, genes or memes trying to replicate, says the purpose of life is to do exactly that. — Hillary
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.