Citation, please. I can't find that.
This just one entry;
"ignorance (n.)
1200, "lack of wisdom or knowledge," from Old French ignorance (12c.), from Latin ignorantia "want of knowledge"
To ignore is an action. It appears that ignorance is at best a passion, or unawareness. But I agree that an ignorant person can indeed ignore. — tim wood
You now more than you think you know. And I tried the Great Courses some years ago - who could resist their ads? It's not you, it's them. I found the lectures oddly flat, many terrible. In teaching there has to be a "catch," or a kind of hook, or action or dynamism in the presentation and what is presented, or indeed it does all bounce off. In this era of free education on Youtube, (imo) that's the way to go, because a lot of it is done (imo) very well indeed.Most of the time.... — Athena
Amen, amen. And that a gradual process starting mainly after the Civil War and ending, I think, once and for all in the late 1950s. c. 1959 - 1963, just a few years, one can see the stunning change evidenced in high school yearbook pictures. Young people at that point not wanting to be told what to think, but at the same time not themselves knowing how.Believing a holy book and not the science that is vital to the health of our nation, is an educational failure that comes with replacing liberal education (how to think) with education for technology (what to think) — Athena
This is science apologetics. — Yohan
If something can be confirmed as fact, explain how. — Yohan
This definition is like saying 'something is confirmed if its been so confirmed that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'. — Yohan
Even the suicidal want to tie a good noose. — Zugzwang
I'm stealing that. — Banno
So the true is tentative? And, "turns out not to be true" means something else is true? It becomes a hall of mirrors. — tim wood
Science doesn't have a way of establishing fact. Rather than admit this, which I believe honest scientists do, some science advocates and probably actual scientists won't admit it, but will instead rearrange the goal posts so that a fact can mean something that is agreed upon by the majority of scientists.This is science apologetics. — Yohan
Explain please. — T Clark
I think its a problem because how do we determine what counts as sufficient reason to accept something as evidence. And then how much of such evidence is enough to accept something as fact beyond a reasonable doubt? It reminds me of the heap paradox. How much could be considered a big enough heap of evidence?It says "confirm to a degree" and "provisional assent." I don't see any problem, just follow the scientific method, i.e. provide evidence. — T Clark
I don't think I am.I think you're playing around with language. Do you really not know what Gould is saying? — T Clark
I am getting at the problem of religious conflicts, and the democratic belief that reasoning is the way to resolve conflicts. — Athena
If we are going to make laws that affect everyone, and put people in penitentiaries to save their souls, and go to war because that is the will of God, shouldn't we have really good grounds for what we believe? — Athena
Yes, yes, and yes. How can anyone today believe a god walked in a garden with a man and a woman and this is the beginning of our history? If that story is accepted as factual, isn't there a problem with our thinking? Like before scientific thinking why wouldn't everyone believe that story? There was not a method for thinking that would clarify the story as a myth, not a fact. — Athena
And then how much of such evidence is enough to accept something as fact beyond a reasonable doubt? — Yohan
Science doesn't have a way of establishing fact. Rather than admit this, which I believe honest scientists do, some science advocates and probably actual scientists won't admit it, but will instead rearrange the goal posts so that a fact can mean something that is agreed upon by the majority of scientists. — Yohan
I think its a problem because how do we determine what counts as sufficient reason to accept something as evidence. And then how much of such evidence is enough to accept something as fact beyond a reasonable doubt? — Yohan
Something is either proven to be a fact or it isn't. No amount of induction will ever establish a fact. — Yohan
There is no singular "real world". Your world and my world are very different, even though we are both human males(I think?). Imagine how different is the world of the opposite sex, or other species even. But that is another realm of contemplation altogether.The only things we can know that aren't established by induction are those that come from deduction, which have nothing to do with the real world. — T Clark
what makes you think democracy has some sort of privileged access to reason? — T Clark
There is no singular "real world". Your world and my world are very different, even though we are both human males(I think?). Imagine how different is the world of the opposite sex, or other species even. — Yohan
Once you've institutionalized such practices, you can even overcome failures like the replication crisis. The faith is that democracy can support similar incremental progress towards a just society, despite its failures. — Srap Tasmaner
Yeah that is what I'm saying, but only in the damnably long term. — Srap Tasmaner
In my world there are many worlds. In your world there is one.I often say "There's only one world," so, clearly I disagree. There are, on the other hand, lots of ways to think, talk about it. I think humans, men and women, are much more alike than different. Ditto with people with different languages and cultures. It may take some work, but we can understand each other. — T Clark
In my world there are many worlds. In your world there is one.
Who is right. — Yohan
The original sense was ‘an act’, something done — Olivier5
I don't see it as a metaphysical term. Metaphysics is reductive, leading to essence. The sensory experience is appearance, emergent, and relative to the experiencer. It's truths are inductive, and its here that we hope for effective maps.Neither of us. The idea of "world" as we are using it is a metaphysical term. As such, it is not right or wrong, only useful or not in a particular situation. It's just our different ways of looking at the same thing. — T Clark
:up: :up: :up:How do we use knowledge - adequately justified beliefs? We use them to make decisions about possible actions.
...
First off, we don't generally need to establish facts "beyond a reasonable doubt." Sometimes we do, but not usually. Choosing the level of allowable doubt is a matter of human of judgement. You have to take into account the amount of uncertainty and the consequences of being wrong. This is something people do all the time. It's nothing exotic or even particularly philosophical. — T Clark
Actually, I've always thought that hanging would be a good way to commit suicide if I ever want to do so. When I picture it, I always just tie a slip knot. It is my understanding the fancy-schmancy hangman's noose was developed as a way to break the hangee's neck when they are dropped from a gallows. — T Clark
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.