Avoidance of self- & other-deception in proofs

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

We got lost right about the part where it was stated that there are 15 living eyewitnesses to the resurrection.

Did we read that wrong? Did they perhaps have a "vision" of it, or maybe a "dream"?

It is my understanding that some of them have had visions/dreams, while others (like doubting Thomas) physically have handled his body and/or interacted with Him in this world. It would be interesting to know exactly, so I'll see what I can find.

[cheesehead]

-- continuing reply to post #12

This time, just comments on terminology (sort of):

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

That said, I think you are going a little off-topic with this comment. We are not talking about proving things. We are talking about avoiding deception. There is not a double implication between the two items, as I understand it.

As I wrote in post #1, I'm interested in "deception-avoidance ... -- in the process of trying to determine what is true and what isn't". Proof is about determining what is true and what isn't, it seems to me. So, I'd say we are talking about a particular aspect of proving things.

But in view of shades of meaning of "prove" and "proof", I'll try to avoid those terms, in favor of "the process of trying to determine what is true and what isn't". Or maybe I'll borrow from Webster's wording, below.

What do you accept as objective?

< snip >

Again, I would ask what you consider objective evidence.

< snip >

Clarifying what you take to be objective will definitely help me answer your question.

Yes, we need to agree on meanings of "objective" and "subjective". Or at least, I need to define how I'm using them.

Upon consulting my WTNID for "objective", I find my intended meaning listed in definition 1 b (3):

Originally Posted by Webster's Third New International Dictionary

(3) : belonging to nature or the sensible world : publicly or intersubjectively observable or verifiable esp. by scientific methods : independent of what is personal or private in our apprehension or feelings : of such nature that rational minds agree in holding it real or true or valid

For "subjective", I find defintion 2 c, which explicitly compares itself to the above definition of "objective":

Originally Posted by Webster's Third New International Dictionary

c : of, relating to, or being whatever in experience or knowledge is conditioned by merely personal characteristics of mind or by particular states of mind as opposed to what is determined only by the universal conditions of human experience and knowledge -- compare OBJECTIVE 1b(3)

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

For example, would you consider your experiences with your mother as objective evidence that your mother loves you?

Love is, generally, a subjective experience. That portion of my experiences which were objective could be objective evidence, but much of that would be independently unverifiable. She (along with my father) provided food, clothing, shelter, physical health care and education, but she failed to provide certain aspects of normal emotional support.

For something to be objective does it have to be repeatable?

Yes, in the sense that it has to be the same if two different observers observe it, as define above for "objective". There can be objective evidence for a unique event, so an event itself does not have to be repeatable in order for there to be objective evidence for its having happened.

Now, that doesn't mean that two different measurements taken by different observers have to be absolutely identical. But their differences need to be recorded, so statistical probability can be applied to the differences in order to help judge whether the differences are meaningful. Measurement error, procedural error, and observer error all could account for differences in measurements taken of the same objective evidence -- that's part of what's considered in evaluation.

If by objective you mean measurable by outside observers; I do not believe we currently have the technology to do that. I'm not entirely sure if the warmth is purely physical.

But there are now various instruments that could measure not only temperature but also nerve impulses transmitted by nerves conveying signals that result in the sensation of warmth and the dilation of blood vessels in response to such a sensation. It's not likely that such instruments would be both available and applied in other than a controlled experimental situation. But it is theoretically possible to set up an experiment for measuring bodily sensations occurring during a perceived religious experience.

(* to be continued later *)

[Mr. P-1]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I can think of a few other ways to avoid deception, such as repeating the experiment, continuing to study and test other hypotheses, etc... but I'll stop here.

Adherents of just about any other religion can make exactly the same claims about theirs as you do about yours, even though their beliefs directly contradict yours.

It is not possible for all the religions in the world to be true. Some of them must be false, and some of their adherents must be decieved, despite the application of your "ways to avoid deception" which are thereby shown to ineffective.

Contrast with science. Although there is a great deal of disagreement between scientists on the details, there are not multiple competing sciences each contradicting the others. If science is a religion then it is a single unified religion. It is also the true religion, because it is the only one which reliably produces miracles that everyone can see.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

Contrast with science. Although there is a great deal of disagreement between scientists on the details, there are not multiple competing sciences each contradicting the others.

So, do you believe that God plays dice or not?


Paul

[Mr. P-1]

Originally Posted by xilman

So, do you believe that God plays dice or not?

No, but he does play checkers.

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

So, do you believe that God plays dice or not?

Of course, the standard loaded question.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

No, but he does play checkers.

So, you are in the GR, rather than the QM camp?

Paul

[Mr. P-1]

Originally Posted by xilman

So, you are in the GR, rather than the QM camp?

My remark was tongue-in-cheek.

I'm not really in any camp. I am not qualified to hold an opinion.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

Of course, the standard loaded question.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

If you would stop being quite so literal occasionally, you'd easily be able to work out my meaning. In particular, you'd know why I asked that question at that point in the discussion.

Don't they teach rhetoric in schools any more?

Paul

Yes, that was a rhetorical question. Just making sure you realise it.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

My remark was tongue-in-cheek.

I'm not really in any camp. I am not qualified to hold an opinion.

Ah, I see. I thought your remark was quite profound myself and somewhat in tune with my own view.


Paul

[Zeta-Flux]

xilman,

Either retina's answer was very obtuse, or one of the most brilliant puns (think "loaded dice") that I've seen in a while. [Edited to add: Now that I noticed the hidden message, I'm prone to think he missed your point completely. Too bad!]