How do you arrive at what you KNOW?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: FyreByrd

AXIONS

Do you in fact mean AXIOMS?

from Google:

ax·i·om
ˈaksēəm/Submit

noun
plural noun: axioms

a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
"the axiom that supply equals demand"
synonyms: accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle; More

MATHEMATICS
a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.

Basically something as accepted as true (stipulated) but unable/unwillig/difficult to prove.

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
* evidence
* reason
* logic
* analysis

Excellent - How do you acquire your evidence? How do you decide what is valid evidence?

a reply to: Starbuck799

Well put - thank you.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Looking back at history helps too. How were things accomplished? Did they bear integrity? Accomplishment? Were things successful, or did they fail?

So history is one of the pieces of the evidence pie for you? Good point.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
* evidence
* reason
* logic
* analysis

Excellent - How do you acquire your evidence? How do you decide what is valid evidence?

Valid evidence:

Look up and study something called syllogisms. It is also part of the study of philosophy, logic is also part of the study of philosophy. Just about all the topics you are discussing here are included in the study of philosophy. You should take a course or read a bunch of philosophy books.

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Starbuck799

if we are " born with beliefs " - why does everyone seem to end up with the curltural beliefs of the society that raised them ?

Well, I'm not going to get into the whole study of the objectivity of morals thing here, it is a huge area of study. But I will start you out with a question. Do you believe that it is natural to not commit murder? If you do, than you believe in the objectivity of morals.

And here-in lies the rub:

You question is not logical nor moral. While you will not 'get into the whole study of the objectivity of morals thing here' you go on to stand that if one believes/knows that a specific event (with out defining terms used) is a determinant that one believes in Moral Objectivity - which is a fallacy of the type:

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning):

If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question.

The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove.

For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing.

However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).

from (the handy):

web.cn.edu...

Also:

Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter, also called “Jumping to Conclusions,” "Converse Accident"):

Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point.

Example: "Susan failed Biology 101. Herman failed Biology 101. Egbert failed Biology 101. I therefore conclude that most students who take Biology 101 will fail it." In understanding and characterizing general situations, a logician cannot normally examine every single example. However, the examples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. Maybe Susan, Herman, and Egbert are exceptionally poor students. Maybe they were sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass. If a logician wants to make the case that most students will fail Biology 101, she should (a) get a very large sample--at least one larger than three--or (b) if that isn't possible, she will need to go out of his way to prove to the reader that her three samples are somehow representative of the norm. If a logician considers only exceptional or dramatic cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone, the author commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
* evidence
* reason
* logic
* analysis

Excellent - How do you acquire your evidence? How do you decide what is valid evidence?

Here is an example of a logic syllogism:

Premise 1. All conspiracy theorists are mentally ill
Premise 2. All ATS posters are conspiracy theorists

Conclusion:
All ATS posters are mentally ill

Premise 1 is invalid, and lets say for argument's sake that Premise 2 is valid. This means that the Conclusion in invalid. Both Premises must be valid for the Conclusion to be valid.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Starbuck799

i believe that murder is perfectuly natural - but maybe i am using a slightly better definition of natual than you

do i believe that all and any murder is " right " or " correct " - no - but there are exceptions

i am a morrally flexible munkie - as you no doubt deduce by now

that is why i adhere to the premise of subjective morality

Depends on the definition of Murder. The legal definition requires 'intent to kill'. Which is sometimes a natural intent. As humans we don't have to act on those impulses.

Seems to me from a Moral Objectivity (religious) point of view - killing would be the actual immoral act regardless of intent.

I separate what i know from what I believe.

I know things like 2+2=4 and that the sun will come up tomorrow and rise in the east and set in the west. Those are observable and readily provable things.

My opinions and philosophy are beliefs. Those are things that are not so readily proven. I arrive at those through a lot of thought and little things you observe over time. I read a lot of others' thoughts on them and listen to what others have to say and why they arrived at those conclusions looking to see if anyone has more rational conclusions than what I've arrived at that make more sense. They may modify over time and have.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Starbuck799

if we are " born with beliefs " - why does everyone seem to end up with the curltural beliefs of the society that raised them ?

Well, I'm not going to get into the whole study of the objectivity of morals thing here, it is a huge area of study. But I will start you out with a question. Do you believe that it is natural to not commit murder? If you do, than you believe in the objectivity of morals.

And here-in lies the rub:

You question is not logical nor moral. While you will not 'get into the whole study of the objectivity of morals thing here' you go on to stand that if one believes/knows that a specific event (with out defining terms used) is a determinant that one believes in Moral Objectivity - which is a fallacy of the type:

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning):

If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question.

The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove.

For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing.

However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).

from (the handy):

web.cn.edu...

Also:

Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter, also called “Jumping to Conclusions,” "Converse Accident"):

Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point.

Example: "Susan failed Biology 101. Herman failed Biology 101. Egbert failed Biology 101. I therefore conclude that most students who take Biology 101 will fail it." In understanding and characterizing general situations, a logician cannot normally examine every single example. However, the examples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. Maybe Susan, Herman, and Egbert are exceptionally poor students. Maybe they were sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass. If a logician wants to make the case that most students will fail Biology 101, she should (a) get a very large sample--at least one larger than three--or (b) if that isn't possible, she will need to go out of his way to prove to the reader that her three samples are somehow representative of the norm. If a logician considers only exceptional or dramatic cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone, the author commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

When discussing logic, or during a debate/argument, there is no need to go into it too deeply, it just muddies the conversation and wastes time and effort. Every single argument can be resolved through logical syllogisms. See my post above, example of a syllogism.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Starbuck799

i believe that murder is perfectuly natural - but maybe i am using a slightly better definition of natual than you

do i believe that all and any murder is " right " or " correct " - no - but there are exceptions

i am a morrally flexible munkie - as you no doubt deduce by now

that is why i adhere to the premise of subjective morality

Depends on the definition of Murder. The legal definition requires 'intent to kill'. Which is sometimes a natural intent. As humans we don't have to act on those impulses.

Seems to me from a Moral Objectivity (religious) point of view - killing would be the actual immoral act regardless of intent.

The objectivity of morals has nothing to do with religion. They are NOT synonymous. I am an atheist, and I believe in the objectivity of morals.

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
* evidence
* reason
* logic
* analysis

Excellent - How do you acquire your evidence? How do you decide what is valid evidence?

Valid evidence:

Look up and study something called syllogisms. It is also part of the study of philosophy, logic is also part of the study of philosophy. Just about all the topics you are discussing here are included in the study of philosophy. You should take a course or read a bunch of philosophy books.

A syllogism can be valid and the conclusion false.

If A
and B
then C

as in:

All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals.
Therefore, All mammals are dogs.

Are all mammals, in your experience, dogs?

Formal logic is only a small part of 'how we know'.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I separate what i know from what I believe.

I know things like 2+2=4 and that the sun will come up tomorrow and rise in the east and set in the west. Those are observable and readily provable things.

My opinions and philosophy are beliefs. Those are things that are not so readily proven. I arrive at those through a lot of thought and little things you observe over time. I read a lot of others' thoughts on them and listen to what others have to say and why they arrived at those conclusions looking to see if anyone has more rational conclusions than what I've arrived at that make more sense. They may modify over time and have.

So, I believe, you are saying...

Knowledge is somehow separate from belief. Knowledge is concrete, sensory and measurable.

Belief is non-concete, less sensory and measurable.


So knowledge is objective and belief subjective?

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Starbuck799

i believe that murder is perfectuly natural - but maybe i am using a slightly better definition of natual than you

do i believe that all and any murder is " right " or " correct " - no - but there are exceptions

i am a morrally flexible munkie - as you no doubt deduce by now

that is why i adhere to the premise of subjective morality

Depends on the definition of Murder. The legal definition requires 'intent to kill'. Which is sometimes a natural intent. As humans we don't have to act on those impulses.

Seems to me from a Moral Objectivity (religious) point of view - killing would be the actual immoral act regardless of intent.

The objectivity of morals has nothing to do with religion. They are NOT synonymous. I am an atheist, and I believe in the objectivity of morals.

Where is the objective viewpoint based? Where in space/time? If not in a theoretical god viewpoint? How does an evolving universe set down objective morals? How do you come to KNOW this this objective moral standard of nature?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
* evidence
* reason
* logic
* analysis

Excellent - How do you acquire your evidence? How do you decide what is valid evidence?

Valid evidence:

Look up and study something called syllogisms. It is also part of the study of philosophy, logic is also part of the study of philosophy. Just about all the topics you are discussing here are included in the study of philosophy. You should take a course or read a bunch of philosophy books.

A syllogism can be valid and the conclusion false.

If A
and B
then C

as in:

All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals.
Therefore, All mammals are dogs.

Are all mammals, in your experience, dogs?

Formal logic is only a small part of 'how we know'.

I can't remember the rule off hand, but I do know that you can't play with syntax in syllogisms, or something to that effect. As with terriers and dogs, since they are the same thing. If you do, then like you said, the conclusion is invalid, even if the premisses are valid.

It should read this way:

All terriers are dogs.
All dogs are mammals.
Therefore, All terriers are mammals.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Starbuck799

i believe that murder is perfectuly natural - but maybe i am using a slightly better definition of natual than you

do i believe that all and any murder is " right " or " correct " - no - but there are exceptions

i am a morrally flexible munkie - as you no doubt deduce by now

that is why i adhere to the premise of subjective morality

Depends on the definition of Murder. The legal definition requires 'intent to kill'. Which is sometimes a natural intent. As humans we don't have to act on those impulses.

Seems to me from a Moral Objectivity (religious) point of view - killing would be the actual immoral act regardless of intent.

The objectivity of morals has nothing to do with religion. They are NOT synonymous. I am an atheist, and I believe in the objectivity of morals.

Where is the objective viewpoint based? Where in space/time? If not in a theoretical god viewpoint? How does an evolving universe set down objective morals? How do you come to KNOW this this objective moral standard of nature?

I believe it is built into us as a survival mechanism. Since the human is one that thrives with others around us, (we are a social species.) It is in our best interest to not murder others, as not murdering others increases our chances of personal survival and increases the chances of the continuation of our species.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The way I work with the two concepts, yes.

Belief is often based on and formed from knowledge.

The educational model in the classical mode identifies this premise. The student builds the knowledge base for the first part of the educational cycle and in the second part they begin to learn how to reason and use the knowledge base to form hypothesis and analyze what they know. The third phase is learning how to debate and construct argument.

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
* evidence
* reason
* logic
* analysis

Excellent - How do you acquire your evidence? How do you decide what is valid evidence?

Valid evidence:

Look up and study something called syllogisms. It is also part of the study of philosophy, logic is also part of the study of philosophy. Just about all the topics you are discussing here are included in the study of philosophy. You should take a course or read a bunch of philosophy books.

A syllogism can be valid and the conclusion false.

If A
and B
then C

as in:

All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals.
Therefore, All mammals are dogs.

Are all mammals, in your experience, dogs?

Formal logic is only a small part of 'how we know'.

I can't remember the rule off hand, but I do know that you can't play with syntax in syllogisms, or something to that effect. As with terriers and dogs, since they are the same thing. If you do, then like you said, the conclusion is invalid, even if the premisses are valid.

It should read this way:

All terriers are dogs.
All dogs are mammals.
Therefore, All terriers are mammals.

But it isn't, is it? Your point please?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: FyreByrd

The way I work with the two concepts, yes.

Belief is often based on and formed from knowledge.

The educational model in the classical mode identifies this premise. The student builds the knowledge base for the first part of the educational cycle and in the second part they begin to learn how to reason and use the knowledge base to form hypothesis and analyze what they know. The third phase is learning how to debate and construct argument.

Therefore: Belief requires knowledge.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: FyreByrd

Just how do I (you) know what you know.

You just know. Like you know your name, for instance.

How do I (you) come to your beliefs?

Once you experience or witness something, its not about beliefs anymore. Belief is a word used by people to back claims they have no evidence for.

Or for other 'non' believers to use against them.

Big difference between knowing and believing.

Knowing 2+2=4 isn't the same as believing it does.

Okay you are of the Empirical School of thought here.

And you don't just magically know your name. You experienced throughout your infancy and childhood when people would refer to you - so it was a learned knowledge based on experience.

So valid knowing can only be based on your personal experience?

That is how we come to know anything, by learning it. If you want to make a further distinctionn is it knowledge or wisdom that teaches us?

One is from rote by works , the other from without, through within.