Is Anyone A Former 'Scientific Creationist'?

hammegk said:

100% materialism on one end, 100% idealism on the other, dualism some mixture of both.
Click to expand...

And if we switch back to the usual definition of "unsure" then that might be someone who accepts the dichotomy but feels the evidence perhaps more one way than the other but is willing to change his view with the evidence.
 
Hammy is a philosophy troll with a giant bag of his own definitions and an almost unending determination to inflict them upon the unwary. He is immune to logic, and delights in gibberish.

You have been warned. :D
 
apoger said:
Hammy is a philosophy troll with a giant bag of his own definitions and an almost unending determination to inflict them upon the unwary. He is immune to logic, and delights in gibberish.

You have been warned. :D
Click to expand...
That's as pointed as the top your head, and equally informative. Which definitions do you quibble with? And, logically, why?


Wudang said:
And if we switch back to the usual definition of "unsure" then that might be someone who accepts the dichotomy but feels the evidence perhaps more one way than the other but is willing to change his view with the evidence.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, that is the definition of dualism, where body & mind are different monisms, yet interact.

BTW, non-interactive dualism is at least logical, even if irrelevant to "thought" as we currently know it.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Using your own words: "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty". Then why teach these things as "truth" to our impressionable school age children? Evolution of species is a documented fact? What merit does it have then, because a "fact" is only a half-truth? I do not want my children being taught half-truths (lies) as absolutes
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
About a month ago, my ten-year old cousin who lives in Long Island, NY told me that he'd heard somewhere that man came from monkeys. He asked me whether that was true and how that could have happened. I explained evolution to him over the period of a few days and he seemed to grasp the basic concepts immediately. His father got him a children's book on evolution and he read it with great delight.

When I spoke to him two weeks later, he told me that he'd shared his new-found knowledge with his fourth-grade class. After he did, his teacher said to the him, "That's very nice, but remember that evolution is just a theory."
 
hammegk said:

Agreed. However, that is the definition of dualism, where body & mind are different monisms, yet interact.
Click to expand...
Hammy, are you saying that dualism is negatively defined, whereas materialism and idealism are each positively defined? Wouldn't you say that there is a difference between somebody who believes that there is both mind and body, and somebody who is simply not "100% certain" that it is all material, or all ideal? If you are defining "dualist" as anybody who is not 100% sure in their monism, what label would you put on somebody who is not 100% sure of their dualistic assumtions?
 
That's as pointed as the top your head, and equally informative.
Click to expand...


Hammy, didn't you make quite a show of putting me on ignore?
Get some integrity and put me back!
 
hammegk said:

No confusion on my part; maybe on yours. Unless you disagree with the statement, if it interacts with "what is" it is the same monism "what is" is. Alternatively, you have body stuff interacting with mind stuff and you are a dualist.

100% materialism on one end, 100% idealism on the other, dualism some mixture of both.
Click to expand...

There is nothing inconsistent in the statements
"There is a 90% probability that we are 100% material beings"
"There is a 90% probability that we are 100% immaterial beings"
They are not equivalent or even similar in meaning to the statements
"I am 100% certain that we are 90% material beings"
"I am 100% certain that we are 90% material beings"

Similarly
"I am 100% certain that there we are 50% material and 50% immaterial"
is not equivalent to
"I am 50% certain that we are 100% material and and 100% immaterial"


Please note that I am not suggesting that there is anything at all significant about 90% or 50% in the various cases. These values are used for illustrative purposes only.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I nominate that for non sequitur of the year. It's only April, I know, but I think I'm on to a winner.
Click to expand...

Ham's already got a lock on that award, so I doubt he's too psyched about yet another nomination worthy post.
 
Throg said:
That's an interesting assertion. Please justify it.
Click to expand...

I know it's tough to see that given 2 possible existants (mind and/or body), if a specified logical position does not contain 100% of one, some of the other is also present.


Mercutio said:
... what label would you put on somebody who is not 100% sure of their dualistic assumptions?
Click to expand...
Dualist.
 
hammegk said:
I know it's tough to see that given 2 possible existants (mind and/or body), if a specified logical position does not contain 100% of one, some of the other is also present.
Click to expand...
You see, Throg, if you aren't 100% convinced that hammy's drinking vodka, and you're not 100% convinced that he's drinking a coffee liqueur, then you must necessarily believe that he's drinking a Black Russian.

And that's logical, so it is!
 
hammegk
I know it's tough to see that given 2 possible existants (mind and/or body), if a specified logical position does not contain 100% of one, some of the other is also present.
Click to expand...
Biased!

What makes you that there are only two states and one combination?
There are at least 47 more that you’re ignoring.

Ossai
 
hammegk,
Here's a hypothetical case for you:
I believe that my dog has no white hairs. In fact, I am 99% certain that my dog has no white hairs on it at all. After checking over it multiple times and consulting vets about the chances that it could have white hairs, I am 99% certain that it has no white hairs at all. In fact it would appear that it has only black hairs.
Still, I can't say that I'm 100% certain.
Does this mean that I beleive that it has both black and white hairs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom