Let me begin by repeating my principle challenge. I claim it is DEMONSTRABLE that people can know things even if there is no evidence and that they cannot prove or demonstrate it. Do you accept this claim or do you need me to provide such a demonstration?
The point is that by personal experience someone can know that voter fraud happened whether they have the evidence to prove it or not. And you babbling about not having met the framework for an inquiry cannot change that knowledge into not knowledge.
IT IS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE ONLY! And that will NEVER be a demonstration by which they can expect other people to agree. It IS knowledge but it is subjective knowledge not objective knowledge.
That is hot air empty rhetoric. They consider those to be true beliefs no matter how long you babble your personal subjective conviction that they are not true. You donât have a basis for a reasonable expectation that they should agree that it does not keep dragons away any more than they have a basis for a reasonable expectation that you should agree that it does keep dragons away.
People are right to call the beliefs they live by knowledge and I think what you care about is ability to force the beliefs you live by on other people by some sort of true by default nonsense.
The problem is the unwillingness of intolerant people to accept a diversity of people who know different things because not all knowledge is demonstrable.
No⌠it speaks to the difference in the definition of objective and subjective knowledge. Both are the beliefs we live by, but objective knowledge is demonstrable and subjective knowledge is not.
Schizophrenics with such problems maintaining a grip on reality have my sympathies. Most of us do not. My grip on reality is quite solid. I do not view myself doing things. I simply do them. And as a science fiction writer I can imagine all sorts of scenarios and I will not interpret them the way you do. The matrix is not less real just because it is the matrix. It is a matrix reality. Discovering other aspect of reality is just that and not some discovery that what I have experienced is not real. You see I have no problems with multidimensional thinking and that includes people with subjective aspects of reality which are different and an objective aspect of reality which is the same.
When you look down your nose at people all over the world for thinking and living differently than you do then cultural imperialist is simply what you are, and sorry but I think the cultural imperialists are problem, not them.
LOL Donât need to. I have met such people in my own family all of my life. I think the one who has been sheltered here is you â enabling you to look down your nose at âthose people out thereâ unable to understand that you are really no different than they are.
Huh? I am only referring to your own words that seek to define knowledge as something without reasonable doubt.
I think you are determined to see insults where there is only an effort to find solid ground. So let me repeat the important part without the parts you use to distract us from it.
There is an epistemological superiority in that which can be demonstrated, as in the findings of science, which are founded upon written procedures anyone can follow to get the same results no matter what they believe. That superiority is a basis for a reasonable expectation that others should agree.
I cannot be surprised since you seem to have difficulty in applying such principles to your own ideas of what is knowledge and truth. If you cannot demonstrate that what other people believe is not justified or not true then you cannot expect them to agree that they are not justified or not true. All the special pleading you make for your ideas about what is justified and true cannot change this.
That loose language becomes a way of sneaking dishonesty in to support your argument.
YOU suggest this and turn it into an accusation against me. I never thought any such thing. But I do not consider questioning whether such applies to myself is somehow forbidden as you apparently do. That suggests that maybe you should make an honest evaluation of yourself about that, after all.
But back to the facts⌠which is that too often people like to think of themselves as a scientist when they are no such thing â and like to think they are living their lives as an objective observer, and since this is logically impossible then how can it be anything other than an indulgence in narcissistic self deception.
I think you prefer to make this personal instead of simply sticking to the point.
The truth is that I simply think your claims about knowledge is absurd and inconsistent to such an incoherent degree that I find it difficult to comprehend how someone can insist on such a thing with a straight face. I cannot help but think it is driven by ideological convictions which they wish to force on other people even though they obviously cannot demonstrate any such thing.
Sorry, but that is how I was taught from childhood by a couple of psychology majors as parents to view cultural imperialists looking down their nose at most of the people in the world. And when they decide what those people call knowledge is not knowledge but only guesses and superstitions then sorry but that equates to cultural imperialism in my book.
Why do you change my words in this way? Or is English not your native language that you do not understand subjunctive statements? When following a suggestion of another way of doing things, a statement about what we do is not a claim about what all people do but what they do according to that alternative way of doing things. AND the fact is that many many people do make themselves clear in this way by defining their terms. If you donât have the excuse of poor English comprehension then your bizarre change of this into an absolute factual claim is off the charts dishonesty.
And Glenn Morton, among others.
