I see you took some inspiration from me here ;)
Sure did. But if you read my debates you'll know the subject is nothing new to me.
it's not a position I take
Got a reason why?
So when we say "God", how do we know we are correct in our usage?
Oh dear you'll have to get to know someone deeply and personally, and who wants to do that when stereotyping them is so much easier!
I seriously think that we're arguing from different point of view.
I think you might be on to something...WE ARE different people!
Suffering is beneficial in that it helps us to avoid allowing harmful behavior to continue. I don't think of it as a complicated philosophical realization.
Here..I stole this quote and I'm giving it to you for free!
“Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.” ~ Buddha
Do you think that ideas require perceiving minds for their very existence?
No, I do not. :) Things exist without humanity. They did before and they will when we are dead.
Of course "things" exist without humanity. But I was talking about specific kinds of things. Namely Ideas.
If you really think that an idea can exist without a mind, I'd like to hear what you think the difference is between a thought and an idea. And btw I don't think humans are the only creatures that can think or have ideas.
"...to agreement with fact or reality in particular".
truth always improves an individual's awareness of reality. Truth is necessarily related to individual awareness.
We cannot be free of deceit to know reality. Proceeding from that, we cannot even know anything, because knowing anything would require the truth of it... Truth and Knowledge go hand in hand.
So you must be agnostic :)
While a single truth can't remove all obstructions to a clear undistorted view of reality it can remove some. Truth is not that which makes our view of reality flawless but that which enables us to identify flaws.
I already explain the differences above.
I remain unsatisfied.
You might want to read more before making comment sir. Please read through my comment above before another question.
Your presumption that I haven't considered your comments is unwarranted.
If its unclear, you can ask me to expand on any fuzzy issue.
No thanks. I am not into one sided conversations where I am expected to be open to having my thinking challenged and you won't be open in the same way. I am not your pupil.
Because you come across as way too confident in yourself. Its just a touch annoying. Makes us wish to dispute you..
I was trying to provoke a dispute.
Thats to say, under your terms, in a court case, a man is accused of rape. Because the woman who is supposedly the victim declares him to be the perpetrator and the state proves that the man was there that night because his fingerprints were there and his shoes were recently covered in oil but the defense has no evidence whatsoever, The man is "Proven" to be a rapist by the court. Is this what you refer to? For that seems, again, FAR too broad an inclusion for some sort of Proof.
The point is that the accused can be proven guilty despite the truth of the matter.
I personally Think Zombee is more right than you are. But hey, thats me.
I invited her to offer her perspective at this debate because I think she makes convincing arguments.
Sorry about that. That post was supposed to be for another debate. My stance is that fingerprint evidence CAN be faked. I don't think it's wise to think of any evidence as absolutely irrefutable. We should always keep in mind that no one is immune to being deluded, fooled tricked or gravely mistaken.
You can define the words however you like as long as you recognize that this is not actually what proof and evidence really are, and that the scientific community has come to a general consensus on this.
I am glad I have your permission to challenge what I think is indeed a consensus, albeit not one general to "the scientific community" as I understand it. Just the gawkers outside.
It's good advice (even for scientists) to realize they might be wrong. Their measurements and calculations based on them may be unreliable.
just because one is not convinced by the anecdotes does not make them nonexistent
Who would think such a silly thing anyway?
It makes them feeble evidence.
Maybe were getting somewhere. Evidence must have a whom to be evident to no?
There is no way for numbers to suddenly scramble themselves around or begin unpredictably representing random and varying quantities, ie: the integer 2 sometimes represents 3 and other times represents 17, 4 becomes larger in quantity than 4000, etc.
Numbers are used for measurements. Measurements are based on more or less arbitrarily established standards. Imaginary numbers may not "suddenly scramble themselves" but in cases where we don't know all the appropriate factors to take into account, they may as well.
A right angle will always be 90 degrees.
Then no angle is really a right angle, it's always at least slightly off. If we haven't perfect precision instruments we can't show otherwise.
Length will never influence the angle of a line
A line is imaginary. Supposed
Triangles will always have three sides.
Show me something with only 3 sides. Again imaginary.
This is why proofs are irrefutable; it is inconceivable that new knowledge could come to light that would invalidate a proof.
That sums up the style of thinking I argue against pretty good.
I probably should have waited for a new post or an addendum to the old one. Sorry, I got ahead of myself.
Its cool. Sometime you get crappy answer from me cause tired or rushed.
TLW?
The certainty of proof is always 100% regardless of what you are after.
I would want to leave room for doubt on most things actually. That's a philosophical inclination of mine. Regarding serious matters however, I would agree that it's better not to be full of doubt.
So, back to our question, regardless of what you are using this proof for (court case etc.), is your fingerprint proof that your finger touched the subject?
In the interest of plainly answering your question:
Yes a fingerprint on an object is GENERALLY regarded as reliable proof that someone touched an object.
Does this translate to: "A fingerprint on an object Unquestionably and in all conceivable cases proves the object was touched" ? Any time I read the term irrefutable my mind inserts the word yet
you later show again that you do not understand the difference between evidence and proof,
I favor a different way of explaining my understanding of the words than you do.. A body of evidence is called proof only when it convinces.
being convincing is not a defining characteristic of evidence.
That's false on it's face. Sure, it's not the evidence that does the actual convincing, but the individual interpretation of evidence. If it isn't thought to support or refute a claim then it's not regarded as evidence.
proofs are irrefutable
Don't you think irrefutable is the same thing as yet to be refuted?
I am still checking out your fine links. I 'll muster a response in a bit...
Thanks for the challenge.
