Mr_Anony:
At thehomer, I would very much like to continue with you but it is beginning to occur to me (and especially reading your argument with InesQor) that you are purposely trying to misunderstand Pastor AIO premise. For this reason, I won't continue with you. I don't want to dance around in circles today.

I'll continue with Pastor AIO who by the way is yet to answer my questions though.

Mr_Anony: @Pastor AIO

With such differing "authorities", how can one ever know truth?

About truth, can there be multiple truths? This is because different people defer to different "highest authorities"

Please answer my questions, I've been waiting

7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

1 The world is all that is the case.

thehomer:

And this is why I said that problems can easily creep in with the way the word "authority" was being used. You're already demonstrating the problem since your senses aren't an object or a person.

Let me see if I can help you with another question.
If you're having a headache is there any person or object which you consider an authority that can tell you that you're not having a headache?

Pastor AIO:

I would say that the Truth cannot be grasped with certainty using the tools and methods of a) establishing axioms and then b) following the inferences from these axioms via a system of logic.

If we arrive at the truth by these means then there is a certain measure of fortuity what would be required. The system will always be open to doubt.

This fact has in fact been established MATHEMATICALLY through the work of philosopher/mathematician Bertrand Russell and others like Wittgenstein.

Wittgenstein wrote what in my opinion is the most deliciously titled book in the whole of Philosophy. It was called Tractacus Logico Philosophorum.

And furthermore the final line of that book is also in my opinion the most delicious way to end any book.

Actually it starts off quite deliciously too:

thehomer:

You'll need to show me how you think I misunderstood his premise because it seems to accept pretty much anything as being an authority which doesn't make sense based on the definition of the word in English.
I clearly demonstrated the problems with his approach.

Mr_Anony:
I'm not sure I quite get this but if I am right in my reading, I think you are saying that we cannot possibly have truth with any certainty.
If this is indeed what you are saying, wouldn't this imply that truth does not and cannot exist?

InesQor: *Tracta[b]t[/b]us

Sounds interesting. Will check it out sometime.

thehomer:

You'll need to show me how you think I misunderstood his premise because it seems to accept pretty much anything as being an authority which doesn't make sense based on the definition of the word in English.
I clearly demonstrated the problems with his approach.

Pastor AIO:

[size=15pt]
What exactly is an Authority? It is something that cannot be questioned. What Authority says, goes. It's will is done. If it says green is Good then no one can argue that Green is Good. If it says brown is bad then similarly no one can argue that Brown is bad. The buck stops with the authority. It's pronouncements are axiomatic.[/size]

Mr_Anony:
You know what, i don't think I need to show you anything, If you fail to understand what he's getting at then that's just too bad. The rest of us seem to understand his premise quite well enough.

Pastor AIO:
What exactly is an Authority? It is something that cannot be questioned. What Authority says, goes. It's will is done. If it says green is Good then no one can argue that Green is Good. If it says brown is bad then similarly no one can argue that Brown is bad. The buck stops with the authority. It's pronouncements are axiomatic.

thehomer:

Why do people find it so difficult to back up their claims?
I've just demonstrated to you the problems with the concept of authority he wanted to use. If you did understand it, you would be able to show me exactly where I went wrong.

thehomer: @ Pastor AIO

I'm sorry but your post doesn't really help me because it seemed so all over the place. It is quite distinct from the clear thoughts you usually express.



Saying an authority is something that cannot be questioned doesn't really help because there are so many things that cannot be questioned which wouldn't qualify especially because they don't make pronouncements.

thehomer: @ Pastor AIO

Is there any authority that can say green (the colour) is Good and it will be accepted?
What if the pronouncements of this authority though axiomatic are contradictory? Will its will still be done?

thehomer:

Why do people find it so difficult to back up their claims?
I've just demonstrated to you the problems with the concept of authority he wanted to use. If you did understand it, you would be able to show me exactly where I went wrong.

........I think you are saying that we cannot possibly have truth with any certainty.
If this is indeed what you are saying, wouldn't this imply that truth does not and cannot exist?

Mr_Anony:

Do I really have to always ask you the same question twice before you attempt to answer? or perhaps you are really more interested in playing semantics with thehomer?

Pastor AIO:

Oh, the Truth Can and Does exist, BUT we cannot grasp it with Thought (as based on axioms and inferences) and neither can we articulate it in the terms of Thought, or Knowledge.

Even when our thoughts and beliefs approximate the Truth it is due to some measure of fortuity. Consider Gettier's Problem.

A farmer wants to check if his black Cow is in the field. He sees a black cloth hanging on a tree and presumes (due to his poor eyesight) that it is the Cow. He concludes that the Cow is indeed in the field. It so happens that the Cow is indeed in the field. However can the Farmer really be said to know it? He arrived at the truth via a faulty process.

So a very important distinction must be drawn between Belief and TRUE KNOWLEDGE. Just because a belief may be true does that really mean that the believer KNOWS the fact. He believes it and the truth of his belief is quite fortuitous.

Now how does one arrive at said TRUE KNOWLEDGE? The axioms will have to be valid/true and the process of inference will have to be Valid/true. How can we be sure this is the case? We cannot hence we can only believe things to be True but we cannot Know them to be true.

Not with our carnal reasoning in any case. (making room for the possibility that there my be another way).

Pastor AIO:

I thought that I'd already answered it here:

Oh, the Truth Can and Does exist, BUT we cannot grasp it with Thought (as based on axioms and inferences) and neither can we articulate it in the terms of Thought, or Knowledge.

Even when our thoughts and beliefs approximate the Truth it is due to some measure of fortuity. Consider Gettier's Problem.

A farmer wants to check if his black Cow is in the field. He sees a black cloth hanging on a tree and presumes (due to his poor eyesight) that it is the Cow. He concludes that the Cow is indeed in the field. It so happens that the Cow is indeed in the field. However can the Farmer really be said to know it? He arrived at the truth via a faulty process.

So a very important distinction must be drawn between Belief and TRUE KNOWLEDGE. Just because a belief may be true does that really mean that the believer KNOWS the fact. He believes it and the truth of his belief is quite fortuitous.

Now how does one arrive at said TRUE KNOWLEDGE? The axioms will have to be valid/true and the process of inference will have to be Valid/true. How can we be sure this is the case? We cannot hence we can only believe things to be True but we cannot Know them to be true.

Not with our carnal reasoning in any case. (making room for the possibility that there my be another way).

Mr_Anony:
Ok, are you then saying that we cannot possibly know the truth with any certainty except by supernatural means?
If this is the case, How does one go about showing another person the truth that he /she has learnt supernaturally and get the person yo actually understand this truth?

Pastor AIO:

I am saying that if we can grasp Truth with certainty it will NOT be by means of our 'logical' faculties.

Since Truth if grasped by some other faculty cannot be articulated in language (which, it seems, uses the same terms as knowledge, or rather belief) then it cannot be spoken or argued or demonstrated to another person.

As Wittgenstein would say: 7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

However, someone can guide another in such a way that the other will come upon the ineffable Truth for himself. eg. I might not be able to tell you what is going on in Room 303, but I can tell you to walk down the corridor, take a left, then a right and enter into Room 303. When you come back from Room 303 you will know what I'm not talking about.

Check out Plato's Allegory of the Cave. ( i know, i know, it seems like I bleat on about this incessantly).

Pastor AIO:

From what I seem to understand you saying, you insist that an Authority must be a Person, a personality, or a Book. But it cannot be any other source of information. Why?

Why can Authoritativeness not be applied to every source of information?

Pastor AIO:

Such as? A few examples would be nice here.

Pastor AIO:

Say for instance a style guru says that Green is the best colour for this fashion season, many who accept her authority as a fashion guru will insist that Green is indeed the best colour to go to the party in.

Pastor AIO:
The green part is fruitless speculation. How does that affect the argument in anyway?

Mr_Anony:
Dude, you have failed to demonstrate anything. As far as I can see, you are only arguing against the use of a particular word "authority" and not the idea he is trying to convey. This i feel is unnecessary and doesn't help the debate in any way. It only drags it round in circles.
. . . .

thehomer:

I'm not arguing against the use of the word authority. I'm arguing against the use of that word in a certain way because it will easily lead to confusion.

thehomer:

Because some of those other sources of information are inherently different.

thehomer: @ Pastor AIO

I'm sorry but your post doesn't really help me because it seemed so all over the place. It is quite distinct from the clear thoughts you usually express.


Saying an authority is something that cannot be questioned doesn't really help because there are so many things that cannot be questioned which wouldn't qualify especially because they don't make pronouncements.

thehomer: @ Pastor AIO

Is there any authority that can say green (the colour) is Good and it will be accepted?
What if the pronouncements of this authority though axiomatic are contradictory? Will its will still be done?

thehomer:

Like[b] numbers, mathematical processes[/b] etc. They're very different from someone simply telling you something.



(Emphasis mine)
Is it possible for you not to accept the[b] laws of thought[/b]?


If an authority is[b] self contradictory[/b], how can its will be done?

Russell’s discovery came while he was working on his Principles of Mathematics. Although Russell discovered the paradox independently, there is some evidence that other mathematicians and set-theorists, including Ernst Zermelo and David Hilbert, had already been aware of the first version of the contradiction prior to Russell’s discovery. Russell, however, was the first to discuss the contradiction at length in his published works, the first to attempt to formulate solutions and the first to appreciate fully its importance. An entire chapter of the Principles was dedicated to discussing the contradiction, and an appendix was dedicated to the theory of types that Russell suggested as a solution.

Mr_Anony:
Apparently, I am not confused by it.

thehomer:
. . . .

If you're having a headache is there any person or object which you consider an authority that can tell you that you're not having a headache?

Pastor AIO:
. . . .

Imagine a scenario. You are with four friends and you see a white horse and you point at it and say to them, 'look at that beautiful white horse'.

They respond, 'what beautiful white horse are you drunk? There is nothing there, or , oh, you mean that dirty pig wallowing in the mud'

You don't see a pig but you still see a beautiful white horse.
. . . .

Pastor AIO:

How about if, rather than use the word Authoritativeness, I used the word Reliability. Various people therefore Rely on different sources of information seemingly arbitrarily. Some rely more on the information provided by their senses to determine 'truth'.

Others rely on Consensus to determine whether something is 'true'.

Others rely on what their teachers in school tell them.

Others rely on their pastors.

Would you really say that some sources (eg. the Senses, as you have been claiming) are too inherently different from other sources to be Relied on?

thehomer:


(Emphasis mine)
Is it possible for you not to accept the laws of thought?

The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge.[citation needed] That is, what is the justification for either

The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method and for that reason the philosopher C. D. Broad said that "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy".

Pastor AIO:






I said: Such as? A few examples would be nice here.



This is quite wonderful cos I've already mentioned Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein. I should just stick with Russell though cos he is the one that made famous the questionability of Numbers and mathematics, and furthermore the Contradiction (or paradox) at the heart of numbers.

He made the problem famous and that is why it is called Russell's paradox but in fact it had been noticed by mathematicians and Logicians way way way before him. Some people might say that I was stretching the argument if I say that it was recognised by philosophers even thousands of years before the 20th century, but I firmly believe that even though they might have not tackled the issue head on they certainly alluded to it in many texts.

So what is Russell's paradox?

Russell had been researching into the foundations of Mathematics and Logical processes (in fact that was the main bulk of his life's work) when he came upon it. He was writing The Principles of Mathematics at the time.


http://www.iep.utm.edu/par-russ/