When did knowledge exist?

Devils' Advocate said:
That is patently false, however. There have been many, many discoveries that show knowledge in animal species.
Click to expand...
Sort of depends on how you draw the line between instinct and knowledge, it seems grey to me sometimes. If you have already decided that knowledge is a divinely given human property because it says so in a book, that line can probably be stretched enough for that purpose.
 
If one arbitrarily decides to believe in a book when there is plenty of proven evidence to the contrary - there is a problem with that type of thinking. Instinct is hard wired into the brain. Knowledge is information acquired through experimentation and learning. Dolphins gain knowledge thru learning. Heck even your dog gains knowledge thru learning. Hundreds of other examples show the same thing.

It doesn't matter what it says in a book. In any book. If it says contrary to proven evidence, the book is wrong. I don't know if Juan is going to say that I'm doing it again - stating that evidence trumps beliefs. If so, I will go ahead and say he is wrong. All ways of perceiving the world are not equal. They simply aren't.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Heck even your dog gains knowledge thru learning.
Click to expand...
You know my dog!?

We can probably argue instinct vs knowledge further though I tend to side with you more then not some things make me leave a little wiggle room.

And on biblical vs scientific I again side with you, though perhaps completely in this case, but these are two different systems of thought based on different, but not necessarily contrary, axioms. We can't use one system to disprove the other. We can come to opposing conclusions in either system but if a fundamentalist has no trust in one of them we can not use that system for persuasion (which must be the point here?). So I don't see what you're trying to do in your last two posts.
 
I have no issue using biblical systems to base biblical beliefs on, i.e. beliefs that can not be proven or disproven by other systems. I do have an issue when a biblical system is used to back a belief that is patently false, and we know this because of verifiable evidence that proves the opposite is true. That is the point I am trying to make.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
It doesn't matter what it says in a book. In any book. If it says contrary to proven evidence, the book is wrong. I don't know if Juan is going to say that I'm doing it again - stating that evidence trumps beliefs. If so, I will go ahead and say he is wrong. All ways of perceiving the world are not equal. They simply aren't.
Click to expand...

Why would I bother?

I already stated my claim:

juantoo3 said:
To the OP, when did knowledge exist? Probably the first time a single celled creature bumped into another and realized there was another living creature next to him/her/it. If we are confining knowledge only to humans, I think that would be an indication of bias that would immediately falsify any findings.

Then too, what exactly is meant by "knowledge?" If we are considering rational thought in humans, I would say it long predates any and all religious texts, back at least 200K years to the tending of fire, and probably even before that. If we are considering the explosion of rational thought in humans brought on by the agricultural revolution, then it would be dated approx. 10K years ago.
Click to expand...

So I said what you said way before you said it... :p

BTW...I *never* said belief trumps evidence. I said "facts" don't change, but our view of facts might change. HUGE difference. If you're gonna quote me, at least get it right.

95% would *not* be good enough in a court of law (that 5% would be reasonable doubt), and it sure wouldn't be good enough in a chemistry lab...or even a bakery for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Devils' Advocate said:
I have no issue using biblical systems to base biblical beliefs on, i.e. beliefs that can not be proven or disproven by other systems. I do have an issue when a biblical system is used to back a belief that is patently false, and we know this because of verifiable evidence that proves the opposite is true. That is the point I am trying to make.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant in for lot of people, seems like you just skipped the first part of my post.
 
Okay I am gonna go on something of a rant as my frustration level has reached a peak. What the common wisdom of the comments stated above that many are stating is that it is somehow noble to accept ignorance cloaked in religion as being equal to information that has been tested and verified by modern means. That there is some nobility in a belief that a three thousand year old document has as much value as modern verifiable information.

It is my opinion, and nothing more, that such nobility in attempting to be fair to everyone's belief system, that all belief systems are basically of equal value, is insane when they are blatantly, obviously not equivelent. Provably not equivalent. A three thousand year old book, written by Iron Age peoples who state that according to God, only humans are capable of knowledge; that all animals can only survive on instinct is demonstrably bullshit.

Some people here seem to believe they are only being fair to everyone's belief structures in accepting that people have the right to choose ignorance over knowledge.

Saying that people have the right to choose ignorance over knowledge is not being fair to everyone's personal beliefs. It is catering to the dumbing down of modern society. And one has to only look around at the mess many industrialized nations are in because people should have the right to believe an opinion over a fact.

So I've made my position as crystal clear as I possibly can. What others choose to believe is not up to me. My part in this debate is over however.
 
I'm sorry you feel frustrated, but I really don't understand why?

Those who hold to science, not as a discipline but a belief, seem to feel they are beyond reproach, while free to critique everyone else's beliefs.

That is not science, which as you pointed out includes critical thinking. Peer review and critique are part and parcel of the scientific process. So taking a position of being beyond reproach or critique is not the scientific method. Just to be clear.

Devils' Advocate said:
Some people here seem to believe they are only being fair to everyone's belief structures in accepting that people have the right to choose ignorance over knowledge.
Click to expand...

I suspect this is aimed directly at me. While I believe some people are ignorant by choice, some are ignorant because they have no choice, some because they are incapable of being otherwise by ability or place/station in life. Presuming a person is intelligent enough to reason the differences *and* free to do so, even intelligent people have a hard time acclimating to information that challenges their cherished beliefs. Regardless of the belief system; none is perfect, all have flaws.

I would add that "knowledge" comes in a wide variety of flavors, not all of which are suited to science. I've also stated in the recent past my understanding of what constitutes "knowledge," and by that understanding knowledge *requires* working experience, otherwise it is merely being conversantly studied. So, I have to ask if you are judging others' ignorance (specifically that you accuse me of) from working experience in the field under discussion? Or is it only from conversant opinion?

Saying that people have the right to choose ignorance over knowledge is not being fair to everyone's personal beliefs. It is catering to the dumbing down of modern society. And one has to only look around at the mess many industrialized nations are in because people should have the right to believe an opinion over a fact.
Click to expand...

It has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness" in any kind of PC manner as you suggest. I would have to add that this is your opinion, and we've already established that what you mean by "fact" isn't what would be meant in a court of law. 95% is not "fact" in the generally accepted form of the word.
 
DA, I do hope you see some level of distinction between what Juan and I am saying. To clear things out (I still don't know how you read me) there is no damn point in trying to convince people of their flawed opinions, what you say is pointless >to them<. I accept all other peoples opinions and the reasons are my own, but this is not what I have been saying to you. You are asking a wall to be less wall-like. It doesn't hear you, it doesn't care and it can't do anything about it. You can go on just the way you've been going on just for the fun of it, whatever, I'm reasoning with you on what result you are expecting.

Please don't lump me into a group of people I share nothing in common with.
 
wil said:
Gorillas instinctually use icons on an ipod?
Click to expand...

I have never heard that Gorillas use icons on an I-pod but, I don't find it impossible through intensive training accompanied by the proper treats. That's how irrational animals work.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I have no issue using biblical systems to base biblical beliefs on, i.e. beliefs that can not be proven or disproven by other systems. I do have an issue when a biblical system is used to back a belief that is patently false, and we know this because of verifiable evidence that proves the opposite is true. That is the point I am trying to make.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that the belief in God's existence cannot be proved? I have used Physics to prove the existence of God through the concepts of Logic and Causality, and atheists in general have never succeeded to refute my assertions.
 
lol.... do wrong and condescending go hand in hand? how about chimps and sign language... did they gain knowledge?
Washoe learned approximately 350 words of ASL.[2]

For researchers to consider that Washoe had learned a sign, she had to use it spontaneously and appropriately for 14 consecutive days.[18][19]

These signs were then further tested using a double-blind vocabulary test. This test demonstrated 1) "that the chimpanzee subjects could communicate information under conditions in which the only source of information available to a human observer was the signing of the chimpanzee;" 2) "that independent observers agreed with each other;" and 3) "that the chimpanzees used the signs to refer to natural language categories - that the sign DOG could refer to any dog, FLOWER to any flower, SHOE to any shoe."[20][verification needed]

Combinations of signs[edit]
Washoe and her mates were able to combine the hundreds of signs that they learned into novel combinations (that they had never been taught, but rather created themselves) with different meanings. For instance, when Washoe's mate Moja didn't know the word for "thermos", Moja referred to it as a "METAL CUP DRINK".[21] However, whether or not Washoe's combinations constitute genuine inventive language is controversial, as Herbert S. Terrace contended by concluding that seeming sign combinations did not stand for a single item, but rather were three individual signs. [22]Taking the thermos example, rather than METAL CUP DRINK being a composite meaning thermos, it could be that Washoe was indicating there was an item of metal (METAL), one shaped like a cup (CUP), and that could be drunk out of (DRINK).
Click to expand...
 
Devils' Advocate said:
1 - Okay I am gonna go on something of a rant as my frustration level has reached a peak. What the common wisdom of the comments stated above that many are stating is that it is somehow noble to accept ignorance cloaked in religion as being equal to information that has been tested and verified by modern means. That there is some nobility in a belief that a three thousand year old document has as much value as modern verifiable information.

2 - It is my opinion, and nothing more, that such nobility in attempting to be fair to everyone's belief system, that all belief systems are basically of equal value, is insane when they are blatantly, obviously not equivelent. Provably not equivalent. A three thousand year old book, written by Iron Age peoples who state that according to God, only humans are capable of knowledge; that all animals can only survive on instinct is demonstrably bullshit.

3 - Some people here seem to believe they are only being fair to everyone's belief structures in accepting that people have the right to choose ignorance over knowledge.

4 - Saying that people have the right to choose ignorance over knowledge is not being fair to everyone's personal beliefs. It is catering to the dumbing down of modern society. And one has to only look around at the mess many industrialized nations are in because people should have the right to believe an opinion over a fact.

5 - So I've made my position as crystal clear as I possibly can. What others choose to believe is not up to me. My part in this debate is over however.
Click to expand...

1 - I don't find fairness to imply that the Tanach is akin to "ignorance cloaked in religion." I can use it to prove the origin of the universe and since then, its expansion to the day. Even up to 15 times, if you want references to the expansion of the universe, I can provide to you. And mind you, this is no ignorance. Einstein himself, when at work on a formula about the expansion of the universe, was asked if he believed in God and, his answer was that all his life was trying to catch the Lord at His work of Creation. Joking or not, he had connected expansion of the universe with Creation. (From his book, "Out of My Later Years.)

2 - Irrational animals are able to absorb some knowledge if intensive training is effected upon them, followed by the proper treats.

3 - Not the People of the Book if you read the "Essay about the Jews" by Mark Twain. If you want it, let me know.

4 - Take a look over the Middle East after the Jews have returned and you will have an idea of opinion versus fact. We have returned to a land of swamps and malaria and, today we are exporting health, food and flowers.

5 - Pity that you must break away from this arena before verification of your opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top