Pascal's Wager Argument

[kbachler]

It makes a difference if you consider that “something external” as being objectively real. Furthermore,one may reason both objectively and subjectively.

I do not know you well enough to include you in my humble observation that the majority of CAF posters discuss objective and subjective without ever looking in the dictionary for the various basic meanings. Note to self: someday look up the history of relativism as a philosophy as it seems to influence 21st century thinking.

Yes, I am dodging your question “But how do you bring in external knowledge without some modicum of belief?” That is my privilege.

Actually, no, there is no such thing as objective reasoning. That’s the point. The cracks in the concept of objective reasoning started were clear once Einstein expounded relativity - this impacted philosophical logic, mathematics and reasoning. This happened further with Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and others in quantum electrodynamics, and culminated in Polyani’s work.

Today, the concept of objective reasoning is considered only within the context that it is ACTUALLY subjective, and when a preponderance of evidence and agreement occurs, we sometimes refer to it as objective, although we know it is really not.

It is your privilege to dodge the question. But not considering it leaves you at least 100 years behind philosophically.

 

[grannymh]

It’s kind of the flip side of PW - you’re kind of wasting time warring about the architect rather than enjoying the building. The building is the gift - enjoy : )

Flip side of PW – no way. I am presenting an added dimension of enjoyment.

 

[grannymh]

Actually, no, there is no such thing as objective reasoning. That’s the point. The cracks in the concept of objective reasoning started were clear once Einstein expounded relativity - this impacted philosophical logic, mathematics and reasoning. This happened further with Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and others in quantum electrodynamics, and culminated in Polyani’s work.

Today, the concept of objective reasoning is considered only within the context that it is ACTUALLY subjective, and when a preponderance of evidence and agreement occurs, we sometimes refer to it as objective, although we know it is really not.

Have you ever brought a chair in a furniture store?
Have you ever used a tape measure to check the size of the chair?
Is the tape measure something objective or subjective according to the ***dictionary ***
definition(s) of subjective and objective?

It is your privilege to dodge the question. But not considering it leaves you at least 100 years behind philosophically.

Thank God for small blessings. One of which is that I can go to bed at night knowing that a personal God exists in the morning.

 

[jonfawkes]

Have you ever brought a chair in a furniture store?
Have you ever used a tape measure to check the size of the chair?
Is the tape measure something objective or subjective according to the ***dictionary ***
definition(s) of subjective and objective?

The objective measurement is worthless without the subjective context.The measurement is “objective” what you do with it is not. “Does it fit in my room?” isn’t objective, it is subjective to your use.

 

[jonfawkes]

Flip side of PW – no way. I am presenting an added dimension of enjoyment.

If it splits your time it would be the flip side. If your concentration on the architect distracted from your enjoyment of the building. There is a connotation in PW that your behavior would be different based on your choice. If the there is no difference the choice is without consequence or worthy of consideration.

 

[davidv]

The objective measurement is worthless without the subjective context.The measurement is “objective” what you do with it is not. “Does it fit in my room?” isn’t objective, it is subjective to your use.

If your question is related to the physical size rather that its esthetics it must be objective. The answer can not depend on what you think it should be. The answer will be “yes” or “no” depending only on the objective facts of the matter (and whether one can do the arithmatic correctly), and not on whether you want it to (subjectively) fit.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny
*
One does not need to know the architect to enjoy the builing.*

Indeed, with some buildings you’d rather **not **know the architect!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jon

Just as a side note question - Do you need to know the architect to enjoy the building?

Interesting question.

I think when you see the building you may or may not enjoy it, but either way it reveals something about the architect.

For one thing, it reveals whether you should admire him or despise him.

As in Newton’s quote below.

 

[Betterave]

Whether you disdain it or not, that’s the case. The argument BTW, was not formulated by an American. Polyani, who’s work on knowing is considered a classic. From Wikipedia:

Knowing something external to ourselves is not objective; it is subjective, and always contains an element of belief, and always is impacted by what we already know/believe. This is not a matter of choice, its a matter of logical force. You can follow Descartes “I cannot doubt that I am doubting, therefore I think, therefore I am.” But how do you bring in external knowledge without some modicum of belief? And once you start down that path, a frame of reference is always determined, thus impacting any observation, be it scientific or “run-of-the-mill experiential.”

Strange argument. “contains an element of belief/a determinate frame of reference”; therefore “not objective”…
Looks like a non sequitur to me.

 

[JDaniel]

It’s kind of the flip side of PW - you’re kind of wasting time warring about the architect rather than enjoying the building. The building is the gift - enjoy : )

Hello, Jon:

Actually, I’d like to know about the architect, too. Especially if he is a practical joker, and the edifice has elevators.

God bless,
jd

 

[jonfawkes]

If your question is related to the physical size rather that its esthetics it must be objective. The answer can not depend on what you think it should be. The answer will be “yes” or “no” depending only on the objective facts of the matter (and whether one can do the arithmatic correctly), and not on whether you want it to (subjectively) fit.

No, My house, your office, your cousins condo all different subjective applications. The measurement of the chair remains the same. The measurements are meaningless without a context.

 

[jonfawkes]

jon

Just as a side note question - Do you need to know the architect to enjoy the building?

Interesting question.

I think when you see the building you may or may not enjoy it, but either way it reveals something about the architect.

For one thing, it reveals whether you should admire him or despise him.

As in Newton’s quote below.

I think it shows more about the observer than the architect. I can enjoy a building so I deduce that the architect was a benevolent genius where my handicapped friend is hampered by it’s lack of ramps and elevators might deduce that he was either thick not to include them or just plain insensitive or full of malice. Subjective interpretation.

 

[davidv]

No, My house, your office, your cousins condo all different subjective applications. The measurement of the chair remains the same. The measurements are meaningless without a context.

Nonsense and baseless assertions.

The context is the objective physics of the objective materials involved.

 

[JDaniel]

No, My house, your office, your cousins condo all different subjective applications. The measurement of the chair remains the same. The measurements are meaningless without a context.

Jon:

Definitions from the Oxford Dictionary:

Subjective: Contrasted with objective: dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.

Objective: Contrasted with subjective: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual: a matter of objective fact

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

Today, the concept of objective reasoning is considered only within the context that it is ACTUALLY subjective, and when a preponderance of evidence and agreement occurs,* we sometimes refer to it as objective, although we know it is really not.***

Then what you have just said is not really objective?

It is your privilege to dodge the question. But not considering it leaves you at least 100 years behind philosophically.

In what sense is anyone 100 years behind philosophically?

Thomas Jefferson lived 200 years ago. Is his political philosophy today 200 years behind philosophically?

 

[jonfawkes]

Nonsense and baseless assertions.

The context is the objective physics of the objective materials involved.

No the context is where you are putting the chair. I can state the dimensions of the chair, but they have no relevance without context. We can both look at an Ikea chair online and come to different conclusions because our contexts are different. Subjective.

 

[davidv]

No the context is where you are putting the chair. I can state the dimensions of the chair, but they have no relevance without context. We can both look at an Ikea chair online and come to different conclusions because our contexts are different. Subjective.

Prove it.

 

[grannymh]

The objective measurement is worthless without the subjective context.The measurement is “objective” what you do with it is not. “Does it fit in my room?” isn’t objective, it is subjective to your use.

I did not refer to “objective measurement” or any kind of measuring. I did ask – Have you ever used a tape measure to check the size of the chair? Chair as in the previous question, “Have you ever brought a chair in a furniture store?” Now if you have not ever bought a chair in a furniture store, would it be possible for you, or anyone else reading this thread, to imagine doing so?

Thank you for considering my simple questions in post 501.

 

[jonfawkes]

I’m not sure what you are looking for as proof. It seems self evident to me.

But as an example

POÄNG chair

Article Number: 001.557.80
Width: 66 cm
Height: 19 cm
Length: 74 cm
Weight: 10.2 kg

You know what the measurements are, how are they useful? You need a context.

 

[grannymh]

If your question is related to the physical size rather that its esthetics it must be objective. The answer can not depend on what you think it should be. The answer will be “yes” or “no” depending only on the objective facts of the matter (and whether one can do the arithmatic correctly), and not on whether you want it to (subjectively) fit.