Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I guess everything is mere theory, or opinion, or a bit of both. I personally don't know.

We're concocting the best "as ifs" that we can.

I guess it gives us something to do. We need that, I think.

Originally posted by Tired Hiker
I guess everything is mere theory, or opinion, or a bit of both. I personally don't know.

Every grain of human knowledge rests on the most basic of assumptions- that their senses are accurate. That they represent a portion of reality faithfully. The rest is inferences.

So what Mindship said is true.

Originally posted by Tired Hiker
I guess everything is mere theory, or opinion, or a bit of both. I personally don't know.

Every theory needs some basic assumptions in order to exist. And assumptions cannot be concluded, they must be believed in. The better we can do is to assume that they are true.

So, when we ask a question, it is 'faith' that allows us to feel satisfied with the answer?

Faith can make someone satisfied with the answer, but it does not mean the answer is the right one. But what I find interesting is that those basic assumptions that any theory needs, are a "personal input" of ours. I mean, they are created by us. Just the inferences which, in fact, are consequences from those assumptions, are truly impersonal.

Q: what is 5+7?

A: 12!

Was that a 'true' answer?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Faith can make someone satisfied with the answer, but it does not mean the answer is the right one. But what I find interesting is that those basic assumptions that any theory needs, are a "personal input" of ours. I mean, they are created by us. Just the inferences which, in fact, are consequences from those assumptions, are truly impersonal.

Kind of like, The Declaration Of Independance? Though it was signed by Jefferson and Adams and so forth, it is still just a piece of paper with rules that govern those who abide by it? Well, I agree with you if that's along the lines of what you are saying. And for those who don't abide by it, they are punished by those who have faith in the idea. An idea that is simply put on a pedestal just because US law protects it.

Of course questions can be answered. We just debate what the answer is.

Questions can be answered. But what happens next? Oh... yes... more questions...

Originally posted by Tired Hiker
So, when we ask a question, it is 'faith' that allows us to feel satisfied with the answer?

I would say reliability, not faith. Faith would have more to do with the validity of our answers.

Originally posted by Mindship
I would say reliability, not faith. Faith would have more to do with the validity of our answers. faith=belief
reliability=trust

Originally posted by lord xyz
faith=belief
reliability=trust

I don't quite agree.

validity=trust/faith/belief, because we are trusting, or having faith, that what we think is true, what our measurements purport to be true, Is true. "Measurement/Observation X means Reality Y." But we really don't know that with certainty.

reliability=experience/predictability, because we learn from repeated experience that what we expect to occur keeps on occurring. We can rely on a given set of conditions to keep giving us the same result, whether these results represent a "truth" or not. "Measurement/Observation X always yields Result Y" (which may in truth mean Reality Y...or it may not)".

Thus, answer satisfaction--to an extent--will come first from reliability, because of predictability/expectation. But if you want more, then you need to have faith. Validity will bring answer satisfaction only if we believe/trust/have faith that the answer=reality.

Originally posted by Mindship
I don't quite agree.

validity=trust/faith/belief, because we are trusting, or having faith, that what we think is true, what our measurements purport to be true, Is true. "Measurement/Observation X means Reality Y." But we really don't know that with certainty.

reliability=experience/predictability, because we learn from repeated experience that what we expect to occur keeps on occurring. We can rely on a given set of conditions to keep giving us the same result, whether these results represent a "truth" or not. "Measurement/Observation X always yields Result Y" (which may in truth mean Reality Y...or it may not)".

Thus, answer satisfaction--to an extent--will come first from reliability, because of predictability/expectation. But if you want more, then you need to have faith. Validity will bring answer satisfaction only if we believe/trust/have faith that the answer=reality.

Originally posted by Mindship
I don't quite agree.

validity=trust/faith/belief, because we are trusting, or having faith, that what we think is true, what our measurements purport to be true, Is true. "Measurement/Observation X means Reality Y." But we really don't know that with certainty.

reliability=experience/predictability, because we learn from repeated experience that what we expect to occur keeps on occurring. We can rely on a given set of conditions to keep giving us the same result, whether these results represent a "truth" or not. "Measurement/Observation X always yields Result Y" (which may in truth mean Reality Y...or it may not)".

Thus, answer satisfaction--to an extent--will come first from reliability, because of predictability/expectation. But if you want more, then you need to have faith. Validity will bring answer satisfaction only if we believe/trust/have faith that the answer=reality. ermm

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=validity
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reliability

Originally posted by lord xyz
ermm

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=validity
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reliability

yes

However, clearer definitions can be found if you use Google and type in "define: validity / reliability."
Validity: The extent to which a measure accurately reflects the concept that it is intended to measure.
Reliability: The extent to which a measurement instrument yields consistent, stable, and uniform results over repeated observations or measurements under the same conditions each time.

If you are uncertain whether questions can truly be answered, then why did you ask the question? If questions cannot truly be answered, then any response to your question will be inadequate.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you are uncertain whether questions can truly be answered, then why did you ask the question? If questions cannot truly be answered, then any response to your question will be inadequate.

only questions that are relative but absolute in nature can be answered. If you believe in teh truth then relativity will lead you to whatever truth you believe in.

Can questions be answered? That depends on many things. Is the question concieveble? Is the Answer? Is the seeker of knowledge just that, or is the answer even what is being sought? In turn a question brings more questions as my response has shown, and whether or not there are answers, may never be yet known....
Is it the answer to questions we seek, or the questions that remain after one attains their knowledge? Perhaps the answers are the sources of new questions? Perhaps it is acknowledging those new questions that bring us one step closer to enlightenment.

I can't answer that.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Q: what is 5+7?

A: 12!

Was that a 'true' answer?
Depends on what you believe. "5+7" could actually be 14 if you're using base 8 instead of base 10, or 22 if you're using base 5. And that is a perfect example of how no one answer can be entirely correct.

Nothing in philosophy is mere speculation, at least not in the terms that we generally accept it. Speculation in philosophy is as it is because it is ruled by the person making the assumption which is to him a truth defined by his experiences or emotions. To simply say that everything is mere theory is not exactly true because to one person the theory is fact defined by them but to others without the same experiences it is theory. Thus to say that philosophy is mere speculation is the most inacurate judgement of all.

For example take the statement "Never give up without a fight"

This is truth to some people, defined by their own struggles. To others this is theory because they have never experienced a situation where this is true, or had a situation where "Never fight a losing battle" was true. Both however are two sides of the same coin in that they are two different opinions of the same thing. The first says that no matter how hopless always fight, take a chance to win. The other says only fight when you know you can win. Each a fact to the person who believes it and a theory to the other.

Our intellect is limited to creating models or theories to explain observations, but to say that these models are true or not, is beyond intellect. "Truthness" of a theory depends on a "personal trust" on the model. A model or theory cannot prove itself true only by itself, there is always an assumption of ours in there, even if implicit.