Are you religious?

[Boumer]

I think it is highly plausible "we" are 'meaning makers'. All knowledge certainly appears to be a social construction.

Now there's a very interesting point (sorry perhaps slightly off religion).

Certainly knowledge is a social construct; if you believe there is truly "objective" knowledge, I would disagree.

It all goes back to epistemology ("What is knowledge") and ontology ("how we know i"), IIRR going back to social science research methodology lectures.

As social construction, I take it back to a simple example; after any small example (say a car crash) you take a bunch of witness statements and they will all differ do to individual perceptions. I extend that out to how as a society we look at knowledge; I don't think it is possible to expect people to have a single perception of knowledge.

(Can I just thank all contributors to this debate, as it is stretching my tiny mind a deal and making me think more than I do usually).

[sanchauk]

However, the term for connecting or creating 'mutual relation' where there is none is apophenia. This science thing....

[Boumer]

However, the term for connecting or creating 'mutual relation' where there is none is apophenia. This science thing....

Creating non-existent links is called a G2 Trade Skill isn't it....

[BoomShackerLacker]

Now there's a very interesting point (sorry perhaps slightly off religion).

Certainly knowledge is a social construct; if you believe there is truly "objective" knowledge, I would disagree.

It all goes back to epistemology ("What is knowledge") and ontology ("how we know i"), IIRR going back to social science research methodology lectures.

As social construction, I take it back to a simple example; after any small example (say a car crash) you take a bunch of witness statements and they will all differ do to individual perceptions. I extend that out to how as a society we look at knowledge; I don't think it is possible to expect people to have a single perception of knowledge.

(Can I just thank all contributors to this debate, as it is stretching my tiny mind a deal and making me think more than I do usually).

Agree. And would stretch your analogies to say that when humans first encounter an object in the world they take their meaning for that object from other subjective beings whose meaning is taken from other subjective beings and so on. We are tainted on day one with A N Others' perspectives.

This means that logic therefore is a social construction, its meaning contained in the sentence it's expressed in. Hence the collapse of posivitism as a movement and a challenge to science, hence our friend Kuhn who is really saying knowledge is formed in 'eras' where certain 'truths' are politically affirmed by the communities they're borne into. We are trapped by our knowledge era, to some degree.

[Taffd]

The Warriors Code, as stated by Druss the Legend -

“Never violate a woman, nor harm a child.
Do not lie, cheat or steal.
These things are for lesser men.
Protect the weak against the evil strong.
And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil.”

Seems to me to be a code that one could live by, and I'm sure I could pull many other, similar from various books. All in all, Druss is a bit of a hero, the type of dude one might wish to follow or emulate.

But he's not real. He's the creation of an author who had a story to tell and a point of view he wished to express.

BSL, you appear to have read the stories about Jesus, liked the ideas therein, and thus decided that he was not only real, but that there must be a god, and that he was the son of god, as well as being god and the holy spirit.

And then you've made everything else fit around this delusion.

[BoomShackerLacker]

However, the term for connecting or creating 'mutual relation' where there is none is apophenia. This science thing....

Quite possible and also it might be a priori knowledge.

[BoomShackerLacker]

...
BSL, you appear to have read the stories about Jesus, liked the ideas therein, and thus decided that he was not only real, but that there must be a god, and that he was the son of god, as well as being god and the holy spirit.

...

Good exec summary.

I imagine therefore you scientific laser minded person you that you've studied the scrrrriiiiippppttuures fully and at length and tested in practice over many years.... to show me where precisely my errors? Or...

[Taffd]

Good exec summary.

I imagine therefore you scientific laser minded person you that you've studied the scrrrriiiiippppttuures fully and at length and tested in practice over many years.... to show me where precisely my errors? Or...

Actually, I was trying to point out that your stated reasons for believing -

'Therefore resemblance (matching patterns) and verisimilitude (rings true to life) are for me high levels of plausibility.' -

seem to apply to the warriors code I quoted, but would not normally cause people to believe in Druss, thus questioning your reasons for belief.

And I'm not sure I could reasonably be described as a 'scientific, laser-minded person'. (slightly changed the quote there, to reflect the correct punctuation.)

I'll get back to you on the scriptures. As it happens, I'd been planning to visit them in order to further the discussion.

[sanchauk]

Quite possible and also it might be a priori knowledge.

And the relevance to the point is?

[BoomShackerLacker]

And the relevance to the point is?

Relevance is self-evident.