I don't feel teased at all, and neither do I feel Italian, I confess. Humanity should avoid such distinctions, they are so parochial. I do on the other hand appreciate my Italian cultural heritage, as a tool to wield.

I do appreciate your contributions, though.

Nonetheless, it's certain that we might ask ourselves if De Finetti isn't prevalently classified as such in a country where Bayes is seen as the ultimate authority on statistical verification (or more properly, falsification).

Don't worry, if you didn't notice them, others did.

Every human knowledge, more or less, is an unproven fairytale, from some point of view. This is the conundrum. On the other hand, I am confident enough in my stance, that I do not consider it impossible that you may realize its worth someday. In the meantime, feel free to think whatever you want.

Epistemology was not what she really wanted (upon reflection) but it is what she asked for. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I suppose the boob that posted this probably meant Empiricism which emphasizing experience, especially experience based on perceptual observations by the senses. How about a change in subject matter to Empiricism then???

Lol.

Perhaps pragmatism?  

David, I am just tired of all the mind games. People seem to think if they study hard and long enough, they will become adequately enlightened and self-empowered to tell everyone else what's what ... in all matters. They also seem to think that if they themselves believe in something enough, personally, it just ‘has’ to be true and it must be applied to the rest of the world. I do not concern myself with the beliefs and thoughts of others beyond typical conversation. I am sure they have their reasons just as I do.

To my knowledge beyond conception there are no earthly absolutes besides the inevitable death awaiting us all. My hackles go up when people speak of such things as absolutes when applied to general human behavior because there are no others. Dogmas of one sort or another are always involved and by definition, they are to a one, self-important. But today most just calls it bigotry, unless religions are involved. Religious folk just have flowery names for it that seems to be self-excusing too; but a rose by any other name is still a rose in everyone else’s eyes. If this is what you mean about “pragmatism” then it works for me too.

Where you and I completely disagree (and I think the physical universe with me) is, "there are no earthly absolutes".

From a scientific viewpoint alone that's improbable to a degree that I think statistically would be considered in the realm of "impossible".

There are absolutes...and more than just physical death.

We can debate and dsiagree about what they are and whether we can or how accurately we can perceive and understand them but they exist...despite any of our ignorance.

My intent is never to play mind games but when someone responds to anyone else and rebuts them with what effectively amounts to, "I disagree because I know what you think you know can't be known because it isn't knowable."...the very mindset is just an affront to logic and thinking. 

This isn't an "Us vs. Them" viewpoint it's an issue of admitting limitations and allowing  for the possibility of, "things I don't get" to maybe be true.

This statement is an affront to logic of any kind??? Ok geese, what absolutes are there then, just name one other? This is a crock and you are just whining here. You know darn well why I view the bible as a work of fiction (because it is) and you damn well should understand what that means for an opposing standpoint or argument. At what point do you place credence in any other work of fiction like the Koran for instance? The difference is that I view these two opposing dogmas (all) equally but you only take yours seriously the rest being bogus for one reason or another of your choosing of course … the rest just being bogus. I understand you much better than you think (my experiences) but we cannot even get to a debate until you stop taking things so personally and telling me what I mean as opposed to asking me. I am as unique in the universe as you are for the same reasons and we are both frowned upon for those same reasons by the very same people too. If you engender magic for your reasoning for everything of importance, how can you reasonably deny others their magic and reasoning? I am not playing favorites but you are. Besides, what could anyone with reason possibly have against those who prefer their proof in some verifiable format or another? I do not know how you manage to believe the things you profess all at the same time anyway??? I stopped playing the maybe games many moons ago somewhere back in the 50’s when I started questioning the validity of fairy tales.

Here's a simple response and examples of absolutes:

• You're absolutely sure you're right
• You're absolutely sure I am wrong
• Your absolutely sure it's impossible you're wrong
• You're absolutely sure it's impossible I'm right

Your viewpoint and arguments you've presented all require the above to be absolutely true.  I'd say that's a boatload of absolutes for a person who believes they "don't exist".

If you disagree with any of the above--point out to me which one(s) it(they) are.

Unfortunately David, I disagree with all of it. I am not absolutely sure of anything because I have no conclusive proof one way or the other on any subject whatsoever. This is simply based on the exacting biblical standards you profess for yourself. But I have to base my decisions on those things I can actually understand ... not those things you believe or think you understand. I stopped playing the ‘what if’ game too when my children proved to be resistant to reality under such conditions. What part of there are no human moral absolutes do you not understand … or can you provide one or two conclusive examples to the contrary? 

If there are no absolutes, there is no "right" or "wrong", no "good" or "evil" and no truth or lies and it's absolutely pointless to consider these things or be restrained by consideration or thought of them.

If I hunger I eat. If I see food...I take it.  If you are in my way, I move you.  If you resist, I remove you.  We all do whatever we want for any reason we choose and none of it is of any signifigance.

Hypocrites who reject any real truth nod and say this is how it is--but they live lives of hypocrisy based on all sorts of truths they can't rationalize away and can't function without.

In the end, the hypocrite says, "Since I am not certain of my truth--neither can you be of yours".

They are like "Rainman" and repeat their mantras of, "We must go to K-mart" and circle back over and over to that point--angry at any thought of anything else.

If there are no absolutes, why care?

You're angry at religion--why?  Why should you care?  The fact you do shows you have decided there are certain truths that supersede others.

Come on David, a pretty simple question here??? Ditto This is just religious talking points here. People got along just fine before the bible recreated the earth and in those places that weren't saddled with biblical dogma and hardships. How else do you explain the survival of countries like China and India whose people certainly weren't bible thumpers? I simply asked for an example or two of your professed absolutes ... several times now. I find it amusing that you bring up hypocrisy all the time because the worst hypocrites in the world are religious folk.  If you actually need a divine rule book just to enable you to understand the concept of right and wrong, then I feel sorry for you. This is all just nonsense David. If you come over to my Home and try to take food from my family just because you are hungry, you would get your first practical lesson on secular morals. The moving and removing of people requires a bit more effort than just scribbling a few words on a piece of paper, but you never expound on the things you say. Besides, you have no Idea what the 'real truth' even means because you are totally ensconced within your biblical shield behind which exists so you believe, the only ‘real truth’ … to the exclusion of everything else including the combined worldwide knowledge bank. The blindness comes from your denial and lack of respect for others who have their own mystical rule books with the same validity claim you folks have. Your inability to at least respect others for doing the exact same things you folks are doing for the exact same reason and to the exact same god … just speaks volumes about your peculiar one way divine morals, your sense of justice and your idea of fairness (right and wrong). A hypocrite is somebody who pretends to have admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings but behaves otherwise … like Christians who claim to live by the word of god and their biblical absolutes but don’t … all the while insisting everyone else has to live up to those Christian absolutes too, regardless of preexisting beliefs of their own.

 

I don't know so why don't you tell me that too??? Do you hate all the other religions … because I don’t? It’s not for me is all … so what. I try not to become ensnarled in religious conundrums because there is only one valid point of view … theirs. But when they try and get their dogmatic hatreds made legal I take offense. And when people take a barbaric dogmatism thousands of years old filled with anything but enlightenment and vie with the sciences of the 21st century … well I have to become involved. All this nonsense stems from those deific absolute morals you like to bring up. You know the inviolate word of god and all that brouhaha. What is it that you want to discuss here because I don’t know???

If I had no belief in God and moral absolutes, I'd have no opinion or concern for those of others.  It would be like asking me if I was bothered by kids believing in the tooth fairy--of course I'm not.

But I also am not in some tooth fairy skepticism worked into a froth trying to de-evangelize the world of tooth fairy ism and to discredit the people who believed in it.

I honestly wouldn't care.

My point in this conversation is just for those of you who "don't know" and have decided "you can't" not to persuade people who haven't made their mind up to "never consider that view".

People who really believe, believe for a reason.  You can prop up a straw man and say they're all incapable of critical thinking and self-realization but that's a broad brush and a lie.

If I didn't believe and my child asked, "Why do people believe that stuff?" my response woul;d be, "Go ask one of them and find out.".

 

And you would be grossly negligent unless you didn't even know why you were a disbeliever. Your children need your guidance, your expertise and your experience but to turn a blind eye like this tells me you are just being argumentative or that you are clueless here too. So no god means no responsibility even to one’s own children … what utter nonsense.

WTF ... I think this pretty well applies to well everything don't you???

Why do you like these corny analogies? Is there some reason why you cannot give me a couple of those human moral absolute (besides death), just still wondering?

In my example I wasn't trying for literal exactness.  Assume with my own kids I'd tell them what I thought long before hand.  What I wouldn't tell them is that "I knew" things I didn't know.

As for absolutes...

Don't take another's life. Don't steal from someone. Don't lie to defraud someone of their value or property or self worth.

You can add as many as you like as a lot of things fall in this sort of category.

The bottom line is though these things are just idealisms if there isn't some absolute value in them.

If I truly lived an existence where truth was relative and only internally conceived and perceived, I'd do whatever I pleased and sleep soundly at night.  Why not steal?  Why not murder?  Why not lie? If you have something and I want it and can get it for free without being caught, why not take it?

If I am caught in the act and will lose my job and family and go to jail for it, why not kill the witness if I know I can get away with it?

We are biologically wired to conform to some extent to the traits that keep us from doing this but people override that all the time.  We aren't puppets or robots who must obey the program...jails are full of people who don't.

So why accept these things when they interfere with achieving our goals or satisfying our desires?

In the case of unrestrained and unrepentant murder and thievery, you will find few people aside from genuine sociopaths who will routinely do those things and be able to conscience free say they are untroubled by them.

We have these laws apparently strongly imprinted on us--yet not so strongly that we can't break them simply as an act of will.  Why then do we value them as truth?

If the programming isn't making us do it, then what is?

At the age of six, I was minutes away from stabbing someone to death--coldly and without emotion--simply as a practical matter no different than going to the bathroom.  I can clearly recall it and know exactly the state of mind I was in at the time. I had no fear, no conscience about it and then something visceral literally stopped me in my tracks--against my will.  It angered me but I could not resist it despite my intent to do so.

If you have enough experiences in life like this you come to realize that we are more than the sum of our parts and there is more than just "what we think and decide" or "biology".

If you haven't had these experiences, then you can make up any sort of "truisms" you like and call them all "valid".  If you don't value anything as absolute truth within yourself then you have no absolute value within yourself for others.

You just do not seem to be able to comprehend the other side of the coin at all do you?. If you need some crusty old book to answer these kinds of questions then you are a prevaricator or you are good at fooling yourself. Indecently, “without being caught” is a highly overrated concept.

How about because we are presumably not idiots or because we do not approve of reciprocal treatment or because we just do not like hurting people ... for example.

How many religious people have to go to jail before you understand you guys are not exempt from this foolhardyness?

You were a sick puppy and needed some mental help. This is a perfect example of sociopathic behavior ... but somewhat young for this kind of serious acting out. No, I don't have these kinds of memories and I do not believe they are normal in any respect. I stopped having to ‘experience’ everything when I learned to read for comprehension many moons ago.