In his essay, “Where I lived, and What I lived For”, Henry David Thoreau says, “Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundless truths, while reality is fabulous.” He talks about how much better life would be if people focused on reality rather than their dreams. In doing so, Thoreau appears to his audience using logic. He establishes himself as someone who has faced this type of situation before. People are caught up in ‘soundless truths’ which means that they are fooling themselves of the real truth. He says that people should not allow themselves to get their hopes up that something good is going to happen to them.
“It would be misleading to think that all these factors influenced all scientists to the same degree. However, a major component of anyone’s theoretical outlook is his religious worldview (which could be atheism or agnosticism, as well as a traditional religion). Worldview had a far more significant influence on the origin of old-earth geology than has often been perceived or acknowledged. A person’s worldview not only affects the interpretation of the facts but even the observation of the facts. Another prominent historian of science rightly comments about scientists and non-scientists: ‘men often perceive what they expect, and overlook what they do not wish to
Some people assume that he does not believe in miracles but he does not say this he just says you have to be careful about the difference between a ‘miracle’ and something extraordinary happening. Hume’s argument on miracles was written in his essay ‘Of Miracles’, he rated his argument very highly, claiming that it was an argument that “which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.” To understand Hume’s argument against miracles we have to understand his definition as his argument is based on his understand of ‘miracles’ and his understanding of ‘the laws of nature’. He defines a miracle “as a transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume’s argument against the likelihood of miracles rests on his use of induction. This is explained in ‘The Question of God’ by Micheal Palmer, he explains that “It is…a fundamental principle of inductive reasoning that the more I see A followed but B, the greater is my expectation that A will be followed by B in the future. That I expect a rubber ball to bounce is dependent on my having seen the rubber ball bounce not once but many times.
Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving. As far as Genesis 1-2 goes, it is more important to understand the scripture, rather than prove it to be factual. “Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavor, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization” (Ferngren, 2). Genesis 1-2 is the cause of much unnecessary tension between the religious and scientific communities. The writers of Genesis 1-2 wrote it in a way that presents the Earth’s creation as a factual account of God creating the heavens and the Earth.
Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification. This seems a fairly logical conclusion, in order to justify what we do we look at it in basic terms, but such a process could not take place indefinitely without coming to a base truth which could not be broken down further. It’s the classic “it just is” situation in an argument, where the statement cannot be further simplified nor justified. The problem however is agreeing on what these basic moral truths are. Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad.
Similarly, information that is heard repeatedly is sometimes believed to be truth. Knowledge gained by tenacity is things that people consider to be the truth regardless of compelling evidence to the contrary (Jackson, 2009). Rational knowledge is gained when people use logical reasoning to arrive at truth (Jackson, 2009). Logically sound ideas are applied in a precise manner, but ideas that are logically sound are not necessarily accurate. Rational knowledge is often derived from syllogisms.
Either to convince them to do something, to believe something, or to convince them of the bullshitter’s competency or knowledgeability. People may BS without intending to mislead anyone. Frankfurt asserts that bullshit is so common in the world because people are convinced that they must have an opinion about more or less anything and everything and so they speak about things that they really do not know anything about. “The lack of any significant connection between a person’s opinions and his apprehension of reality will be even more severe, needless to say, for someone who believes it his responsibility, as a conscientious moral agent, to evaluate events and conditions in all parts of the world.” (On Bullshit ) This is especially common in politics. No one person can be up to date on all current events, and yet people, especially politicians and others in positions of power, are expected to have an opinion on all of their country’s goings-on.
No one can see it except the caretaker which inevitably adds to its mystery but is a true testament to their faith in the ark. Paul Raffaele, a reporter for the Smithsonian magazine, went to Aksum to try to see the ark for himself. He describes his fruitless findings in these poetic terms: “But the reality of the ark, like a vision in the moonlight, floated just beyond my grasp and so the millennia-old mystery remained” (Raffaele). The faith of these Christians inspires reverence by all religions, regardless of the absolution of historical facts, which is the very basis of spirituality. The intimate relationship of a powerful King of Israel and a discerning Queen from afar leads to one of the world’s greatest mysteries The theory, in essence, unites people and religions through the ark.
With each new discovery, our prior knowledge is either being further proved or disputed. Robust knowledge refers to knowledge claims that have withstood these constant challenges and have not been disproven, despite any attempts to disprove it. However, the claim that “robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement” is justifiably false to me, in certain areas of knowledge. I believe that this claim is entirely false in the mathematics area of knowledge but can be true in the natural sciences area of knowledge. The reason for my belief is that the claim explicitly states that “Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement”.
For a more explicit understanding, doubt by definition is the uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with decision-making. Knowledge by definition is the acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report. The correlation between the two is that the more you doubt, the more knowledge you gain because instead of being focused on one certain conclusion, you start thinking about other possible outcomes. This is due to the fact that we use doubt, as well as being open-minded. Being open-minded means to be receptive to arguments or ideas.