[paigetheoracle]

How we define a word is what causes an argument, not the thing itself: When the truth is disclosed, discussion stops stone dead or waffles on into eternity in an attempt to define what is actually meant/ real.

[wigglieverse]

Entropy: (of) the information in the message 'loses content'.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

How we define a word is what causes an argument, not the thing itself: When the truth is disclosed, discussion stops stone dead or waffles on into eternity in an attempt to define what is actually meant/ real.

As with most generalisations, this is an overstatement. If you had used words like "generally" or "often" I'd have not disagreeement with the statement. Taken literally, it is blatantly incorrect, as I'm sure you'd agree after a little reflection. What you are saying is that there is never a disagreement about the underlying ideas. So I agree in principle with creationists do I? I just don't like the words they use! Hmm. I think not.

[wigglieverse]

See how noise distorts the message.
Does it need more processing? What algorithms can be applied to discriminate the signal?

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

As with most generalisations, this is an overstatement. If you had used words like "generally" or "often" I'd have not disagreeement with the statement. Taken literally, it is blatantly incorrect, as I'm sure you'd agree after a little reflection. What you are saying is that there is never a disagreement about the underlying ideas. So I agree in principle with creationists do I? I just don't like the words they use! Hmm. I think not.

What you 'could' say is that you fight over what you 'believe' to be true as they do, not that either one of you is truly correct in your assumptions. When you truly understand the other persons viewpoint, you say 'I see' and stop fighting them. If you don't really see' then you keep fighting them in the hope of 'correcting' their view of reality. All this 'conversion' is about 'belief' (religion) as I say and has nothing to do with reality, even though you've both convinced yourselves it has - hence you fight and try to change each other instead of leaving each other in peace (See thread about forums being battlegrounds)

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

What you 'could' say is that you fight over what you 'believe' to be true as they do, not that either one of you is truly correct in your assumptions.

Saying all arguments are about beliefs is completely different from my understanding of your original claim.

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

When you truly understand the other persons viewpoint, you say 'I see' and stop fighting them.

What I see is the depth of belief with which someone may hold an apparently (to me) irrational belief. So, yes I will give up trying to persuade them otherwise. But only because if someone has a closed mind, it is pointless expressing an alternative view.

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

If you don't really see' then you keep fighting them in the hope of 'correcting' their view of reality. All this 'conversion' is about 'belief' (religion) as I say and has nothing to do with reality, even though you've both convinced yourselves it has - hence you fight and try to change each other instead of leaving each other in peace

You appear to be saying "everything is belief" and "all beliefs are equal". Philosophically that is true, but it is not so scientifically. Scientifically we can go beyond our personal beliefs and arrive at objective "facts". Scientifically, all beliefs are not equal.

Anyway, how is any of what you are now saying relevant to this forum?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

When the truth is disclosed...

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

When you truly understand the other persons viewpoint...

I would argue that there is no such thing as "truth" in any sense, only consensus, when it comes to arguments.

Our viewpoints are biased, and it's IMHO impossible to understand someone else's viewpoint "truly" (how would you define "truly understand"?).

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I would argue that there is no such thing as "truth" in any sense, only consensus, when it comes to arguments.

Our viewpoints are biased, and it's IMHO impossible to understand someone else's viewpoint "truly" (how would you define "truly understand"?).

Yes all viewpoints are biased but what I am saying, is that you are saying you understand what they mean, by what they say. Translated into a foreign language, you couldn't understand a word they said and concepts are definitions, not facts. To me a fact is something visible not something abstract like 'terms'.

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Saying all arguments are about beliefs is completely different from my understanding of your original claim.


What I see is the depth of belief with which someone may hold an apparently (to me) irrational belief. So, yes I will give up trying to persuade them otherwise. But only because if someone has a closed mind, it is pointless expressing an alternative view.


You appear to be saying "everything is belief" and "all beliefs are equal". Philosophically that is true, but it is not so scientifically. Scientifically we can go beyond our personal beliefs and arrive at objective "facts". Scientifically, all beliefs are not equal.

Anyway, how is any of what you are now saying relevant to this forum?

As to your first point, I'd say your understanding of what I was trying to get across depends upon what you believe and that would depend upon how you define it.

Second, your rock solid point is something I can't argue with.

As for facts (point 3) see argument I bring up with Tormods post

I don't know - maybe somebody else has a 'belief' about linguistics that is different from thine?

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I would argue that there is no such thing as "truth" in any sense, only consensus, when it comes to arguments. Our viewpoints are biased, and it's IMHO impossible to understand someone else's viewpoint "truly" (how would you define "truly understand"?).

How are you defining "truth"?