photo credit: Voxphoto.
Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0
Search this blog
Profile
Corpus Callosum is written by a psychiatrist at a small community hospital somewhere in midwestern USA. Email to cc.scienceblogger at gmail dot com.
Banner images from CNS Forums. Banner font: Ringbearer.
Feedburner Feed
Quick Add-Feed Links...
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial -Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Recent Posts
- Interesting Graph
- Dirt
- Tetrabenazine (Xenazine) For Huntington's Disease
- A Cunning Disregard For Security
- Question For An Economist
- Mandatory Voting
- Seeing Is Almost Believing
- Enola Gay
- My Picks and Comments from Arch Gen Psychiatry
- Krauthammer: Sloppy, or Liar?
Recent Comments
- arby on Dirt
- arby on Dirt
- stumpy on Dirt
- ashraf on Army: More Mental Health Professionals Wanted
- arby on Dirt
- stumpy on Dirt
- Markk on Dirt
- John-Michael Caldaro on Dirt
- garantili penis bytc on Seeing Is Almost Believing
- diyet rnler on Seeing Is Almost Believing
Categories
- Academia
- Antidepressants
- Armchair Musings
- Basic Concepts
- Bioethics
- CME
- Chatter
- Computing
- Energy
- Environment
- Humor
- Medicine
- Meta
- Neuroscience
- Personal
- Photos of Interest
- Politics
- Propaganda
- Psychiatry
- Public Health
- Science News
- Science in the Media
- Social Commentary
- Social Issues
- Uncategorizable
- economy
Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Blogroll
The main blogroll has been moved to its own page, so as not to delay the opening of the main page.
Carnivals
Other Stuff
« Bill Moyers on Iraq | Main | Fat-fighting baby milk? »
You Don't Either
Category: Humor
Posted on: April 23, 2007 7:50 PM, by Joseph j7uy5
Comments
Do you understand that there is a difference between the claims "I believe A" and "I know A"? Do you understand that the sign a snappy but utterly vacuous catchphrase?
Posted by: J | April 23, 2007 8:23 PM
Yes, I do.
Posted by: Joseph j7uy5 | April 23, 2007 8:40 PM
So exactly what are you agnostic about? Luck, fate, karma, angels, demons, fairies, god(s)? Inquiring minds wish to know!
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 23, 2007 9:06 PM
J writes:
Dictionary.com writes:
Not that vacuous.
Posted by: Ex-drone | April 23, 2007 9:07 PM
OK, folks, here's how it goes: 1. It is not my bumper sticker. 2. It is not my photo. 3. I am not militant about anything. 4. I am, however, an agnostic.
The argument goes like this: There are two types of reasoning: inductive and deductive. Absolute proof is possible only with deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is only reliable if you know that you have accounted for all pertinent facts. You can never be sure you have collected all pertinent facts. Therefore, you can never be absolutely sure of anything. Q.E.D.
Posted by: Joseph j7uy5 | April 23, 2007 9:15 PM
Dude, thats awesome.
Posted by: Baratos | April 23, 2007 9:25 PM
That does not mean your idea is as good (useful,explanatory,satisfactory) as mine. Would you at least say that the idea with the most "accounted for ... pertinent facts" is the better idea, at least provisionally?
If there are 0 facts for idea A, and 10 facts in support of idea B, are you agnostic? If 1 more fact is accumulated in favor of B, are you less agnostic?
Are you agnostic that the language you are reading right now is actually english? Maybe its some other language that just happens to look like english.
Posted by: Fuquier | April 24, 2007 1:15 AM
First off, I like the bumper sticker. I got the joke and was thoroughly amused. I think most religious-types will thoroughly miss the joke however, since many of them fail to recognize exactly what agnostic means.
Now, I do disagree with you about your argument on deductive reasoning. You can have all the pertinent facts on a proof if what you're proving is relatively simple. Is there a god? We can't answer that question with the facts at hand (or any amount of facts, in fact). Does specific named deity as defined exist? This is a particular case, and based on the definition by the religion, one could easily argue a proof by contradiction.
Posted by: Brian Thompson | April 24, 2007 8:32 AM
I've become something of a self-taught student of philosophy, especially in regard to the philosophy of mind.
The whole business of "beliefs" from a philosophic perspective remains for me a very nebulous. Usually when someone says, "I believe...." it seems there is no rational thought process involved. Believing in God, life on other planets, life after death, all of these have no credible information from which to make a decision, so belief turns out to be a way of creating an artificial mental shortcut. The shortcut then begins to substitute for fact or combine with other shortcuts to develop even less rational beliefs.
But in the end I have an agnosticism about agnosticism. Tearing down or attempting to tear down other people's beliefs can become something of a belief system of its own, something in the way that the militant atheism we saw many years ago was pursued with a religious fervor.
Posted by: Greg P | April 24, 2007 9:42 AM