[markcheb]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

I realize the quote is vague, but I believe that was the intent. It's neither religious nor purely physical, but merely left open for everyone and anyone to apply by having left virtually zero limitations to begin; no set parameters, standards/laws/restrictions in other words.

To be honest it actually does and there in lies the rub, those restrictions being: "anything", "always" and "anyone"

Which includes.....

This type of statement is presented toward people of faith all the time.

Again I was presented the same question and struggled so I'm not presenting some special knowledge "I've been gifted" just asking what I was asked. No harm intended.

[Dk-79]

I believe it wholeheartedly.

If you believe something on faith, even if what you put your faith into turns out to be true, your lack of weighing that belief to all ends paves the way for you to believe other things which are not based on fact.

Sure it leaves you questioning everything, but it also makes it harder for you to be misled. I'm not saying it's turned me to be skeptical of all things, in fact, it's quite the opposite. Clifford's essay has opened my mind to all possibilities. Just don't ask me to side with an issue you can't prove, because I'm perfectly happy admitting that I don't know for sure and won't side either way.

You could call it a lack of conviction, but I'll call it a lack of idiocy.

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by markcheb

To be honest it actually does and there in lies the rub, those restrictions being: "anything", "always" and "anyone"

Which includes.....

This type of statement is presented toward people of faith all the time.

Again I was presented the same question and struggled so I'm not presenting some special knowledge "I've been gifted" just asking what I was asked. No harm intended.

Really?! Hmm...

This is how I interpret, below: (I see no biased, "ethics" & (or) "beliefs" [<--*edit*] I don't think qualifies.)

"Anything" = No specific physical limitations.
"Always" = No time limitations; infinite.
"Anyone" = No specific type/belief/status, etc... limitations.

So, how do you perceive those words (that quote) as being restrictive in use

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

The gas attendant would need to ask: To what end? Meaning, how many miles must you go from this station? What's your fuel economy like; how many mpg is your tank currently putting out?

Otherwise, I agree as well. If we cease to ignore the details than how can anyone strive to give any accurate representation in life?

Example:

From my door step every day, it takes me 15.5 miles to work going one way. So, for fuel costing $2.489 a gal. from QT @ 18 mpg to get down and back to work I would require a min. of 1.724 gal. to be "sufficient" (adequate) to and from. Any less, and I would probably be "insufficient." Anymore, and it's just icing on the cake, so to speak -- abundant to my needs, which I suppose would be more accurately classified as an unnecessary desire.

I realize the quote is vague, but I believe that was the intent. It's neither religious nor purely physical, but merely left open for everyone and anyone to apply by having left virtually zero limitations to begin; no set parameters, standards/laws/restrictions in other words.



So than, would you be suggesting that someone w/ the same make/model of my vehicle going the same distance, same route... same everything would be working under different laws, different sets of data? Is that, really what you believe?

It's impossible to travel at the same exact everything because of the 4th dimension, time.

If everything was exact, they would be the same car. Since there has to be some distance between the cars, you change the timing of the trip, which then changes everything. The cars are experiencing different forces at different instances of time.

Nothing in the world works this way. Everyone is subjected to different experiences, even identical twins. The only exception would be math (Physics != Math)

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

It's impossible to travel at the same exact everything because of the 4th dimension, time.

If everything was exact, they would be the same car. Since there has to be some distance between the cars, you change the timing of the trip, which then changes everything. The cars are experiencing different forces at different instances of time.

Nothing in the world works this way. Everyone is subjected to different experiences, even identical twins. The only exception would be math (Physics != Math)

Er, yes,() but, the point (which I failed to make clear, trying to work w/ your analogy) is that controlled studies are still very much in use to the best of our abilities, (to, "strive") despite the obvious short comings. To administer them correctly, certain sets of data are required for a test to be possible, otherwise it wouldn't be (couldn't be...) "sufficient" (usable) evidence, right?

Heck, physics as a subject even... Would that within itself be "sufficient" w/ out math? Would math be "sufficient" w/out numbers? Would numbers be "sufficient" w/out language? Or... cars/vehicles w/out fuel even?

So, (hypothetically speaking...) if you were to conduct a test (any test, really) w/ physics serving as your primary tool, though w/ out all of those necessary, and yet subsequent counterparts, would your evidence (or, lack thereof...) be "sufficient" or, "insufficient?"

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

Er, yes,() but, the point (which I failed to make clear, trying to work w/ your analogy) is that controlled studies are still very much in use to the best of our abilities, (to, "strive") despite the obvious short comings. To administer them correctly, certain sets of data are required for a test to be possible, otherwise it wouldn't be (couldn't be...) "sufficient" (usable) evidence, right?

Heck, physics as a subject even... Would that within itself be "sufficient" w/ out math? Would math be "sufficient" w/out numbers? Would numbers be "sufficient" w/out language? Or... cars/vehicles w/out fuel even?

So, (hypothetically speaking...) if you were to conduct a test (any test, really) w/ physics serving as your primary tool, though w/ out all of those necessary, and yet subsequent counterparts, would your evidence (or, lack thereof...) be "sufficient" or, "insufficient?"

That's exactly the problem, sufficient is a completely subjective word.

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by madgoat

That's exactly the problem, sufficient is a completely subjective word.

Er, I wouldn't go that far, "completely." If that were the case, or anywhere close? How could anyone justify reading comprehension as a skill?

I mean, I'm not sure many English teachers would have jobs, if that were actually the case, not that I would care, or... be heart broken about it

Seriously though, can you find two dictionaries that "completely" disagree w/ one another regarding interpretation?

[madgoat]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

Er, I wouldn't go that far, "completely." If that were the case, or anywhere close? How could anyone justify reading comprehension as a skill?

I mean, I'm not sure many English teachers would have jobs, if that were actually the case, not that I would care, or... be heart broken about it

Seriously though, can you find two dictionaries that "completely" disagree w/ one another regarding interpretation?

None of that has anything to do with this thread. Obviously, I was referring to "sufficient" being completely subjective in the context of the quote. I have no idea why you start talking about reading comprehension or dictionaries but save your contrarian attitude for another thread.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by markcheb

I was recently presented with this, and asked whether I agreed with it or disagreed with it. I admit I struggled to answer it.

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." The Ethics of Belief (1879) W.K. Clifford

What say you? Agree or disagree. Why?

*If this has been posted before I apologize.

There's really no way to answer that, because the statement is more or less meaningless for lack of definition. In fact, it might actually be circular.

"Wrong" in what way? Improbable? Immoral? Overly risky?

"Insufficient" for what?

What does "believe" mean? With absolute certainty? With enough certainty that it adds value to your life? With very little certainty yet it is nevertheless entertaining?

Depending on how you answer those questions, the sentence could be rephrased as in the follow circular fashion: "It is incorrect to believe a thing without enough evidence to correctly believe it"?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Laureate

That's dumb. We are constantly acting on probability.

"Probability" is "sufficient evidence" to "believe" something in many contexts.

For instance, the very low probability of being killed in a car accident on the way home from work is sufficient evidence for you to believe you will get home alive.

[Laureate]

Originally Posted by Spock

"Probability" is "sufficient evidence" to "believe" something in many contexts.

For instance, the very low probability of being killed in a car accident on the way home from work is sufficient evidence for you to believe you will get home alive.

Yeah, I am looking back on what I said and can not really remember what I meant. Lol.

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by madgoat

None of that has anything to do with this thread. Obviously, I was referring to "sufficient" being completely subjective in the context of the quote.

"Insufficient" itself IS the context of the quote, (the key word involved) thus the high degree of value in attempting to FIRST define it, and thus the purpose of my introduction of dictionaries (as the need for comprehension) in this thread to begin