h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Fathom:

PC: <F:
You are correct [1].
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"

[1] Where "correct" is used to mean "mistaken". ...>

Remembering, of course, that the liberal application of smilies I applied disappears in the quote. How else could I make my point? How many times did you respond to me by saying something like 'I accept that nothing is certain, but I insist upon showing it in comments like this one, and continuing to use the term 'certain' to mean the opposite of what most people would normally understand it to mean.'?

PC:

As we've since discussed, there are only two rules in the FFFF. (We normally refer to one, but then quote one of two guidelines! ). One is "Be excellent to one another", and the other is "If you behave here as though you are the bearer of the One And Only Truth, and belittle the viewpoints of those who disagree, you will be asked to modify your attitude."

This was your first request (to modify your attitude). Yes, it is critical. When you failed to recognise even that, and others registered their upset via private messages, it became necessary to ask you formally and openly to be a bit more tolerant. I wish you knew how long I debated whether or not to say anything, and how many hours it took to settle on the final phrasing, so as to deliver the message clearly, while offering the minimum of offense.



Oh I think it's fair to say that you were welcomed with open arms, and criticised only when your stridence started to upset people.



No-one forces you to post here, but we welcome everyone who can live with our rules. Honestly! You remain welcome in the FFFF forum, whenever you care to visit.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Come on P-c everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If my opinion clashes with yours then we are bound to run into some debate.

If I believe I am certain who are you to deny it? Surely that's a subjective view. If I believe in fairies who are you to deny it?

Given the strong metaphysical stance on FFFF I accepted that certainty is a slippery concept and offered a definition which I thought pretty well described the situation and was at least partly supported by GtB. I am sorry if my inexperience on the site led me into misunderstanding your argument but I really was highly offended by the correct / mistaken jibe despite the smilies (smileys?) (s).

When you read through some of my earlier postings you should (if I expressed myself well enough) have seen that I have the greatest respect for everyone's beliefs. I have no desire to proselytise. I was however asked for my beliefs and I stated them. When I was challenged what was I supposed to do?


Let's start again. Please?

I read and enjoyed your entry on belief and I will take the time to read many of your other contributions so that I understand you and FFFF a little better. We don't have to aggravate each other and I'm sure we'll realise we have some common ground if we give ourselves a chance to find out. I can't help that many of these issues have been discussed before and I understand you may be a little tired of the repetition but it will take me some time to read enough of the backlog to catch up.

I'll restrict my postings to the forum to less controversial issues or to questions, at least until you get to know me better. Perhaps we can get into a proper debate when we both know the comments are not meant to be personal and offensive.

Take care.

F

Hi Fathom, we haven't 'clashed' in any meaningful sense. I decided to be the one to say something when you attacked the beliefs of a new member, then dismissed her summarily. That isn't how we behave in the FFFF.

On the matter of certainty: I'm truly sorry my joke offended; it wasn't meant to. You insisted - and continue to insust, I assume - on using "certain" to mean "most probably", significantly diluting its normally understood meaning. I even asked you to nominate an alternative term, to be used when "absolutely, unequivocally, certain" was the intended meaning, but you ignored that. How else could I get my point across?



You're still missing the point, I see. I would never deny or denigrate your belief(s), or anyone else's. My point was purely a semantic one, concerning the definition of a *crucial* term in the context of the discussion. At first I thought you were claiming *certainty* of the non-existence of God, then I realised you were claiming that there "most probably" wasn't a God. I couldn't understand why you held so firmly to the term "certainty" to describe this. I still don't. Your explanatory comments made it clear that you didn't mean "100% no-doubt certain", only that you were convinced enough for your own purposes.

Then you post distorted 'evidence' of my 'unfriendliness' toward you on the main thread, after I'd taken the trouble to come here and discuss matters more privately? One piece of 'evidence' was my admittedly unsuccessful joke, quoted out of context. The other was my reaction to your dismissive attitude toward the beliefs of others. Note: "reaction": *my* response to *your* action. Again, this was quoted out of context.



There's no need: just treat others - and their beliefs - with respect, and we don't have a problem.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi Pattern-chaser,

I responded to you on the main thread, admittedly not a good place to do so, because that was where the request to tone down my comments appeared. I didn't realise you had posted here until yesterday.

I honestly don't remember attacking the beliefs of a new member, or indeed any member and if I did so I apologise unreservedly. I will go back through the thread to try to find out. If you want to explain this in more detail, please do.

As for the semantics of the word 'certain' this issue is probably best forgotten, or at least suspended. Perhaps we can approach this from another angle at another time.

The problem, I think, is that I consider the universe to be real. Now I know that there are alternative concepts - Vishnu's Dream, a Matrix like simulation, in God's imagination etc but these are not the way I look at things. Consequently I always argue from my viewpoint, after all how else could I? I concede (truly; not condescendingly) that other viewpoints exist but when asked, as I was, for my beliefs my answers come from my own subjective view. Since I view the universe as real - where objective truths can be demonstrated, if not necessarily proven, by observation and evidence and some things *are* certain, even if not demonstrably so - then my responses are written in such terms. From this framework comes my 'certainty'. Your perception of the universe clearly differs from mine. I obviously can't define your viewpoint (even for comparison purposes) - that is entirely up to you - but I can see that it is different. Can we agree that one view is no more or less valid than another? If not can you explain why not so that I can improve my own perspective?

By questioning my understanding I have the chance to change it, refine it and develop it. That is why I joined this forum; not to be backed into a corner of defending my beliefs (or lack thereof ) with the risk of saying something that inadvertantly upsets another member.

Take care.

F

Certainly!!!! I will say this only once more, then I'll give up. My issue has never been with your view or judgement. I disagree *only* with your using the word "certain" to mean "most probably". This is not its generally accepted meaning. In a discussion involving perception (or similar topics), the concept of certainty is central to our understanding. It was to avoid a long and pointless argument about semantics that I initially objected!

Please tell me you've understood that I was disagreeing only with the meaning you chose to assign to the word "certain", and not with your views or beliefs!



Well Az had an impression of being poorly treated, and several others (including myself) understood why that might be, from the way your posts were phrased. That's in the past now, apologies have been made and accepted. Let's move on?



Quite so! The difference is that if I note the difference in skin colour between myself and a Nigerian, this is an observation. If I use a perjorative term, or otherwise imply that being white is *better* than being black, that's racism. It's not what you say, but how you say it. It is fairly easy to express your own point of view clearly, and in such a way that it doesn't insult or dismiss the (differing) views of others.

I once asked my mother, a committed Roman Catholic, how she could vote for a political party dedicated to the maintenance of privilege, and the gap between the rich and the poor? It was a fair question. I still think that. But it was phrased so as to insult her beliefs. She was justifiably upset.

I think your view of the world is wrong, but I will restrict myself to making that observation. I stop short of saying (for example) "Only an idiot could believe that." because that's insulting. I will (try to ) explain why I think your view is wrong, again without insulting or demeaning you.



This is the centre of our difference - and nothing to do with recent disagreements or misunderstandings! I *believe* the universe to be real. However, I also believe that human perception is not objective, so I will never have proof that the universe is real. Although I think the probability of the universe being real is pretty high, it is *not* certain. The difference between 99.99999999% and 100% is crucial in this case. Now can you see why, if I am to be able to express this view comprehensibly, the accepted meaning of the term "certain" (or some equivalent term) must be preserved?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

F