Peirce proposes four methods of fixing belief -- how we know what we believe is true. Authority is one of the methods. It's not the strongest nor most reliable way to believe something is true, partly because the risk of the fallacy of Ad Verecundiam .
But I think Peirce even suggests that appealing to legitimate authority is insufficient.
Peirce proposes four methods of fixing belief -- how we know what we believe is true. Authority is one of the methods. It's not the strongest nor most reliable way to believe something is true, partly because the risk of the fallacy of Ad Verecundiam .
But I think Peirce even suggests that appealing to legitimate authority is insufficient.
The idea is that everything came from The Word, meaning The Bible. PhD be damned.
Thus there should be a reproducibility factor.
As a tween it surprised me that no matter how much I asked the grown ups . . . nobody could reproduce squat on their own. . . . Nor did they seem disturbed by that fact.
As a tween it surprised me that no matter how much I asked the grown ups . . . nobody could reproduce squat on their own. . . . Nor did they seem disturbed by that fact.
Kinda like recalling, and reciting in an unknown language, a verse from the Bible that is in no way related to losing your car keys.
Or even like loosed hounds chasing a duck.
Or like oil, even. OIL.
Got it!
If you boil the duck in oil is that where the greasespots splatter?
See but on top of Tongues and tongues with interpretation and prophecy . . . You're getting worked up, you're looking others in the eye and getting everyone worked up . . . They're excited now too, so you MUST be on the right track.
Mathematical exactness and scientific precision are required to rightly divide this question.
Really, this is a question best reserved for the end. Write it on a 3x5 card.
Stuff that card in a jar of pickles, then, Then, THEN hide the Quaaludes in the apple butter.
See? It all fits like a hand in a glove.
You know, if the class defined in the beginning what it's intentions were, then it could honestly be said at the end "that's beyond the scope of this class" concerning a lot of matters.
You know, if the class defined in the beginning what it's intentions were, then it could honestly be said at the end "that's beyond the scope of this class" concerning a lot of matters.
if, If, IF...
HOWEVER,
Weren't the intentions defined? Thirty-six hours later, who could remember what they were.
It's like the origin of San Diego. No one REALLY knows what it means.
In the past I had been focused on my message and would not let anyone slow me down.
But after 20 years, that project is finished, and I feel free to "actually deal with the topic." Only, one slight problem is, there are very often about 10 topics from 5 people that I am dealing with simultaneously.
Maybe we should try a “ground rule” when a flurry of posting happens, where I can just respond to one person for a while, and then backtrack to the posts I missed earlier.
I am willing to do other experiments to minimize the commotion of feverish responding my poorly written posts seem to so efficiently stimulate.
I doubt if any of you have ever had a hot, fast, long debate here with 5 people at one time. The logistics of dealing with that are staggering for those with the extra gray matter to think it through.
I just posted yesterday about copying a whole page of posts I missed, while largely away for a day, into my MS Word processor.Then I responded to everyone OFF-line and posted my responses all one after another in a form of batch processing when no one was posting any more.
I think I need to refrain more from “real-time fast flurry” posting, though the temptation to see what everyone is saying in real-time is great. Batch processing with MS Word may help me more clearly respond, not being under the pressure to respond fast to keep up with the 2 or 3 others in debate (or more likely: food fighting).
I have been trying to be as 100%responsive to people’s posts and to the many topics even one post can bring up.I want to engage in every topic. I wasn’t doing that in my first 20 years of posting.I had my own agenda then, and I accomplished it.Now I want to switch over to the role of a negotiator between GreaseSpot and HQ.I am doing as I type, assuming they are reading this.
I have said there are some topics I feel grossly incompetent to fully deal with. I am willing to discuss anything seriously, but not at the same time submit myself to a confrontational deprogramming of my ideals.
I can represent TWI-4 to you folks, because I clearly acknowledge the many, many things I embrace in common with them.
I can represent you folks here at GreeaseSpot to TWI-4 because I once sat in nearly all the same seats from which you all pontificate today.
My sitting was earlier by 10 years and in a different atmosphere, and in a much lesser intensity.
I was vaccinated in 1980 by twig incident, with a weakened form of the really Big Disease (Schoenheit Paper) that precipitated the 1986 ministry meltdown. I have told many details to this story here.
I had an early introduction (1977) to some anomalies in the Research Department, that also prepared me for the reports that started coming after 1986.
I had these things and others swirling in my head, quietly pondering them for years before GreaseSpot started.I really can empathize with the feelings. This highly motivates me to want run and help in any way I can.
I found that as I did careful and balanced thinking, some things got gently straightened out for me. So I came here hoping to do that, but found that I had not fully anticipated the intensity of opposition I’d have to face.I’ve been learning a lot over these 20 years, and I really want to switch gears here.
I would have no victory in being banned.None at all.I slogged thru 20 years with my message that the collaterals were missed and worthy of great attention.I am not going to budge on that, but I can relax my feeling of a duty to clearly deliver the message. It has been delivered, so now I am on to other things.
Banning me would seriously impede my ability to work a serious, loving set of suggestions for TWI-4 to consider.That would be a lose-lose deal for us all, I think.
*/*/*/*/*
Your perceptionis correct, OldSkool, my responding has been random, sporadic, and lots get missed.I try to not let that happen but it does. The only way to avoid that that I have found is to do it late at night, and that is iffy too.
I was half joking and half serious about requesting that the lost posts be reposted to me for responding, with ALL-CAPS declarations at the top that they are an important post.
Seriously, some text to me really does slip through the cracks. Some posts look like jokes and I gloss over them. Some even are scatological, and very un-necessarily so.
I have a right to refuse all sorts of non-serious discussion.If you want to dampen my attention levels some, just drape your posts with emotional shaming, or insults, or mocking, or bursts of distracting anti-praise to the anti-idol.I have a habit of switching over to “Evelyn Wood Magic Speed Reading” techniques for those bursts, and sometimes I accidentally gloss over serious text that immediately follows the deliberately glossed over screed.
We all know that the bursts of anti-praise to the anti-idol are mostly for the ROA (read-only audience) and have nothing to do with the discussion.How’s that been working out for you, lately?… or for the last 20 years?
How’s about a ground rule of yous guys pulling back on the bursts?That could be like paying me back for my from backing off on my message at this 20 year point.
Then we could talk up some more ways we can have some new modes of conversation grow up here and replace the ever repeating show we put on here.Twinky cracked me up today, noticing that the same show was playing for the ROA back 5 years ago.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Anyway, OldSkool, that was my way of answering all the points I could pull out of your post just now.…without re-formatting your post.
Now, I have to post this and sort through other posts that have appeared during the time I was writing this.I can never fully catch up, but we can work out ways where I am not avoiding topics you think are most important.
No your victory is in filibustering to keep readers from focusing on content that has the opposite viewpoint.
For example, this above post like many other similar has 27 paragraphs.
This is why banning makes the most sense. It would preserve the flow of normal conversation and steer it away from the constant hyper activity and agitated content that filibustering and responding produces.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
31
47
39
Popular Days
Jan 2
99
Dec 30
98
Dec 29
25
Dec 31
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 32 posts
chockfull 31 posts
OldSkool 47 posts
Nathan_Jr 39 posts
Popular Days
Jan 2 2023
99 posts
Dec 30 2022
98 posts
Dec 29 2022
25 posts
Dec 31 2022
6 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
I guess I just don't understand why he would even need this degree, seeing as how God gave him access to all the secrets of the universe anyhow.
waysider
Allow me to state this in the simplest way possible,. This statement is simply false. Error after error after error has been scrutinized here. Thread upon thread upon thread has dissected these errors
chockfull
It would mean they came to the truth of the realization that worshipping an idol of VPW is not a viable future for a Christian ministry. It would mean they discarded the old wineskin and were fre
Posted Images
Bolshevik
There's this place neat here you can go throw axes at stuff.
You know. . . . To unwind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Nice.
You know that you know that you know, so, you say "It's in The Class".
You know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Indeed. I was trying to make a fine distinction.
Peirce proposes four methods of fixing belief -- how we know what we believe is true. Authority is one of the methods. It's not the strongest nor most reliable way to believe something is true, partly because the risk of the fallacy of Ad Verecundiam .
But I think Peirce even suggests that appealing to legitimate authority is insufficient.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The idea is that everything came from The Word, meaning The Bible. PhD be damned.
Thus there should be a reproducibility factor.
As a tween it surprised me that no matter how much I asked the grown ups . . . nobody could reproduce squat on their own. . . . Nor did they seem disturbed by that fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Which is, all shonta aside, quite disturbing in its own right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It's not knowing that you know that you know.
Just an adopted narrative that feels good.
Otherwise that knowledge would move on its own steam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Sounds familiar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Accurate. Really no depth .. just pretentiousness and etiquette.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Just beleeeve TF out of anything and you will know that you know that you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"Make it your own"
Think others here mention Method Acting.
Basically become emotional about another reality. Maybe that's renewing your mind.
Or not. I don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Make it your own 3x5 card?
It's a superstar thing. It's impossible to understand with your understanding. You've just got to beleeeeve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"Make it your own" was act where you knew that you knew that you knew cause you worked da Word and can now speak with your own authority.
Sort of verifying the class that way, cause you came to the same conclusion as VPW.
No you didn't. . .liar liar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
WITAF does this mean? Word study?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Isn't it delicious for Mike to so "honestly" tell us who he is, yet so much flies over his head and he doesn't have even the most minute clue?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It means you lie about reading stuff and renewing your mind, or soul.
Cause we're body soul spirit which is ourselves divorced from ourselves divorced from our imaginary selves and so on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Oooooohhhh....
Kinda like recalling, and reciting in an unknown language, a verse from the Bible that is in no way related to losing your car keys.
Or even like loosed hounds chasing a duck.
Or like oil, even. OIL.
Got it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If you boil the duck in oil is that where the greasespots splatter?
See but on top of Tongues and tongues with interpretation and prophecy . . . You're getting worked up, you're looking others in the eye and getting everyone worked up . . . They're excited now too, so you MUST be on the right track.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mathematical exactness and scientific precision are required to rightly divide this question.
Really, this is a question best reserved for the end. Write it on a 3x5 card.
Stuff that card in a jar of pickles, then, Then, THEN hide the Quaaludes in the apple butter.
See? It all fits like a hand in a glove.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You know, if the class defined in the beginning what it's intentions were, then it could honestly be said at the end "that's beyond the scope of this class" concerning a lot of matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
if, If, IF...
HOWEVER,
Weren't the intentions defined? Thirty-six hours later, who could remember what they were.
It's like the origin of San Diego. No one REALLY knows what it means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well there was a green card promising . . . Everything
Lower expectations mean less disappointment
So people are going into these classes all hyped up? Right?
You know, when someone is reaching up to test the smoke detector on the ceiling. . . . That is prime opportunity to punch them in the stomach
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No your victory is in filibustering to keep readers from focusing on content that has the opposite viewpoint.
For example, this above post like many other similar has 27 paragraphs.
This is why banning makes the most sense. It would preserve the flow of normal conversation and steer it away from the constant hyper activity and agitated content that filibustering and responding produces.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.