Contradictions and philosophy

Adherents of the epistemological theory of coherentism typically claim that as a necessary condition of the justification of a belief, that belief must form a part of a logically non-contradictory (consistent) system of beliefs. Some dialetheists, including Graham Priest, have argued that coherence may not require consistency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction


Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", or dialetheia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

It should be mentioned that only certain very specific statements are dialetheias, and they almost never apply to factual religious claims.

By the way, I think most dialetheic statements unnecessarily obfuscate their meaning (perhaps this is on purpose). You end up with statements like this:

Is it bigoted that men are charged more for car insurance than women?

Did I make a claim? I just thought it was an interesting comparison. Though my impression is there may be a lot of coherentists on this board by the number of unresearched contradictions they cite.

My knee jerk reaction was no, just because the insurance rate is based on statistical analysis between the sexes. However, if it turned out that asians had more accidents (to confirm the stereotype) I'm pretty sure most people would call it bigoted to charge asian people a higher rate.

Hmmm....I'll have to think about this more, good question.

I never said you did.

This may be true, I was just pointing out that dialetheism is almost never an issue with regard to the claims that arise on this board.

Some people would call it "legalized discrimination."

The insurance companies have got a lock on this with statistical facts though so good luck at making the bigot charge stick.

Yea, I personally would never play that card. I mean...it's not a valid charge IMO.

You should reference sites when you use quotes such as the one above.

Why? Can't you figure out how to confirm this observation on your own?

Atheists don't suffer from mental states like cognitive dissonance like other groups of people?

Because you're copying what somewhat wrote and not giving credit to the original author. This basically equates to stealing and lying.

Also, Graham Priest is wrong.

Usually not with regard to religious claims.

Please go into detail. I find this subject confusing as ****.

Please don't bother me with the cheap personal attacks.

I'm reading up on articles on flaws in the scientific method.

Scientific method has its flaws
http://oudaily.com/news/2011/feb/08/...has-its-flaws/

Quote:
"Recent studies suggest that the majority of recent studies are false, according a December article by Jonah Lehrer published in The New Yorker. In “The Truth Wears Off,” he points to a frighteningly disparate set of accepted scientific findings that are now becoming uncomfortably difficult to replicate, including research on the benefits of widely-prescribed anti-depressants, or on what birds like to find in their mates."


Still working on this one:



The Truth Wears Off
by Jonah Lehrer, The New Yorker


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...fa_fact_lehrer

I confirmed my observation that I didn't think they were your words. Failing to show that you were in fact quoting someone else is dishonest.

I have no idea what your second question has to do with me pointing out your dishonesty.

Personal attacks? You took someone else's work and passed it off as your own. Please tell me if this isn't accurate. If it is true then I stand by my original assessment.

The subject is why atheists don't suffer from cognitive dissonance like the rest of the human race.

I cite more sources than anyone on this board and I've been condemned in the past for overlinking so maybe you want to waste someone else's time with your banal cheap shots.

You're not going to dodge the subject with a personal attack are you? How ethical is that?

I actually laughed out loud at the part I bolded.

A personal attack? Martyr complex?

If you are quoting someone you should reference them. If you've been condemned in the past for overlinking I'd guess that it's to do with the fact that you seem to tag on a lot of random links that having nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.

I just got that.

I really enjoyed that New Yorker article.

Gives one a lot to think about.

Do you think calling someone a bigot is ever justified?

Like as long as there's statistical evidence to back up ones discrimination, it's cool? But no stats + generalization = bigot? (and only in the special case of race or gender).

Couldn't someone be right (in the same sense that an insurance company is right) without the stat sheets on hand? Most often, one doesn't even get the opportunity to get to the stats before the hammer is dropped.

Lehrer clarifies his position:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...decline-effect