Absolute vs. Relative: one more time with feeling

[Zhavric]

A lot of the trouble theists & agnostics are having with certain argument stems from a misunderstanding of absolute vs "relative" statements. I haven't seen stated in any forum, but I fear there are those who would actually agree with the statement "Nothing is absolute".

If you find yourself nodding your head, read the following very carefully.

Let's start with an example statement: "I feel cold."

This is an absolute statement.

We know it's absolute because of the context*. All things that are Zhavric, at 4:20pm (heh) on Tuesday the 22nd of January 2007 in Columbus, OH (this being the context of "I") felt cold. It's as true for me (I feel cold) as it is for anyone else ("Zhav is cold.").

"Wait" the relativist says. "You may feel cold, but compared to Alaska, Columbus is really warm."

This is another absolute statement, nor does it make "I feel cold" relative. In presenting a comparison of Alaska to Columbus, I have changed the context. No longer am I talking about all things that are Zhavric at 4:20pm on Tuesday the 22nd of January 2007 in Columbus, OH. Nowhere in that context is Alaska mentioned nor does the temperature in Alaska affect how I feel in Columbus.

The more we analyze what we state to one another, the more we realize just how little subjectivity there is in our statements.

Thus, when we state something like "Claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true"... offering "proven claims which aren't really proven" is a change of context at best and a misunderstanding of absolute statements at worst.

Discuss.



*A very important word to this debate.

[Jagged]

I'm pretty sure i agree if there is a point to agree to. People should also have the ability to recognize implied context, like when you say "I feel cold" its obviously in relative to how you feel normally. This is also the definition to the word feel. I really dislike when people argue about such petty things in actual debate, though. Its unneeded.

[Kamehameha34]

Valid point, but poor example.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Zhavric We know it's absolute because of the context*. All things that are Zhavric, at 4:20pm (heh) on Tuesday the 22nd of January 2007 in Columbus, OH (this being the context of "I") felt cold. It's as true for me (I feel cold) as it is for anyone else ("Zhav is cold.").

Did you make a 4:20 joke?
Now, here is something to bite on. Like the phrase "I am cold" so are the terms absolute and relative subject to context. What context? Well, the context of the English language, for one. They are "subject" to it. The idea of absolutism, like all words, is a metaphor to help us explain existence. Only because the term has literalized itself in your brain is it easy to think of absolutism as other than a metaphor. But it is one. There was a period of time where human beings didn't have that concept, and they weren't wrong for not learning to describe things that way.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Suburbanite The idea of absolutism, like all words, is a metaphor to help us explain existence.

The irony of your post is the above sentence is, itself, an absolute statement.

And the point of this thread is to dispell some confusion going on regarding absolute statements. There are a few on this website who think "proven statements" can also mean "proven statements which aren't really proven". This is as intellectual valid as stating "square" can also mean "square which is really a circle".

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z "proven claims which aren't really proven"

It's amazing how desperate you are to find others to support you.

That quote, from me, was regarding people who say their claim is proven when it really isn't.

Liars and bullshitters.

That was what it meant. Blustering fools who say something is a "proven claim" but it really isn't.

It had nothing to do with this thread.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai It's amazing how desperate you are to find others to support you.

Ad hom. I guess when you were talking about wanting a "clean slate" you weren't being truthful. This adds nothing to the debate, as you well know.

That quote, from me, was regarding people who say their claim is proven when it really isn't. Liars and bullshitters. That was what it meant. Blustering fools who say something is a "proven claim" but it really isn't. It had nothing to do with this thread.

It has everything to do with this thread.

You're changing the context but wanting your changed context to apply to the original stance. If you had your way, claims which contradict existing proven claims would be unknown on the flawed post-modernist grounds that the proven claims MAY not be proven. As I've demonstrated, we know that stance to be intellectually bankrupt.

[Fonceai]

Stop trying to argue and just read for a second.

What I was addressing was specifically about people lying about a claim being proven.

That's all.

Honestly, how hard is this for you to understand?

I can use different words or maybe draw pictures, if you want.

I can show up to your house and explain it in person, if that works better for you.

This is simple.

You misunderstood my statement as addressing context.

It was addressing someone who is being untruthful.

[Zhavric]

Let's look at a better example. Insults.

We hold VERY closely to context when it comes to insulting one another and pay close attention to when the context changes. Consider Sally & James:

James: "Women are idiots."

Sally: "WHAT!? I can't believe you just called all women idiots. How can you say something like that?"

James: "Well... I meant all women who cut me off in traffic are idiots."

Sally: "That's NOT what you said. You said ALL women are idiots."

James attempted to change the context of his initial statement by introducing a new context. Sally held him to what he originally stated and (rightly) refused to believe that "women" is equal to "all women who cut [James] off in traffic".

Quote by: Fonceai You misunderstood my statement as addressing context. It was addressing someone who is being untruthful.

Someone making a claim which is untruthful =/= an existing proven claim just as "women" =/= "all women who cut [James] off in traffic".

A proven claim is not an untruthful claim. Hence, you've changed the context. No amount of beligerance or threats of showing up at my home will change this very basic logical principal.

Nor are we powerless to address proven claims which are later on disproven. How do proven claims become disproven, Fonceai?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Nor are we powerless to address proven claims which are later on disproven. How do proven claims become disproven, Fonceai?

How difficult is this for you to comprehend?

When someone is saying that a claim is proven but really isn't.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're writing about context.

Failure to comprehend those two things means you have a severe problem or a need to just bicker.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai When someone is saying that a claim is proven but really isn't.

Please answer my question: How do allegedly proven claims become disproven?

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Zhavric The irony of your post is the above sentence is, itself, an absolute statement. And the point of this thread is to dispell some confusion going on regarding absolute statements. There are a few on this website who think "proven statements" can also mean "proven statements which aren't really proven". This is as intellectual valid as stating "square" can also mean "square which is really a circle".

You make a good point, but it isn't quite so. What makes a statement absolute is, firstly of course that it is asserting something universal, but also what is required in absolutism. You can't say something is absolute without the word absolute in your vocab. That said, now assume you've chosen to think of the words absolute and relative as false dichotomies. A false dichotomy being that which is been classified in an arbitrary way to create distinction. Another false dichotomy would be Negroid and Caucasoid (Black race/White race). Those distinctions are unnecessary, but none the less the dichotomy (distinction) is still being made between them-- in a sense making something like race into something substantial. But, if you don't believe in Absolutism or Relativism, how can you ever utter a sentence that is absolute?
The only category i would personally recommend attaching to one's statement is one of usefulness. So what I said may not be absolute, only useful (or useless, depending on how good I do in this debate I guess)

[Zhavric]

Sub: Please post a statement which you believe is not absolute.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Please answer my question: How do allegedly proven claims become disproven?

When the person is lying? By showing the truth.

When the person is ignorant? By correcting them.

When the person is ignorant and is evasive? By ignoring them.

What's your point?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai What's your point?

My point is that claims don't exist in a state of uncertainty. As you agreed, if they're lying, we demonstrate the truth and so on. So, there is no such thing as a "proven claim which isn't really proven". It's either proven or addressed as you detailed.

The bottom line is claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true. The fact that sometimes we have to examine what's proven poses no problem for this basic logical concept.