Gene: You said that a circle was observable, but a circle has never been
seen by a human being--the idea can only be expressed by a definition. We
may
have to go back to figure out what knowledge is if we can't agree on
things like this yet.
I believe the circle is observable, despite your idea that a perfect
circle does not exists, it exists in the shape of approximations or
mathematical formulas which allow us to form a close approximation mental
picture.
> Gene: This might be a good point to clarify--what makes an observation?
>
> That by itself is an interesting issue. In science an observation is
> typically a data point.
Gene: Okay, what do you mean by a data point? Does geometry have them?
Yep.
> Gene: I mean rational justification--what premises does one start with?
A
> Christian's premises certainly support the scientific method and other
> religions (Judaism and Islam) probably do too. I was wondering how an
> agnostic or atheist justifies it. (Not that you are either of these, but
> you seem to enjoy debating in this vein.) Let's look at the following
> exchange:
>
> Curiosity, quest for knowledge ?
Gene:
But unfortunately, we are having problems deciding what knowledge is!
Lets focus on curiosity then ?
> Because the circle can be observed by others independent on the
> intepretation of 'willing good for another'. The circle is objective,
love
> is subjective.
Gene: Nobody can observe the circle, though they can apprehend the
definition of a circle or the concept of the circle. Similarly, the idea
of love and
the definition of love can be apprehended.
We disagree, the definition of a circle makes the circle an objective
concept. Love is not covered by a definition which is objective.
But we agree, it appears we are arguing for argument's sake at this moment.