A colossal accident?

[warpspeedpetey]

Physical in a physics sense, but not physical in an everyday sense.

Physics deals with the physical.

Light is physical in the former but not the latter

Photons are physical objects.

, and even thoughts arise from a material basis,

No, they don’t but that’s an entirely different subject.

but are not material in an intuitive sense.

If thoughts were emergent than they would be material by definition. Just the arrangement of the various particles in your brain.

I think empirical is synonymous with the former but not the latter sense of physical, so I was not clear but there is no necessary contradiction in saying that evidence has to be physical in one place and then that ‘any kind of evidence will do’ later.

As there are no two senses to of physical, there is not a latter and a former for you to be confused about. Further you didn’t qualify one kind of evidence at one time, and one kind at another. Even if you had, I would think you hard pressed to justify the claim.

As to rationality, I would never counter the value of reason operating with evidence, only the idea that reason as operating devoid of the empirical is capable of giving knowledge of the world. What good is maths at telling us what is here? Alone, it tells us nothing, but combined with astronomy, it can tell us that the sum of the energy content of the universe is nil, an interesting thought with regards to whether we are a colossal accident.

The way I visualise this debate, it is of marginal importance(!). I’m trying to maintain a space for the value of evidence speaking as an atheist, and you seem to be trying to make space for non-evidential claims as a theist, but this is not necessary where Christianity is based on the evidence of the apostles, not their claims to knowledge of the imperceptible.

 

[James1215]

Yes, physics deals with the physical, and empirical evidence is physical because there is nothing else that composes our sense perception but the physical. I felt it necessary to distinguish between strictly physical (dealt with by physics) and the intuitively material: solid, visible with the naked eye stuff. Empirical evidence is not limited to the latter, and the latter is included within the former.

So in this broad sense of empirical which includes all sense perception, do we agree that empirical evidence is necessary to apprehend and convey truth, though not necessary to make true statements?

You might object that pure rationality can tell us things about the world, but I would say that it can only when it works on the empirical.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, physics deals with the physical, and empirical evidence is physical because there is nothing else that composes our sense perception but the physical. I felt it necessary to distinguish between strictly physical (dealt with by physics) and the intuitively material: solid, visible with the naked eye stuff. Empirical evidence is not limited to the latter, and the latter is included within the former.

The physical universe is just that. Its all particles and physics deals with it all.

…empirical evidence is necessary to apprehend and convey truth…

The act of holding this statement true means it is false. It is a logical contradiction. You cannot formulate a version that saves empiricism. If you won’t listen to me, then listen to Russell. If you cannot accept the paramount atheist logician of all times word for it, then I have to suspect that there is an unspoken motivation for your refusal to accept bare logical fact, i.e. cognitive dissonance over the loss of a cherished belief.

**Bertrand Russell:

** I will observe, however, that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and that any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that itself cannot be known. While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so. (1940, p. 207)

You might object that pure rationality can tell us things about the world, but I would say that it can only when it works on the empirical.

Funnily enough you don’t seem to recognize that we are practicing rationalism without regard to physical evidence right now. I demonstrated that this claim was false several times, in different ways. You said you did not understand, so I accept that you do not understand.

 

[James1215]

Indeed we are trying to be rational without regard for evidence, and I do not think we are learning about the world at all.

The outcome is that it is logically permissible to hold empiricism dear, although it is unevidenced. This is because it is not made false by the contradiction you posed. Note what BR said: ‘While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so’.

My position is different anyway. How would you apprehend the truth without it being apprehendable? I say firstly that the only knowledge we can have is of that which is perceptible. You can say a true statement which it is not possible to evidence, but why should you believe it? Why should anyone? Everyone has to provide apprehendable evidence to make a belief not just logically possible to hold, but desirable. It is this quality of ‘being apprehendable’ that I think all statements have to have, and which means they must have empirical evidence in them. Therefore knowledge (awareness of true belief) is dependent upon experience, while the total truth (not all of which may be available to us) is not.

When I have not understood something I have said, but you have not replied. I have stated the above numerous times and you appear to be trying not to understand, and you do not call attention to it.

 

[JonPHeretic]

In reality, it doesn’t but it’s like the elephant in the living room because the atheist denies there is truth, ie, a standard with all these intangibles. In an atheistic worldview, how can these really have any meaning? After all, they are only what your physical brain sees through the product of evolution. In communicating these intangibles to others is really appealing to truth. Truth is relative to them. That’s a start.

Perhaps to some, but not all atheists. I myself follow a Correspondence theory of Truth.

iep.utm.edu/truth/#H3

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Indeed we are trying to be rational without regard for evidence, and I do not think we are learning about the world at all.

We learned that philosophical empiricism is a logical contradiction. That is a truth about the world that you did not previously know.

The outcome is that it is logically permissible to hold empiricism dear, although it is unevidenced. This is because it is not made false by the contradiction you posed. Note what BR said: ‘While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so’.

Self refutation creates a logical contradiction, logical contradictions are necessarily false. A=notA is always false.

My position is different anyway.

I just demonstrated that your position is the same logical contradiction, that we have been talking about in the last post. I told you many posts ago that you wouldn’t be able to formulate a version that didn’t commit the same error.

How would you apprehend the truth without it being apprehendable?

Why would truth not be apprehendable?

I say firstly that the only knowledge we can have is of that which is perceptible.

I wonder why you keep making that statement after you admitted to not understanding the demonstrations that it is false? Its funny that you understand it well enough to believe its true, but not well enough see it’s falsification demonstrated

You can say a true statement which it is not possible to evidence, but why should you believe it? Why should anyone?

A statement can be true with no physical evidence as I demonstrated several times.

…to make a belief … possible to hold… they must have empirical evidence in them.

And the empirical evidence to make this statement a belief possible to hold? You’re still insisting on the validity of a logical contradiction. You just read BR pointing out that its self refuting no matter how you phrase it. No matter how bad you want to be able to hold on to empiricism, even the head atheist admits its a crock.

Therefore knowledge (awareness of true belief) is dependent upon experience, while the total truth (not all of which may be available to us) is not.

You just drew this conclusion from the logical contradiction above.

When I have not understood something I have said, but you have not replied.

You mean when you have not understood something and said it, I did not explain further? As I posted, I cannot think of more simple examples. If you cannot understand the ABC’s, then you cannot understand Shakespeare. If you do not have the tools yet, you just don’t have them. (If you don’t have them, how do you even know your an atheist?) I am not trying to be insulting, but, I don’t know what else I can do but demonstrate.

I have stated the above numerous times and you appear to be trying not to understand, and you do not call attention to it.

Then very clearly without any extraneous information, using the correct terminology, as simply as possible, give me an enumerated list of what you feel I am ignoring, I will then reply to each one so that you may be satisfied that I have fully addressed all of you’re concerns. I have had this very conversations dozens of times on this site alone. I have no need to dodge anything.

 

[James1215]

ok, thank you!

I won’t go onto the next until we agree on where we disagree with this point. I maintain that the following statement is a different position from empiricism, and you think it is the same.

Do you know what I mean by:

‘knowledge (awareness of true belief) is dependent upon experience, while the total truth (not all of which may be available to us) is not.’

To put it slightly more clearly: ‘knowing that your statement about reality is true requires that your statement deals with things that are perceptible and which enable the statement to be verified’ But, at the same time, ‘we can make true statements which have no evidence in their support. We simply cannot perceive that they are true’. I also assume that knowledge is a body of true statements of whose truth we are aware. Another thing I think is that tautologically true statements tell us nothing about the world outside our head, and that this is what rationality is that is devoid of empirical evidence.

What follows from this is that knowledge might not include all that is true, but all that is true does include the whole of knowledge, and, possibly, a lot more. There is room for both of us in this: God may be imperceptible (or not) but still existent.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…'knowing …statement …is true requires…perceptible …

You’re still making the contradiction, even after Russell pointed out that every formulation self refutes. Please just make an enumerated list of your concerns using the proper terminology, so I can make sense of what you are saying.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…verified…

It occurs to me that you may be trying to assert the verification criterion of meaning is that what your position is?

 

[James1215]

First things first:

Knowledge is having awareness of the truth of a statement, not merely saying true statements in complete ignorance of the fact they are true.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

First things first:…

There is no point in trying to step me through a disproven argument. So if you have any further concerns please respect my time and good intentions by making an enumerated list with the proper terminology.

 

[James1215]

There is no point in trying to step me through a disproven argument. So if you have any further concerns please respect my time and good intentions by making an enumerated list with the proper terminology.

I’m sorry if it seemed disrespectful, I can do a numbered list but given that the potential for misunderstanding (and the time taken to work through it) would multiply the more I say, I stuck to one point. If even the first point is left hanging, I think the argument remains far from disproven.

 

[James1215]

Here is a list, if that helps.

1. Knowledge is having awareness of the truth of a statement, not merely saying true statements in complete ignorance of the fact they are true.
2. Truth is a correspondence to reality, and the only reality we have access to is perceptible reality.
3. Where statements are made about this perceptible reality, they are meaningful
4. Statements about perceptible reality require like evidence to be supported. Perceptible evidence is no use to confirm the imperceptible, and vice versa. Evidence therefore has to be from that which is perceptible, ie empirical.

Put all this together and you get reliance upon the empirical for knowing, whilst not all that is true may be perceptible. I consider it meaningless to speculate on that which is theoretically not-perceptible because these ideas exclude themselves from being demonstrable. Even an invisible God is demonstrable, if He made Heaven and Hell.

You have mentioned mathematics before, and I do not think that informs us about this world but gives us tautologically true results from established principles. Aside from mathematics, you mentioned reason. Again, I do not think that saying A=A amounts to knowledge, and that reason works with things that are empirical.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…the potential for misunderstanding …

That’s why I am asking for standard terminology.

…I think the argument remains far from disproven.

Since you claim not to understand the demonstrations that the argument is false, how can you make the claim its true? The only thing that I can think of is because you want it to be true.The historical fact is that the argument was disproven and finally abandoned in the 50’s by its proponents themselves. Bertrand Russell’s quote also demonstrated why no formulation of knowledge being dependent on experience escapes self refutation, and I both demonstrated the contradiction and you acknowledged it. There is no question that it is disproven. Convincing you of the facts is the problem. The more cherished a belief is the more painful the cognitive dissonance is and the longer the process of dissonance reduction takes.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Here is a list, if that helps.

1. Knowledge is having awareness of the truth of a statement, not merely saying true statements in complete ignorance of the fact they are true.

 

[James1215]

Well if you don’t know what I meant by:

‘Knowledge is having awareness of the truth of a statement, not merely saying true statements in complete ignorance of the fact they are true.’

Other than trying to explain it again, it may be easier to see where we disagree if you say what the word ‘knowledge’ means to you.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Well if you don’t know what I meant by:

‘Knowledge is having awareness of the truth of a statement, not merely saying true statements in complete ignorance of the fact they are true.’

Other than trying to explain it again, it may be easier to see where we disagree if you say what the word ‘knowledge’ means to you.

The problem with this statement is that it is philosophically unclear. Having knowlege means having a grasp of body of facts or concepts. It does not automatically entail awareness the factual truth of a statement is ontologically true. For example, up into the middle of the 20th century, scientists factually held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well if you don’t know what I meant by:

‘Knowledge is having awareness of the truth of a statement, not merely saying true statements in complete ignorance of the fact they are true.’

Other than trying to explain it again, it may be easier to see where we disagree if you say what the word ‘knowledge’ means to you.

What does the phrase in red mean to you? Do you understand that this absolutely eliminates any possible formulation of the argument? Why do you keep bringing it up? I am not interested in rehashing a disproven argument, I am offering you the opportunity to clear up loose ends. I thought you wanted to talk about your beliefs concerning math and Dubito, but you keep mixing the two arguments.

Bertrand Russell:

I will observe, however, that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and that any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that itself cannot be known. While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so. (1940, p. 207)

 

[James1215]

My idea of knowledge is not equal to empiricism. Knowledge includes empiricism but empiricism does not include my very reasonable idea of knowledge. Like medicine (empiricism) being a drug (way of getting true statements), but not all drugs (truth) being medicinal (empirically verifiable). The difference is that to know something is a drug (awareness of truth), we have to put it in a human body (find empirical evidence).

Difficult to follow, I know, but hopefully consistent.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

My idea of knowledge is not equal to empiricism. Knowledge includes empiricism but empiricism does not include my very reasonable idea of knowledge. Like medicine (empiricism) being a drug (way of getting true statements), but not all drugs (truth) being medicinal (empirically verifiable). The difference is that to know something is a drug (awareness of truth), we have to put it in a human body (find empirical evidence).

Difficult to follow, I know, but hopefully consistent.

Your definition is inconsistent. You’ve equated truth to being as a “way of getting true statements” and to being “truth” itself and having an “awareness of truth” in your statement.