J
James1215
Guest
Are you saying that we do need evidence for everything that is outside direct experience?
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
The significance is that all our knowledge is based on self-knowledge for which we don’t require evidence!
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Let me point out that you just said it didn’t refer to itself when you claimed that it did not need verification, now you are saying its true because it refers to itself, which would mean it does need verification. Your statements are contradictory. If this newest position is true, then we are back to the contradiction, if the last position is what you truly believe then it cannot be a tautology as a tautology must be true in frame semantics, which is what the definition is saying when it says it must be true in ALL instances in order to be a tautology. Of course to pile on a bit more, let me also point out that you are confusing a rhetorical tautology for a logic tautology. :juggle:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29
T
tonyrey
Guest
Yes! The only evidence we have our perceptions but they need to be confirmed by the evidence of others - which we also receive through our perceptions! All this puts “empirical” knowledge in its true perspective. It is not primary but secondary…
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
J
James1215
Guest
How about we do, but the evidence is our own testimony. If we wanted to know whether someone else was conscious, we would have to ask for their testimony.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I agree but we receive their testimony via our perceptions. So it is still based on self-knowledge! We can’t get out of our mind… except with our imagination.
We don’t need evidence for our own experience, i.e. evidence that we are thinking, feeling and perceiving. We are infallible in that respect.
It also puts your previous statement in a new perspective:
Naturalism can hardly be efficacious with regard to **everything ** if it is based on intangible self-knowledge!
J
James1215
Guest
Is that sign a demonstration of both logical and rhetorical tautology?
Yes, with the information about logical tautologies I can see that I was referring to a rhetorical tautology. However, I still do not think my position is that of empiricism, and there are even those who challenge that empiricism is dogmatic/self-contradictory. BR said that while empiricism may be self-contradictory, it could still be true but it would not be evidently true.
I need to get my head around whether a logical tautology is anything to worry about, what analytical/synthetic means, whether I should care, and a few other things. But, without that philosophical training, is it not still possible to say that assertions require evidence to be held as knowledge? If one accepts that knowledge deals only and necessarily with the perceptible, then that evidence is of course empirical. What is wrong with that? The flying spaghetti monster looms…
Yes, with the information about logical tautologies I can see that I was referring to a rhetorical tautology. However, I still do not think my position is that of empiricism, and there are even those who challenge that empiricism is dogmatic/self-contradictory. BR said that while empiricism may be self-contradictory, it could still be true but it would not be evidently true.
I need to get my head around whether a logical tautology is anything to worry about, what analytical/synthetic means, whether I should care, and a few other things. But, without that philosophical training, is it not still possible to say that assertions require evidence to be held as knowledge? If one accepts that knowledge deals only and necessarily with the perceptible, then that evidence is of course empirical. What is wrong with that? The flying spaghetti monster looms…
J
James1215
Guest
I reckon we do need evidence that we are thinking/feeling. We can show that when we think we’re conscious we are actually not, or are much less conscious than we thought we were, for example with memory and attention tests. MRI scans might offer another route to find evidence of thought. Obviously, as all of this passes through subjectivity we can crawl into solipsism if we wish!I agree but we receive their testimony via our perceptions. So it is still based on self-knowledge! We can’t get out of our mind… except with our imagination.
We don’t need evidence for our own experience, i.e. evidence that we are thinking, feeling and perceiving.
T
tonyrey
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I don’t care what you call it, every position you have taken so far is a logical contradiction and therefore false, as it always will be as Russell pointed out.
There are also people who believed that the moonlanding was fake. The existence of crackpots doesn’t mean anything. Unless you can make one of their arguments stick, it doesn’t matter that they exist.
A logical contradiction is always false.
It doesn’t matter if you have philosophical training, the worlds best logicians tried to make it work and those were all people with a doctorate level of philosophical understanding. You could spend the rest of your life in school and it probably wouldn’t make a whit of difference. You need to get your head around this atheist thing. It seems clear to me that you really don’t yet have the tools necessary to make that kind of decision yet. If you don’t already know these things that are basic to atheism, then how do you know you are an atheist? I certainly found out I wasn’t. You have not gone so far that G-d will not accept you back. Turn around.
You still cannot make the contradiction.
No one has made that stick in the last 3500 years. I demonstrated it was false several times. However it is probably important for you to understand that the contradiction is not resolved from necessity. We cannot use a broken calculator just because it is the only tool available. So even were you able to prove otherwise, empiricism would still be logical contradiction.
I have no idea what this means, or why you are mentioning it. I know what a Pastafarian is, and I encourage all atheists to make themselves look as foolish as possible, so I love those guys, I bring them up nearly every time talk to folks about atheism.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I apologise for not having replied to your post, John. I missed it because the posts continued in another section.
Everything is a construct of consciousness but it is still true that consciousness needn’t exist - unless a reason is given why it must exist. And the fact that everything is a construct of consciousness does not imply that everything is merely a construct!
So the conclusion is still valid - that it is absurd to think everything exists for no reason. We would be using reason to prove everything is unreasonable!**
**
T
tonyrey
Guest
Logical positivism was abandoned when it was realised that it was illogical - because the verifiability principle couldn’t be verified!
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Essentially, Popper tried Falsification but hit the same wall. Their purpose was little more than to eliminate G-d from the intellectual conversation. Funny how hundreds of the worlds most intelligent people couldn’t find a way to kill G-d. Funny that. Apparently fighting G-d is tantamount to asking for a good sorting out. (did I use that piece of British slang right?)Logical positivism was abandoned when it was realised that it was illogical - because the verifiability principle couldn’t be verified!
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
Source?
It’s the science of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities, using numbers and symbols. Your interpretation is seems to be more akin to what meta-physics is about and not about mathematics.
My questions do not appear to be definitively answered or directly addressed. There are a lot of “I thinks” in your train of thought. Are you not able to come to a conclusion backed up by consistent reasoning? Stating that* “…if we want to know about the empirical we have to start with the empirical”* is starting sound like circular reasoning. Would you care to clarify?
T
tonyrey
Guest
You did indeed! I didn’t realise it’s not used in the States.Essentially, Popper tried Falsification but hit the same wall. Their purpose was little more than to eliminate G-d from the intellectual conversation. Funny how hundreds of the worlds most intelligent people couldn’t find a way to kill G-d. Funny that. Apparently fighting G-d is tantamount to asking for a good sorting out. (did I use that piece of British slang right?)
Popper did at least reject Darwinism on the ground that an explanation is needed for all the evidence of purpose in the world but he didn’t explain how living organisms acquire their goals…
J
James1215
Guest
Warpspeedpetey,
Much of what I have been doing is trying to show that my position is not identical to empiricism, which you say contradicts itself. Your approach has been to say both that I’m wrong AND I’m pushing empiricism. Interestingly, you have offered no comment on an article which offers an argument for empiricism. However, I might as well show that my position is not wrong, and therefore that it cannot be identical with a failed empiricism - whatever it is.
As to atheism in general, you said you have reasons to believe. Finding theistic reasons unconvincing, (or lacking the belief in those reasons) I do not.
I think you would be hard pressed to justify why one should have evidence for faith anyway when you have spent so long trying to proclaim that requiring evidence for a position is nonsense. If one does not require evidence for faith, one can believe literally anything.
Hang on, a bit of revelation is coming to me… Yes, it’s from the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He says he’s just beaten the Christian God, who now no longer exists, and he has established ever greater divine hegemony for pasta lovers everywhere! Permissible to believe in your worldview, not in mine.
Much of what I have been doing is trying to show that my position is not identical to empiricism, which you say contradicts itself. Your approach has been to say both that I’m wrong AND I’m pushing empiricism. Interestingly, you have offered no comment on an article which offers an argument for empiricism. However, I might as well show that my position is not wrong, and therefore that it cannot be identical with a failed empiricism - whatever it is.
As to atheism in general, you said you have reasons to believe. Finding theistic reasons unconvincing, (or lacking the belief in those reasons) I do not.
I think you would be hard pressed to justify why one should have evidence for faith anyway when you have spent so long trying to proclaim that requiring evidence for a position is nonsense. If one does not require evidence for faith, one can believe literally anything.
Hang on, a bit of revelation is coming to me… Yes, it’s from the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He says he’s just beaten the Christian God, who now no longer exists, and he has established ever greater divine hegemony for pasta lovers everywhere! Permissible to believe in your worldview, not in mine.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
As the Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply a meme parody (a poor one at that), your revelation ostensibly cannot be construed as real. The argument for God is centralized around the creation of the Universe and one tuned for self-aware life. Try to construct a satisfying theology around the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a transcendent being but a finite temporal being subject to the materials laws of the Universe, you will not reasonably succeed. Hence your attempt at parody grievously fails and demonstrates your lack of critical evaluation skills for theological positions.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Yeah we say “get your butt kicked”
- Status