A colossal accident?

[James1215]

knowl·edge
Noun/ˈnälij/

1. Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.

There is nothing here that lies necessarily outside empiricism, so I am content to agree on the core, that knowledge is information and skills acquired through experience or [experience-base] education.

 

[James1215]

Yet the proposition “experience is required for knowledge” does not entail any method of testing. Those five words imply no method whatsoever. You are now asserting that factors other than the proposition entail a method of testing and even that is untrue, caring is not a method of testing. Nor are verification criterions of meaning rationally sound.

This is a lot of diversion. I have just said how it entails testing - if one wants to investigate its truth value, one has to consider the evidence. It is beginning to seem as if you’d rather leave the issue of truth value alone, because you know full-well what empiricism might mean for faith…

Sure, we can. We can point out that no evidence is possible. As I have repeatedly done by demonstrating that one cannot deduce evidence for your asserted proposition from observations of the scientific method.

Evidence is indeed possible. Evidence is something which provides us with greater reason to believe in a proposition or hypothesis with it than without it. I learned that one from William Lane Craig, who uses that definition of evidence to convince us that there can be evidence for something that it is impossible prove true (God). We have no reason to believe in empiricism unless we consider the following.

1. We use experience-based evidence and do form statements in which we have reason to believe. (They come true)
2. a) Science
3. b) Everyday predictions and mundane experience
4. We fail when we do not use empirical evidence. (We are demonstrated to be wrong)
5. a) random guessing usually fails
6. b) maths alone tells us nothing of reality

These are individual cases which support a hypothesis which says no knowledge will ever come to be formed that does not have empirical evidence for it. Inductive reasoning! Aren’t you a science fan?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is nothing here that lies necessarily outside empiricism, so I am content to agree on the core, that knowledge is information and skills acquired through experience or [experience-base] education.

knowl·edge
Noun/ˈnälij/

1. Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is a lot of diversion. I have just said how it entails testing - if one wants to investigate its truth value, one has to consider the evidence.

You just told me about how caring means one should want to test it. Your claim, that the proposition “experience is required for knowledge” entails a method of testing is what I am disputing.

It is beginning to seem as if you’d rather leave the issue of truth value alone, because you know full-well what empiricism might mean for faith…

Empiricism has been dead for decades. There isn’t anything to fear.

Evidence is indeed possible.

Not for the proposition you assert. As I have repeatedly demonstrated. One cannot make the leap from scientific observations like “water oxidizes iron” to conclusions like “knowledge is required for experience.”

 

[James1215]

You just told me about how caring means one should want to test it. Your claim, that the proposition “experience is required for knowledge” entails a method of testing is what I am disputing.

If one wants to dispute the truth of the proposition, one has to consult evidence for or against it, and not dismiss it out of hand. Can I put it more simply?

As I have repeatedly demonstrated. One cannot make the leap from scientific observations like “water oxidizes iron” to conclusions like “knowledge is required for experience.”

2 things. The statement that ‘water oxidises iron’ is of the same sort as ‘knowledge is built on experience’. Secondly, I do not argue from the instances of water oxidising iron to empricism; the individual cases which support the general rule are (strangely enough) examples of knowing. All instances of knowing thus far are based on experience, and none make do without empirical evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If one wants to dispute the truth of the proposition, one has to consult evidence for or against it, and not dismiss it out of hand. Can I put it more simply?

No, you cannot put it any more simply than that. The claim you made though is still false. The proposition “experience is required for knowledge” does not entail a method of testing.

2 things. The statement that ‘water oxidises iron’ is of the same sort as ‘knowledge is built on experience’.

No they aren’t. The first statement concerns the empirical, the second concerns the rational. One must be observed, the other reasoned. Quite different.

Secondly, I do not argue from the instances of water oxidising iron to empricism; the individual cases which support the general rule are (strangely enough) examples of knowing. All instances of knowing thus far are based on experience, and none make do without empirical evidence.

It does not matter what observation from the scientific method you use, the result is the same. There is no way to make the leap from premises like “I observe that water oxidizes iron” to “therefore knowledge requires experience.”

 

[tonyrey]

By creating us God has imposed on Himself a duty of care. The very fact that we can conceive of immortality makes death an unjust deprivation of our desire to live forever. You may say you have no wish to be immortal but if you were faced with prospect of annihilation right now I doubt whether you would welcome it!

Being thrust into life is not unjust. If that were the case no one should have children! It is a gift that cannot be refused beforehand but that alone doesn’t make it unjust.

The dilemma isn’t false unless we have no desire to exist in any shape or form but such a desire is unnatural. Those who commit suicide do so because of the type of life they have to endure not because they want to disappear utterly…

The issue is how we are capable of establishing purposes for ourselves if we have no control over our decisions - which must be the case if all our activity has physical causes.

If you want an argument for free will that is compatible with physical determinism, have a look at Daniel Dennett’s Freedom Evolves book. He argues that for one thing, we need determinism to make sense of free will. That everything arises from a material basis poses no problems in this theory, so you cannot say that we have no control over our decisions unless you have a good argument. As part of that, how do you explain the interaction of physical and non-physical, causal and non-causal?

How do you explain the existence of physical causality? We are directly aware of our power to make events occur but we infer physical causality by induction - without any guarantee that the orderliness of the universe will continue indefinitely. It is only a matter of probability…

Determinism excludes free will because all events are thought to have physical causes whereas free will entails self-determinism. Either the buck stops with us or it doesn’t - unless you can suggest an alternative…

Nobody really lives without values, as all values are a manifestation in some measure of selfish interests.

“selfish” needs to be distinguished from justified concern for oneself. We are not selfish merely because we choose to eat, drink and enjoy life.

Let’s not forget that Hobbes’s solution to living in the jungle was a secular, and I believe a very effective one, based on the selfish desire not to live in poverty and war. I think society is better for having universal laws backed up by police, in which scenario the state is the leviathan.

The desire not to live in poverty and war is not selfish but reasonable! If everyone sacrificed themselves what would be the point of living? His solution is secular but it presupposes belief in the value of life - which has no rational foundation in a pointless universe.

The prohibitions to lie, steal, kill and commit adultery are not merely preferences but necessary conditions of our physical and spiritual welfare.

Of our spiritual welfare, yes, but in theism we don’t get any evidence of divine punishment before death that is not found in my atheistic conception of the psychological functioning of morality.

If you believe in the objective reality of justice (and injustice) it cannot be simply a set of arbitrary human preferences because it applies to rational beings wherever they may be. The universe ceases to be amoral and pointless when there are non-scientific laws of personal development and fulfilment.

Divine punishment does not occur before death because it would jeopardise our freedom to choose what to believe and how to live. No one would dare to harm or kill anyone else if they knew they would suffer as a result.

Then hell would only satisfy my desire for power and independence if I knew I was there entirely by my own volition.

You couldn’t be there otherwise! Hell is not a trap set for careless or unwitting egoists but a destiny chosen by oneself with full knowledge of the consequences.

When I get there, I will not be totally lustfully satisfied if I find that I cannot access heaven if I so wished (given the new knowledge that Christianity was true), and I

wouldn’t truly have my lustful independence if eternity in hell was forced upon me.

You can’t expect hell to be a bed of roses! The misery of not being in heaven is the price you pay for having your own kingdom. It is not forced upon you - or anyone else - but a clear-sighted decision to be your own boss and take orders from no one! (All this is hypothetical because you don’t live just for yourself and there’s no reason to suppose you ever will… )

So that means that, for hell to be a true extension of my earthly sins and rebellion, it wouldn’t be so bad, painful or eternal?

It is bad to reject the love of others, it is painful to be isolated from God and others and it is eternal because time and space do not exist in the spiritual world. Everything we cherish most is intangible: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love can never be destroyed and are our only lasting sources of joy and fulfilment. Hell is not only an extension but a continuation of a person’s earthly sins and rebellion. Like heaven it begins in this world and is not an abrupt transition to an utterly different scenario. We are the same persons with the same virtues and vices who will reach the point of no return. We choose to live for ourselves or for others. We cannot sit on the fence for all eternity! Or maybe that would be another version of hell - it might well be extremely depressing to be isolated in no-man’s land, i.e. in solitary splendour - forever and ever…

 

[James1215]

No, you cannot put it any more simply than that. The claim you made though is still false. The proposition “experience is required for knowledge” does not entail a method of testing.

The formulation of the proposition as a hypothesis means that if one wants to comment on its truth, one is required to consult evidence for or against it. As such, it cannot be said to be contradictory or dogmatic until after this process is undertaken. Consulting evidence is what I meant by a method of testing being entailed. Are you with me?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The formulation of the proposition as a hypothesis

The proposition “experience is required for knowledge” is not formulated as a hypothesis. Nothing in those 5 words is anything but dogmatic. Not that it matters because the proposition results in a well known logical contradiction, as the historical facts, the experts and the demonstrations all point out. You can keep pretending that this conversation about dogma and hypothesis matters as long as you wish, but it does not change the fact that the proposition results in a logical contradiction.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The formulation of the proposition as a hypothesis means that if one wants to comment on its truth, one is required to consult evidence for or against it. As such, it cannot be said to be contradictory or dogmatic until after this process is undertaken. Consulting evidence is what I meant by a method of testing being entailed. Are you with me?

The proposition “experience is required for knowledge” is not a hypothesis. It is clearly a dogmatic statement, and no amount of ignoring refutation, or repitition is going to change that.

dog·mat·ic
/dôgˈmatik/
Adjective: Inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true

See the words “is required”? It doesn’t say “maybe”, it doesn’t say “might”, it says “is required”, as though it is incontrovertibly true.

hy·poth·e·sis**
**
Noun/hīˈpäTHəsis/

1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Obviously, as you can see, evidence precedes being called a hypothesis, you must have some evidence first. As I have pointed out, not only do you not have evidence of this proposition, no evidence is possible. There is no way to make the leap from propositions like “water oxidizes iron” to “therefore knowledge is required for experience”.

 

[James1215]

The proposition “experience is required for knowledge” is not a hypothesis. It is clearly a dogmatic statement, and no amount of ignoring refutation, or repitition is going to change that.See the words “is required”? It doesn’t say “maybe”, it doesn’t say “might”, it says “is required”, as though it is incontrovertibly true.

Obviously, as you can see, evidence precedes being called a hypothesis, you must have some evidence first. As I have pointed out, not only do you not have evidence of this proposition, no evidence is possible. There is no way to make the leap from propositions like “water oxidizes iron” to “therefore knowledge is required for experience”.

All interesting stuff, all wrong.

The hypothesis does not claim certainty or incontrovertible truth. It is subjected to the test of evidence, and found to be probable. This is obvious surely! If it claimed to be incontrovertibly true, it would not be a hypothesis! I have given preliminary evidence which suggests the hypothesis, and you have not considered it.

How exactly is no evidence possible? What do you understand ‘evidence’ to mean? I think you are confused with inductive reasoning again - inductive reasoning cannot provide for certainty, but all empiricism requires is probability, ie, reason to believe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The hypothesis does not claim certainty or incontrovertible truth.

The proposition you assert certainly does. See the words “is required”?

It is subjected to the test of evidence, and found to be probable

Where? I see no evidence.

This is obvious surely! If it claimed to be incontrovertibly true, it would not be a hypothesis!

That is why it is not a genuine hypothesis, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

I have given preliminary evidence which suggests the hypothesis, and you have not considered it.

I considered it and pointed out that what you are calling evidence is not.

How exactly is no evidence possible?

The same way I have described many times. There is no way to make the leap from “I observe that water oxidizes iron” to “therefore experience is required for knowledge.”

What do you understand ‘evidence’ to mean?

In this case it would have to be empirical experience. Otherwise it would refute itself by showing that empirical experience is not required for knowledge.

I think you are confused with inductive reasoning again - inductive reasoning cannot provide for certainty, but all empiricism requires is probability, ie, reason to believe.

I wasn’t confused the first time I pointed out that you cannot induct your way into the conclusion that “experience is required for knowledge” It will forever be vulnerable to a counter example. Many of which we have provided. Mathematics, logic and *Dubito
*

 

[James1215]

The proposition you assert certainly does. See the words “is required”?
Where? I see no evidence. That is why it is not a genuine hypothesis, as I have repeatedly pointed out. … It will forever be vulnerable to a counter example. Many of which we have provided. Mathematics, logic and *Dubito
*

Let’s cut to the chase. By submitting maths and dubito as evidence to the contrary (and therefore by treating the proposition as a hypothesis), have you accepted the proposition to be a hypothesis?

Also, hypothesising that something is required is different from claiming incontrovertibly that something is required, so your focus on those two words is misplaced.

 

[James1215]

.I wasn’t confused the first time I pointed out that you cannot induct your way into the conclusion that “experience is required for knowledge”

If the hypothesis of empiricism is accepted to be a hypothesis, there is no problem of induction. Induction still provides reason to believe a proposition is true, as long as one accepts that the ‘conclusion’ is never certain. If any of the fruits of science is regarded as knowledge, a well-evidenced hypothesis of empiricism should be treated similarly. Hence, as knowledge empirically gained, it would satisfy its own criteria for knowledge, and not be self-contradictory.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Let’s cut to the chase. By submitting maths and dubito as evidence to the contrary (and therefore by treating the proposition as a hypothesis), have you accepted the proposition to be a hypothesis?

Evidence to the contrary is not the affirmative evidence required to form a hypothesis. You don’t even have the limited evidence needed to form a hypothesis. You have made a dogmatic statement and wish us to treat it as it’s opposite. Feel free to use any synonym you like, it will not change the facts. Not that this matters at all, because it is always going to be a proposition that forms a well known logical contradiction.

Also, hypothesising that something is required is different from claiming incontrovertibly that something is required, so your focus on those two words is misplaced.

You are not hypothesizing, you are making a dogmatic claim. Specifically that “experience is required for knowledge.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If the hypothesis of empiricism is accepted to be a hypothesis, there is no problem of induction.

The problem of induction applies whether you treat the proposition as a hypothesis or not. The proposition will forever be subject to a counterexample such as we have provided in mathematics, logic, and Dubito.

Induction still provides reason to believe a proposition is true, as long as one accepts that the ‘conclusion’ is never certain.

You even admit here that you can never know if “experience is required for knowledge”. Your proposition asserts “is required”. Not “usually” or “sometimes”, but “is required”. Every single time. Even if you had evidence, no amount of it would support the asserted proposition because you would literally have to verify the proposition for every single instance.

If any of the fruits of science is regarded as knowledge, a well-evidenced hypothesis of empiricism should be treated similarly.

You still have no evidence. Nor is there any reason to treat two unrelated subjects as the same.

Hence, as knowledge empirically gained, it would satisfy its own criteria for knowledge, and not be self-contradictory.

Your proposition is “experience is required for knowledge” not “we can sometimes gain knowledge through observation”

 

[James1215]

You even admit here that you can never know if “experience is required for knowledge”. Your proposition asserts “is required”. Not “usually” or “sometimes”, but “is required”. Every single time. Even if you had evidence, no amount of it would support the asserted proposition because you would literally have to verify the proposition for every single instance.

Inductive reasoning would not provide for the proposition that ‘we are certain that all knowledge is based on experience’, just as it cannot tell us with certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. It does provide for this, however: ‘we have reason to believe that all knowledge is based on experience’. If you think that we have reason to believe in the well-evidenced hypotheses of science, we also have reason to believe in this proposition as an empirical hypothesis and prediction of the requisites for all future instances of knowledge. As such, the proposition not only requires but also receives empirical support, which makes it non-contradictory and non-dogmatic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…‘we are certain that all knowledge is based on experience’,…

How do these two propositions differ?

1. “Experience is required for knowledge”.
2. ‘we are certain that all knowledge is based on experience’

 

[James1215]

How do these two propositions differ?

1. “Experience is required for knowledge”.
2. ‘we are certain that all knowledge is based on experience’

There is a slight difference. I have got rid of the problematic ‘is required’ but left the meaning intact. What is left unspoken is whether there is certainty or not in the assertion of the former; but do scientists always indicate that their hypotheses are only provisional? Sometimes it is left unstated, as here, because it has been said so much before.

The key distinction is this:

1. We are certain that all knowledge is based on experience
2. We have reason to believe that all knowledge is based on experience, but we are not certain.

Come, now!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is a slight difference. I have got rid of the problematic ‘is required’ but left the meaning intact…

They are the exact same thing. A proposition is not just a sentence, but it is the content and meaning. A proposition written in different languages, or in a different way are still the same if there meaning is the same. In this case the propositions mean the same thing. You have just admitted that your proposition fails. Not that everyone didn’t know that 50 years ago.