Epistemology 101

[R_Daneel]

Very basic stuff. How do we gain knowledge in general? About “something”? We have to make distinction based upon what that “something” might be. There are 3 basic areas according to atheists and 4 basic areas according to theists.

1. Knowledge, or information about actual, physical reality.

• The first step is to set up some basic principles. These are not part of the actual process. These are not subject to verification. Historically speaking they were not the “actual” first step. We arrived at them after countless observations, after applying the second-sixth steps innumerable times.
• The second step is observation.
• The third step is hypothesis forming about the observed event. This step involves intuition.
• The fourth step is making prediction based upon the hypothesis.
• The fifth step is verifying the result of the prediction. It also involves observation.
• The sixth step is either accepting the hypothesis (tentatively) if the verification process did not contradict the hypothesis. Or, if the verification process did indeed contradict the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is either modified or discarded. Even if the verification does not contradict the hypothesis, one must always be aware of the possibility that another instance might. Thus, the hypothesis is always subject to modification, if there is a need for it. But that modification is always the result of some verification process, not the result of empty speculation.

1. Knowledge or information about abstract concepts. This is the field of abstract or exact sciences. These include mathematics, geometry and logic. They also include totally “imaginary” systems, which have no equivalent in the physical reality. The basic axioms (or rules) can be totally arbitrary, like in the game of chess.

• The first step is to set up some basic axioms (or postulates). These are not part of the actual process. These are not subject to verification. They are selected because they are self-evident. Or they may have been selected for any reason at all (like in games).
• The second step is to set up theorems, and attempt to prove them. The process of “proving” is to reduce the theorem to the axioms. If a theorem was successfully reduced to the axioms, then the theorem is proven.
• As long as we have a set of axioms which are internally consistent, we have an abstract system.

1. Knowledge or information about events which happened in the past. This is a completely different territory. The direct observation is impossible. The direct verification is impossible. There are no axioms to use there.

• So how do we gain knowledge about the past? How can we be certain that our “picture” of those past events is “accurate” so some degree? If the event left behind some observable physical clues, then the method is simple. There is only one method, looking at the physical evidence left behind. A volcanic eruption leaves physical clues behind. Those can be explained and analyzed.
• However, most events do not leave behind any observable evidence. In this case we must rely on testimonial evidence, if there is any. If there is no physical evidence and if there are no testimonials left behind; then there is no way to gather knowledge (information) about the events.
• Now, how to evaluate the testimonials left behind? Historians gather as many testimonials of the event as possible. They scrutinize the testimonies for internal consistency. Do some of the testimonials contradict each other? If so, which version has more corroborating evidence? They collect all the available writings of the authors, if they are known. They scrutinize all the available works of the authors to assign some level of credibility. In other words, they collect all the available physical evidence, evaluate them, and assign a level of confidence. The best is if there are different testimonials who describe the same event from a different background, especially if the authors have a different “agenda”. The level of confidence will always be lower than the level of confidence assigned to the theories of physical reality. As long as there is no time-travel there is no way to way to increase the level of confidence. If time travel would be possible (very unlikely) then the whole question would be moot. We just could go back in time, and directly observe the events in the past.

This is where the atheists stop. Theists go one step further.

1. Knowledge of information about the alleged supernatural. This is your territory. I have no epistemological methods, except the ones described above. If you wish to offer one, please do so. The requirement is simple. It should be an objective method, which can be executed by anyone, and which will allow a skeptic to reach the same conclusion as a believer. It cannot demand the a-priori acceptance of anything, except some offered axioms - if the method offered is axiomatically founded. Maybe it is, maybe not. I would not know until you actually offer it. If your offered method employs any or all of the methods described above, then I expect to use them as they are, or give reasons why you wish to deviate from those methods. If you wish to criticize the methods above, feel free to do so.

• ?

 

[saveusfromhell]

R Daneel I guessing your trying to prove to us that God does not exist rather than the hope that we can prove to you that God does exist, this is a pointless exercise as the chances of you even converting 1 of us to your belief is remote.
I recently visited the atheist Ireland forum and found it a collection of people who totally misunderstand our beliefs, and their best arguments for there being no God is that they don’t need to prove there is no God and our church is just a collection of paedophiles.
Another disturbing thing I found on it is how to go in to a catholic church receive Holy Communion take it home and desecrate it. Atheists do not have to believe in our faith but common decency dictates they have to respect our beliefs when in our churches.
The fact that Jesus existed came in to city of Jerusalem on psalm Sunday, before the Passover and was welcomed by hordes of people, and then subsequently crucified on good Friday for claiming to be the son of God can be verified in the records kept by the Jewish people at the time (If you need verification of this I will have to do some research of this to find it again)
Nowadays we would classify this belief in a religion as extreme fundamentalism. For these people then subsequently abandon their faith en masse and join a new religion what would have had to have changed for them in the space of weeks.
the curtain in the sacred tempel torn in half when he died
an eclipse of the sun as he died
Witness claiming to have seen the man that was scourged humiliated crowned with thorns alive again
His apostles being able to talk to many people at the same time and everyone hearing them in their own tongue
These friends of his who denied him and ran away now having a complete change of heart and be willing to be crucified themselves, but not feeling worthy to be crucified the same as him asked to be crucified upside down.

i doubt this will satistfy you but neither does the arguments for no God satisfy me

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel I guessing your trying to prove to us that God does not exist rather than the hope that we can prove to you that God does exist, this is a pointless exercise as the chances of you even converting 1 of us to your belief is remote.
I recently visited the atheist Ireland forum and found it a collection of people who totally misunderstand our beliefs, and their best arguments for there being no God is that they don’t need to prove there is no God and our church is just a collection of paedophiles.
Another disturbing thing I found on it is how to go in to a catholic church receive Holy Communion take it home and desecrate it. Atheists do not have to believe in our faith but common decency dictates they have to respect our beliefs when in our churches.
The fact that Jesus existed came in to city of Jerusalem on psalm Sunday, before the Passover and was welcomed by hordes of people, and then subsequently crucified on good Friday for claiming to be the son of God can be verified in the records kept by the Jewish people at the time (If you need verification of this I will have to do some research of this to find it again)
Nowadays we would classify this belief in a religion as extreme fundamentalism. For these people then subsequently abandon their faith en masse and join a new religion what would have had to have changed for them in the space of weeks.
the curtain in the sacred tempel torn in half when he died
an eclipse of the sun as he died
Witness claiming to have seen the man that was scourged humiliated crowned with thorns alive again
His apostles being able to talk to many people at the same time and everyone hearing them in their own tongue
These friends of his who denied him and ran away now having a complete change of heart and be willing to be crucified themselves, but not feeling worthy to be crucified the same as him asked to be crucified upside down.

i doubt this will satistfy you but neither does the arguments for no God satisfy me

You are mistaken. This thread is about epistemology, not about God.

 

[davidv]

Why did you focus on this particular subset of the topic?

The definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seem more broad.

Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits?

It also seems like you have focused on the subjects of epistemology rather the methods of study. Why is that?

 

[R_Daneel]

It also seems like you have focused on the subjects of epistemology rather the methods of study. Why is that?

I am confused. The question I posted is **precisely **about that topic: “What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits?” I just broke it down to the different parts of metaphysical existence: “physical existence, conceptual (abstract) existence and the past”. Different type of existence (though the past does not exist, but it has existed). I also added the assumed, fourth type of existence, the supernatural.

To paraphrase the 3 parts of philosophy:

1. Metaphysics: “What exists?”
2. Epistemology: “How do we know it?”
3. Ethics: “So how should we behave?”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. Knowledge of information about the alleged supernatural.

there shouldnt be a 4) here.

the technical term ‘supernatural’ simply means non-physical, and is in the purview of the logical system ‘Metaphysics’.

 

[tonyrey]

Very basic stuff. How do we gain knowledge in general? About “something”? We have to make distinction based upon what that “something” might be. There are 3 basic areas according to atheists and 4 basic areas according to theists.

1. Knowledge, or information about actual, physical reality.
2. Knowledge or information about abstract concepts
3. Knowledge or information about events which happened in the past.
   This is where the atheists stop. Theists go one step further.
4. Knowledge of information about the alleged supernatural]

Your analysis is flawed right from the outset because it is based on a false assumption. Our primary source of knowledge is not **inferred **“knowledge, or information about actual, physical reality” but direct, certain knowledge of our thoughts, intuitions, feelings, perceptions, choices and decisions. This is the basis of all our knowledge - of God, our minds and physical reality.

 

[R_Daneel]

there shouldnt be a 4) here.

the technical term ‘supernatural’ simply means non-physical, and is in the purview of the logical system ‘Metaphysics’.

Concepts, abstractions are all inert. “H + H + O” does not combine into water. The alleged supernatural is allegedly active. If you would say that God is simply a concept, I would agree. But you say something quite different. Therefore it does need a separate category.

 

[R_Daneel]

Your analysis is flawed right from the outset because it is based on a false assumption. Our primary source of knowledge is not **inferred **“knowledge, or information about actual, physical reality” but direct, certain knowledge of our thoughts, intuitions, feelings, perceptions, choices and decisions. This is the basis of all our knowledge - of God, our minds and physical reality.

Partially it is true. We directly experience some part of our brain functions, our thoughts. The part which resides in the “little grey cells”. However, most of our thought processes are inaccessible to us. That puts the analysis firmly into category 1), the physical reality.

To illustrate, everyone has certain preferences, say, in food. Some might like steaks, others prefer sweets. But no one can tell: why? When selecting a partner, everyone has preferences, some prefers tall blonds, others prefer short brown ones. And no can tell: why?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Concepts, abstractions are all inert. “H + H + O” does not combine into water. The alleged supernatural is allegedly active. If you would say that God is simply a concept, I would agree. But you say something quite different. Therefore it does need a separate category.

supernatural does not mean “concept” or “abstractions”, it simply means non-physical. they arent the same thing.

are you suggesting that there is only the natural and everything else is a concept or an abstraction? id so, then what would be the basis for such an assertion?

 

[R_Daneel]

supernatural does not mean “concept” or “abstractions”, it simply means non-physical. they arent the same thing.

That is why I gave you the opportunity to use a separate category. Why not just do an actual post?

are you suggesting that there is only the natural and everything else is a concept or an abstraction? id so, then what would be the basis for such an assertion?

I explictly gave you the opportunity to elaborate on the subject. My thoughts are not important here. Especially since your old “tactics” is to posit a question instead of answering one. Usual tactics to derail a thread. Will not work here. Either present your argument about the method to gain knowledge about the supernatural, or STFU.

 

[tonyrey]

Your analysis is flawed right from the outset because it is based on a false assumption. Our primary source of knowledge is not inferred “knowledge, or information about actual, physical reality” but direct, certain knowledge of our thoughts, intuitions, feelings, perceptions, choices and decisions. This is the basis of all our knowledge - of God, our minds and physical reality.

You overlook the fact that we cannot get outside our minds. We are all in the egocentric predicament. We** infer **that the brain exists from our perceptions but **the primary reality **is still our intangible mind. Our mind is the conscious interpreter, not the grey matter inside our skull which is a biocomputer unaware that it exists. How could a physical organ grasp abstract concepts and intangible principles?
You gloss over problems which have defeated the greatest intellects in history.

However, most of our thought processes are inaccessible to us. That puts the analysis firmly into category 1), the physical reality.

If most of our thought processes are inaccessible how do we know they exist? And even if they exist how does that prove they exist in the brain? You are equating thoughts with electrical impulses - an assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

To illustrate, everyone has certain preferences, say, in food. Some might like steaks, others prefer sweets. But no one can tell: why? When selecting a partner, everyone has preferences, some prefers tall blonds, others prefer short brown ones. And no can tell: why?

What on earth does this have to do with intellectual activity? Are you assuming that all our thoughts are determined by what happens in the brain? If so please provide evidence for that hypothesis. If your thoughts and conclusions are determined by events beyond your control what guarantee have you that they are reliable?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is why I gave you the opportunity to use a separate category. Why not just do an actual post?

there are only 2 categories. physical and non-physical. what we refer to metaphysically as natural and supernatural. but thats the metaphysical opinion.

unless youve set up your categories to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, shouldnt we first decide whether the categories you have set up, are valid?

they dont seem to be to me. it seems as though you might be trying to create a set of standards fitting an empirical viewpoint, but without actually using the word empirical.

which is why i asked

**are you suggesting that there is only the natural and everything else is a concept or an abstraction? id so, then what would be the basis for such an assertion? **

Either present your argument about the method to gain knowledge about the supernatural,

 

[R_Daneel]

You overlook the fact that we cannot get outside our minds. We are all in the egocentric predicament. We** infer **that the brain exists from our perceptions but **the primary reality **is still our intangible mind.

The existence of our brain is simply verified by performing an autopsy, or a brain surgery.

Our mind is the conscious interpreter, not the grey matter inside our skull which is a biocomputer unaware that it exists. How could a physical organ grasp abstract concepts and intangible principles?

How can a bunch of inanimate transistors create the solution to an incredibly complex problem, which is impossible to solve even by the most sophisticated minds of the greatest geniuses? How can they defeat the world champion of chess?

You gloss over problems which have defeated the greatest intellects in history. If most of our thought processes are inaccessible how do we know they exist?

A very elegant experiment, performed many times. A chess player’s eyes were monitored by an infrared beam, and his eye movemements were projected to the board and the pieces on the board. As he contemplated his moves, the eye-movements indicated which moves and what ramifications of those moves he was checking. The eye-movements narrowed down as he contemplated the ramifications of a specific move. Then they expanded when he started on new, possible move. Right before the “eureka” moment happened, when he found “the” best move, there was an incredibly fast set of eye movements, when his brain processed the best choice. He was completely unaware of all this. All of a sudden, the best solution just “emerged” from his sub-conscious. And it was always preceded by those narrow-path, rapid eye movements.

Maybe you wish to say that it was just a huge coincidence, and that correlation does not equal causation. I heard such things before. But the explanation is simple. There is no causative relationship between the eye movements and the “eureka” moment. They are both caused by the sub-conscious activity of the brain. And if you doubt that the brain has anything to do with thinking, then you are no better off than the ancient Greeks who thought that the only function of the brain is to cool the blood.

And even if they exist how does that prove they exist in the brain? You are equating thoughts with electrical impulses - an assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

No evidence whatsoever? You are being funny, I hope. Specific sections of the brain can be stimulated by electrodes, and there are reactions to that stimulus in the form of feelings, and thoughts. You sure have some weird concept of evidence. You consider the nonsensical, superstitious rambling of uneducated goat-herders as evidence to some incredible miracles, but discard the controlled experiments performed in labs. Are you for real?

What on earth does this have to do with intellectual activity? Are you assuming that all our thoughts are determined by what happens in the brain? If so please provide evidence for that hypothesis. If your thoughts and conclusions are determined by events beyond your control what guarantee have you that they are reliable?

Ever heard of the proof of the pudding?

And, as usual, you do not address the topic of the thread, rather attempt to derail it. So much for your intellectual honesty.

 

[R_Daneel]

i thought it was obvious. we call the method, Metaphysics. its about the oldest school of philosophy there is .

Well, maybe you think that metaphysics is a method of epistemology, but that only proves that you are confused - as usual. Obviously you cannot differentiate between metaphysics and epistemology… How ridiculous! Really, if, as you claim you have some kind of a degree from a school, you should go back and sue them for gross negligience. You might collect a lot of money.

 

[tonyrey]

The existence of our brain is simply verified by performing an autopsy, or a brain surgery.

But you have forgotten that the verification exists in your mind! Remember that you cannot get out of your mind… Your poor brain doesn’t even know what is happening… I’m afraid you’re trapped!

How can a bunch of inanimate transistors create the solution to an incredibly complex problem, which is impossible to solve even by the most sophisticated minds of the greatest geniuses? How can they defeat the world champion of chess?

Because minds have invented them!

A very elegant experiment, performed many times. A chess player’s eyes were monitored by an infrared beam, and his eye movements were projected to the board and the pieces on the board. As he contemplated his moves, the eye-movements indicated which moves and what ramifications of those moves he was checking. The eye-movements narrowed down as he contemplated the ramifications of a specific move. Then they expanded when he started on new, possible move. Right before the “eureka” moment happened, when he found “the” best move, there was an incredibly fast set of eye movements, when his brain processed the best choice. He was completely unaware of all this. All of a sudden, the best solution just “emerged” from his sub-conscious. And it was always preceded by those narrow-path, rapid eye movements.

You are making the facile assumption that the subconscious mind is just a collection of electrical impulses…

Maybe you wish to say that it was just a huge coincidence, and that correlation does not equal causation. I heard such things before. But the explanation is simple. There is no causative relationship between the eye movements and the “eureka” moment. They are both caused by the sub-conscious activity of the brain. And if you doubt that the brain has anything to do with thinking, then you are no better off than the ancient Greeks who thought that the only function of the brain is to cool the blood.

Let me repeat that there is no reason to equate sub-conscious activity with brain activity. Bad luck!

No evidence whatsoever? You are being funny, I hope. Specific sections of the brain can be stimulated by electrodes, and there are reactions to that stimulus in the form of feelings, and thoughts. You sure have some weird concept of evidence. You consider the nonsensical, superstitious rambling of uneducated goat-herders as evidence to some incredible miracles, but discard the controlled experiments performed in labs. Are you for real?

Are you a bunch of atoms?! The power that you attribute to inanimate, purposeless particles is infinitely more nonsensical and superstitious than the teaching of Christ which has survived two thousand years and will outlast the conclusions of your limited intelligence.

And, as usual, you do not address the topic of the thread, rather attempt to derail it. So much for your intellectual honesty.

But according to you there is no such thing as intellectual honesty: there are only bunches of atoms rearranging other bunches of atoms!

 

[R_Daneel]

You are making the facile assumption that the subconscious mind is just a collection of electrical impulses…
Let me repeat that there is no reason to equate sub-conscious activity with brain activity. Bad luck!

The brain activity is composed of the conscious and the subconscious. You said that we can “know” our thoughts. The existence of the sub-conscious refutes that silly idea.

The electro-chemical activity of the brain is verified by innumerable experiments. If the electro-chemical activity of the brain is disturbed (for example by drugs) that proves that the thoughts are the activity of the brain.

Are you adamant on disrupting the thread? Or can you make a meaningful contribution?

 

[tonyrey]

The brain activity is composed of the conscious and the subconscious.

Really? How did you obtain your information about the brain? By using your brain?!

You said that we can “know” our thoughts.

So you don’t know what you’re thinking? Alas!

The existence of the sub-conscious refutes that silly idea.

I’m glad you’re satisfied with **your **solution - which fits nicely with your preconceived notion that everything is derived from dust.

The electro-chemical activity of the brain is verified by innumerable experiments. If the electro-chemical activity of the brain is disturbed (for example by drugs) that proves that the thoughts are the activity of the brain.

A mathematical or logical proof? Or a new type of proof you have invented? Could it be that the brain is not the origin of thoughts but the instrument used to communicate them? After all, it is only a biomachine…
But then you do regard everything as bunches of atoms, don’t you?

Are you adamant on disrupting the thread? Or can you make a meaningful contribution?

Don’t forget that the topic is “How do we gain knowledge in general?” There can be no knowledge if everything is meaningless and according to you everything is meaningless because we are only bunches of atoms… Unfortunately you can’t get more than you start with - and you can’t base epistemology on physics or chemistry - unless you’re a magician…

 

[R_Daneel]

Really? How did you obtain your information about the brain? By using your brain?!

Of course.

So you don’t know what you’re thinking? Alas!

Only some of it, the conscious part. Not only I explained it to you, I even provided the mechanism how that concept can be substantiated. As if I was talking into a wall without ears and understanding.

Could it be that the brain is not the origin of thoughts but the instrument used to communicate them?

Any evidence? Beyond the musing of ignorant, superstitious, uneducated goat-herders?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, maybe you think that metaphysics is a method of epistemology, but that only proves that you are confused - as usual.

the question was.

the method to gain knowledge about the supernatural,

metaphysics is the answer.

Obviously you cannot differentiate between metaphysics and epistemology.

let me see, one is the study of knowledge the other of being? check

How ridiculous! Really, if, as you claim you have some kind of a degree from a school, you should go back and sue them for gross negligience. You might collect a lot of money.

ill let them know, with your inestimable opinion, they are sure to settle right away!

i noticed you still havent answered teh question though

**are you suggesting that there is only the natural and everything else is a concept or an abstraction? if so, then what would be the basis for such an assertion? **