Epistemology 101

[guanophore]

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.

I don’t think his approach is flawed. It may be insufficient, but there is much more about what we know of God than “our minds and physical reality”. If that were all, then there would be no knowledge from the direct revelation by God of Himself to humanity. We apprehend His revelation through our mind and senses, but His revelation of Himself is not limited to that.

I just watched “The Ten Commandments” last night. Moses encountered God in the burning bush on the mountain of Sinai. It appeared to burn, yet the bush was not consumed. This seems like an outright contradiction to physical reality and to what makes sense to the mind.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Why? Why are not those parts of our thought processes that are not in physical reality counted as a source of analysis?

Take dreams, for example. Why should they not be considered epistomological?

 

[guanophore]

Of course.

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

Why should their experiences be discounted?

How is their way of knowing what exists less valid than yours?

 

[R_Daneel]

the application of logic. formal and modal being the most popular right now.

Well, that is a start, for sure. First, a remark: since logic is separate from metaphysics, you now contradict your previous assertion that you use metaphysics as the tool obtain knowledge.

You use logic as your tool. Which is fine, logic is an excellent and indispensable tool. However, logic is only good if the premises of the logical syllogisms are true. Using your logical chain, you will find a “first” premise - which cannot be proven using logic only. The existence of this “first” premise is certain, if you wish to avoid infinite descent.

How do you ascertain the validity of this “first” or basic premise? Logic does not help there.

 

[R_Daneel]

It’s kind of like: How do I know the various postulates of geometry are true?

Bad question. The postulates of geometry are arbitrary. They do not refer to anything. They are true by definition. One can say that they are useful and they are without internal contradiction. Also consider the famous 5th postulate. The question: “is it true” is a nonsensical question. We can substitute it by two other, different postulates and we shall get two more geometries. Which one is “true”? All of them.

Try to ask if the movements of the chess pieces are “true” or “false”? Nonsensical question, isn’t it? The rules of chess are what they are. They are arbitrary, and they can change. As a matter of fact, they have been changed several times.

The question: “is proposition P true or false?” cannot be answered for all propositions. Somethimes even the question itself is nonsensical.

 

[Image_of_God]

Bad question. The postulates of geometry are arbitrary. They do not refer to anything. They are true by definition. One can say that they are useful and they are without internal contradiction. Also consider the famous 5th postulate. The question: “is it true” is a nonsensical question. We can substitute it by two other, different postulates and we shall get two more geometries. Which one is “true”? All of them.

That’s only part of the right reply. But according to this website, which I find no reason to question it says this about postulates:

Postulates are statements that are assumed to be true without proof. Postulates serve two purposes - to explain undefined terms, and to serve as a starting point for proving other statements.

library.thinkquest.org/2647/geometry/intro/p&t.htm

The bolded is my rebuttal.

Try to ask if the movements of the chess pieces are “true” or “false”? Nonsensical question, isn’t it? The rules of chess are what they are. They are arbitrary, and they can change. As a matter of fact, they have been changed several times.

The question: “is proposition P true or false?” cannot be answered for all propositions. Somethimes even the question itself is nonsensical.

This is not necessarily true. Take one of Euclid’s postulates for example.

C) A circle can be drawn with a center and any radius.

The aforesaid is not a simple definition. It is either true or false. And I find reasonably that it is assumed to be true.

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s only part of the right reply. But according to this website, which I find no reason to question it says this about postulates:

library.thinkquest.org/2647/geometry/intro/p&t.htm

The bolded is my rebuttal.

It is a good definition. It fits to many postulates. But does not fit to all of them. If you consider the fifth postulate, it was substituted by two other ones, and new vistas of geometry opened up. The only requirement for any axiomatic system to be “true” (true in the trivial sense) that its axioms should not contain an internal contradiction.

This is not necessarily true. Take one of Euclid’s postulates for example.

C) A circle can be drawn with a center and any radius.

The aforesaid is not a simple definition. It is either true or false. And I find reasonably that it is assumed to be true.

But it is a definition. It is the definition of a circle: the collection of all the points, which are at the same distance from the center of the circle.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is a very good question to ask and one that I’m also trying to retrieve an answer for, including a number of R Daneel’s other assertions (or rather, assumptions) which cannot be verified.

It’s kind of like: How do I know the various postulates of geometry are true? And the answer is that I don’t…that is unless I’m talking of intuitive knowledge, but that resembles a kind of faith.

and they found out that the euclidian postulates werent, when they thought to apply them to the surface of a sphere, hence the birth of non-euclidian geometry.

in my opinion he is simply trying to set an empirical standard without saying the word, because it has finally become apparent that empiricism is self refuting, and therefore false.which blows a huge hole in any atheism based on it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, that is a start, for sure. First, a remark: since logic is separate from metaphysics, you now contradict your previous assertion that you use metaphysics as the tool obtain knowledge.

its no different than saying mathematics is a tool to gain knowledge, it too uses logic

from this we might derive that most of what is known is by logic.

You use logic as your tool. Which is fine, logic is an excellent and indispensable tool. However, logic is only good if the premises of the logical syllogisms are true. Using your logical chain, you will find a “first” premise - which cannot be proven using logic only. The existence of this “first” premise is certain, if you wish to avoid infinite descent.

being qua being

How do you ascertain the validity of this “first” or basic premise? Logic does not help there.

cogito ergo sum

 

[R_Daneel]

its no different than saying mathematics is a tool to gain knowledge, it too uses logic

Mathematics gains knowledge only about mathematics.

from this we might derive that most of what is known is by logic.

Go ahead. Do it. Do you mean you only use logic? Nothing else? Because if you do, you include that into your epistemological “toolbox”.

being qua being

Whatever that means. But, let’s see how do you get there… using only logic and nothing else.

cogito ergo sum

That will get you to your own existence. No doubt about that. How do you plan to go any further?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think his approach is flawed. It may be insufficient, but there is much more about what we know of God than “our minds and physical reality”.

You don’t realise that he regards our knowledge of physical reality as more certain and more reliable than our knowledge of our own thoughts, intuitions, feelings, perceptions and choices and decisions. He also believes we have no knowledge of God whatsoever…

If that were all, then there would be no knowledge from the direct revelation by God of Himself to humanity. We apprehend His revelation through our mind and senses, but His revelation of Himself is not limited to that.

I have stated nothing to the contrary. On a philosophy forum the first task is to dismantle his physicalist assumptions.

I just watched “The Ten Commandments” last night. Moses encountered God in the burning bush on the mountain of Sinai. It appeared to burn, yet the bush was not consumed. This seems like an outright contradiction to physical reality and to what makes sense to the mind.

On other posts I have defended the evidence for miracles…

 

[tonyrey]

Goodbye.

And also a good number of unanswered questions…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Mathematics gains knowledge only about mathematics.

and it uses various schools of logic to do so.

Go ahead. Do it.

go ahead and do what?

Do you mean you only use logic? Nothing else? Because if you do, you include that into your epistemological “toolbox”.

what else would you suggest?

Whatever that means. But, let’s see how do you get there… using only logic and nothing else.

i will do it any way i please, thank you.

That will get you to your own existence. No doubt about that. How do you plan to go any further?

if cogito ergo sum, then, being qua being.

now, if you want me to answer any more questions, then please answer this one from a while back.

**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? **

 

[HelenaMT]

… 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.

[/INDENT]

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.

• ?

I am confused by your including the knowledge of the supernatural as it’s own category. Believers always seem to use parts of the other categories when reaching their conclusions about what you term supernatural. When people observe or have experiences of their own that they interpret as coming from God, or some other non-physical form of intelligence, they are using part of method 1 (second step-observation). If they have repeated experiences that are somewhat similar to the first, they might then be using #s 3, 4 and 5(forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, verifying it’s result). They may or may not reach #6, verification of the hypothesis. That may depend on how much they desire to validate their hypothesis, since we all tend to pick and choose evidence that fits what we like to believe.

Using prayer as one example, someone might pray and get a desired result. So they keep praying and several more times, they get what they needed. They hypothesize that God is listening to their prayers and responding. They keep it up, and more evidence that they see as valid points to the initial hypothesis. They may or not be totally convinced that there is a God, but they have not used some new “supernatural” verification process to get there, just the normal methods people use to make observations.

Scientists that form hypotheses about other universes, or any other phenomena that there is no way to truly verify are not doing anything that different from people hypothesizing a god, or some other disembodied intelligence, when they have experiences that lead them there. Now, they may or not all be nuts, but they haven’t used or claimed to have used some special form of knowledge-gathering.

Many believers also use method 3 when referring to the Bible, or other historical events concerning saints or other religious figures. Often they are using the same methodology to reach their conclusions as those who reach very different conclusions. It’s simply a difference in how information is interpreted rather than a reliance on some mysterious method.

I can’t speak to method 2 because I have zero knowledge on the technicalities of the subject but it seems as though believers and non-believers both claim to be able to obtain some knowledge of God or His non- existence through their use. So, again, introducing method 4 seems irrelevant.

There is no way to definitively prove the existence of something we cannot see with our eyes or any current instruments. Creating an objective test for something that presumably has an intelligence and therefore may or may not participate in the particular test is also problematic. What it seems, though, is that people use inference to get to God and other non-physical sorts of intelligence. Perhaps looking at what sorts of things they use for the inference is what is truly relevant.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Significantly, bricks are material objects and so are gas chambers and hospitals, all of which are designed and created by rational beings. You haven’t yet succeeded in explaining the immense leap from matter to mind…

There has been a lot of research in this area, you would be surprised how much we understand. You should look into it. Funnily enough, none of the research hypothesizes that an invisible man in the sky is required for conscious minds…

 

[Image_of_God]

It is a good definition. It fits to many postulates. But does not fit to all of them. If you consider the fifth postulate, it was substituted by two other ones, and new vistas of geometry opened up. The only requirement for any axiomatic system to be “true” (true in the trivial sense) that its axioms should not contain an internal contradiction.

The point, however being that it is does fit some of them. And those ones are the fundamentals of geometry. The definition vindicates what I have said.

But it is a definition. It is the definition of a circle: the collection of all the points, which are at the same distance from the center of the circle.

I have admitted that it is a definition, but it is also true or false. Either a circle is “the collection of all points, which are at the same distance from the center of the circle” or it is not.

 

[tonyrey]

There has been a lot of research in this area, you would be surprised how much we understand. You should look into it.

Vague statements prove nothing. Let’s have some concrete facts…

Funnily enough, none of the research hypothesizes that an invisible man in the sky is required for conscious minds…

Funnily enough, none of research hypothesizes the reality of persons, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty or love - which you are obviously prepared to discard in favour of purposeless particles… Your blind faith in science won’t do you any good when it comes to solving your personal problems…

 

[tonyrey]

What it seems, though, is that people use inference to get to God and other non-physical sorts of intelligence.

We also use inference to get to other persons - and physical objects. There is no reason whatsoever to believe physical objects have a privileged existential status.

Perhaps looking at what sorts of things they use for the inference is what is truly relevant.

It makes more sense to rank persons higher than things in our interpretation of reality, considering that without personal activity inference would not exist nor would any of the most significant and valuable elements of reality.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Funnily enough, none of research hypothesizes the reality of persons, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty or love - which you are obviously prepared to discard in favour of purposeless particles… Your blind faith in science won’t do you any good when it comes to solving your personal problems…

I am not sure if it was on this thread or another, however it has already been clearly explained to you why this sort of reductionist approach fails. It is one this to argue one’s point, it is another to continue to argue from a position that has been clearly debunked.

 

[HelenaMT]

We also use inference to get to other persons - and physical objects. There is no reason whatsoever to believe physical objects have a privileged existential status.

Well, it depends on what you mean. A person’s testimony about something is not on the same level as testimony plus corroborating physical evidence. That’s not to say the testimony alone is irrelevant, just not the same sort of evidence.

It makes more sense to rank persons higher than things in our interpretation of reality, considering that without personal activity inference would not exist nor would any of the most significant and valuable elements of reality.

I guess my wording was inaccurate-I was using things to include everything a person might use in making their inference-including human testimony about things.

Some human testimony is better than others though-someone with a track record of lying or a history of mental illness makes a bad witness. Someone relying on a sketchy or biased reading of physical evidence makes a bad scientist.

My point was, theists and atheists use the same sorts of evidence to arrive at their conclusions, just to differing degrees. So I didn’t buy the OP suggestion that theists have or need a fourth method to arrive at a conclusion.