Epistemology 101

[Hooding_Trees]

When was it that you interviewed God to get this lowdown?

10 Mins ago, i prayed and it came into my room. We had a wee chat then i sent him packing.

 

[grannymh]

10 Mins ago, i prayed and it came into my room. We had a wee chat then i sent him packing.

Earth to Hooding Trees. You need to retake Epistemology 101. You made a big mistake. Come back. You were talking to the guy in the red suit and I don’t mean Santa.

 

[bdelykleon]

Yes, the positive integers are firmly rooted in the senses.

Not so sure about it. Actually not a single philosopher would agree that numbers are that firmly rooted in experience, things are much more complex than that.

plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/mathphil-indis/

Now, all the rest, fractions, negative numbers, irrational numbers, complex numbers, vectors, matrices are extentions of those positive integers.

But even conceding that numbers are rooted in experience, which I’m not so sure about, what follows it is not empirical, all theorems are logical and not based in experience nor they can be disprooved by any experiment. Which follows that there are several truths not based in experience, there is even an argument for the existence of God not based in any experience - the ontological argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

lets restrict this conversation to XPC existence for now, the posts are getting too long.

To clarify: I don’t define it null and void. I am allowing this other kind of existence (which I called X-existence for the sake of simplicity), which is neither physical nor conceptual. I have no idea, just what it might be, and looks like that you don’t know it either. Which is cool. In that case our mutual conclusion should be: either God does not exist, or God is only a concept. As I said, this resolution is perfectly fine by me.

i dont know what it is because i havent set these categories. if you dont have a definition for it, then why is it a category?

its somewhat similar to saying “there is a ______”, now tell me what that blank is?

That would rest on the definition of what is “sufficient”. What is sufficient for me, might not be sufficient for you - and of course, vice-versa.

sufficient reason refers to a causal mechanism. there is no causal mechanism that causes these things expressed as part of STEM.

Actually, I admit that I don’t know a way to bring forth these events. You don’t know how to make them happen either. In a sense, this is an impasse. However, I see no “sufficient reason” to accept their existence. You might see differently. See, how fluid the PSR is?

the PSR refers to sufficient reason as to causal mechanisms.

you may mean that you dont see sufficient reason to accept they happened. but that just leads back to all the earlier conversations about rejecting their occurence based on scientific credibility. and the arguments about what kinfd of evidence we have for historical events.

Certainly agreed. It happened so many times that scientists declared that “now” we know everything, though there may be a few, unimportant issues to clarify - and they were completely wrong. To you this means that science is not reliable, to me it means that science is flexible and keeps getting better and better in explaining the nature of the universe.

not unreliable in its general use and experience, but simply the wrong measuring stick to decide what is true, possible, credible, etc. it just makes a poor standard of truth with regard to anything other then the very specific area of the scientific method.

Now, here is the 16,000 dollar question: how do you decide that of all the “seemingly” impossible events, which are the ones that are really impossible, and which are the ones that might be possible? I will answer for you: there is no way to tell them apart.

So to say that “this” claim will be proved to be possible and “that” claim will not be - is a futile endeavor, until it happens.

quite so.

The best strategy in such cases: to bet that if something seems impossible, then tentatively we declare it impossible, while keeping an open mind to change our preconceived ideas, and accept the fact that we were wrong.

or me it is sufficient that people claim these events occured to accept that they are possible.

By locally I meant that in a specific case something might be “necessary” in “this” relationship, while it will be contingent in “that” relationship. (Grandfather, father and son. The father was contingent on the grandfather, and necessary in regard to the son.) By globally I mean that there is no “necessary” existence, unless one considers STEM as existing necessarily - which is pretty trivial.

the universe is contingent, metaphysically, hence the need for the necessary being, which is a being whose failure to exist entails a logical contradiction.

but that is an entirely different arguement.

Right on the money! This is precisely what I did, when I introduced X-existence. Something that is neither physical, nor just conceptual. But you declined to define it any further. It is not reasonable to say that X-existence is not this and it is not that. One cannot define something in a purely negative manner. What something is “not” is insufficient - it has to be established what it “is”.

im trying to tell you that if you want to assert a category, itt is your responsibility to define it. not mine.

but you still havent answered my question.

1. by admitting that things exist without physical characteristics, what rational basis do you have to restrict them solely ‘mental concepts’? it seems to me that if they can exist without physical characteristics, then there is no way to restrict them to ‘mental concepts’

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, this is not correct. The actual physical activity (walking); the actual physical relationship (distance) and the actual physical property of the number of the objects (two) all are part of the physical reality

• even though they are not physical objects. It would be an error to restrict physical reality to physical objects - no empiricist does that. The attributes, the relationships and acitivities are all part of physical reality - even though they are not physical objects themselves.

Now all these actual, physical objects, attributes, activities and relationships are reflected by our thinking. The thoughts themselves are the results of neurons firings and chemical activities. What they “mean” is a different matter. To illustrate this I am using the analogy of computers. In the computer there are circuits, there are “zeros” and “ones”, and nothing else. What those zeros and ones represent (what they mean) is not physical, it is conceptual. The very same zeros and ones sometimes represent a mathematical solution of a problem, sometimes represent the solution of a decision making algorithm, or whatever. The zeros and ones can mean anything, depending on the problem at hand.

so C-existence is one of platonic forms? not surprising, thats endemic to mathematicians. yet it is a metaphysiocal statement that there exists a non-physical reality. you still have the problem of restricting it solely to mental concepts. what basis could you have for that?

but you pointed out something that speaks to the problem of weak verification and empirical principles.

It would be an error to restrict physical reality to physical objects - no empiricist does that

 

[R_Daneel]

Not so sure about it. Actually not a single philosopher would agree that numbers are that firmly rooted in experience, things are much more complex than that.

plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/mathphil-indis/

Actually, not “all” philosophers agree on the subject. And even if they were, that is neither here nor there.

But even conceding that numbers are rooted in experience, which I’m not so sure about, what follows it is not empirical, all theorems are logical and not based in experience nor they can be disprooved by any experiment. Which follows that there are several truths not based in experience, there is even an argument for the existence of God not based in any experience - the ontological argument.

Mathematics is an abstract science. It is based on axioms, even though the positive integers themselves are derived from observation and abstraction. Once the axioms are established, empiricism is no longer applied. In that sense, yes, there are true statements, which are not empirically verified and cannot be empirically verified.

If you wish to establish God’s existence on an axiomatic basis, go ahead. Present some axioms, let’s see if we agree that they are good axioms, and see how you can logically explain God’s existence based upon those axioms.

 

[R_Daneel]

i dont know what it is because i havent set these categories. if you dont have a definition for it, then why is it a category?

Courtesy to theists. Of course you are the one who insists that God is not physical and not just conceptual. This is your assertion, not mine. So what is it? You cannot define something is a purely negative manner.

sufficient reason refers to a causal mechanism. there is no causal mechanism that causes these things expressed as part of STEM.

Causal mechanism is defined within STEM, not for STEM. If you wish to generalize and show that causality can be defined for STEM, spell out the causal mechanism. And I don’t mean “God said let there be light and there was light”. That is not a causal mechanism - that is magic. And calling it a sufficiently advanced technology is just a fallacy of the stolen concept. Technology is physical.

you may mean that you dont see sufficient reason to accept they happened. but that just leads back to all the earlier conversations about rejecting their occurence based on scientific credibility. and the arguments about what kinfd of evidence we have for historical events.

Right. You aborted that conversation, saying that my requirements are “impossible to meet”. Those are the requirements that all historians employ. No wonder that historians do not accept those stories at face value. Not even all theologians can agree which ones are supposed to be taken literally, and which ones allegorically.

or me it is sufficient that people claim these events occured to accept that they are possible.

But only if you already believe it a-priori and then you don’t need the testimonial evidence. Nobody is as gullible as to accept any farfetched testimony of a few unknown strangers.

the universe is contingent, metaphysically, hence the need for the necessary being, which is a being whose failure to exist entails a logical contradiction.

Nonsense. The concept of contingency is undefined and undefinable for the universe. It is just as nonsensical as asking “what is outside the universe” or “what was before the universe”. It is playing fast and loose with a few stolen concepts.

im trying to tell you that if you want to assert a category, itt is your responsibility to define it. not mine.

but you still havent answered my question.

1. by admitting that things exist without physical characteristics, what rational basis do you have to restrict them solely ‘mental concepts’? it seems to me that if they can exist without physical characteristics, then there is no way to restrict them to ‘mental concepts’

I just gave a name to your professed category. I did answer your question. This whole thread revolves around it.

 

[R_Daneel]

so C-existence is one of platonic forms? not surprising, thats endemic to mathematicians. yet it is a metaphysiocal statement that there exists a non-physical reality. you still have the problem of restricting it solely to mental concepts. what basis could you have for that?

That is the default position. Until there is reason to go on, we use the concepts as they are. And I don’t restrict the principle to them. I am offering you the opportunity to give a definition of that alleged non-physical reality, which is not just a mental concept. This whole thread is devoted to that offer. You expect me to define your concept for you? Come on.

Do we have to waste another few weeks and dozens of posts on this subject until you realize: “ahhh, so that is what you meant”? Yes, you and the other theists are the ones who assert the existence of non-phyisical and not conceptual reality, not I. I only gave it a name in the form of X-existence. You want a different name? Go ahead. But the concept will be the same: “non-physical and not-merely-conceptual reality”. Quite cumbersome. The term “X-existence” is simpler. But if you don’t like it, don’t use it.

but you pointed out something that speaks to the problem of weak verification and empirical principles.

I see no problem at all.

this is a statement of the weak version empiricism but most people do make the strong statement of empiricism, mathematicians, metaphysicians, and some other logicians do not.

Who are those “most people”? Where did you meet them? How many said explicitly that “everything” must be epirically verifed? It took you several weeks and many dozens of posts to realize that I am not speaking in the terms of “everything” - even though I spelled it out every time.

**Holy cows! Nine pages and not one argument about the OP? **

 

[Sarpedon]

**Holy cows! Nine pages and not one argument about the OP? **

That’s because your presentation of atheistic and theistic epistemology is too simplistic to directly answer. Furthermore, you’re asking on an internet message board.

 

[Sarpedon]

I am offering you the opportunity to give a definition of that alleged non-physical reality, which is not just a mental concept. This whole thread is devoted to that offer. You expect me to define your concept for you? Come on.

The most obvious one would the the cogito ergo sum of Descartes and Augustine. The intelligibility of being is another one that is more complicated.

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s because your presentation of atheistic and theistic epistemology is too simplistic to directly answer.

I am not sure if it is simplistic, but it is simple, for sure (the concept is simple, the actual execution of it usually is not). When it comes to physical reality, we use the scientific method (no need to elaborate). When it comes to axiomatic systems, we use logical deduction to show that the theorem is a valid corollary of the axioms. When it comes to events which happened in the past, we use the physical evidence (if any), and the testimonials of the ones who claim that they were eye-witnesses. When it comes to “supernatural”, we use… what?

Of course, “simple” or “complicated” is in the eyes of the beholder.

The most obvious one would the the cogito ergo sum of Descartes and Augustine. The intelligibility of being is another one that is more complicated.

“Cogito ergo sum” is a concept. Furthermore it presupposes someone, who exists, and who has the ability to think. If this entity physically exists, then it belongs to the physical category. If this entity is not physical, it belongs to the unanswered 4th category - which is not substantiated. So it definitely does not point to a physically non-existent entity who (or what) is also more than a simple concept. I am not sure about the “intelligibility of being”. Tell me, what you mean.

 

[bdelykleon]

If you wish to establish God’s existence on an axiomatic basis, go ahead. Present some axioms, let’s see if we agree that they are good axioms, and see how you can logically explain God’s existence based upon those axioms.

There is a plethora of a priori arguments for the existence of God. The ontological and the cosmological are the most famous of them. You obviously know of it, then it is worth asking what do you mean with this thread…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Courtesy to theists. Of course you are the one who insists that God is not physical and not just conceptual. This is your assertion, not mine. So what is it? You cannot define something is a purely negative manner.

now your talking about G-d and not the categories XPC. which are your categories and not ours. which puts the onus on you to define. we do not assert that structure to being. you are.

but if you are now asking for our ontological definition of G-d, it is the ‘necessary being’. because 'necessit’y is one of our divisions of being.

Causal mechanism is defined within STEM, not for STEM.

what evidence do you have for this basis? i dont know of any.

If you wish to generalize and show that causality can be defined for STEM, spell out the causal mechanism. And I don’t mean “God said let there be light and there was light”. That is not a causal mechanism - that is magic. And calling it a sufficiently advanced technology is just a fallacy of the stolen concept. Technology is physical.

sufficiently advanced technology need not be physical. though a simple solution is to talk about advanced processes to avoid the connotation associate with the word technology.

the causal mechanism is an unknown technology/process.

Right. You aborted that conversation, saying that my requirements are “impossible to meet”. Those are the requirements that all historians employ. No wonder that historians do not accept those stories at face value. Not even all theologians can agree which ones are supposed to be taken literally, and which ones allegorically.

historians do not do that, by that standard , nothing is proveable unless an uninterested third party was there taking dictation.

you set up conditions to an argument by which you cannot lose and then refused to discuss them, and none of it was by my choice. nothing is stopping that debate but you, simply accept the fix, or argue out the epistemology

But only if you already believe it a-priori and then you don’t need the testimonial evidence. Nobody is as gullible as to accept any farfetched testimony of a few unknown strangers.

how could i possibly believe it prior to the testimony of the witnesses? thats not even possible, because prior to the witness statement, i had no way top know an event had occured.

Nonsense. The concept of contingency is undefined and undefinable for the universe. It is just as nonsensical as asking “what is outside the universe” or “what was before the universe”. It is playing fast and loose with a few stolen concepts.

contingency simply means needing a cause to exist. that is well defined for every being, including those of which the universe is composed.

and i havent the foggiest what you mean by the references to “stolen concepts”

I just gave a name to your professed category. I did answer your question. This whole thread revolves around it.

that is not our professed category, that is yours. you made it up. we didnt. if you want a definition ot a category you made up, then you need to define it yourself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is the default position. Until there is reason to go on, we use the concepts as they are. And I don’t restrict the principle to them.

why is that the default position? im looking for the basis you have to say that. you still havent been able to answer this. you are simply admitting that things can exist without physical characteristics, but providing no basis as to why that only includes mental concepts.

this is why the weak empiricism and verification principles fail. at some point you will have to either retreat to hard empiricism that self refutes, or move on to popper. who has the same issues as these arguments do.

I am offering you the opportunity to give a definition of that alleged non-physical reality, which is not just a mental concept. This whole thread is devoted to that offer. You expect me to define your concept for you? Come on.

this is your concept, not ours, we dont divide being in this manner.

Do we have to waste another few weeks and dozens of posts on this subject until you realize: “ahhh, so that is what you meant”?

if you had meant the weak forms, you would have said so, weeks ago. you never mentioned a weak argument at all, until you saw the bloggers statement, and then i had to tell you it was the weak form because you kept refering to it as ‘incorrect’ and ‘correct’. but now you have to defend the weak forms. which are themselves long dead.

Yes, you and the other theists are the ones who assert the existence of non-phyisical and not conceptual reality, not I. I only gave it a name in the form of X-existence. You want a different name? Go ahead. But the concept will be the same: “non-physical and not-merely-conceptual reality”. Quite cumbersome. The term “X-existence” is simpler. But if you don’t like it, don’t use it.

no, we dont. this is your idea, not ours. for us XPC are all the same, we dont divide them this way.

I see no problem at all.

then i assert.

‘G-d exists’

that statement is not one of the statements that need be verified or empirical, as only some and not all statements need be.

looks like a huge problem, in fact its the one that killed the weak forms, causing a retreat to the strong form or to popper.

we have worked our way up to the philosophy of science in the 1950s’ and 60s’ not long now.

Who are those “most people”?

physical scientists. chemists, physicists, an anatomist, biologists, engineers, etc.

Where did you meet them?

Kansas State University
Wichita State University
Fort Hays State University
University of Arkansas at Monticello
Barton County Community College
Kansas City Kansas Community College

How many said explicitly that “everything” must be epirically verifed?

a great many of them, they dont know the difference.

It took you several weeks and many dozens of posts to realize that I am not speaking in the terms of “everything” - even though I spelled it out every time.

you did not point it out every time, it was only recently when you sttarted talking about operators that i realized that you werre talking about the weak form. nor do i believe you always were, because you could have simply said so.

further, it does you no good to make the claim, because the weak forms have been long dead as well. so what happens when that comes to fruition? which it should fairly quickly in the direction the converrsation is headed?

i.e.

**‘G-d exists’

that statement is not one of the statements that need be verified or empirical, as only some and not all statements need be. **

**Holy cows! Nine pages and not one argument about the OP? **

i keep trying to point out that these are not our categories but yours, we split up being in a much different way.

 

[traillius]

You claimed prayer was a method of aquiring knowledge, i am showing you evidence that confirms prayer does not work. Like i said in my first post…

People that believe in prayer are either ignorant of, or have closed their minds from, the evidence.

Epic fail. Although I don’t have the reference in front of me, I can find if I look an article for a study that has evidence prayer works. so by the same logic you employed…

" People that doubt prayer are either ignorant of, or have closed their minds from, the evidence. " I will find the link.
I guess you will say your cited reference is superior to mine, but that is a judgement call, not a scientific analysis.

Edit Please go to the link below for a relevent article:

webmd.com/balance/features/can-prayer-heal

WebMD is a reasonable, medically sound, neutral, and objective website, I am sure you would agree, with integrity. Several major universities referenced therein have done studies, and shown at least a correlation, which is more than sufficient to evince at least the possibility of relationship. Duke university is one, which is one of the most prestigious universities in the US. Also the NIH, hardly a religious group, is even studying it.

 

[R_Daneel]

now your talking about G-d and not the categories XPC. which are your categories and not ours. which puts the onus on you to define. we do not assert that structure to being. you are.

I give up. What the heck are you talking about? I am talking about gods, devils, angels, demons - what have you. You assert, not I - that these entities exist in a non-physical manner. You assert, not I - that they are not simply concepts, but more than that. Yet all these assertion (yours, not mine) are purely negative in nature. Not physical and not conceptual says nothing about what these entities are. The purpose of this thread was to investigate the epistemological method of separating true and false statements pertaining to these entities. It never even got off the ground. I am tired of this tug-of-war. No doubt you will chalk it up as one of your glorious victories. Have it your way.

how could i possibly believe it prior to the testimony of the witnesses? thats not even possible, because prior to the witness statement, i had no way top know an event had occured.

Nonsense. People are indoctrinated into believing before the age when they could even read, let alone comprehend it.

and i havent the foggiest what you mean by the references to “stolen concepts”

Look it up, then.

 

[R_Daneel]

There is a plethora of a priori arguments for the existence of God. The ontological and the cosmological are the most famous of them. You obviously know of it, then it is worth asking what do you mean with this thread…

Yes, there are. I looked at all of them. All have problems, not one is acceptable, let alone convincing. The purpose was to see if there is anything that might have emerged, if there is anything left out. The thread is a huge failure. Too bad.

 

[R_Daneel]

Epic fail. Although I don’t have the reference in front of me, I can find if I look an article for a study that has evidence prayer works. so by the same logic you employed…

Without going into specifics, no study can show the efficacy of prayer. There is one, very simple reason for it. It is impossible to set up a proper, double-blind experiment with a well-defined study group and a control group. It is impossible, because there are many people who pray indiscriminately for the betterment of everyone - thus there is no untainted control group. If you see a correlation it is purely due to statistical variance.

 

[bdelykleon]

Yes, there are. I looked at all of them. All have problems, not one is acceptable, let alone convincing. The purpose was to see if there is anything that might have emerged, if there is anything left out. The thread is a huge failure. Too bad.

Well, since all of them are not axiomatic as geometry rules, it is not surprising that all of them are debatable. But this is philosophy, there is not one single definite philosophical proof, except, maybe, solipsism, completely ruled out.

That said, I’ve not met yet a consistent critique of Plaintinga’s ontological argument (the Anselmian argument is problematic), and the ones of the cosmological (in any version of it) are shaky at best. There are threads in this forum devoted to this argument, see you there.

 

[bdelykleon]

There is one, very simple reason for it. It is impossible to set up a proper, double-blind experiment with a well-defined study group and a control group. It is impossible, because there are many people who pray indiscriminately for the betterment of everyone - thus there is no untainted control group. If you see a correlation it is purely due to statistical variance.

This is simply not true!