Epistemology 101

[R_Daneel]

You say that the perception of beauty is subjective and unique to the individual. Science is exactly the same way under your logic- since individuals perceive science individually.

That is not what I am saying. If we look at the attributes of matter (and that is what science is all about), some are objective, and some are subjective. The colorblind person will not see the chlorophyll as “green”, but that is due only to the limitation of his perceiving organ. The reflected light given off by the green leaf is the same - a certain wavelength - and it can be objectively measured. Consider the “heaviness” of an object - it can be different for two agents, one can perceive it as light, the other can consider it heavy. But the “weight” is the same, and it can be measured objectively. How could “beauty” be measured? Fundamentally, there is a qualitative difference between the objective and the subjective attributes.

So, your argument cuts both ways and does not in of itself prove that beauty cannot be considered alongside shape and materiality as objective things. We don’t need to get too far into specific examples. The point I am trying to make is that we do not have a very good reason to consider material science to be the only layer of knowledge- and that such an approach is not automatic given things in their own being.

I don’t want to “prove” anything here. I am simply pointing out the difference between the objective and subjective attributes. I don’t deny the validity of the subjective attributes, I only deny them as qualifying as “knowledge” - precisely because they are subjective. Objective attributes can be measured, subjective attributes cannot be measured.

Purpose does not presuppose a conscious agent in the sense you are using it. For example, the ancient Greek term for virtue is arete which is best translated as “excellence.” Excellence is that which fulfills the nature of the thing- for example, the arete of a knife would be its sharpness.

Now we are getting somewhere. The trouble is that “excellence” is also intimately tied to a value system, it also presupposes a “use”, and that presupposes an agent, who uses it. You speak of the “nature” of a thing, possibly along the lines of “essence”. And here we diverge again. I deny that there is an objective “essence”. Essence of something is how a conscious agent “views” it. Suppose that a bunch of savages finds the writings of the greatest scholars. They cannot read, but they happen to discover that the paper burns quite well. They make a bonfire out of them and enjoy the warmth. For them the “essence” was that the paper burns. The edge of that rock is neither sharp nor blunt, until someone attempts to use it cut something. If he tries to cut a branch, it is “sharp”, if he tries to cut a diamond, it is “blunt”.

We do not need a human intent for have knifeness- a sharp blade of rock can have knifeness even if no one intends to use it that way. While science may explain how the rock has sharp edges, this does not mean that we cannot ask “to what is that sharpness directed towards?”

Yes it does render the question irrelevant. Sharpness is not an objective attribute, it is only the perception of a conscious agent. This is why I quoted the limerick above. Or, to use the wonderful saying of Klick and Klack (the Tappet brothers): “if there is a male in the forest saying something, and there is no woman present… is he still wrong?”.

In a basic sense, the why question is critical because merely stating facts through science is relatively pointless unless they have some deeper significance.

This also presupposes an agent. No matter which approach you take, no matter which synonym you use, implicitly there is the assumption of an agent, who “uses” or “perceives” the phenomenon or object.

I can’t answer your question in the way you have worded it because a lifeless universe is not reality. I can’t show you purpose disconnected from reality- such a purpose would be made up by nature.

However, I think that what you are asking for is purpose without a conscious being desiring it. I’ll start on function. Do you agree that things have functions?

Without life there is no function. The water polishes the pebbles to a nice, round form. But the water does not care, and the pebbles do not care. They simply “are”. There is objective existence, but there is no objective “essence”. The “essence” presupposes existence and also presupposes an agent who perceives the object itself. But again, I will keep on listening. Please continue.

 

[Sarpedon]

That is not what I am saying. If we look at the attributes of matter (and that is what science is all about), some are objective, and some are subjective.

And when you experience something in its own being, how do you that matter is all that is there? Is there anything in the experience itself that would lead you to say that?

How could “beauty” be measured? Fundamentally, there is a qualitative difference between the objective and the subjective attributes.

The most basic way would be to measure order. Of course, this leads into perfection, which you will reject. Let’s hold off on this for a moment.

I don’t want to “prove” anything here. I am simply pointing out the difference between the objective and subjective attributes. I don’t deny the validity of the subjective attributes, I only deny them as qualifying as “knowledge” - precisely because they are subjective. Objective attributes can be measured, subjective attributes cannot be measured.

I am asking you to demonstrate how you distinguish between objective and subjective traits based on the experience of things in of themselves, rather than our prior formed understanding of them.

Without life there is no function. The water polishes the pebbles to a nice, round form. But the water does not care, and the pebbles do not care. They simply “are”. There is objective existence, but there is no objective “essence”. The “essence” presupposes existence and also presupposes an agent who perceives the object itself. But again, I will keep on listening. Please continue.

I’m not sure how you know this with such certainty. You correctly link function with essence. How do you know that the particular is real and not the universal? On what basis do you reject essence? This is the crux of the matter.

Essence in no way presupposes an observer. An essence is defined as “that whereby a thing is what it is” which does not require someone to understand it. This article expands on essence:

newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm

Here’s another way to look at the problem. Science is a method that is not unquestionable. We need to justify science as a valid method before using it. The same goes for our brute physical perception of the world- how do we know that what we perceive is true? Somehow or other we succeed in justifying science as a method, and we then use it. What this means, however, is that we succeeded in demonstrating something (scientific reasoning and the veracity of our senses) without using either of these things. Therefore, our mere acceptance of science as a method necessarily involves the use of our intellects in a non-material way. Therefore, we can know things without referencing science or our material senses. In this light, I see no reason why we cannot potentially know further things without using science. In short, science can’t prove itself, and whatever method we use to prove it also proves that science is not the only way to know truth.

When I say “science” I mean our perception of the material order and our reasoning from the material order, not just the scientific method.

 

[R_Daneel]

And when you experience something in its own being, how do you that matter is all that is there? Is there anything in the experience itself that would lead you to say that?

I don’t actually “know” that. But it is a sufficient explanation - and thus there is no need to look any further. As long as the measurement can be carried out, and the measurement is an “invariant” regardless of the one who carries it out, we find an objective attribute. According to the example I used before, the “weight” of an object (caeteris paribus) is the same for two observers. Whether it is “light” or “heavy” depends on the observer.

The most basic way would be to measure order. Of course, this leads into perfection, which you will reject. Let’s hold off on this for a moment.

Order is fine. We see that most of the universe exhibits order (not everything, of course. White noise is actually random). Perfection is another matter. We can postpone it.

I am asking you to demonstrate how you distinguish between objective and subjective traits based on the experience of things in of themselves, rather than our prior formed understanding of them.

I think I already did that. If two agents can measure the attribute in question, and regardless of their presumed understanding, they achieve the same result, it is an objective attribute.

I’m not sure how you know this with such certainty. You correctly link function with essence. How do you know that the particular is real and not the universal? On what basis do you reject essence? This is the crux of the matter.

Essence in no way presupposes an observer. An essence is defined as “that whereby a thing is what it is” which does not require someone to understand it. This article expands on essence:

newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm

The article simply states a tautology: “a thing is what it is”. Hardly a worthy discovery. If, however, it would say that essence is conglomerate of the most important attributes - then it already presupposes a conscious observer, who can distinguish between “important” and “accidental” attributes. (Refer back to the savages, for whom the essence of the paper is that it can be burned).

Here’s another way to look at the problem. Science is a method that is not unquestionable. We need to justify science as a valid method before using it. The same goes for our brute physical perception of the world- how do we know that what we perceive is true? Somehow or other we succeed in justifying science as a method, and we then use it. What this means, however, is that we succeeded in demonstrating something (scientific reasoning and the veracity of our senses) without using either of these things. Therefore, our mere acceptance of science as a method necessarily involves the use of our intellects in a non-material way. Therefore, we can know things without referencing science or our material senses. In this light, I see no reason why we cannot potentially know further things without using science. In short, science can’t prove itself, and whatever method we use to prove it also proves that science is not the only way to know truth.

When I say “science” I mean our perception of the material order and our reasoning from the material order, not just the scientific method.

Well, the proof of the pudding is that it is edible. It does not a-priori establish science as the method to be used. Science emerged as the most reliable way of gathering information about the Universe. However, you (or anyone else) are free to suggest a better method. This is what I have been asking all along.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t actually “know” that. But it is a sufficient explanation - and thus there is no need to look any further. As long as the measurement can be carried out, and the measurement is an “invariant” regardless of the one who carries it out, we find an objective attribute. According to the example I used before, the “weight” of an object (caeteris paribus) is the same for two observers. Whether it is “light” or “heavy” depends on the observer.

I don’t understand why you think that this is limited to material things. Before we consider whether science is invariant we use reason- which we must accept as invariant in of itself. Therefore, the mere fact that we can consider the objectivity of what we reason about demonstrates that our reason itself is objective- and when we start in the proper epistemological sequence, we cannot simply state that our reason is our physical brain. Such an approach is circular.

The article simply states a tautology: “a thing is what it is”. Hardly a worthy discovery. If, however, it would say that essence is conglomerate of the most important attributes - then it already presupposes a conscious observer, who can distinguish between “important” and “accidental” attributes. (Refer back to the savages, for whom the essence of the paper is that it can be burned).

It is simplified a fair amount- you could read Aquinas’ On Being and Essence if you want a fuller view of his notion of essence fits into the whole universal/particular controversy.

Well, the proof of the pudding is that it is edible. It does not a-priori establish science as the method to be used. Science emerged as the most reliable way of gathering information about the Universe. However, you (or anyone else) are free to suggest a better method. This is what I have been asking all along.

First, I have a question for you- how can you invariantly measure your claim that your pragmatism is a valid criterion for truth?

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t understand why you think that this is limited to material things.

Your question was if I “know” that reality is limited to material things. My answer is that I don’t “know” that, but the hypothesis of a strictly material world is a sufficient explanation, and Occam’s razor makes the assumption of a “spiritual” existence unnecessary. As soon as it will be demonstrated that this “spiritual” existence needs to be entertained to explain some physical phenomenon, I will gladly accept it. By the way, the material world does contain non-material entities - concepts, actions and relationships.

Before we consider whether science is invariant we use reason- which we must accept as invariant in of itself.

Do you mean “logic” when you say “reason”? I am confused about the meaning of “reason” here. And if that is what you mean, the answer is yes, the laws of logic are self-evident.

It is simplified a fair amount- you could read Aquinas’ On Being and Essence if you want a fuller view of his notion of essence fits into the whole universal/particular controversy.

I know what he says, and find it incorrect. For example, I don’t accept the concept of “possible existence”. It is a contradiction in terms. Nonexistence cannot be subdivided into several categories. It would be meaningless to say that there is a nonexistent book on my desk and on the top of this nonexistent book there is a nonexistent apple - even if I could put a book on my desk and I could place an apple on the top of it.

First, I have a question for you- how can you invariantly measure your claim that your pragmatism is a valid criterion for truth?

What is this “truth” you speak of? We call a proposition true, if it accurately reflects the reality (in the case of physical existence), or we call a proposition true if it is the result of an abritrarily selected axioms (in the case of conceptual existence). The only need for the axioms is that they must be without mutual contradiction. There are many propositions which do not carry a “true-false” value associated with them.

 

[Sarpedon]

Your question was if I “know” that reality is limited to material things. My answer is that I don’t “know” that, but the hypothesis of a strictly material world is a sufficient explanation, and Occam’s razor makes the assumption of a “spiritual” existence unnecessary. As soon as it will be demonstrated that this “spiritual” existence needs to be entertained to explain some physical phenomenon, I will gladly accept it. By the way, the material world does contain non-material entities - concepts, actions and relationships.

Occam’s overall philosophy relied on the power of God to such a degree that science would barely be able to function if his entire philosophy were taken seriously. The point of Occam’s razor is not that the simplest explanation is the correct one- rather, that we should generally avoid excessive complication if all other things are equal. That last part if key- all other things have to be equal before Occam’s razor can be used. For example, extreme skepticism is the simplest explanation of all. If we just say “we don’t really know anything, even what we can know” then we are essentially excused from needing any sort of explanation or reason or anything like that. Such skepticism is profoundly simple, yet I think we can agree that it is still lacking in some sense- hence the “all other things being equal” qualifier.

When you say “as soon as it will be demonstrated that this “spiritual” existence needs to be entertained to explain some physical phenomenon” you illustrate my point exactly. You are assuming that phenomena are physical and then judging your perceived nonphysical in light of your conclusion. What I am suggesting is the opposite- that we look at things in of themselves, and only then consider whether or not they are physical, spiritual, multi-layered, whatever. You still have not justified that phenomena are physical, and that’s where the conflict lies. As I will argue in a moment, your mere assertion that phenomena are physical demonstrates that you implicitly accept the validity of a non-physical way of knowing the truth of that proposition.

Do you mean “logic” when you say “reason”? I am confused about the meaning of “reason” here. And if that is what you mean, the answer is yes, the laws of logic are self-evident.

By “reason” I mean the intellect in general. I am sure that you are aware that almost all eastern philosophies view the world as illusory and view logic as impermanent. On what basis, then, can you so easily say that the laws of logic are “self evident” and therefore invariant from person to person?

I know what he says, and find it incorrect. For example, I don’t accept the concept of “possible existence”. It is a contradiction in terms. Nonexistence cannot be subdivided into several categories. It would be meaningless to say that there is a nonexistent book on my desk and on the top of this nonexistent book there is a nonexistent apple - even if I could put a book on my desk and I could place an apple on the top of it.

That’s because Aquinas conceives of essence as being distinct from existence. We don’t need to get into the depths of this conflict here- such a digression is unnecessary in light of the argument I am making above.

What is this “truth” you speak of? We call a proposition true, if it accurately reflects the reality (in the case of physical existence)

On what basis do you define “reality” as “physical existence?” That’s a major claim that needs explanation.

The basic point is this- in order to justify science as a valid method, you have to use your intellect prior to validating science- which means that your intellect is capable of knowing truth in the absence of (prior to) science. Therefore, your intellect can know truth without science- and this opens a lot of doors.

Whenever I say “science” I am using it as a general term for the whole philosophy as it is usually practiced- the scientific method, existentialism, the validity of physical senses, etc.

 

[R_Daneel]

The point of Occam’s razor is not that the simplest explanation is the correct one- rather, that we should generally avoid excessive complication if all other things are equal. That last part if key- all other things have to be equal before Occam’s razor can be used.

Yes, and this is how I use it.

When you say “as soon as it will be demonstrated that this “spiritual” existence needs to be entertained to explain some physical phenomenon” you illustrate my point exactly.

What else can I offer, than the willingness to consider such an explanation? I hold “openness” to new ideas and explanations a very important trait, not to discard something just because it is off the “beaten path”. What else can you request?

You are assuming that phenomena are physical and then judging your perceived nonphysical in light of your conclusion. What I am suggesting is the opposite- that we look at things in of themselves, and only then consider whether or not they are physical, spiritual, multi-layered, whatever.

We have been through all this before. Way back, hundreds of thousands of years ago, that was the case. No knowledge to speak of, not explanation whatsoever. But we are past that stage. A “null-hypothesis” or a starting point must be established if one wishes to avoid the re-examination of all the principles that have been established since the dawn of time.

During all those millenia lots of ideas have been tried and tested. There is only one which emerged as the best explanation: the scientific method - empiricism, testing, verification, etc. Neverthless, I am willing to entertain new concepts and new methods. What else can I say?

You still have not justified that phenomena are physical, and that’s where the conflict lies. As I will argue in a moment, your mere assertion that phenomena are physical demonstrates that you implicitly accept the validity of a non-physical way of knowing the truth of that proposition.

We all have to start somewhere. You may say that the concept: “the proof of the pudding is that it is edible”, is not a scientific method, per se, and you will be correct. The basic assumption is pragmatic, because it works. And the proof, that it works is our continued existence.

By “reason” I mean the intellect in general. I am sure that you are aware that almost all eastern philosophies view the world as illusory and view logic as impermanent. On what basis, then, can you so easily say that the laws of logic are “self evident” and therefore invariant from person to person?

And we have been through this, too. If someone consistently maintains that the world is illusionary, then every actual act of his will refute what he says. If he would be able to do what he says, (refrain breathing, for example) he would be a dead guy in a few minutes. Dead people have no “philosophy”. And if he says one thing, but says the opposite, then he is either a hypocrite, or a lunatic - not worthy of consideration.

That’s because Aquinas conceives of essence as being distinct from existence.

I do not accept the concept of an independent “essence” apart from “existence”.

On what basis do you define “reality” as “physical existence?” That’s a major claim that needs explanation.

It is the null-hypothesis. My willingness to entertain a different “existence” is all I can offer. We are on page 13 of this thread. All along I have asked some reason to look at an alternate method - whatever that might be. Not one post was willing to pick up the “glove”, so to speak. All the posts tried to poke holes into the scientific method - without success, mind you.

The basic point is this- in order to justify science as a valid method, you have to use your intellect prior to validating science- which means that your intellect is capable of knowing truth in the absence of (prior to) science. Therefore, your intellect can know truth without science- and this opens a lot of doors.

Actually, it was a spiral. There is no “circle” - which came first, intellect, or the scientific method. It all started with general ignorance, superstitions, and very slow process of weeding out the useless speculations. The end result is what we see today: science and intellect.

Whenever I say “science” I am using it as a general term for the whole philosophy as it is usually practiced- the scientific method, existentialism, the validity of physical senses, etc.

That is fine. Now is there anything we did not cover? Because so far we are walking in circles.

 

[R_Daneel]

Fixing an obvious typo in the previous post.

I wrote: “And if he says one thing, but says the opposite…” and I meant: “And if he says one thing, but does the opposite…”.

Sorry about the confusion it might have caused…

 

[Sarpedon]

We all have to start somewhere. You may say that the concept: “the proof of the pudding is that it is edible”, is not a scientific method, per se, and you will be correct. The basic assumption is pragmatic, because it works. And the proof, that it works is our continued existence.

We only have knowledge that it “works” if we accept certain propositions, such as the proposition that our perception of physical things is accurate. No matter how you phrase it, you are still justifying science in light of some proposition that is not scientific in of itself.

The point is this- science only works if certain propositions are accepted as true, and we necessarily establish those propositions without science. In other words, we are reasoning beings before we are scientific beings. Our intellect precedes our perception of materiality and our understanding of our materiality, as well as any other aspect we consider. Therefore, the argument “science is the only way to know truth” is absurd, because our mere acceptance of science is a de facto acceptance of non-scientific ways of reasoning as a valid epistemological method. If our intellect can reason to science, I don’t see why it couldn’t reason to other things. It’s not a debate over whether or not science is a good epistemological method. Rather, its a debate over whether science is the only epistemological method, as most scientists assert. Since our intellect necessarily precedes science, we know that science cannot be the only epistemological method. Since there are more ways of knowing than just science, this breaks down the claim that all knowledge must be justified in scientific terms.

And we have been through this, too. If someone consistently maintains that the world is illusionary, then every actual act of his will refute what he says. If he would be able to do what he says, (refrain breathing, for example) he would be a dead guy in a few minutes. Dead people have no “philosophy”. And if he says one thing, but says the opposite, then he is either a hypocrite, or a lunatic - not worthy of consideration.

There is a substantial difference between action and knowledge. One can act without an assurance that his act is based on the true nature of things. Furthermore, our knowledge of cause and effect is predicated on a predictive aspect of our reason. All of these things are philosophical positions about epistemology. I would imagine you would label them “variant” from person to person. The basic point is that your “invariant” categorization of science only works as long as we do not think about science and its justifications too deeply- for if we do so, we enter philosophy, which most scientists disdain as “soft.” Despite this, philosophy really is inescapable in any attempt to understand the world, which demonstrates the utter limitations of science as an epistemological method.

It is the null-hypothesis. My willingness to entertain a different “existence” is all I can offer. We are on page 13 of this thread. All along I have asked some reason to look at an alternate method - whatever that might be. Not one post was willing to pick up the “glove”, so to speak. All the posts tried to poke holes into the scientific method - without success, mind you.

We know that the human intellect itself is a method of knowledge apart from science because we must use the intellect to reason to science.

 

[R_Daneel]

We only have knowledge that it “works” if we accept certain propositions, such as the proposition that our perception of physical things is accurate. No matter how you phrase it, you are still justifying science in light of some proposition that is not scientific in of itself.

I already agreed to that. The recognition of our continued existence is not “strictly” a scientific method. The acceptance of the validity of the senses is accepted axiomatically - how can someone deny it? What method could anyone use to establish their “incorrectness”?

The point is this- science only works if certain propositions are accepted as true, and we necessarily establish those propositions without science.

You talk about the basic principles, though those basic principles are all the “distillate” of countless observations.

Despite this, philosophy really is inescapable in any attempt to understand the world, which demonstrates the utter limitations of science as an epistemological method.

Understanding is the key word. For me it means: “how does the world operate”? And science is the only method. Others may include the question: “why is the world as it is?”. For me that is an irrelevant and empty question.

We know that the human intellect itself is a method of knowledge apart from science because we must use the intellect to reason to science.

You defined science before: “Whenever I say “science” I am using it as a general term for the whole philosophy as it is usually practiced- the scientific method, existentialism, the validity of physical senses, etc.” - which most certainly incorporates “intellect”.

 

[Sarpedon]

I already agreed to that. The recognition of our continued existence is not “strictly” a scientific method. The acceptance of the validity of the senses is accepted axiomatically - how can someone deny it? What method could anyone use to establish their “incorrectness”?

Someone could argue from skepticism in general. Someone could also argue that we have no reason to assume that a particulated thing can form universal notions that are true. This is essentially the conflict between idealism and realism.

You talk about the basic principles, though those basic principles are all the “distillate” of countless observations.

Some are direct observations, some are habitual thoughts instilled since childhood- a Hindu person is going to have a far different “natural” view toward the world than you would as a product of a western culture. Indeed, it was the Catholic philosophical viewpoint that God and His creation operate according to logic and the view that the world is distinct from God and operating according its own laws that allowed science to rise to prominence in Europe and not in other countries.

Understanding is the key word. For me it means: “how does the world operate”? And science is the only method. Others may include the question: “why is the world as it is?”. For me that is an irrelevant and empty question.

We cannot understand “how does the world operate?” unless we have a valid epistemological method for doing so. Therefore, we must use our intellect to determine a valid method. We both use our intellect and determine that science is a good method. The basic point, though, is that we justified science using our intellect alone- which in of itself demonstrates that science is not the only way to know truth.

You defined science before: “Whenever I say “science” I am using it as a general term for the whole philosophy as it is usually practiced- the scientific method, existentialism, the validity of physical senses, etc.” - which most certainly incorporates “intellect”.

Indeed, science necessarily includes the intellect since science as a method is a child of the intellect. However, science is not free standing from the intellect (not is our perception), and the intellect necessarily precedes science.

The simple crux of the matter is this- somehow or other you judge that science is a valid way to know truth, and the mere fact that you can justify science before having recourse to science (since it has not been justified yet), demonstrates that we can justify things without having recourse to science.

 

[R_Daneel]

We cannot understand “how does the world operate?” unless we have a valid epistemological method for doing so. Therefore, we must use our intellect to determine a valid method. We both use our intellect and determine that science is a good method. The basic point, though, is that we justified science using our intellect alone- which in of itself demonstrates that science is not the only way to know truth.

Indeed, science necessarily includes the intellect since science as a method is a child of the intellect. However, science is not free standing from the intellect (not is our perception), and the intellect necessarily precedes science.

The simple crux of the matter is this- somehow or other you judge that science is a valid way to know truth, and the mere fact that you can justify science before having recourse to science (since it has not been justified yet), demonstrates that we can justify things without having recourse to science.

My question is: how did the intellect decide that science is a valid method? It did not happen that someone around the dawn of time, just came up with the “scientific” approach - ex nihilo. It was a gradual process of trial an error. As a matter of fact it was an unconsciously applied “scientific” method. This is not a circular reasoning, as I already said before. It was an ever growing, self-correcting and self-reinforcing spiral. So intellect does not precede science, and science does not precede intellect, they emerged together from the general ignorance and lack of understanding.

 

[Sarpedon]

My question is: how did the intellect decide that science is a valid method? It did not happen that someone around the dawn of time, just came up with the “scientific” approach - ex nihilo. It was a gradual process of trial an error. As a matter of fact it was an unconsciously applied “scientific” method. This is not a circular reasoning, as I already said before. It was an ever growing, self-correcting and self-reinforcing spiral. So intellect does not precede science, and science does not precede intellect, they emerged together from the general ignorance and lack of understanding.

All that you say here is predicated on presumed historical and scientific knowledge- which is in turn justified by a philosophy of history and science. We don’t automatically"know" that we historically perceived the world a certain way and that we naturally developed science as a way to explain our experiences. Rather, you subscribe to certain western philosophies about realism and history and then interpret things in light of those philosophies. There’s nothing wrong with this approach, for we all do so in some matter of another. Naturally, people disagree on which philosophical method is better, and we do so quite frequently.

All you do in this post is simply consider your perception of science and how that applies to your perception of history- both of which you understand in light of your philosophy. That’s perfectly acceptable, but the fact remains that everything you say here is channeled through philosophy. If you did not philosophically assert a certain form of realism, you could not assert science or history. Furthermore, you positively assert that your said form of realism is the only way to know reality, which then leads to your materialist philosophy. Your position is completely predictable in light of philosophic thought- and Gilson does a very good job of this.

So, you haven’t proved that science and the intellect emerged simultaneously from undefined “ignorance.” Rather, you unconsciously accept a certain form of realism and science, in addition to a certain philosophic form of history. Because you do this unconsciously, you then look at the world and say “look, we evolved large brains and intellects, and then understood reality through science.” You would not be able to make that statement if you had not already accepted the philosophical principals that enable you to do so. This is inescapable.

This is very counterintuitive to the way we, as children of the western culture, have been brought up to think by our families and societies. Our western culture has inherited a form of realism from the Greeks and the Catholic synthesis, which we still retain even though we have abandoned its source. We are all raised to accept this without much question. Now, I happen to think that this form of realism is correct, but I only think so because I have examined the matter philosophically using my intellect. It would be impossible to have any philosophic view of anything if we did not have philosophic ability to begin with- which is why our basic nature as philosophic and reasoning beings precedes any specific form of philosophy, such as science. To assert a philosophy of science as a conclusion is to also assert philosophy itself as a method.

 

[R_Daneel]

All that you say here is predicated on presumed historical and scientific knowledge- which is in turn justified by a philosophy of history and science. We don’t automatically"know" that we historically perceived the world a certain way and that we naturally developed science as a way to explain our experiences. Rather, you subscribe to certain western philosophies about realism and history and then interpret things in light of those philosophies. There’s nothing wrong with this approach, for we all do so in some matter of another. Naturally, people disagree on which philosophical method is better, and we do so quite frequently.

All you do in this post is simply consider your perception of science and how that applies to your perception of history- both of which you understand in light of your philosophy. That’s perfectly acceptable, but the fact remains that everything you say here is channeled through philosophy. If you did not philosophically assert a certain form of realism, you could not assert science or history. Furthermore, you positively assert that your said form of realism is the only way to know reality, which then leads to your materialist philosophy. Your position is completely predictable in light of philosophic thought- and Gilson does a very good job of this.

So, you haven’t proved that science and the intellect emerged simultaneously from undefined “ignorance.” Rather, you unconsciously accept a certain form of realism and science, in addition to a certain philosophic form of history. Because you do this unconsciously, you then look at the world and say “look, we evolved large brains and intellects, and then understood reality through science.” You would not be able to make that statement if you had not already accepted the philosophical principals that enable you to do so. This is inescapable.

This is very counterintuitive to the way we, as children of the western culture, have been brought up to think by our families and societies. Our western culture has inherited a form of realism from the Greeks and the Catholic synthesis, which we still retain even though we have abandoned its source. We are all raised to accept this without much question. Now, I happen to think that this form of realism is correct, but I only think so because I have examined the matter philosophically using my intellect. It would be impossible to have any philosophic view of anything if we did not have philosophic ability to begin with- which is why our basic nature as philosophic and reasoning beings precedes any specific form of philosophy, such as science. To assert a philosophy of science as a conclusion is to also assert philosophy itself as a method.

I don’t dispute what you say here. Obviously what I presented was speculation. This speculation is based on our current knowledge, and what we know about the emergence of philosophy and science. Historial evidence shows that philosophy predated the emergence of the rigorous scientific method, no doubt about that. You are also correct to point out that the scientific approach (which we both know is a very powerful method) influences our generic worldview. I am not sure if you agree with the picture I presented (the simultaneous emergence of intellect the the scientific method) or if you have a different idea. If it is the latter, then what is it, and what is it based upon?

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t dispute what you say here. Obviously what I presented was speculation. This speculation is based on our current knowledge, and what we know about the emergence of philosophy and science. Historial evidence shows that philosophy predated the emergence of the rigorous scientific method, no doubt about that. You are also correct to point out that the scientific approach (which we both know is a very powerful method) influences our generic worldview. I am not sure if you agree with the picture I presented (the simultaneous emergence of intellect the the scientific method) or if you have a different idea. If it is the latter, then what is it, and what is it based upon?

What I mean is that all particular knowledge is mediated through the intellect. For example, we would not be able to know history if we did not have an intellect that was capable of knowing and justifying historical knowledge. We would not have scientific knowledge if we did not have an intellect capable of knowing and justifying science. Furthermore, the intellect is inseparable from philosophy- for philosophy is nothing other than the intellect’s love of wisdom and knowledge.

I believe your original post asked for a credible method of knowledge that was not scientific. Philosophy as defined above fits this bill simply because philosophy is a necessary prerequisite for science and philosophy works independent of a scientific conclusion. For example, we would not be able to know anything scientifically if we did not have the philosophic ability to justify science prior to using it. Furthermore, merely having a philosophic ability does not intrinsically oblige us to arrive at a conclusion of science. Therefore, philosophy is necessary for, and independent of, science as a conclusion of philosophy.

Now, none of this weakens science in my own analysis. I wholeheartedly agree with you that science is a powerful epistemological tool. The key point, though, is that I arrive at such a conclusion through philosophy and not science. I assert that science is a good method, but only because I already have another method intrinsic to myself that allows me to make that judgement.

Since I have this intrinsic method, I see no logical reason why science must be the only possible conclusion that can be reached when this philosophic method is employed. It is indeed possible that philosophy could conclude that science is the only valid conclusion of philosophy- but such a conclusion is completely philosophical and not scientific in of itself. I happen to disagree with this philosophic conclusion on philosophic grounds, but that’s kind of an aside from the main point. The main point is that science cannot be the only epistemological method, and the necessity of allowing philosophy as the fundamental epistemological method opens the doors to different conclusions that can coexist with each other. Nothing I have said here proves God by any means- but this kind of reasoning does set the stage for subsequent attempts to prove God (or science, for that matter, or anything else). It is problematic for you to ask me to prove God in scientific terms for the same reason it is problematic for me to ask you to prove science in theological terms- because both of us would be erroneously assuming that science and theology are the only valid and mutually exclusive conclusions that philosophy, as the fundamental method, can reach. A better approach would be to consider whether we can prove God and science in light of philosophy, not each other.

 

[Sarpedon]

Unfortunately, finals week is upon me, so I will not be able to reply again until after next Sunday.

 

[R_Daneel]

I believe your original post asked for a credible method of knowledge that was not scientific. Philosophy as defined above fits this bill simply because philosophy is a necessary prerequisite for science and philosophy works independent of a scientific conclusion. For example, we would not be able to know anything scientifically if we did not have the philosophic ability to justify science prior to using it. Furthermore, merely having a philosophic ability does not intrinsically oblige us to arrive at a conclusion of science. Therefore, philosophy is necessary for, and independent of, science as a conclusion of philosophy.

Your answer is missing one point: “how does philosophy separate true propositions from false ones?”. How does philosophy “justify” the scientific method? Or any other method, if there is one?

If it would happen that your conclusion is different from mine (because of the difference of philosophical underpinning) then how do you plan to resolve the “impasse”? It cannot happen than both of us are correct, though it may happen that both of us are wrong. You speak of “philosophical ability” - which is “epistemology”. We are talking about the same concept. Let’s get into the details.

 

[R_Daneel]

Unfortunately, finals week is upon me, so I will not be able to reply again until after next Sunday.

Wishing you the best! Crossing my fingers, even though it hinders my typing ability.

 

[Sarpedon]

Your answer is missing one point: “how does philosophy separate true propositions from false ones?”. How does philosophy “justify” the scientific method? Or any other method, if there is one?

That’s a big question, and one that I, as an undergrad freshman philosophy major, do not feel qualified to answer definitively. Nevertheless, I will offer the following observations.

I think Descartes was on to something fundamental in his cogito ergo sum. This was part of his thought experiment in radical doubt- while he could doubt everything else, he could not bring himself to doubt his own doubting. This brings us back to one of the points I argued- that we are rational beings before we are scientific, theological, or other kind of beings in the particular. From this intuition, Descartes tried to build a foolproof philosophical understanding of everything. Descartes clearly failed in his application of his cogito- his physics were proved wrong shortly thereafter- but that doesn’t mean that his fundamental idea was wrong. While I disagree with much of Descartes’ reasoning as flawed, in my view, that doesn’t mean that he was entirely wrong. It may be that no one has yet succeeded in correctly extrapolating from that intuition. Augustine had some notion of the cogito, but I do not know enough about it to comment.

Another possibility is the illative sense of Newman in his Grammar of Assent. Newman observed that our philosophic ability does not operate in black and white terms- our philosophic ability works through judgement of things, not rote calculation. The illative sense then, is our ability to judge things that converge on reasonable certainty. While we cannot know something as simply true, we can know things as reasonably true based on massive threads that all converge on and support that proposition. This works for any application of our philosophic ability in myriad different situations. Chesterton said much the same thing, albeit in a more disorganized and whimsical fashion.**

 

[Sarpedon]

Wishing you the best! Crossing my fingers, even though it hinders my typing ability.

Thanks! It went well, overall.