Epistemology 101

[R_Daneel]

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.

Well, since we are simply having a conversation, this is quite all right. I am not a professional philosopher either, though I had classes in college. (And that was a very long time ago.)

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.

Yes. (But I must add, that this view is imprecise. Most people are not rational, they are habit and instinct driven. But for our our purposes, we shall disregard this feature.) Indeed the cogito ergo sum is the best way to start. Maybe we can (together) start to extrapolate from it. Sounds fun, but can be time consuming.

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.

I agree with this, too. But I must point out that this approach presupposes the method of verification (which is part of the strictly rational, scientific method.) I suspect that there is no other way. The other possibility of “pure faith” (not in the theological sense!) which is simply wishful thinking can be discarded as irrelevant, precisely since it lacks the feedback control (verification).

Thanks! It went well, overall.

Congratulations.

 

[lemondiesel]

At this point in time our consciousness does not allow us to know absolute truths. All the observations we have used to produce hypotheses and theories are all based on our perspective. We alone have given meaning and “truth” to mysteries we can not understand.

I mentioned this in another thread but picture all of us advanced humans to not exist. Our world and universe would still be here, but “we” would not. Think about it, how do we know the “truths” of the past? Because “we” have uncovered them. Our conscious thinking has allowed us to make history. If we didn’t uncover dinosaurs, how would we know they existed? How do we know Earth had Ice Ages? Because “we” again, found the history. Without us there is no attempt to explain “truths.”

I mean think about it, the words we associate with different things are all human produced. No horses are walking around claiming they are horses, WE call them horses.

The truth(s) I personally find rational are:

1. We are here. Even if this reality is an illusion, we are here. Without us the universe would have no way of knowing its history or for that matter its existence.
2. Physics. For example, even tho “time” “distance” and “velocity” are all human made words, the concepts are still the same.

(Remember “we” is different than we)

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes. (But I must add, that this view is imprecise. Most people are not rational, they are habit and instinct driven. But for our our purposes, we shall disregard this feature.) Indeed the cogito ergo sum is the best way to start. Maybe we can (together) start to extrapolate from it. Sounds fun, but can be time consuming.

Indeed. However, I would like to obtain a better understanding of the history of philosophy first in order to avoid making the same philosophical mistakes our ancestors made, with so many tragic consequences.

I agree with this, too. But I must point out that this approach presupposes the method of verification (which is part of the strictly rational, scientific method.) I suspect that there is no other way. The other possibility of “pure faith” (not in the theological sense!) which is simply wishful thinking can be discarded as irrelevant, precisely since it lacks the feedback control (verification).

It does presuppose verification, but this verification is not restricted to science. The main consequence of the illative sense is that we should not box ourselves off into a very narrow view of reality. Everything we know comes from different sources, and we therefore should not be too quick to declare a single source infallible. For example, while we do have the philosophy of science, we also have the philosophy of history, of aesthetics, of literature, of abstract logic, of human relationships, of math, and numerous other disciplines. When we step back from our presuppositions and look from the vantage point of our fundamental ability, which is philosophy, all those different disciplines appear as different roads we can take. The illative sense is thus a philosophic synthesis of everything in regards to truth. We can examine and contrast and contest all these different roads and their implications and their relatedness, but we do so philosophically using our illative sense.

Now, it is entirely possible that a person could deduce atheism from his or her illative sense as a philosophical position. I happen to disagree with this, and therefore we could both sharpen our own philosophic understanding by debating each other on philosophic grounds. This happens all the time. The key point is that we are philosophic creatures engaging in philosophy. The standard Dawkinian method of simply appealing to the scientific method as proof for atheism is incredibly simplistic since it ignores this entire philosophic spectrum of knowledge.

Nothing I have said so far directly argues in favor of Catholicism. Under this framework, I would suggest Etienne Gilson, George Weigel, and G.K. Chesterton as good starting points for examining the Catholic philosophical perspective. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is also good but extremely dense in the original text. You will not find a scientific argument is any of these works, but I think it is absurd to argue that we need one when philosophy itself suffices for science.

 

[R_Daneel]

Indeed. However, I would like to obtain a better understanding of the history of philosophy first in order to avoid making the same philosophical mistakes our ancestors made, with so many tragic consequences.

Hmmm. I am not so sure. To contemplate the ramifications of “cogito ergo sum” does not really require to go and re-read most of the dusty volumes written ages ago.

It does presuppose verification, but this verification is not restricted to science.

Ok, this is another area which is worth to contemplate. What is “verification”? The comparision of the mental image to the outside world (whichever part of that world is under scrutiny). This presupposes the existence of the external world (its objective existence), it also presupposes the “senses” which convey the information about the external world and it presupposes the rational thinking on our part to separate the two. That is the start, I would say.

 

[Sarpedon]

Hmmm. I am not so sure. To contemplate the ramifications of “cogito ergo sum” does not really require to go and re-read most of the dusty volumes written ages ago.

True, but it can help you avoid making the same mistakes, which can work out better in the long run.

Ok, this is another area which is worth to contemplate. What is “verification”? The comparision of the mental image to the outside world (whichever part of that world is under scrutiny). This presupposes the existence of the external world (its objective existence), it also presupposes the “senses” which convey the information about the external world and it presupposes the rational thinking on our part to separate the two. That is the start, I would say.

This goes back to the intuition of being- we are rational entities that perceive being. This “being” is not necessarily the same as the physical order, and this perception is not necessarily the same as the five physical senses. Fundamentally, we know what we perceive being, but it’s much harder to understand exactly what that being is. That’s why I’m not confident to simply label being as a physical order and leave it at that. Until I find very strong reason to positively label this being as only the material order, or any highly specific order, I am not going to restrict myself to any narrow interpretation of being.

In this sense, verification is comparing our understanding to being, which is not the same as defining being itself.

 

[R_Daneel]

True, but it can help you avoid making the same mistakes, which can work out better in the long run.

I say we risk it. We are confronted with a “pure” problem. The starting point is our own undoubted existence and all of our attributes.

This goes back to the intuition of being- we are rational entities that perceive being. This “being” is not necessarily the same as the physical order, and this perception is not necessarily the same as the five physical senses.

This sounds pretty mystical to me.

Fundamentally, we know what we perceive being, but it’s much harder to understand exactly what that being is.

Ah the difference between “esse” and “percipi”.

In this sense, verification is comparing our understanding to being, which is not the same as defining being itself.

Yes, but what method are we going to use for the comparision?

 

[Sarpedon]

I say we risk it. We are confronted with a “pure” problem. The starting point is our own undoubted existence and all of our attributes.

You may start if you wish. Forming a brand new philosophical explanation is a bit more than I want to deal with right now, personally.

Yes, but what method are we going to use for the comparision?

Being itself. For example- we all experience love- but we choose to explain our experiences in different ways. The true standard for verification is our experience itself- not the added on layers that we attach to it. For example, if I experience love as a non-physical phenomena (not necessarily precluding additional explanations), this in of itself is a valid justification, Of course, the battle now commences over what we actually experience, and how our experiences mesh with our proclaimed explanations. The difference here is subtle but critical. The standard atheistic world-view is predicated on the viewpoint that all experience of things is scientific. In addition, the next step is to actually assert that non-scientific experiences are false simple because they are not scientific. They replace the experience with the explanation.

For example, consider this highly specific example. I observe a whole arena of experiences in regard to human sexuality. I think that the Catholic philosophical perspective best explains what I observe (for example, that intimacy is the most important thing for people). Because this Catholic explanation best fits what I observe, I uphold the Catholic explanation as true.

I know you object to this explanation. But why do you do so? The only valid reason for you to object to my position is to argue that Catholicism does not in fact best explain what we observe. That’s where the debate lies. Notice the subtlety present here- my view is not automatically invalidated because it is not scientific. You may try to justify science alone by appealing to your experiences- but your experiences are not science by nature. They are experiences.

Quite often atheists demand “where is the scientific evidence for God?” That’s not a valid question because science, as an explanation, is not the standard of verification. The true standard of verification, that you asked me for, is being, which is manifested as our experiences. The true question the atheist should ask is “what, in our experiences, gives us evidence for God?” Since the standard is our experiences, not science as an explanation, the answer to this may very well be not scientific- it all depends on the experiences themselves.

I realize this is subtle, but the basic problem is this- atheists demand scientific evidence for God, but science is not the standard of verification. Our experience of being is the true standard, and this experience is not automatically scientific. So, for example, when Catholicism explains sexuality in light of such things are intimacy, Catholicism is not automatically false because it is not scientific. Whether Catholicism is scientific or not has no bearing on its truth, but whether or not our experiences uphold Catholicism as true is where the meat of the question lies.