Epistemology: How Does Realism Overcome Idealism?

[Spock]

How do you know this thing you call “existence?”

I don’t call “existence” a “thing”. Existence is not an object, existence is not an attribute. Existence is either physical or conceptual.

You are assuming the accuracy of our perception here. You have no knowledge of “existence” except through your own capacity to know, which is your general perception. You can’t say that you know the objective truth of some existence without using your capacity to know. You can’t say that you know something is objectively real without using your personal ability to know.

Knowledge of the external world can only come through our personal capacity to know, which is perception in general. If you disagree with this, I challenge you to come up with something that you know to be true without using your ability to know in the process.

So far, nothing to disagree with.

So, all knowledge of the external world is mediated through our personal perception and capacity to know. As such, it is firmly in the domain of epistemology. Now, science says that our perception of the material world in congruent with the external world. That is not a bad position, but it can only be a philosophical position. Since this whole question takes place before science has been established as a reliable method, we cannot use science as evidence here. We need to prove that science is a valid way of knowing before we can use it as evidence. Now the important part comes into play.

You cannot avoid science (which is perception, hypothesis forming and validation). The method (which has not always been named science) is as old as humanity. Every action we do is filtered through this process, whether consciously or unconsciously.

For science to be a valid way of knowing, we must prove its validity.

The proof is in the pudding.

We cannot use science and material observation to prove the validity of science and material observation. Nevertheless, we still hold science and material observation as reliable and valid. Thus, we implicitly acknowledge that it is possible to have adequate evidence for something without referencing science or material observation. If non-material evidence cannot be valid, then we cannot establish science. If non-material evidence can be valid, then we can establish science, but we have also destroyed the idea that material evidence is the only valid form of evidence.

Here you commit an error. We do not have to “use” science to validate its reliability. The validity of a method (and science is just a rigorous method, nothing else) is not contingent upon its application to itself. There is a need for an external verification, and in this case it is fact that we keep surviving. There is no need for any more validation. The pudding has only one “proof”… it is edible.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Existence is either physical or conceptual.

Can you please stop making assertions, or if you can’t help yourself, please put the words “I have a belief” before every sentence, and then perhaps explain exactly why you believe it. Your sentences will be less offensive.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t call “existence” a “thing”. Existence is not an object, existence is not an attribute. Existence is either physical or conceptual.

Which is an entirely philosophical position.

You cannot avoid science (which is perception, hypothesis forming and validation). The method (which has not always been named science) is as old as humanity. Every action we do is filtered through this process, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Actually, Hindus and Buddhists view the world as an illusion, and there are 20 million Hindus and Buddhists in the world.

You are confusing action with true knowledge. It is true that we generally need to use science in our day-to-day life, but that says nothing about the fundamental truths of those experiences. Just because we do something does not mean that such an action is fundamentally true or congruent to the way things really are.

The proof is in the pudding.

The “proof” never leaves the perception. Any “proof” you give me is ultimately just your perception and my perception. We cannot leave ourselves, and thus any knowledge we have comes through our capacity to know. As such, philosophy, epistemology in particular, is absolutely essential before can can claim anything as true knowledge.

It is key to remember that I am not rejecting science. I accept science as a valid way of knowing, but such an approach is not a given and it needs to be established philosophically. You are welcome to use philosophy as well. However, if you use philosophy as a self-standing justification prior to the establishment of science, you have admitted that there can be self-standing justifications without material evidence. I would like to see you try to establish science without using philosophical concepts about our capacity to know in the process.

There is a need for an external verification, and in this case it is fact that we keep surviving. There is no need for any more validation. The pudding has only one “proof”… it is edible.

Here you are appealing to a pragmatic justification. You are saying that the thing in question is true because it benefits us. This is a wholly philosophical position. I am not saying that science cannot be established. I am saying that science cannot be established without using philosophy first, as you are doing here. Since you are using philosophy here as a self-standing justification prior to science, you are de facto admitting that there can be self-standing justifications independent of science.

 

[Spock]

Can you please stop making assertions, or if you can’t help yourself, please put the words “I have a belief” before every sentence, and then perhaps explain exactly why you believe it. Your sentences will be less offensive.

We are all familiar with these two types of existence. If you wish to introduce some other kind, then tell us what that existence means, and demonstrate it. That is all. If you find my assertions “offensive”, I am sorry about that, but it is your business, not mine.

 

[Spock]

Actually, Hindus and Buddhists view the world as an illusion, and there are 20 million Hindus and Buddhists in the world.

What people say and how they behave is quite frequently different. When they are hungry, they eat, when they are thirsty, they drink. They may say that the eating and drinking is just an illusion, but people say many strange things.

You are confusing action with true knowledge. It is true that we generally need to use science in our day-to-day life, but that says nothing about the fundamental truths of those experiences. Just because we do something does not mean that such an action is fundamentally true or congruent to the way things really are.

What is “true” knowledge? Does this phrase mean anything?

The “proof” never leaves the perception. Any “proof” you give me is ultimately just your perception and my perception. We cannot leave ourselves, and thus any knowledge we have comes through our capacity to know. As such, philosophy, epistemology in particular, is absolutely essential before can can claim anything as true knowledge.

Again… what is “true” knowledge? Knowledge is information about something. The “raw data” is obtained via our senses. Then we hopefully can distill that raw data into meaningful information. Then we act on that information. If the information we have is conguent with reality, we survive. If the information obtained is incorrect, we die (in extreme cases), or fail. What else is there?

It is key to remember that I am not rejecting science. I accept science as a valid way of knowing, but such an approach is not a given and it needs to be established philosophically.

On the contrary. Philosophy and epistemology are the distilled products of the actual sciences. First we used the scientific method, then we saw its effectiveness, and then we created the abstract version of it - hence epistemology.

Here you are appealing to a pragmatic justification. You are saying that the thing in question is true because it benefits us.

Yes, of course.

This is a wholly philosophical position. I am not saying that science cannot be established. I am saying that science cannot be established without using philosophy first, as you are doing here. Since you are using philosophy here as a self-standing justification prior to science, you are de facto admitting that there can be self-standing justifications independent of science.

As I said above, philosophy is not the “first” and science is not the “second”. Way before any of those disciplines were formalized and understood, our ancestors lived by (and died by) the haphazard method of trial and error. That was science in an instinctive and unformalized fashion. Those who created an incorrect model of reality did not survive and the rest learned from their mistakes.

 

[Sarpedon]

What is “true” knowledge? Does this phrase mean anything?

Just because we choose to act in a certain way does not make that action congruent with reality. I can choose to observe that 2+2= 5 if it keeps me alive at the hands of terrorists. I doubt you would consider that true knowledge. Likewise, you can choose to observe your perception of reality as accurate if it helps you keep alive. Can you prove the accuracy of your position without resorting to personal desire?

Again… what is “true” knowledge? Knowledge is information about something. The “raw data” is obtained via our senses. Then we hopefully can distill that raw data into meaningful information. Then we act on that information. If the information we have is conguent with reality, we survive. If the information obtained is incorrect, we die (in extreme cases), or fail. What else is there?

“Raw data” is obtained via our senses. Are those senses reliable? Are they always reliable? How far can we extrapolate from them?

These are philosophical questions. They can be resolved to a satisfactory degree philosophically. You happen to be using a pragmatic justification. Regardless, the fact remains that these are philosophical questions that can only be resolved philosophically.

On the contrary. Philosophy and epistemology are the distilled products of the actual sciences. First we used the scientific method, then we saw its effectiveness, and then we created the abstract version of it - hence epistemology.

Philosophy existed far before science existed. The earliest humans engaged in rational thought and came to some conclusions about their observations. They then put these conclusions into action. The rational thought about the accuracy of our perception, how it should be dealt with, and what is means in the grand scheme of things came far before science. That’s why philosophy is necessary for science, and the philosophical justifications for science must be established prior to and free standing from science.

As I said above, philosophy is not the “first” and science is not the “second”. Way before any of those disciplines were formalized and understood, our ancestors lived by (and died by) the haphazard method of trial and error. That was science in an instinctive and unformalized fashion. Those who created an incorrect model of reality did not survive and the rest learned from their mistakes.

First, humans concluded that survival had value. That is philosophy.

 

[Spock]

Just because we choose to act in a certain way does not make that action congruent with reality. I can choose to observe that 2+2= 5 if it keeps me alive at the hands of terrorists. I doubt you would consider that true knowledge. Likewise, you can choose to observe your perception of reality as accurate if it helps you keep alive. Can you prove the accuracy of your position without resorting to personal desire?

No, that is not knowledge. That is simply giving in to force - in a rather “unnatural” scenario. By the way, you do not observe or accept thet 2 + 2 = 5… you just say it to survive. It may be possible that the Winston Smith scenario in 1984 can be true, that finally he was able to “see” 5 fingers under extreme duress when only 4 fingers were presented. I don’t know. But that just shows that mind can play “tricks” on us. Nothing new there.

“Raw data” is obtained via our senses. Are those senses reliable? Are they always reliable? How far can we extrapolate from them?

One can doubt the reliability of the (name removed by moderator)ut data… but that doubt cannot be substantiated. The only reason his “doubt” is entertained is the result that our visual perception is so easy to misinterpret. None of the other senses have that “weakness”. Can you imagine that one “confuses” the screeching of fingernail on a board with listening to a melody? Or “confuse” the stink of a rotting piece of meat with the smell of a rose? Or “mistake” a caress for kick in the groin? Or confusing the taste of quinine with the taste of honey?

The senses are accurate. The interpretation we derive from them may not be. But let’s not “shoot the messanger”. Besides, just how would you “deduce” that the senses are not reliable? By appealing to other sensory data?

These are philosophical questions. They can be resolved to a satisfactory degree philosophically. You happen to be using a pragmatic justification. Regardless, the fact remains that these are philosophical questions that can only be resolved philosophically.

OK. So what?

Philosophy existed far before science existed. The earliest humans engaged in rational thought and came to some conclusions about their observations. They then put these conclusions into action. The rational thought about the accuracy of our perception, how it should be dealt with, and what is means in the grand scheme of things came far before science. That’s why philosophy is necessary for science, and the philosophical justifications for science must be established prior to and free standing from science.

I am talking about our cavemen ancestors and even about animals. Those beings also do a rudimentary “modeling”. They interpret the raw data either correctly or incorrectly - and they survive or not depending on the accuracy of the model. That is “science” on their level.

First, humans concluded that survival had value. That is philosophy.

Nope. That is biology. Living things “strive” to survive - instinctively, even if they cannot formulate ideas and concepts.

 

[Sarpedon]

No, that is not knowledge. That is simply giving in to force - in a rather “unnatural” scenario. By the way, you do not observe or accept thet 2 + 2 = 5… you just say it to survive. It may be possible that the Winston Smith scenario in 1984 can be true, that finally he was able to “see” 5 fingers under extreme duress when only 4 fingers were presented. I don’t know. But that just shows that mind can play “tricks” on us. Nothing new there.

No, the whole question revolves around how we know that our perception is accurate. How do you know that our perception is reliable? (without saying “we observe it,” which is circular)

The senses are accurate. The interpretation we derive from them may not be. But let’s not “shoot the messanger”. Besides, just how would you “deduce” that the senses are not reliable? By appealing to other sensory data?

I establish the reliability of the senses through philosophy. How do you establish their reliability? You can’t point to your perception to justify your claim that your perception is accurate.

OK. So what?

Do you acknowledge that a claim can be sufficient justified without material observation? If these things can only be established philosophically, and must be established prior to science, do you acknowledge that there can be self-sufficient and free-standing justifications apart from material observation and deduction?

Nope. That is biology. Living things “strive” to survive - instinctively, even if they cannot formulate ideas and concepts.

That goes right back to your justification for your perception. How do you know this? By making observations of the material world and deducing things from it? How do you know that your observations are reliable in the first place?

 

[Spock]

No, the whole question revolves around how we know that our perception is accurate. How do you know that our perception is reliable? (without saying “we observe it,” which is circular)

It is **not **circular. Our continued survival in not in the “loop”. It would be irrational to say: “but how do you know that you exist?”. The principle: “cogito ergo sum” cannot be rationally questioned.

I establish the reliability of the senses through philosophy.

Would you elaborate on this? I have no idea what you have in mind. How does philosophy establish the claim about reality without referring to reality?

How do you establish their reliability? You can’t point to your perception to justify your claim that your perception is accurate.

Answered above.

Do you acknowledge that a claim can be sufficient justified without material observation?

Yes, but only in the case of abstract sciences, like mathematics.

That goes right back to your justification for your perception. How do you know this? By making observations of the material world and deducing things from it? How do you know that your observations are reliable in the first place?

Answered before… several times. The rudimentary model forming in the case of animals and cave men way predates the formal concept of epistemology. Do you deny that?

 

[Sarpedon]

It is **not **circular. Our continued survival in not in the “loop”. It would be irrational to say: “but how do you know that you exist?”. The principle: “cogito ergo sum” cannot be rationally questioned.

I’m not talking about knowledge of self-existence. I am talking about knowledge of the external world. While Descartes thought that he could not question his own existence, he did acknowledge that he could question his perception of the external world. That is central to his whole epistemological position.

Would you elaborate on this? I have no idea what you have in mind. How does philosophy establish the claim about reality without referring to reality?

Well, I could say that viewing our external perception as illusory leads to bad things, and part of epistemology is using wisdom to determine what we will observe as true. That’s not scientific at all.

Yes, but only in the case of abstract sciences, like mathematics.

Are we theists under an obligation to provide material evidence for God?

The reliability of our perceptions of the material world is not a given. It needs to be justified. Naturally, you cannot justify something by the thing in question. Therefore, the reliability of our perception of the external world must be justified by something other than our perception of the external world. Do you agree with this?

Answered before… several times. The rudimentary model forming in the case of animals and cave men way predates the formal concept of epistemology. Do you deny that?

Rationality precedes both the “formal concept of epistemology” as well as the “formal concept of science.” Nevertheless, epistemology necessarily precedes science regardless of the names attached to them. Epistemology is concerned with how we know things. Epistemology is concerned with the justifications for legitimate knowledge. As such, science is a subset of epistemology. Science draws on philosophical ideas about reality and how we perceive it. Science is part of philosophy and is derived from philosophy. It was necessary for the earliest humans to conclude that their perception was accurate before they could conclude that knowledge of the world was available to them. “Perception” in this case does not refer to seeing things in the context of materiality, like observing experimental error, but how the “see” things in a fundamental sense (like how you know that your computer is real).

So, science is a subset of philosophy, in particular epistemology. As such, epistemology as a whole is the necessary prerequisite to epistemology in part. Given that epistemology as a whole is necessary to establish science before it can be used as evidence, do you acknowledge that epistemology (or philosophy in general) can justify something in the absence of material evidence? Science must be justified by epistemology prior to its emergence as reliable evidence, which means that its justification cannot draw on science, since it has not been established yet.

 

[Sarpedon]

Alas, but I must leave for college tomorrow, so I will not be able to continue this discussion. It’s been great debating you

The basic point of my argument is that science and our material perceptions cannot justify themselves and therefore must be justified by something else (philosophy). This justification must be self-standing and independent from the result. Therefore, there can be legitimate justifications that are not material. This then severely weakens the claim that theists need material evidence for God, as opposed to philosophic evidence.

Keep in mind that when I speak of “material perceptions” I am not talking about things like experimental error or observations within the context of the material world. I am speaking on a much deeper level- such as when we observe a computer in front of us, how do we know that that observation is congruent with the external reality? How do we know that a computer is really there, at least in the form that we see it?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Rationality precedes both the “formal concept of epistemology” as well as the “formal concept of science.” Nevertheless, epistemology necessarily precedes science regardless of the names attached to them. Epistemology is concerned with how we know things. Epistemology is concerned with the justifications for legitimate knowledge. As such, science is a subset of epistemology. Science draws on philosophical ideas about reality and how we perceive it. Science is part of philosophy and is derived from philosophy. It was necessary for the earliest humans to conclude that their perception was accurate before they could conclude that knowledge of the world was available to them. “Perception” in this case does not refer to seeing things in the context of materiality, like observing experimental error, but how the “see” things in a fundamental sense (like how you know that your computer is real).

So, science is a subset of philosophy, in particular epistemology. As such, epistemology as a whole is the necessary prerequisite to epistemology in part. Given that epistemology as a whole is necessary to establish science before it can be used as evidence, do you acknowledge that epistemology (or philosophy in general) can justify something in the absence of material evidence? Science must be justified by epistemology prior to its emergence as reliable evidence, which means that its justification cannot draw on science, since it has not been established yet.

Its a pleasure reading your posts. Your understanding is wonderful.

 

[Spock]

Alas, but I must leave for college tomorrow, so I will not be able to continue this discussion. It’s been great debating you

The basic point of my argument is that science and our material perceptions cannot justify themselves and therefore must be justified by something else (philosophy). This justification must be self-standing and independent from the result. Therefore, there can be legitimate justifications that are not material. This then severely weakens the claim that theists need material evidence for God, as opposed to philosophic evidence.

Keep in mind that when I speak of “material perceptions” I am not talking about things like experimental error or observations within the context of the material world. I am speaking on a much deeper level- such as when we observe a computer in front of us, how do we know that that observation is congruent with the external reality? How do we know that a computer is really there, at least in the form that we see it?

Well, I am also glad that you participated. Have a great time in college.

Without a need for an answer, I will also make a small summary. The external justification is agreeable. It just so happens that I see this in the objective and continued existence of ourselves. As we agree, our own existence is beyond any doubt. From this the existence of the external world follows, via the following reasoning.

We interact (or think we interact) with something that is not-us (or what we think is not-us). In that case we can have two hypotheses: 1) the external reality is really there, or 2) it is merely a figment of our imagination. The second hypothesis can be immediately refuted by the result of some interactions, for example a conversation like ours. The concepts you (general you, not personal) say are in dire contradiction with my opinions. Therefore to assert that you would be a figment of my imagination would conclude that I am insane. And that is just as unacceptable as to answer negatively to a question like: “are you alive?” or “do you exist?”. Or answer affirmatively to a question like “are you asleep?”.

No one, even completely delusional person can answer affirmatively a question: “are you insane?”. We are all convinced of our sanity. It is taken as granted as our existence. Therefore, the result of our conversation assures me that you exist indepently from my imagination. This reasoning dispenses with the possibility of solipsism.

The next question: “whether our observation of this external reality is correct or not” is answered by the continued existence of ours. If we did not draw correct conclusions from our observations then our continued existence would be jeopardized. This is external to the process, so it qualifies as justification. This is definitely an instance where the “end justifies the means” - our existence justifies our method of observation + hypothesis forming + verification, that is the natural sciences.

Of course I would still be interested in how do you propose to use philosophy as an external justification for science? To me it is akin to assert the beauty of a painting without any reference to seeing, or contemplate the intricacies of a symphony without any reference to hearing. When you have time to engage in such mundane matters, return to this subject, either in this thread (if it is still around) or in a new one, or simply shoot me a PM.

Anyway, have fun, enjoy college and life in general. The best to you and your loves ones. /cheers!!!