How do we REALLY Learn What We as Individuals Think We Know?

[Lucretius]

Great response.

To speak of Laws without a Law giver is simply blather.

The argument above is actually a modernization of St. Thomas’s Fifth Way (of sorts). The difference is that St. Thomas followed Aristotle and argued that telos, purpose, order was intristic, that is, it is a part of the object (an object’s nature or form does not exist apart from the object itself). Modern philosophers, on the other hand, followed Plato, and argued that telos, purpose, order was extrinsic, which is when the nature or form of an object is thought to exist separately from the object (you could say the forms transcend the objects they inform: think of Plato’s “third realm”), with the telos “forced” upon the object, like a law. You can see how Plato’s third realm of perfect forms sounds a lot like the Christian God’s omniscient Mind. The argument above assumes the Platonic view, but I am personally more sympathetic to the Aristole view (and the real Fifth Way).

Modern thought is very influenced by this metaphysics, which in many places is radically different from Christian, Aristole, and Platonic (read: realist) metaphysics (it also leads to a lot of the errors, from Hume to Luther, from Biblical Historical criticism to abortion).

The best counter-argument I have seen against it is David Hume’s denial that the human senses and mind can ever actually understand causality. Hume (following William of Okham unconsciously) wrote that causes and effects were “quite separate”, and we can never really understand them. Of course the problem with this view is that it causes skepticism of Science: science searches for the causes of things. To claim we can’t know causality means that Science doesn’t provide real knowledge. When atheists bring him up, it’s another episode of what Chesterton pointed out: that by trying to burn down the town church, the village atheists ends up putting their own wheat fields on fire (which were next to the building). By trying to destroy causality arguments for the existence of God, the gnu atheists end up destroying their beloved Science.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[RGCheek]

The argument above is actually a modernization of St. Thomas’s Fifth Way (of sorts). The difference is that St. Thomas followed Aristotle and argued that telos, purpose, order was intristic, that is, it is a part of the object (an object’s nature or form does not exist apart from the object itself). Modern philosophers, on the other hand, followed Plato, and argued that telos, purpose, order was extrinsic, which is when the nature or form of an object is thought to exist separately from the object (you could say the forms transcend the objects they inform: think of Plato’s “third realm”), with the telos “forced” upon the object, like a law. You can see how Plato’s third realm of perfect forms sounds a lot like the Christian God’s omniscient Mind. The argument above assumes the Platonic view, but I am personally more sympathetic to the Aristole view (and the real Fifth Way).

It would seem that the difference relies on the nature of the object in question and at what point in the chairs existence we begin our analysis. If we make a chair it has a function and purpose that is made into the chair, but one might take a step back and say that by making the chair we forced order onto the wood or materials themselves to produce the chair. But if we start our analysis with the chair itself, then one can see how the function/purpose/order seems innate to it, at least in my dilettante opinion.

And of course people are autonomous animate thinking objects and open a completely different situation, though order is still sometimes imposed, we also have an innate instinct and need for it.

Modern thought is very influenced by this metaphysics, which in many places is radically different from Christian, Aristole, and Platonic (read: realist) metaphysics (it also leads to a lot of the errors, from Hume to Luther, from Biblical Historical criticism to abortion).

But we are finding more and more that order is in fact intrinsic to chemicals and biology. Maybe these Modern philosophers need to update their view of our universe from the 19th century?

The best counter-argument I have seen against it is David Hume’s denial that the human senses and mind can ever actually understand causality. Hume (following William of Okham unconsciously) wrote that causes and effects were “quite separate”, and we can never really understand them. Of course the problem with this view is that it causes skepticism of Science: science searches for the causes of things. To claim we can’t know causality means that Science doesn’t provide real knowledge. When atheists bring him up, it’s another episode of what Chesterton pointed out: that by trying to burn down the town church, the village atheists ends up putting their own wheat fields on fire (which were next to the building). By trying to destroy causality arguments for the existence of God, the gnu atheists end up destroying their beloved Science.

This is where statistical analysis can fill in, I guess. If we say A causes B because every time A happens B follows at an exactly predictable span of time depending on several (name removed by moderator)ut variables and we did the event repeatedly one hundred thousand times all falling into the range of our anticipated results, then whether A ‘truly’ causes B in some philosophical sense or does not, it is functionally reliable enough to depend on and use it as though it were true. What is the value difference between philosophical Truth and ‘good enough’ truth?

I love Burke’s response to Hume when he was asked, "I refute Hume thusly’, and kicked a rock down the path ahead of him.

I think kicking rocks can be very educational.

 

[RGCheek]

We can stand on the shoulders of Giant and try to see farther and doubt them when we are faced with an inconsistency.

So we get to pick our Giants?

Nice.

 

[RGCheek]

I guess you realize that means you know a multiple of 9,999,999 people, which is more than there are on the planet. I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate!

But if you don’t exaggerate people don’t take you seriously.

If we couldn’t learn from others, including learning from the dead through the books they wrote, if we had to find out everything individually by direct observation, I think we wouldn’t even know how to reason properly.

When humanity began to speak in cognitive sentences, if I recall my anthropology correctly, a huge explosion of information took place as one generation became able to pass on its learning and experience to the next generation. And while much repetition was circumvented and deadly mistakes avoided thereby, I really doubt that the young hunters merely took the elders word for it that some legendary hunting spot was down the river.

No, their passion for hunting took them there personally, to see, hear and experience it for themselves.

I think people who are not willing and eager to explore the areas described to them by their elders are in the wrong profession as they obviously don’t have the appropriate passion for it. As for the rest, why not pick a valid authority and live by them? Just don’t mask it with a charade of Reason and Good.

As for authority figures: when we’re very young we have to take things on our parents’ authority since there’s so much to learn, not least to avoid the many things which can kill us. But that means that if our parents have prejudices or bad habits, we will too. That’s one of the reasons why hopefully all older kids are taught to test everything and accept nothing on authority alone.

I was born a fool and never outgrew it I guess. My mom told me dont touch, but I touched anyway. She said stay in the house but I got outside at every opportunity, crawling out the window and down to the creek, coming back smelling of moss, crawdads and creek water. I ruined many a trip to grandma’s and my aunts and my lower back paid the price dancing the Mommy May Pole with a leather belt speeding my movement.

I had to know, I had to push the envelope and the blow back was just the price of admission. I still push any envelope I find around me. But some envelopes are good and satisfy my efforts with a contentment that comes from knowing it is not only valid but it is also something that makes me a better man. We need our envelopes once properly understood.

But Mom’s warnings gave me heed to be wary and keep several fall back plans in mind when I engaged the world beyond her apron strings. She and my wife are the main reasons I am still alive, and Gods Grace, of course.

So none of it was wasted time and effort and I wouldn’t trade any of it.

 

[RGCheek]

We cannot live long enough to explore everything for ourself, either physically or even less, intellectually.

In addition to the big head and hands, what is unique about human life is the use of language to transfer knowledge from mind to mind.

ICXC NIKA.

Language can describe things we cannot experience for ourselves. But if we can see the Grand Canyon for ourselves, why merely read about it?

IF we fly over the Grand Canyon and don’t look but only keep our nose buried in the travel brochure we cheat ourselves.

 

[RGCheek]

So you see what I mean. Good. Exceptions do not prove the rule. We are human beings, none of us perfect, all more than a little lazy. After all, it takes a great deal of work to be correct. So you have not really said anything earth shaking. But after all most of the things we talk about or make decisions about each day are not really earth shaking either. So what exactly is the point you want to make? I assume that you have proof that 99.9999 % of the people you know are seriously deficient in whatever perfection it is you think they should have. Now if you are just making personal observations, we can all make those all day long. But what makes your personal observations any more interesting than any others? Why should we sit up and say, " Wow, that is really interesting? "

Pax
Linus2nd

Perhaps for the same reasons I find your opinions interesting? My opinions are nothing special, but I am committed to learning and to bringing my understanding of Truth as close to Truth itself as I humanly can.

In this effort, I find myself learning from discussions of all kinds, and I most often seem to learn from those I least expect to.

Have a great day, dude.

 

[RGCheek]

The study of how we know things is called epistemology. …Here is a primer on the subject: plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

I have been reading your link with great interest and reflection, at least for my dim lights.

Got some questions and responses for the material up to 2.3, if you wouldn’t mind trying to help me with this thick (for me) text.

Section 1.1
It is not required that S believe the things he knows. For example S might know a lot about the Harry Potter universe but know firmly in his mind that none of it is true or real. They are factoids independent of a quality of Truth other than perhaps some vague pedantic moral.

Justification is also relative to the mind of the person holding the belief or knowledge. I might believe that Global Warming is reality, but how am I justifying that knowledge? Most likely by placing my trust in institutions I think that are competent, objective and whose
goals coincide with my life goals and so their propositional stances resonate with my own world view. Reliabilists might validate such a process but to me it isn’t knowledge unless one sees it, experiences it or runs through the reasoning and logic for themselves till they truly understand it.

1.2 If Henry is right because he has experience with recognizing barn facades then it is entirely justified to say he knows the barn is real even though he might not have yet been exposed to the facades in the area. Luck does not trump factual evidence in and of itself. One must ascertain the nature of Henry’s evidence prior to such an assessment of what he considers to be knowledge. Suppose Henry is an expert at making such facades and thus can spot them even from a distance? His knowledge is then justified and reliable.

Shouldnt there be a different name for one of the two uses of Reliablism when used as a theory of justification vrs a theory of knowledge? Seems unnecessarily confusing? Is this a philosopher’s job security thing?

2.1
Who decides, in Deontological Justification, what one is obligated to not believe?

“The reason why the subjects, from their own point of view, are not obliged to believe otherwise is that they are either cognitively deficient or live in a benighted and isolated community.” Why the false dichotomy? Perhaps the subjects believe in a cutting edge theory that is not yet accepted by the scientific establishment in their field of expertise yet, as is explained in Khuns book on scientific revolutions? The dichotomy seems to assume that the general consensus (that the narrator subscribes to) can never be wrong and so if you disagree with this consensus you are either ignorant or cognitively deficient.

“Those who prefer NDJ to DJ would say that probabilification and deontological justification can diverge: it’s possible for a belief to be deontologically justified without being properly probabilified.” ← this happens all the time, so yes, it is not only possible it is an every day event.

“The reason why the subjects, from their own point of view, are not obliged to believe otherwise is that they are either cognitively deficient or live in a benighted and isolated community. DJ says that such beliefs are justified. If they meet the remaining necessary conditions, DJ-theorists would have to count them as knowledge. According to the objection, however, the beliefs in question, even if true, could not possibly qualify as knowledge, due to the epistemicaly defective way they were formed. Consequently, DJ must be rejected.” All this hinges on the observer having a perfect ability to evaluate and dismiss the epistemological nature of the beliefs of this defective and benighted community. Pardon me if I severely doubt that ability in most cases where the beliefs are not rudimentary; i.e. do not kill people for no reason, do not steal unless you are starving, etc.

 

[RGCheek]

The study of how we know things is called epistemology. …Here is a primer on the subject: plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

I have been reading your link with great interest and reflection, at least for my dim lights.

Got some questions and responses for the material up to 2.3, if you wouldn’t mind trying to help me with this thick (for me) text.
(continued)
2.2
“Rather, they hold that a belief is justified if, and only if, it results from cognitive origin that is reliable: an origin that tends to produce true beliefs and therefore properly probabilifies the belief. Reliabilists, then, would agree that the beliefs mentioned in the previous paragraph are justified. But according to a standard form of reliabilism, what makes them justified is not the possession of evidence, but the fact that the types of processes in which they originate — perception, introspection, memory, and rational intuition — are reliable.”

Is this not ad hominem? Why or why not? They are saying is that evidence is not relevant but only thinking like them is. This is similar to the old Gnostic ‘secret knowledge’ that only the initiated can understand and so discussion with those uninitiated is fruitless and to be avoided. Great way to engage the Other so that we talk with instead of shoot each other

2.3
"In contemporary epistemology, there has been an extensive debate on whether justification is internal or external. Internalists claim that it is internal; externalists deny it. " < - Why not BOTH?

“Luminosity
One’s own mind is cognitively luminous: Relying on introspection, one can always recognize on reflection what mental states one is in.
Necessity
a priori recognizable, necessary principles say what is evidence for what.[25] Relying on a priori insight, one can therefore always recognize on reflection whether one’s mental states are evidence for p.” ← Anyone that has ever been drunk knows that this is not true. The mental state one has can interfere with ones ability to engage in accurate and valid introspection and reflection. And a priori is just another way of saying ‘assumption’ is it not?

“Reliabilism says that the justification of one’s beliefs is a function of, not one’s evidence, but the reliability of one’s belief sources such as memorial, perceptual and introspective states and processes. Whereas the sources might qualify as mental, their reliability does not. Therefore, reliabilists reject mentalist internalism. Moreover, if the justification of one’s beliefs is determined by the reliability of one’s belief sources, justification will not always be recognizable on reflection.” ← so Reliabilists dont believe their own eyes necessarily but only validated sources, regardless of the evidence? This sounds like the secularist who stands in front of a miracle as it unfolds in his own sight but knows it cant be real because he has rejected the possibility of miracles to exist, lol.

And this analogy about Tim and Tim* is more illustrative of the flaws of analogy more than anything else. When one ‘sees’ an object one also gets data validation that most of the time we do not realize. We see subtle differences in perspective and shading, we bend or move back and forth, side to side and see this change though we dont think about it, we speak and hear our echoes back to us and feel the objects affect on the air around us, etc. Tim* is likely to soon die of VR sickness, lol. I would guess that the purveyor of this ridiculous analogy would then say that the Magical Omnipotent Omniscient Computer can then fake that too. But then one has to ask why would anyone build such a machine with such incredible feedback just to fool Tim*? It makes absolutely no sense at all, and so Tim* would be justified in believing that there was some sort of reality behind his data (name removed by moderator)ut. In fact one would expect that if the creators of this machine went to so much effort that Tim* must have some affect on something somewhere that explains the Shy of his situation.

 

[GEddie]

Language can describe things we cannot experience for ourselves. But if we can see the Grand Canyon for ourselves, why merely read about it?

IF we fly over the Grand Canyon and don’t look but only keep our nose buried in the travel brochure we cheat ourselves.

By all means we should experience what we can sensorially; but we will run out of life before we can learn everything in this way.

ICXC NIKA

 

[RGCheek]

By all means we should experience what we can sensorially; but we will run out of life before we can learn everything in this way.

ICXC NIKA

You have something better to do with your life other than to pick the things you would like to experience for yourself and go do it?

Since I slipped a disk in my back and went on disability I have had to get off the daily work treadmill and rethink why I want to live.

Seeing, doing and thinking new things seems an insatiable stream of challenges that I want to swim.

But I don’t expect or advocate doing this with every minute factoid, just the things one is eager to discuss, think on and learn about.

Merely reading something from a book or watching the UTube video is a poor substitute for doing it yourself.

 

[Lucretius]

It would seem that the difference relies on the nature of the object in question and at what point in the chairs existence we begin our analysis. If we make a chair it has a function and purpose that is made into the chair, but one might take a step back and say that by making the chair we forced order onto the wood or materials themselves to produce the chair. But if we start our analysis with the chair itself, then one can see how the function/purpose/order seems innate to it, at least in my dilettante opinion.

And of course people are autonomous animate thinking objects and open a completely different situation, though order is still sometimes imposed, we also have an innate instinct and need for it.

Aristotle held artifacts at a low ontological level. Dr. Ed Feser calls this the natural substance vs artifact distinction. Basically there are natural objects (like plants and animals) that have parts that come together to work for an end. We would say that the parts come together essentially. The nature of the plant and thus its telos exists within the object itself, and in a world without humans, would still exist and still move towards its ends.

On the other, artifacts only make sense in a world with humans (or just minds). The parts of an artifact do not come together organically or essentially, but rather accidently. The parts are forced together, as its telos is “forced” onto it from the mind, and does not exist apart from the mind.

In other words, the essence and telos of a natural object exists in the object itself, and thus objectively, while the essence and telos of an artifact exists only in its user, and thus subjectively.

But we are finding more and more that order is in fact intrinsic to chemicals and biology. Maybe these Modern philosophers need to update their view of our universe from the 19th century?

Aristotle taught that the order was in the natural object itself. Modern thought sort of lost the distinction between artifact and natural object, and started viewing everything as an artifact (machines were the cool things at the time. People have a tendency to model their worldview on the coolest new tech at the time. In ancient times, aqueducts and water clocks → theory of humors, in modern times, clocks and mechanics → everything works reductively mechanically, and today, computers → “mind is the software, the brain is the hardware”). Anyway, they then started to believe that the order was given from outside the object, but since natural objects didn’t receive order from a human, God must have given the telos to the object. In other words, the universe is like God’s artifact, his mechanical machine. This influenced the Deist religion, and is most evidently seen in William Paley’s “Watchmaker” argument and in ID today.

Natural object is not limited to objects with a animus (soul → life), but chemicals and molecular substances have it, as well as “elementary particles” (that’s what substance means in part, to have an intrinsic essence. My cat is a substance. I’m a substance. Christ is of one substance together (consubstantial: “con” = together) with God the Father). These substances build off each other to create new substances, like how water is it’s own substance, yet it can be part of a greater substance, me. What determines what a thing (substance) is is not just the materials, but also the number and pattern (Aristotle uses morphe, modern Aristotelians use “form”) of the materials. All the chemicals have the same materials (protons, neutrons, and electrons), but they differ in their form, which is the difference between a poisonous gas (Cl), an explosive metal (Na), and a stable nutrient required for our bodies (NaCl). You can find a humorous explanation of this here: tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/in-psearch-of-psyche-some-groundwork.html

The moderns were wrong the whole time. We are still trying to get people to climb out of the 1800’s, since quantum physics should have destroyed all hope for a Newton-style mechanical universe (again, it was still trying to force the form of a new tech on the world, claiming that the world works as our toys do). Today, many people today still worship the biological theories of an English country squire from the 19th century

For more information on the artifact vs nature distinction, and how it’s abandonment influences modern thought, including materialism and ID, see here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/nature-versus-art.html

I love Burke’s response to Hume when he was asked, "I refute Hume thusly’, and kicked a rock down the path ahead of him.

I haven’t read much of Burke’s works (yet), so I’ll take your word for it

I think kicking rocks can be very educational.

When I was younger, I thought kicking rocks at people’s windows was very educational The owners didn’t though

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[GEddie]

Although physicists with university-class laboratories understand the universe to be quantum, at the level of our human senses, the world is still Newtonian. Our own human bodies are designed to function within a Newtonian frame of reference.

You cannot “pull people out of the 1600s” sensorially. Only our artifacts can see quanta.

Yet another way in which we cannot discover everything for ourself.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bahman]

How do you learn a new idea. A new idea by definition is something which does not exist in your awareness and it has a conflict with what you know as reality. How do you digest the new idea? Through the challenge of your awareness with subject matter. That is how we learn new idea.

 

[RGCheek]

Aristotle held artifacts at a low ontological level. Dr. Ed Feser calls this the natural substance vs artifact distinction. Basically there are natural objects (like plants and animals) that have parts that come together to work for an end. We would say that the parts come together essentially. The nature of the plant and thus its telos exists within the object itself, and in a world without humans, would still exist and still move towards its ends.

On the other, artifacts only make sense in a world with humans (or just minds). The parts of an artifact do not come together organically or essentially, but rather accidently. The parts are forced together, as its telos is “forced” onto it from the mind, and does not exist apart from the mind.

In other words, the essence and telos of a natural object exists in the object itself, and thus objectively, while the essence and telos of an artifact exists only in its user, and thus subjectively.

Aristotle taught that the order was in the natural object itself. Modern thought sort of lost the distinction between artifact and natural object, and started viewing everything as an artifact (machines were the cool things at the time. People have a tendency to model their worldview on the coolest new tech at the time. In ancient times, aqueducts and water clocks → theory of humors, in modern times, clocks and mechanics → everything works reductively mechanically, and today, computers → “mind is the software, the brain is the hardware”). Anyway, they then started to believe that the order was given from outside the object, but since natural objects didn’t receive order from a human, God must have given the telos to the object. In other words, the universe is like God’s artifact, his mechanical machine. This influenced the Deist religion, and is most evidently seen in William Paley’s “Watchmaker” argument and in ID today.

Natural object is not limited to objects with a animus (soul → life), but chemicals and molecular substances have it, as well as “elementary particles” (that’s what substance means in part, to have an intrinsic essence. My cat is a substance. I’m a substance. Christ is of one substance together (consubstantial: “con” = together) with God the Father). These substances build off each other to create new substances, like how water is it’s own substance, yet it can be part of a greater substance, me. What determines what a thing (substance) is is not just the materials, but also the number and pattern (Aristotle uses morphe, modern Aristotelians use “form”) of the materials. All the chemicals have the same materials (protons, neutrons, and electrons), but they differ in their form, which is the difference between a poisonous gas (Cl), an explosive metal (Na), and a stable nutrient required for our bodies (NaCl). You can find a humorous explanation of this here: tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/in-psearch-of-psyche-some-groundwork.html

The moderns were wrong the whole time. We are still trying to get people to climb out of the 1800’s, since quantum physics should have destroyed all hope for a Newton-style mechanical universe (again, it was still trying to force the form of a new tech on the world, claiming that the world works as our toys do). Today, many people today still worship the biological theories of an English country squire from the 19th century

For more information on the artifact vs nature distinction, and how it’s abandonment influences modern thought, including materialism and ID, see here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/nature-versus-art.html

I haven’t read much of Burke’s works (yet), so I’ll take your word for it

When I was younger, I thought kicking rocks at people’s windows was very educational The owners didn’t though

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Great response.

Thank you for the material for further reading.

 

[RGCheek]

Although physicists with university-class laboratories understand the universe to be quantum, at the level of our human senses, the world is still Newtonian. Our own human bodies are designed to function within a Newtonian frame of reference.

You cannot “pull people out of the 1600s” sensorially. Only our artifacts can see quanta.

Yet another way in which we cannot discover everything for ourself.

ICXC NIKA

Actually it was anomalies in the human level universe that spurred the discoveries of quantum mechanics and General Relativity.

We discovered that observation affects the behavior of light. If humans watch light behaves like a wave, but without observation it behaves like a particle.

There was also the discovery that the speed of light approaching the Earth from the direction of its orbit should seem faster than the speed of light approaching from the direction we move from in Earths orbit. If we call the speed of the Earth around the Sun velocity X, then the measured speeds of light should be different by Xx2, but both speeds were the same. Some said this was proof that the Earth does not move, lol. Resolving the anomaly gave rise to the theory of Relativity.

So the large scale misbehavior is there as well, it just isn’t as commonly observed.

 

[Lucretius]

Great response.

Thank you for the material for further reading.

I recommend Dr. Feser’s The Last Superstition. All of his writing otherwise is Charitable, but this book in particular can be very polemic (although personally I think the New Atheists deserve it). I also did not care for his Natural Law chapter, since he tried to pack a whole bunch of thinking into a small amount of space (he explains his views on Natural Law better on his blog). However, the book is a GREAT introduction into Thomism, Aristotelianism, and the errors in Modern philosophy, as well as all the stuff I’ve been posting in this thread (his understanding of the “mind-body problem” is mind-blowing!).

His highly-praised (not just me) blog is here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Some articles of importance:

Cosmological Argument:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/cosmological-argument-roundup.html

Classical Theism:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html

Mind-Body Problem:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html

Intelligent Design:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/id-versus-t-roundup.html

Scientism:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[inocente]

When humanity began to speak in cognitive sentences, if I recall my anthropology correctly, a huge explosion of information took place as one generation became able to pass on its learning and experience to the next generation. And while much repetition was circumvented and deadly mistakes avoided thereby, I really doubt that the young hunters merely took the elders word for it that some legendary hunting spot was down the river.

No, their passion for hunting took them there personally, to see, hear and experience it for themselves.

Sure, but if they didn’t take the elders’ word for it on anything at all there would be no progression. I’m no anthropologist but if you look at hunting traditions I’d guess they vary by tribe, so some things must have been passed down rather than invented afresh by each generation.

I think people who are not willing and eager to explore the areas described to them by their elders are in the wrong profession as they obviously don’t have the appropriate passion for it. As for the rest, why not pick a valid authority and live by them? Just don’t mask it with a charade of Reason and Good.

I’m not good at authorities, having been taught by engineering and science elders. They gave me authority to question.

*I was born a fool and never outgrew it I guess. My mom told me dont touch, but I touched anyway. She said stay in the house but I got outside at every opportunity, crawling out the window and down to the creek, coming back smelling of moss, crawdads and creek water. I ruined many a trip to grandma’s and my aunts and my lower back paid the price dancing the Mommy May Pole with a leather belt speeding my movement.

I had to know, I had to push the envelope and the blow back was just the price of admission. I still push any envelope I find around me. But some envelopes are good and satisfy my efforts with a contentment that comes from knowing it is not only valid but it is also something that makes me a better man. We need our envelopes once properly understood.

But Mom’s warnings gave me heed to be wary and keep several fall back plans in mind when I engaged the world beyond her apron strings. She and my wife are the main reasons I am still alive, and Gods Grace, of course.

So none of it was wasted time and effort and I wouldn’t trade any of it.*

I guess we’re getting into sociobiology and evolutionary anthropology, neither of which I know much about, but both of which I suspect may have some good answers.

 

[Latias]

Modern thought is very influenced by this metaphysics, which in many places is radically different from Christian, Aristole, and Platonic (read: realist) metaphysics (it also leads to a lot of the errors, from Hume to Luther, from Biblical Historical criticism to abortion).

The best counter-argument I have seen against it is David Hume’s denial that the human senses and mind can ever actually understand causality. Hume (following William of Okham unconsciously) wrote that causes and effects were “quite separate”, and we can never really understand them. Of course the problem with this view is that it causes skepticism of Science: science searches for the causes of things. To claim we can’t know causality means that Science doesn’t provide real knowledge. When atheists bring him up, it’s another episode of what Chesterton pointed out: that by trying to burn down the town church, the village atheists ends up putting their own wheat fields on fire (which were next to the building). By trying to destroy causality arguments for the existence of God, the gnu atheists end up destroying their beloved Science.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

One would suppose that this depends on the meaning of “real knowledge” and “science”.

Skepticism of scientific knowledge is indeed natural in an empiricist framework. Such skepticism would lead one to evaluate why “scientific” knowledge can be deemed as a credible and reliable description of natural phenomenon. This is a critical issue in the philosophy of science as such an assessment would inquiry about the scope and limitation of scientific knowledge, particularly whether scientific theories could provide ontologically truthful accounts of phenomenon and can provide accurate descriptions of unobservable theoretical entities (whose properties and activities would allow reductive or supervenient relations with more phenomenon more accessible to the human senses). The scientific instrumentalist/anti-realistic position is the thesis that the “success” of science does not depend on it providing ontologically correct accounts of an unobservable reality and that is not necessary for a successful scientific theory to do so; just that scientific theories need to predict phenomenon, have some practical applications, or provide a rigorous framework for research to help one investigate phenomenon in a particular domain of knowledge. Scientific theories, in other words, are just a mean in way of organizing the knowledge one can derive in a systemic and rigorous manner from investigating a phenomenon. This approach focuses on epistemology, particularly the connection between scientific theoretical entities and hypotheses between observed phenomenon.

From what I have observed, I do not think new atheists understand the implications of skepticism/empiricism. I do, and I consider myself a scientific antirealist/instrumentalist.

Many people don’t realize that science has a fundamental theist bias. Take the term “Laws of nature/physics.” This is a theological term. God declared the laws for human nature through Moses. However, humans have free will, and thus can go against these laws in certain ways. However, a rock does not have free will, so it cannot go against its nature at all, and thus always falls at the same rate, always melts at the same temperature, etc. God always decrees for the rock to fall according to his law. And thus it always does.

Laws of physics don’t change, even though the things that follow them do. These laws transcend the things that follow them. Sounds like a divine decree to me.

It is epistemically difficult to determine what is a “true” scientific law or just an accidental regularity. I remember in a recent philosophy of science course a year ago, my professor mentioned bibliographic studies that show the use of the word “law” has declined in the scientific literature in the 20th century (while terms such as “effect”, especially in psychology, has replaced “law”). The conclusion is that the modern science does not require many laws to explain a phenomenon (although these laws provide limitations that prevent certain phenomenon from happening such as perpetual motion machines). This is particularly true in biology.

(This may be interesting to me, but I have to be brief. )

 

[Latias]

Natural object is not limited to objects with a animus (soul → life), but chemicals and molecular substances have it, as well as “elementary particles” (that’s what substance means in part, to have an intrinsic essence. My cat is a substance. I’m a substance. Christ is of one substance together (consubstantial: “con” = together) with God the Father). These substances build off each other to create new substances, like how water is it’s own substance, yet it can be part of a greater substance, me. What determines what a thing (substance) is is not just the materials, but also the number and pattern (Aristotle uses morphe, modern Aristotelians use “form”) of the materials. All the chemicals have the same materials (protons, neutrons, and electrons), but they differ in their form, which is the difference between a poisonous gas (Cl), an explosive metal (Na), and a stable nutrient required for our bodies (NaCl). You can find a humorous explanation of this here: tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/in-psearch-of-psyche-some-groundwork.html

When I was younger, I thought kicking rocks at people’s windows was very educational The owners didn’t though

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I do not see anything profound or “substantial” here. Certainly, a different arrangement of matter would yield something with different properties. If one only considered the basic material of a “substance” or the properties an object constituting a more fundamental substance and that these properties would then apply to the whole or the parts, respectively, then one would commit the fallacy of composition and division. Also, it is rudimentary chemistry to understand that the reactivity of elemental chlorine and sodium is due to its highly unstable redox state. Once sodium and chlorine lose/gain electrons, they would become much less reactive. I do not see anything that would require the invocation of metaphysical concepts (such as essence) to understand the properties of the elemental and ionic states of sodium and chlorine.

I do not think you can facilely refute Hume, especially since you have not offered a true representation of Hume’s more nuanced, yet iconoclastic, positions. Hume explicitly acknowledged the problems of extreme skepticism in its practical applications, but he definitely contributed cogent insights on several topics pertaining to natural theology such as teleology and cosmology using a skeptical framework.

 

[RGCheek]

I do not see anything profound or “substantial” here. Certainly, a different arrangement of matter would yield something with different properties. If one only considered the basic material of a “substance” or the properties an object constituting a more fundamental substance and that these properties would then apply to the whole or the parts, respectively, then one would commit the fallacy of composition and division. Also, it is rudimentary chemistry to understand that the reactivity of elemental chlorine and sodium is due to its highly unstable redox state. Once sodium and chlorine lose/gain electrons, they would become much less reactive. I do not see anything that would require the invocation of metaphysical concepts (such as essence) to understand the properties of the elemental and ionic states of sodium and chlorine.

Those metaphysical concepts were the forerunners of science. Astronomy grew from astrology, chemistry from alchemy, physics from ‘natural philosophy’, etc. They were intermediate steps that helped humanity get to more solid valid systems of experimentation and review.

Being so dismissive of the earlier systems of thought that gave rise to modern scientific fields seems so shallow and arrogant of us today as we live in the fruits of those earlier efforts.

I do not think you can facilely refute Hume, especially since you have not offered a true representation of Hume’s more nuanced, yet iconoclastic, positions. Hume explicitly acknowledged the problems of extreme skepticism in its practical applications, but he definitely contributed cogent insights on several topics pertaining to natural theology such as teleology and cosmology using a skeptical framework.

I do not see anything profound or “substantial” in that. Hume produced a view of induction and causation that is simply irrelevant, IMO, because statistically modern science has refuted his doubts like a hurricane of reason. We know that there are limits to our knowledge and that what we once thought of as regularity in the way nature works varies at different locales and different scales of dimension. But so what? We accommodate such observations and look for how they tie together and don’t simply assume that there is no rational system that explains them all with the same set of rules.

Hume is the smart aleck in the back of the classroom whose only contribution to daily use of reason and real life is that he got the truly smart to dig deeper to answer his questions.

Consider that contribution if you want but a three year old could ‘contribute’ in that manner just as well.

Hume his self refutes the existence of the self. Hume uses reason to deny the validity of reason and reduces morality to mere sentiment. He declares that religion is little more than dread of the unknown and that monotheism was the product of or came from polytheism. It is far more accurate to say that monotheism emerged only as people began to see the fatal flaws of polytheism and rejected it for monotheism which is rational and consistent with what we have observed in the real world.

When I read Hume back in high school I was drawn in by the mans prose and his use of reason until I came to realize he was using the snake to swallow itself and undermining everything his own arguments rested on. I discussed him with other Evangelical friends and found that the few of them who considered him worth reading at all had come to similar realizations. Since then I have not wasted any more time on the huckster.

Hume was an element of obfuscation, irrationality and contempt toward God based on the inability to observe Him. How many souls have been lost to poverty, cruelty and damnation due to this imp of a man is simply incalculable.

In my dilettante opinion Hume was a detestable side track, a geek side show whose sole contribution to reason and knowledge was to remind us of the horrors of getting everything wrong.