Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)

[fhansen]

Your claim is too vague, but so far as what it seems to mean: no, Catholicism does not really claim to inform us further about the existence of “this faith”: namely, the “more or less unconscious or rudimentary form” found in most people, the “innate trust that things will work out and that there’s some purpose in what I do, without necessarily much thought about it for long-term or deeper significance” - at least, if it does inform us about this, it does not do so in a positive sense. That’s more what Oprah Winfrey claims to inform us about.

The Church and scripture teach that everyone is give a “measure of faith”, that all have a vague hope, a yearning within for something “more”, whether we take it seriously or not. By informing us about this innate desire I mean to say that the Church, via Gods revelation to her, fleshes it out, makes it real, gives it direction, Oprah not withstanding.

 

[Betterave]

The Church and scripture teach that everyone is give a “measure of faith”, that all have a vague hope, a yearning within for something “more”, whether we take it seriously or not. By informing us about this innate desire I mean to say that the Church, via Gods revelation to her, fleshes it out, makes it real, gives it direction, Oprah not withstanding.

I’m afraid the Church and scripture do not teach that the kind of theological faith (or epistemological faith, for that matter) which we are discussing here is simply an increased “measure”, or a mere extension, of some “vague hope” or “yearning within for something ‘more’,” which we may or may not take seriously. Please refer specifically to what you mean if you disagree.

 

[fhansen]

I’m afraid the Church and scripture do not teach that the kind of theological faith (or epistemological faith, for that matter) which we are discussing here is simply an increased “measure”, or a mere extension, of some “vague hope” or “yearning within for something ‘more’,” which we may or may not take seriously. Please refer specifically to what you mean if you disagree.

Spe Salvi
12. I think that in this very precise and permanently valid way, Augustine is describing man’s essential situation, the situation that gives rise to all his contradictions and hopes. In some way we want life itself, true life, untouched even by death; yet at the same time we do not know the thing towards which we feel driven. We cannot stop reaching out for it, and yet we know that all we can experience or accomplish is not what we yearn for. This unknown “thing” is the true “hope” which drives us, and at the same time the fact that it is unknown is the cause of all forms of despair and also of all efforts, whether positive or destructive, directed towards worldly authenticity and human authenticity.

Veritatis Splendor
But no darkness of error or of sin can totally take away from man the light of God the Creator. In the depths of his heart there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it. This is eloquently proved by man’s tireless search for knowledge in all fields. It is proved even more by his search for the meaning of life. The development of science and technology, this splendid testimony of the human capacity for understanding and for perseverance, does not free humanity from the obligation to ask the ultimate religious questions. Rather, it spurs us on to face the most painful and decisive of struggles, those of the heart and of the moral conscience.

CCC
28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:
From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For "in him we live and move and have our being."2
29 But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” (GS 19 § 1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.4

These quotes simply confirm teachings that man begins with a drive, however imperfectly informed, the presence of which is not necessarily or fully rationally explicable. And my point is that people often live as if they have faith and hope in something, even if they flat reject that there’s anything to hope in outside of this life-or outside “the consistent world revealed by our senses”, as the OP states. But the notion that life may continue on in some manner, that there may be a higher purpose to life, that everything one lives for now is not ultimately futile, often has a place in mans heart and affects the way he lives even if he doesn’t consciously acknowledge it or flat denies it.

While this may not be the theological virtue of faith, it nonetheless shares more in common with Christian faith than it does with a philosophical world view that implies that all reality exists only in our minds; neither kind of faith is explicable on purely rational or evidential grounds. The yearning or thirst for truth and even the quest for happiness implies that man intuits a goal or purpose or reason behind existence- even if individuals may deny this or grow weary of the quest.

 

[Betterave]

**These quotes simply confirm teachings that man begins with a drive, however imperfectly informed, the presence of which is not necessarily or fully rationally explicable. And my point is that people often live as if they have faith and hope in something, even if they flat reject that there’s anything to hope in outside of this life-or outside “the consistent world revealed by our senses”, as the OP states. But the notion that life may continue on in some manner, that there may be a higher purpose to life, that everything one lives for now is not ultimately futile, often has a place in mans heart and affects the way he lives even if he doesn’t consciously acknowledge it or flat denies it.

While this may not be the theological virtue of faith, it nonetheless shares more in common with Christian faith than it does with a philosophical world view that implies that all reality exists only in our minds; neither kind of faith is explicable on purely rational or evidential grounds. The yearning or thirst for truth and even the quest for happiness implies that man intuits a goal or purpose or reason behind existence- even if individuals may deny this or grow weary of the quest.**

Well my point is that people living “as if they have faith” while “flat-out] reject[ing] that there’s anything to hope in outside of this life” is NOT anything like theological faith. And I don’t see why you think it has more in common with Christian faith than “a philosophical world-view that implies that all reality exists only in our minds” (whatever that is supposed to refer to or mean - this is a straw man of the Matrix, I assume??).

 

[AntiTheist]

What I’m saying is that I think faith already exists in a more or less unconscious or rudimentary form in most people. It’s an innate trust that things will work out and that there’s some purpose in what I do, without necessarily much thought about it for long-term or deeper significance.

What you’re describing is not “faith,” in the sense of the word “faith” that religious people use – you’re describing optimism. Having a trust that things will work out for the best is simply an optimistic point of view, one probably – but not necessarily – supported by a lifetime of fortunate breaks or simply being born into a first-world country (perhaps the most fortunate break of all).

As to the others posting here, I’ve already answered all of your questions. My claim isn’t “All claims require evidence” – it’s “all claims require evidence if you want to know that your claims match the world,” and it’s justified not only by definition (evidence, by definition, is data drawn from the world that supports your claim) but on the basis of the entire history of humans evaluating claims: evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of learning things about the world.

If you disagree with me, tell me another method of learning things about the world that is as effective as evidence-based inquiry. Tell me how you know that it is effective.

Your refusal to do this speaks volumes: you are implicitly agreeing that evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of gaining knowledge that we have.

 

[ddarko]

What you’re describing is not “faith,” in the sense of the word “faith” that religious people use – you’re describing optimism. Having a trust that things will work out for the best is simply an optimistic point of view, one probably – but not necessarily – supported by a lifetime of fortunate breaks or simply being born into a first-world country (perhaps the most fortunate break of all).

As to the others posting here, I’ve already answered all of your questions. My claim isn’t “All claims require evidence” – it’s “all claims require evidence if you want to know that your claims match the world,” and it’s justified not only by definition (evidence, by definition, is data drawn from the world that supports your claim) but on the basis of the entire history of humans evaluating claims: evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of learning things about the world.

If you disagree with me, tell me another method of learning things about the world that is as effective as evidence-based inquiry. Tell me how you know that it is effective.

Your refusal to do this speaks volumes: you are implicitly agreeing that evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of gaining knowledge that we have.

So let me understand you correctly, the claim that “all claims require evidence if you want to know that your claims match the world” is not a claim that matches the world ? If it is, then we are back to the same problem of logical consistency. So it seems to me like you are just going to fall back in to the same problem with some different convoluted wording.

And once again, this entire history thing you keep bringing up only confirms that those limited set of real world truths fall in to the category of evidence based inquiry. It cannot make a generalized claim regarding everything. There are scientific truths and there are non-scientific truths. None are more ‘truer’ than the other. They are all truths.

Now since I disagree with you, as per your request, I would present the alternative of self-evident truths as Betterave holds in his position. I know its effective (or more accurately necessary) because it allows you to broaden the criteria for evidence and thus making it logically consistent to hold positions such as “All claims require evidence” or the variations that you want to hold. So in other words, accepting self evident truths exists and that being self-evident is evidence in it-self, you have a logically consistent model to hold that “all claims require evidence” or "all claims require evidence if you want to know that your claims match the world,". Now since we know that what you are presenting right now is logically inconsistent (you yourself have been trying to escape this problem by unsuccessfully trying to reword your claim), I can’t see why you would not agree

God Bless

 

[EricFilmer]

evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of learning things about the world.

This thread has gotten a bit long, so forgive me if this has already been defined earlier, but could you please supply a definition for the term “evidence-based inquiry”.

 

[AntiTheist]

This thread has gotten a bit long, so forgive me if this has already been defined earlier, but could you please supply a definition for the term “evidence-based inquiry”.

Evidence-based inquiry is the process of coming to conclusions by the use of evidence. It is consistently reliable – which, it should be noted, doesn’t mean “always correct.”

These other posters are going around implying pretty strongly that there’s something “inadequate” about evidence-based inquiry, so I think it’s fair to insist that they provide an alternative way of knowing things and how they know that it’s true.

If they can’t do this, then they are asserting implicitly that they too must rely on evidence-based inquiry.

 

[AntiTheist]

this entire history thing you keep bringing up only confirms that those limited set of real world truths fall in to the category of evidence based inquiry.

Yes. Evidence-based inquiry is only useful for things that fall into its domain. Things that fall into its domain include fact claims about the world.

You can’t use evidence-based inquiry to determine things that aren’t fact claims about the world – like, for example, value-judgments. I can’t use evidence to determine that “watermelon tastes yummy” because that claim isn’t a fact-claim: it’s a value-claim, a judgment about the world.

Now, either god claims are fact claims or value-judgments. If they assert that a being exists outside of the human mind, then they are fact claims and they fall squarely in the domain of evidence-based inquiry, like any other fact claim about the world.

I would present the alternative of self-evident truths as Betterave holds in his position.

Give me an example of something that’s “self-evident.” If you’re just talking about logical absolutes, then you’re affirming my case here: you know that they’re true because of induction from experience (and experience = evidence).

 

[Betterave]

As to the others posting here, I’ve already answered all of your questions.

This claim is *evidence *that you don’t understand the concept of ‘answering a question.’ (Or, again, that you have very poor reading comprehension and have not understood the questions that have been posed to you.)

Evidence-based inquiry is the process of coming to conclusions by the use of evidence. It is consistently reliable – which, it should be noted, doesn’t mean “always correct.”

These other posters are going around implying pretty strongly that there’s something “inadequate” about evidence-based inquiry, so I think it’s fair to insist that they provide an alternative way of knowing things and how they know that it’s true.

“Adequacy” (or “inadequacy”) is a relative term. Your attempt to construe my claims here about the ‘adequacy’ of ‘evidence-based inquiry’ as absolute claims are therefore nonsensical.

My claim isn’t “All claims require evidence” – it’s “all claims require evidence if you want to know that your claims match the world,” and it’s justified not only by definition (evidence, by definition, is data drawn from the world that supports your claim) but on the basis of the entire history of humans evaluating claims: evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of learning things about the world.

Your definition of ‘evidence’ is an arbitrary stipulative one. From wiki: ***Evidence *in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Further, your claim, “all claims require evidence if you want to know that your claims match the world,” is trivially circular, since it refers to “the world,” which in your view appears to mean nothing other than “that which is evident.” Hence your claim is equivalent to: “all claims require evidence if you want to know that your claims match the evidence.”

This claim is not inductively justifed, as you claim, on the basis of its having proven to be “consistently reliable.” The only way in which it is justified is by virtue of the fact that it is self-evident.

If they can’t do this, then they are asserting implicitly that they too must rely on evidence-based inquiry.

I am glad to note that my claims about the obvious short-comings of your construal of “evidence-based inquiry” are firmly grounded in the evidence of your numerous fallacious arguments in this thread.

 

[ddarko]

Yes. Evidence-based inquiry is only useful for things that fall into its domain. Things that fall into its domain include fact claims about the world.

You can’t use evidence-based inquiry to determine things that aren’t fact claims about the world – like, for example, value-judgments. I can’t use evidence to determine that “watermelon tastes yummy” because that claim isn’t a fact-claim: it’s a value-claim, a judgment about the world.

Hi, Firstly I would appreciate it if you addressed my post in its entirety. I did pose a question to you about your claim and showed that it was circular. But you have chose to ignore that part of my post and ask questions. Its hard to continue a discussion this way.

So once again, is your claim about “evidence based inquiry” a fact claim about the world? If it is, you are back to the problem of circular logic once again. Unless you agree that you have to broaden your definition of evidence to include self-evident truths.

Now, either god claims are fact claims or value-judgments. If they assert that a being exists outside of the human mind, then they are fact claims and they fall squarely in the domain of evidence-based inquiry, like any other fact claim about the world.

Give me an example of something that’s “self-evident.” If you’re just talking about logical absolutes, then you’re affirming my case here: you know that they’re true because of induction from experience (and experience = evidence).

Example of self evident truths are metaphysical truths. Ex: Other minds exist, all claims require evidence etc. These are value claims as far as I can see.

Some might even claim God as a self evident truth but lets leave that aside for now and concentrate on your claim. I don’t know why you brought the existence of God up in your post.

You can’t say logical absolutes are true because of induction from experience. Take the principle of contradiction for an example. That defines what is true. You use it to verify your experiences/evidence. To say that your evidence in some way verifies the principle of contradiction is circular logic. The principle of contradiction is also not a value claim. So I would consider it a self evident truth that contradicts your position as well.

Also, please refer to Betterave’s post in reply to you which shows the problem with your notion of “evidence” and explains some more things.

God Bless

 

[Touchstone]

Further, your claim, “all claims require evidence if you want to know that your claims match the world,” is trivially circular, since it refers to “the world,” which in your view appears to mean nothing other than “that which is evident.” Hence your claim is equivalent to: “all claims require evidence if you want to know that your claims match the evidence.”

This claim is not inductively justifed, as you claim, on the basis of its having proven to be “consistently reliable.” The only way in which it is justified is by virtue of the fact that it is self-evident.

See below…

Hi, Firstly I would appreciate it if you addressed my post in its entirety. I did pose a question to you about your claim and showed that it was circular. But you have chose to ignore that part of my post and ask questions. Its hard to continue a discussion this way.

So once again, is your claim about “evidence based inquiry” a fact claim about the world? If it is, you are back to the problem of circular logic once again. Unless you agree that you have to broaden your definition of evidence to include self-evident truths.

Not Anti-Theist, he can answer for himself, but this is an important point for me to make, I think; this comes up all the time, the “circular argument” thingy. Science, and evidence-based inquiry/analysis, needs properly ZERO justification. It’s a gamble, a bet, a metaphysical what-if, a research program. As such, it needs no “other half of the circle”, any more than a scientific hypothesis needs to prove itself before it can be considered worthy of being proved.

If evidence and empirical testing of the extramental world are NOT amenable to modeling and development of performing theories and principles, we shall not expect those models to perform – why would they? There’s no correlation, no isomorphism, no interdependence if so. But if we can develop models that perform, and empirically, it very much looks like we can, and have then we congratulate ourselves smugly and pat ourselves on the make for making a shrewd metaphysical bet.

But it’s just a bet, call it a hunch if you like. It needs no justification whatsoever because it’s vetted by testing and empirical performance. This is the triumph of science over the insular pedantics of “classic philosophy” or speculative metaphysics.

So the “circular argument” thingy signals a fundamental misunderstanding of how science, and evidence-based analysis establish themselves. A priori justification is for suckers. to put it crudely. Make your bet, and let’s see how the external word treats it in terms of performance.

And importantly, we can just shrug at laments of "what about the ‘deeper truths’, you know, the really profound metapshysical truths where evidence doesn’t apply?’. Meh! What of it, we have real models that really perform, or don’t. This is where the real action is for minds seeking knowledge. There’s plenty of deep and profound questions inside that perimeter that we’ve made very little headway on for any who are determined to be “knowledge soldiers of the super-profound”.

Example of self evident truths are metaphysical truths. Ex: Other minds exist, all claims require evidence etc. These are value claims as far as I can see.

That’s a claim that just cuts an epistemology into little, subjective bits, where there had been real, objective knowledge prior. “Other minds exist” is a very good example of where evidence-based reasoning obtains; it’s not “metaphysically true” in some self-evident sense. That’s absurd, and that’s a term I don’t use very much here. The existence of other minds is a hypothesis which, under the load of testing and evaluation in the feedback loop of life, the cycles of real life, bears out MUCH better than any alternative. The evidence is against the alternative hypotheses. And as above, humans need no “permission” or “justification” to entertain hypothesis – this is what imagination is for, formulating bets or honing intuitions into propositions that go into the real world and fare poorly or well, according to their merits… as real-world-compatible ideas.

As soon as one says “other minds exist” is “self-evidently true”, one has slipped into nihilism, for by this measure, anything, anything at all can be smuggled into “rational beliefs” as “self-evident”.

Some might even claim God as a self evident truth but lets leave that aside for now and concentrate on your claim.

This is perhaps the most egregious example I can think of for what I just mentioned in my previous paragraph. If one allows oneself the cheat of “self-evident”, this is what you get, and now your knowledge is erased, your claims of “truth” are PERFECTLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from claims of “falsehood”. When one can “bless” any idea at all with the halo of “self-evidence”, sure as shootin’, and right here in the same post, “God is self-evident” gets advanced.

-TS

 

[Timothy17]

AntiTheist,

I say this in a true spirit of Charity, to save you some time : Catholic theology and philosophy is far beyond this. You’re using argument structures and analogies that are, frankly, insulting. It really comes across as you seem to think we’re stupid. Stuff like this might work in ecclesiastical communities where they have no underlying theological foundation, but… seriously ? This may cause a child or someone utterly unaquainted with the deeper substance of their Faith to doubt, but mature Catholics ? Am I supposed to take this seriously ? You do realize many Catholics are converts from atheism- we’ve run this line of thought through our brains before, and came out converted Catholics. We once believed the same “stuff” you do, and frankly, seeing this and looking back on those days, is now - from an intellectual stand-point - as contrasting as a mature adult looking back on their childhood.

Please, don’t assume Catholics are narrow-minded, uneducated or not familiar with enlightenment ideals, principles, theories, etc., as if the Church disappeared during the last three hundred years. Most of us were educated by the same teachers and professors you were, and most didn’t just ignore contradictions or theoretical assaults on our Faith. We worked through them, researched, thought, and came out the other end - Faith and Reason both firmly intact.

Pax,
Tim

 

[ddarko]

See below…
Not Anti-Theist, he can answer for himself, but this is an important point for me to make, I think; this comes up all the time, the “circular argument” thingy. Science, and evidence-based inquiry/analysis, needs properly ZERO justification. It’s a gamble, a bet, a metaphysical what-if, a research program. As such, it needs no “other half of the circle”, any more than a scientific hypothesis needs to prove itself before it can be considered worthy of being proved.

What kind of logic is this? If you want to pursue this line of reasoning, I would say God is such a claim that requires ZERO justification. So you atheist should seriously start asking yourself what your little gripe is with religion.

But anyway, good news for you is that what you said doesn’t make any sense. Circular logic is circular logic. There are no halves or quarters of a circle.

If evidence and empirical testing of the extramental world are NOT amenable to modeling and development of performing theories and principles, we shall not expect those models to perform – why would they? There’s no correlation, no isomorphism, no interdependence if so. But if we can develop models that perform, and empirically, it very much looks like we can, and have then we congratulate ourselves smugly and pat ourselves on the make for making a shrewd metaphysical bet.

Ok this is once again the common error. You cannot justify something like the principle of contradiction or the empirical method by what you observe by your models. You use them to observe and gather evidence in the first place. How can you justify your criteria for evidence using the evidence you gathered using the criteria it-self? That is CIRCULAR logic.

But it’s just a bet, call it a hunch if you like. It needs no justification whatsoever because it’s vetted by testing and empirical performance. This is the triumph of science over the insular pedantics of “classic philosophy” or speculative metaphysics.

What a tragedy. I don’t know whats worse. Your inability to understand circular logic or your mistaken superiority of Science over “classical philosophy”. Science can never justify science by it-self. Do you understand that simple thing? To do so is circular.

So the “circular argument” thingy signals a fundamental misunderstanding of how science, and evidence-based analysis establish themselves. A priori justification is for suckers. to put it crudely. Make your bet, and let’s see how the external word treats it in terms of performance.

Well I am not talking about prior justification. I am just pointing out to you the fact that there is no justification of self-evident truths that is possible using the scientific method or self-evident logical truths themselves. To do so is circular.

And importantly, we can just shrug at laments of "what about the ‘deeper truths’, you know, the really profound metapshysical truths where evidence doesn’t apply?’. Meh! What of it, we have real models that really perform, or don’t. This is where the real action is for minds seeking knowledge. There’s plenty of deep and profound questions inside that perimeter that we’ve made very little headway on for any who are determined to be “knowledge soldiers of the super-profound”.

Well this is what I always find so ironic. Atheist always claim about how important knowledge is. As far as an atheism is concerned, all values are subjective. No knowledge is really valuable. But yea, I guess it kind of shows the intellect of the atheist.

That’s a claim that just cuts an epistemology into little, subjective bits, where there had been real, objective knowledge prior. “Other minds exist” is a very good example of where evidence-based reasoning obtains; it’s not “metaphysically true” in some self-evident sense. That’s absurd, and that’s a term I don’t use very much here. The existence of other minds is a hypothesis which, under the load of testing and evaluation in the feedback loop of life, the cycles of real life, bears out MUCH better than any alternative. The evidence is against the alternative hypotheses. And as above, humans need no “permission” or “justification” to entertain hypothesis – this is what imagination is for, formulating bets or honing intuitions into propositions that go into the real world and fare poorly or well, according to their merits… as real-world-compatible ideas.

Ok I think you have a very limited understand of epistemology. Some truths are self-evident. Thats simply how it is. To say they are justified by evidence is incorrect. It makes ZERO logical sense.

Secondly look in to Alvin Platinga’s argument for God from properly basic beliefs, the objections and his responses. He addresses something similar to your question on it.

As soon as one says “other minds exist” is “self-evidently true”, one has slipped into nihilism, for by this measure, anything, anything at all can be smuggled into “rational beliefs” as “self-evident”.

What? If other minds exists there is nihilism? Your logic is rather astounding

(Continued…)

 

[ddarko]

(continued from above …)

This is perhaps the most egregious example I can think of for what I just mentioned in my previous paragraph. If one allows oneself the cheat of “self-evident”, this is what you get, and now your knowledge is erased, your claims of “truth” are PERFECTLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from claims of “falsehood”. When one can “bless” any idea at all with the halo of “self-evidence”, sure as shootin’, and right here in the same post, “God is self-evident” gets advanced.

Well logically contradictory truths can’t be held as self-evident. Also, you cannot have self-evident truths contradicting each other. I mean those are just a subset to highlight that there is nothing blind going on like what you say. I think you have a very little understanding as to what is called a self-evident truths. Once again, I would like to refer you to Platinga’s work on this with respect to the God issue.

God Bless

 

[Kaninchen]

As soon as one says “other minds exist” is “self-evidently true”, one has slipped into nihilism, for by this measure, anything, anything at all can be smuggled into “rational beliefs” as “self-evident”.

I expect that’s the point.

 

[fhansen]

What you’re describing is not “faith,” in the sense of the word “faith” that religious people use – you’re describing optimism. Having a trust that things will work out for the best is simply an optimistic point of view, one probably – but not necessarily – supported by a lifetime of fortunate breaks or simply being born into a first-world country (perhaps the most fortunate break of all).

This simply isn’t true. People rich and poor have had religious tendencies-or at the very least “optimism”- for at least as long as history records. In fact, the poor and downtrodden are more likely to have faith of some kind while the privileged are more apt to become smug-depending on themselves.

 

[Touchstone]

What kind of logic is this? If you want to pursue this line of reasoning, I would say God is such a claim that requires ZERO justification. So you atheist should seriously start asking yourself what your little gripe is with religion.

My gripe, to the extent I have “gripe”, is NOT related to justification for a “God hypothesis”. It’s completely natural as an idea for humans, evolved as they are to be “design obsessed”. Evidence-based reasoning doesn’t require any justification for the hypothesis – Francis Crick reportedly had his inspiration for the structure of DNA as a helix while on an LSD trip, for example. That’s what evidence is for – validating and testing ideas that come up, from anywhere, for any reason.

So God gets the same opportunity. God just falls down as a hypothesis when we do subject it to evidential analysis.

But anyway, good news for you is that what you said doesn’t make any sense. Circular logic is circular logic. There are no halves or quarters of a circle.

See above. I don’t think you are tracking with the whole evidence-based reasoning thing. You’re asking for justification a priori for an idea so it can be justified by the evidence (or not). That would be circular reasoning. Real world epistemology doesn’t work that way. We make the bet that the real world is real in an objective sense, and apply tests accordingly to all sorts of ideas, some of which may be totally off the wall. Everything has to resolve against tests and performance evaluations in the real world, so there’s no problem in accepting all comers, even ideas like DNA as a helix of “God exists”.

Ok this is once again the common error. You cannot justify something like the principle of contradiction or the empirical method by what you observe by your models.

ustification, I don’t think that word means what you think it means, here. . The emprical method doesn’t need, and can’t use, and can’t even find coherent the idea of “justiication” as you’re using it. The method produces results of some kind, and it’s value obtains in the utility and effectiveness of those results. Objections that one needs some kind of “a priori justifcation” for the method just aren’t attached to anything meaningful. The method is at risk, up front; it might not work. But the answer is in the results.

You use them to observe and gather evidence in the first place. How can you justify your criteria for evidence using the evidence you gathered using the criteria it-self? That is CIRCULAR logic.

Observation is just observation. A percept is a percept. That’s NOT the scientific method, not hardly. The method is a high-level integration of empirical observation, rule application (internal logic), and rational analysis. We don’t need any formal method to perceive, and biologically, we cannot do otherwise than to be “informal scientists”, learning from our experience. A young child who touches a hot stove will learn from that experience, pre-committed by her human biology to the idea that reality is real, and touching such a thing in the future might cause her more unwanted pain.

What a tragedy. I don’t know whats worse. Your inability to understand circular logic or your mistaken superiority of Science over “classical philosophy”.

OK, well here’s a simple way to see who’s got their bases covered. What can classical philosophy demonstrate for us? If it is time to “put up or shut up”, what does classical philosophy have to “put up” that will perfrom?

(It’s a trick question: as soon as you have something that does perform in a real sense, it becomes, de facto, science.)

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Science can never justify science by it-self. Do you understand that simple thing? To do so is circular.

You’re not hearing me. Your demand for justification is empty, ungrounded. No such obligation obtains. We can formulate hypotheses just on a hunch or a whim, and if we press the investigation, the real world will adjudicate it for us, separating the ‘non-performing’, from the ‘performing’. A priori justification is just a non-starter in the whole process, an objection that wholly misunderstands the process.

Ask a scientist what justification they need to begin with the premise that reality is real in an objective, measurable sense, and they will laugh at you, and your “demands for justification”. Any justification to consider only obtains after the fact in the form of validation through real world performance.

Well I am not talking about prior justification. I am just pointing out to you the fact that there is no justification of self-evident truths that is possible using the scientific method or self-evident logical truths themselves. To do so is circular.

Prior justification is just a meaningless distraction in this whole exchange. The sooner that is accepted, the better. Are we there, yet? If you are now understanding that science needs no justification to make its metaphysical bet, and that such an objection demands circularity itself (that makes circularity your problem, by the way), we can move on to bigger and more interesting questions.

Well this is what I always find so ironic. Atheist always claim about how important knowledge is. As far as an atheism is concerned, all values are subjective.

I’m not aware of any such claim like that per atheism. I’m an atheist and don’t subscribe to that idea – some values are perfectly objective, hardwired into our physiology, and no more choice or preference-driven than the color of our eyes. Many values, of course, are subjective, as well, but in any case, the important point is that KNOWLEDGE IS NOT A VALUE. If it is knowledge, it obtains objectively, and is as performative to you or me as the next person in line. This is what the drumbeat about performance is all about – knowledge as an objective resource, not some kind of subjective whim (disguised as “self evident” or no).

No knowledge is really valuable. But yea, I guess it kind of shows the intellect of the atheist.

OK…

Ok I think you have a very limited understand of epistemology. Some truths are self-evident. Thats simply how it is. To say they are justified by evidence is incorrect. It makes ZERO logical sense.

Secondly look in to Alvin Platinga’s argument for God from properly basic beliefs, the objections and his responses. He addresses something similar to your question on it.

Plantinga is defending a litote, the idea that theists are “not irrational”, or are believing according to his particular sense of “warrant”, which is NOT the conventional sense, but something more like “proper function”.

I have a friend Ramesh who considers the reality of Brahma and, Ganesh as divines as “self-evident”. My other friend Joe considers the Christian God “self-evident”. Now what? Do propose an epistemology that just accepts “self-evidence” for conflicting claims? Neither of these men are internally conflicted on that matter. It’s only between them that we understand that “self-evidence” is false indicator in one or both of these guys’ claims.

What? If other minds exists there is nihilism? Your logic is rather astounding
(Continued…)

No, other minds is an idea that stands up very well to evidential evaluation. The idea that we blindly accept whatever people want to assert (and you’ve pegged the needle here in your last post with the most egregious abuse of that kind of license – God as self-evident!) as “true” and that’s the end of the matter is absurd in the strictest sense. It produces absurd outcomes, like Ramesh and Joe both embracing contradictory “truths”. That’s where the nihilism comes in – as soon as you become promiscuous with the idea of “self-evidence”, and if you are affirming God as self-evident, there’s not further to go in terms of self-permissiveness, then all knowledge is destabilized as a result. If we can “know truth” byut just supposing X is true because it seems that way to us, then “true” and “know” just collapse in terms of meaning.

As a hint, consider a good rule of thumb for “self-evident”. If your denying the proposition causes you to contradict yourself in articulating the denial, you are in good shape.

-TS

 

[ddarko]

You’re not hearing me. Your demand for justification is empty, ungrounded. No such obligation obtains. We can formulate hypotheses just on a hunch or a whim, and if we press the investigation, the real world will adjudicate it for us, separating the ‘non-performing’, from the ‘performing’. A priori justification is just a non-starter in the whole process, an objection that wholly misunderstands the process.

What are you talking about?

You first need certain self evident truths to even describe what constitutes as evidence. You are forgetting this and saying we make a hunch and nature justifies it for us. What nature justifies is your hypothesis (in general terms, the empirical hypothesis). It DOES NOT justify the self evident truths.

Ask a scientist what justification they need to begin with the premise that reality is real in an objective, measurable sense, and they will laugh at you, and your “demands for justification”. Any justification to consider only obtains after the fact in the form of validation through real world performance.

You see, if they laugh, it just shows the nature of the intellect and ignorance of todays scientists. Those are indeed implicitly accepted truths by science.

I am also not talking about justifying the premise here. I am talking about the justification to have a premise in the first place. These things are defined by self-evident truths.

Principle of contradiction for an example is such a self evident truth. If you are claiming that evidence proves it, that is a sign of your incorrect thinking. You use it in gaining evidence by invoking the principle of identity that comes with it. So to say that evidence proves self evident truths (or hunches in your case) are just logical errors on your part.

Prior justification is just a meaningless distraction in this whole exchange. The sooner that is accepted, the better. Are we there, yet? If you are now understanding that science needs no justification to make its metaphysical bet, and that such an objection demands circularity itself (that makes circularity your problem, by the way), we can move on to bigger and more interesting questions.

There is no demand for circularity. I am just showing you the fact that due to circularity, those things cannot be proved by evidence. But I agree with you that Scientific method is TRUE. I do so because I accept it as self-evident. Not because of proof. To say that one accepts Science because it has evidence for it is logically incorrect and meaningless. You only have evidence for scientific hypothesis. Not for Science.

I’m not aware of any such claim like that per atheism. I’m an atheist and don’t subscribe to that idea – some values are perfectly objective, hardwired into our physiology, and no more choice or preference-driven than the color of our eyes. Many values, of course, are subjective, as well, but in any case, the important point is that KNOWLEDGE IS NOT A VALUE. If it is knowledge, it obtains objectively, and is as performative to you or me as the next person in line. This is what the drumbeat about performance is all about – knowledge as an objective resource, not some kind of subjective whim (disguised as “self evident” or no).

Aah, well this is rather unfortunate that you have not heard of this view. The truth is that under atheism, there is no justification for any objective values. I would suggest you read some books by Nietzsche to understand this view better.

Just to refute one point you made, something being hard-wired to the physiology does not necessarily make it objective. What is the basis to make such a claim? This is what Nietzsche was getting at. We are not much different in our physiology from animals. Yet we don’t rape each other like animals do. So physiology does not say “how something should be”. It simply says that this is how it is. Thus, physiology is not a justification for objectivity.

(Continued … )