The tools of epistemology

[Spock]

Well, reason is the only tool for inferring rational truths. But there’s more to life than inferring rational truths. Most of us take sense experience as an axiomatic form of knowledge. (The reason I sense my shirt as grey is because it is grey.)

No doubt, but I already accommodated them in the OP. The first part of reason was to accept a few basic principles, which include the existence of the external reality, the reliability of the senses, that the laws of nature are uniform, etc, etc…

Most of us also take incorrigible truths as beyond reason. (If I feel hungry, no one can reason me into thinking I don’t feel hungry.) There are also types of knowledge based on relationships, as you’ve already discussed. You can’t reason your way into falling in love, for example.

The usage of the word “reason” is multifold, and so is the usage of faith. In this thread I wish to discuss the meaning of these words as they pertain to gaining kowledge about “something”.

About faith: Faith can certainly have rational underpinnings; in fact, most of us here think it does.

Now we are getting somewhere. What is the rational underpinning for the faith?

But faith as such also requires a volitional commitment, not just a cognitive recognition.

Ok. That is a real difference. One does not need a “commitment” to accept a rationally acquired result. The common basic principles and the iterative method described in the OP will assure that the result will be plain to everyone whether it is “desired” or not. (It would be great to have cold fusion, it would solve our energy problems. But the rational method made mincemeat of the announcement of a few scientists who claimed that they “have it”.)

Can you elaborate on the “volitional commitment” part? Why is that needed? And how can one make a volitional commitment to something which lies out of the boundaries of reason?

Since you indicated in the OP that you accept enumerative induction as legitimate, I would argue that this type of faith relationship with God also has induction on its side. Let’s have a number of people line up here and talk about how they needed God to save them, called out to Him, and He did. By what rational means could all of us be convinced we are all mistaken? This isn’t an appeal to the authority of the masses, either; it is just another form of inductive certainty. As I said, faith has rational undergirding.

Very good question and it goes directly to the heart of the matter.

I would look at the other side of the coin. I would like to see another line of people who also called upon God and whose prayer went unanswered. Which line is longer? To be more precise, I would like to see four lines.

1. people who called upon God, and he “answered”. (I put it into quotes, because God does not actually “answer”.)
2. people who called upon God, and he did not “answer”.
3. people who did not call upon God, and he “answered”.
4. people who did not call upon God, and he did not “answer”.

If we could assess the number of people in each line, we could set up the correlation matrix and find out if there is a stochastic relationship or not.

An example. There are many people who will say that precognition exists. They would claim they had some kind of a precognition, and it turned out to be true. That seems to lend some credence to claim (just like in your case), at least at first glance. But the process of evaluation does not stop here. There are four possible outcomes:

1. there is a precognition, and the event happens (that is what is brought up as evidence).
2. there is a precognition, and the event does not happen.
3. there is no precognition, and the event happens.
4. there is no precognition, and the event does not happen.

We can set up a correlation matrix, fill in the frquency of all these 4 outcomes, and examine if there is a significant correlation or not. The trouble is that no one can guess the frequency of outcomes 2), 3) and 4). And 1) alone is insufficient to gauge the correlation. Naturally, when 1) happens it leaves a big impression. The others do not.

Another example. Let’s say that we want to examine the reliability of weather prediction. The four outcomes are:

1. the weatherman predicts rain and it happens.
2. the weatherman predicts rain and it does not happen.
3. the weatherman does not predict rain and it happens.
4. the weatherman does not predict rain and it does not happen.

We can assess the frequency of all four outcomes, and calculate the accuracy of the prediction. If it turns out that there is a strong positive correlation, we can accept that the prediction is usually correct.

That is what is missing from your claim and the claim of precognition. We simply cannot guess the elements of the correlation matrix. I do not say that you are all mistaken. I just say that your seemingly rational underpinning is unfinished. You did not do your “homework”. The number of people testifying that God answered their prayer is nice, but alone it proves absolutely nothing.

 

[geometer]

When I see time and time again that “scientism” is decried as fallacy, and that faith is presented as a valid way to to justify a belief, I must wonder about the ways and means of substantiating that claim. I was hoping that those who denigrate “scientism” will chip in and give me some reason why their opinion is to be entertained as a realistic method.

Scientism

 

[Nepenthe]

The whole idea of ‘scientism’ is for people who do not actually know how science works - they just have Kierkegaardian faith in it, so it’s pretty useless for science. That sort of faith is for religion, not science.

In actual, axiomatic science, nobody tries harder to disprove hypotheses and theorems than those who work with them. To pick an apropos example, some bright individuals decided to not accept the premise of Euclid’s 4th axiom, and lo, whole new kinds of geometry suddenly leapt onto the stage, very useful ones too, with repercussions that cannot be overstated.

 

[Spock]

Scientism

That is one lousy atricle. I am not particularly interested in discussing these labels in depth, but the fact is that the article appeals to cheap emotionalism and outright distortions. There is one common method to rational inquiry across all sciences. The unfortunate fact that the results of science can be misused is of no relevance. Also, I wish there were more sound scientific principles used in determining public policy, to wit: less pseudo-scientific hoopla like Keynesian economics. But that would lead far away from the topic of this thread, so let us stop right here.

 

[fhansen]

Can you elaborate on the “volitional commitment” part? Why is that needed? And how can one make a volitional commitment to something which lies out of the boundaries of reason?

Commitment, as applied to Christian faith, means to “take the bait”, exercising, to begin with, the smallest amount of trust that claims for truth proposed by the Church might be true. A verse in Hebrews reads:

**And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
**
Catholicism claims that all people have the potentiality for faith-actually possess it to a degree- which they can choose to act on or not. They also have a desire to know truth which they can also act on or not. The verse above implies that there are people who do exercise faith earnestly and are rewarded for it. The reward may vary but always ends up producing even stronger faith which means an increased ability to believe in truths revealed or a clearer understanding of them.

The problem is that the results-the reward or the faith itself-are all hearsay, unlike the weather or matters of precognition-so while the believer may have the results verified for himself there’s no way he can cause another to experience what he experiences. Again, it’s like trying to describe and prove pain or love to an alien, say, who’s never experienced either. Even if you pointed out the human bodies’ pain receptors you’d never succeed in convincing him that pain even exists. He’d have to take your word for it. And if you refined your test by including a line of people who professed to have sought God earnestly, you’d still be taking their word for the degree of earnestness they had as well as anything that resulted from it.

 

[cpayne]

Just wanted to say hi. I’m not ignoring the above posts; I am pretty sure I can’t get to them today, however. I’ll jump back in later. Best, cp

 

[geometer]

That is one lousy atricle. I am not particularly interested in discussing these labels in depth, but the fact is that the article appeals to cheap emotionalism and outright distortions. There is one common method to rational inquiry across all sciences. The unfortunate fact that the results of science can be misused is of no relevance. Also, I wish there were more sound scientific principles used in determining public policy, to wit: less pseudo-scientific hoopla like Keynesian economics. But that would lead far away from the topic of this thread, so let us stop right here.

Sorry no, it is a very typical definition of scientism. Scientism is not the word you should be using. If you want a better way to address the philosophy of hard science you should use “scientific empiricism”. This is most common in scientific endevours, although from scientific empiricism you won’t be able to create all kinds of knowledge, which is the false claim of scientism.

Scientism is commonly held to be a philosophical delusion…

 

[Touchstone]

Since you indicated in the OP that you accept enumerative induction as legitimate, I would argue that this type of faith relationship with God also has induction on its side. Let’s have a number of people line up here and talk about how they needed God to save them, called out to Him, and He did. By what rational means could all of us be convinced we are all mistaken?

Well, illusions are powerful things. See the “placebo effect” in medicine, strong evidence for the power of illusion to drive actual recovery. What is so glaring here is the satisfaction with just throwing one’s hands and saying “By what rational means could all of us be convinced we are all mistaken?”. A failure of the imagination, I think. For example, people tell me this often – how could all these turned around lives be mistaken?

But I wonder if they really want to know. For example, in a discussion like this on another board, this claim was advanced, and a Buddhist chipped in with the same claim – accounts of all the people who changed their lives radically, beating drug addictions, gambling, depression, laziness, sexual problems, you name it. He pointed to buddhistrecovery.org as an organization that shows the very same “inductive truth” you are getting at here, but in terms that are quite contradictory to the Catholic understanding. In Buddhism, there is no God or god to save you or to call out to; Buddhism takes a completely different track in providing a framework for recovery.

And the important point here is that what is efficacious appears to be structure, some structure and discipline, any structure and discipline. Which means it matters not if there is a God there or not, only that you think there’s something there, in the same way thinking that placebo you took has effective medicine can actually improve your recovery over not taking anything at all.

So the object of your induction you take to “God”, but when analyzed, it doesn’t fit the evidence that’s out there. What unifies the “recovery explanation” is the application of a framework that applies structure, discipline, and attitude realignment. I’m sure “God” in the Christian sense is capable to fulfilling those requirements, but so are many other frameworks which have no god. Finding large numbers of people “saved” in contradictory (in theological tems) ways is not difficult.

This isn’t an appeal to the authority of the masses, either; it is just another form of inductive certainty. As I said, faith has rational undergirding.

There are all sorts of counterfactuals that are easy to find that discredit that kind of induction, for any willing to look. When I really started to look at the rational integrity of that undergirding, it routinely became flimsier and flimsier as the analysis progressed. The kinds of inductions Christians often rely on are just as powerful in producing contradictory conclusions (no-god Buddhism saves!), but the counterfactuals just seem to get ignored.

-TS

 

[Spock]

Sorry no, it is a very typical definition of scientism. Scientism is not the word you should be using. If you want a better way to address the philosophy of hard science you should use “scientific empiricism”. This is most common in scientific endevours, although from scientific empiricism you won’t be able to create all kinds of knowledge, which is the false claim of scientism.

Scientism is commonly held to be a philosophical delusion…

Thank you. Scientific empiricism sounds fine

 

[Spock]

Commitment, as applied to Christian faith, means to “take the bait”, exercising, to begin with, the smallest amount of trust that claims for truth proposed by the Church might be true. A verse in Hebrews reads:

**And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
**
Catholicism claims that all people have the potentiality for faith-actually possess it to a degree- which they can choose to act on or not. They also have a desire to know truth which they can also act on or not. The verse above implies that there are people who do exercise faith earnestly and are rewarded for it. The reward may vary but always ends up producing even stronger faith which means an increased ability to believe in truths revealed or a clearer understanding of them.

We are talking about a different type of commitment. I can pledge that I am willing to contemplate any argument and evaluate the evidence. What I cannot say that I am willing to accept the result of that argument before I actually am convinced that the argument is correct.

What you seem to ask is akin to sign my name on an empty sheet of paper and allow you to fill in the contract before I can read it. As I said before, the requirement to grant a preliminary acceptance of a claim is just like Uri Geller’s request that I believe in paranormal powers, because without such a-priori belief I cannot “evaluate” the forthcoming proof.

Sorry, that is not the way the cookie crumbles. In no other aspect of life it is required that one should grant an a-priori acceptance of a claim. Imagine a real-estate agent who offers to sell you house without showing it to you first. You are presented with all the necessary papers to close the deal, and you have no idea if there is a house on the lot, and if there is one, what is its size and condition? Would you sign it? I hope not.

The problem is that the results-the reward or the faith itself-are all hearsay, unlike the weather or matters of precognition-so while the believer may have the results verified for himself there’s no way he can cause another to experience what he experiences. Again, it’s like trying to describe and prove pain or love to an alien, say, who’s never experienced either. Even if you pointed out the human bodies’ pain receptors you’d never succeed in convincing him that pain even exists. He’d have to take your word for it. And if you refined your test by including a line of people who professed to have sought God earnestly, you’d still be taking their word for the degree of earnestness they had as well as anything that resulted from it.

And that is the fundamental problem. If every evidence is subjective, and cannot be transmitted, there is nothing to talk about.

 

[Spock]

Just wanted to say hi. I’m not ignoring the above posts; I am pretty sure I can’t get to them today, however. I’ll jump back in later. Best, cp

Cool Whenever you have time!

 

[Abba]

Hello Spock,

Allow me to ask you a question. You are obviously a highly educated person and I want to get your advice on the following dilema. Suppose there are two men in the desert. One of them can see with his eyes and the other keeps his eyes closed. The one that keeps eyes open like any regular person tries to explain to the one that is keeping his eyes closed that in order for him to see what the man who opens his eyes sees, he must open his eyes. But, the one that keeps his eyes closed insist that he will get around just fine,yet, he wants to know how the other is able to avoid certain things or detect them, e.g. scorpions, snakes, ditches etc…The man that keeps his eyes closed insists that he does not have to open them because he has done just fine all his life with them closed and simply refuses, yet, wonders about the things the other man describes.

I mean…can you help me out here? How would you get someone to open their eyes?

Thanks,

Abba

 

[Spock]

Hello Spock,

Allow me to ask you a question. You are obviously a highly educated person and I want to get your advice on the following dilema. Suppose there are two men in the desert. One of them can see with his eyes and the other keeps his eyes closed. The one that keeps eyes open like any regular person tries to explain to the one that is keeping his eyes closed that in order for him to see what the man who opens his eyes sees, he must open his eyes. But, the one that keeps his eyes closed insist that he will get around just fine,yet, he wants to know how the other is able to avoid certain things or detect them, e.g. scorpions, snakes, ditches etc…The man that keeps his eyes closed insists that he does not have to open them because he has done just fine all his life with them closed and simply refuses, yet, wonders about the things the other man describes.

I mean…can you help me out here? How would you get someone to open their eyes?

Thanks,

Abba

Excellent question. If you mean this story in a literal fashion, then there is nothing you can do.

If, however, you mean this allegorically, and say that the person with the self-imposed blindness describes the atheist, then your story fails. There is no physical handicap in the atheist. You may say that there is a “spiritual” handicap, but that leads nowhere. You cannot use another meaningless word to describe reality.

The “blind” person has all the information necessary to navigate and survive. The “seeing” person insists that there is “more”, but cannot susbstantiate it. For the “blind” person it seems like a delusion. He keeps on asking what the “seeing” person describes, and the answers are uncertain, self-contradictory, impossible to touch, to smell, to hear, to taste, and sometimes they are plain nonsense. So, to continue your analogy, he collects more people, who all insist that their eyes are open. Lo and behold, the different people (who all insist that they can “see”) describe the world around them differently! When the “blind” person uses his available senses tries to verify what the others describe, he fails. When he compares what the other ones say, none of it coincides with what he can experience, and many times the descriptions contradict each other. He keeps on asking, just how does one “open” his eyes, and gets contradictory answers. He tries to follow the answers, and gets nowhere.

So the “blind” person finally concludes that the others have a vivid imagination, nothing more. For a while, he gives the benefit of doubt to the “seeing” people, but finally he gives up, and walks away.

 

[tonyrey]

In the case of abstract sciences:

1. Setting up a few, unverifyable axioms.
2. Making a new conjecture.
3. Attempting to reduce the conjecture to the axioms.
4. If the attempt fails, discard the conjecture.
5. If the attempt succeeds, we have a new theorem.

That is all. A very simple algorithm. The validity of this method cannot be “logically proven”, its usefulness, however, is obvious. It is proven inductively.

Theists assert that this method is only applicable to the physical world and the abstract sciences, but it is not sufficient for explaining the “whole reality” (whatever that may be). They introduce an alternate method, called “faith”. Faith in this respect means an abstract, epistemological tool, which is introduced to complement the alleged deficiencies of reason.

My question is: What is the methodology or algorithm of “faith”? How do we know that the results of this algorithm conform with the “whole reality”?

A false dilemma!

1. Philosophy - primarily metaphysics, epistemology and logic - are not based on unverifiable axioms but on facts whereas science is based on metascientific principles derived from philosophy.

 

[david_friol_1]

All theists and atheists agree that reason in the only epistemological tool when trying to make “sense” of the physical reality. The methodology of reason is a sequence of steps we take:

In the case of a physical reality:

1. Setting up a few, unverifyable principles.
2. Observation of a phenomenon.
3. Setting up a hypothesis to explain it (attempting to reduce it to the basic principles). Also called model forming. May involve intuition.
4. Verifying if the model’s predictions conform with the observations.
5. If there is a discrepancy between the model’s prediction and the observation, go back and modify the hypothesis (or model). Go back to step 4). If there is a need, we can even go back to step 1) and modify the basic principles. It happens, but very rarely.
6. If there is no discrepancy, we have a new theory, which will be considered provisionally true, until some new observation invalidates it.

In the case of abstract sciences:

1. Setting up a few, unverifyable axioms.
2. Making a new conjecture.
3. Attempting to reduce the conjecture to the axioms.
4. If the attempt fails, discard the conjecture.
5. If the attempt succeeeds, we have a new theorem.

That is all. A very simple algorithm. The validity of this method cannot be “logically proven”, its usefulness, however, is obvious. It is proven inductively.

Theists assert that this method is only applicable to the physical world and the abstract sciences, but it is not sufficient for explaining the “whole reality” (whatever that may be). They introduce an alternate method, called “faith”. Faith in this respect means an abstract, epistemological tool, which is introduced to complement the alleged deficiencies of reason.

My question is: What is the methodology or algorithm of “faith”? How do we know that the results of this algorithm conform with the “whole reality”?

Hey Spock
First of all I had to look up the definition of a bunch of words in this one because I had no idea what you were talking about.
I am taking your last two questions together to mean "what are the steps a person makes to obtain not just faith but a certain knowledge that the faith obtained is in line with the reality of things?
From outside faith this question probably seems like a good one and maybe it is. I don’t want to make it seem like it is not because I am trying to look at it from your point of view as best I can. This seems like a similar situation that I’ve mentioned in another one of your posts where you may be approaching this from a different platform than which the people who now believe are coming from.
Simple answer, faith is not something we obtain by any mere human efforts. But if I was to say what were the steps throughout my experience they would be something like:
-As a baby and by no effort of mine I was baptized and I received the free gift of faith through the water and the word.
-I grow a little and experience something in me that accuses me when I do something that another part of me tells me I should not do
-I am told of sin and the fall and I am intrigued
-I continue to do what I now understand to be “wrong”
-I learn about confession as anther step in the life of a Catholic Christian
-I go to confession and am more excited over the thrill of it all
-Eucharist next and the same thing as far as my excitement
-life goes on for a while and I get Confirmed but life is a big joke to me an faith has become something I bring out only when I lay on my blanket.
-life goes on and so does foolishness and sin becomes habit and habit becomes addiction and addiction becomes intolerable
-but life goes on and many years go by as I sink lower and lower but God is faithful
-God is faithful to the promise that he made with me long ago through water and the word
-I didn’t make a promise God made a promise and he kept it
-his promise is that he will pour out his grace on us and his grace is always present to us to lead us to himself

But how do I know that what I experienced is “in reality” a certainty of truth? I’m afraid that the only certainty of truth will come after we die and find out for sure. For now we must rely on two things(Faith- what we choose to believe,God/No God and Reason- [from wikipedia] “it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect, true and false, and what is good or bad.”)which should not oppose each other and which should be cocerned more with honesty and fairness than with proving ones own intelligence.

My eyes are tired
God bless you Spock

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…It is proven inductively.

Nothing is ever proven inductively, by definition
an inducted conclusion is always vulnerable to a new observation.

 

[John21652]

Nothing is ever proven inductively, by definition
an inducted conclusion is always vulnerable to a new observation.

That’s the very beauty of Inductive Logic!!

That’s how we make room for updates to what we know without having to totally reprogram.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s the very beauty of Inductive Logic!!

That’s how we make room for updates to what we know without having to totally reprogram.

No matter how many inductions you have, they can all be proven false by one new observation. I have heard that before. What if an observation comes along and disproves all previous inductions in a series? I would call that totally reprogramming…making it just a matter of perception ignores the inductive turkey story.

 

[Sair]

Well, I had a rather lengthy contribution to throw in here, but unfortunately got logged out while I was writing it. May consider redoing it when I’m a bit less annoyed! :takethat:

Good thread, Spock. It’s interesting to look at how we know what we think we know.

 

[Sair]

A false dilemma!

1. Philosophy - primarily metaphysics, epistemology and logic - are not based on unverifiable axioms but on facts whereas science is based on metascientific principles derived from philosophy.

How does one know that the ‘facts’ on which philosophy is based are actual facts about a real, extant world/universe? Are the elements of the Aristotelians (earth, air, fire and water and their attendant properties) to be considered as facts about the world? Or what about Platonic forms? Do they have an existence apart from mental constructs? From where does philosophy derive its facts?

Also, I thought axioms - at least in terms of epistemology - were necessary starting points for reasoning or for building knowledge that can’t be explicitly verified but can also not be explicitly denied without contradiction. For example, I could deny that I exist, but then who would be there to do the denying?