Epistemology And You! A Quiz

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

Epistemology And You! A Quiz

Epistemology And You!

Not sure that I agree with the results but this was what I got: Post-Positivist

"Post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of positivism. A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different. Scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are essentially the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. In everyday reasoning, we don't always proceed so carefully (although, if you think about it, when the stakes are high, even in everyday life we become much more cautious about measurement. Think of the way most responsible parents keep continuous watch over their infants, noticing details that non-parents would never detect).

One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study."

public hermit · Sep 17, 2019

I got post-positivist. I thought positivism had been discredited due to the self-referentially incoherence of its main premise. If I believe that a statement is meaningful, if and only if, it can be empirically verified or potentially falsified, then my criteria for a meaningful statement is itself beyond falsifiability.

At any rate, I am on board with critical realism in so far as there is a reality independent of our thinking about it. I'm not so sure that every aspect of this reality is something science can study.

PloverWing · Sep 17, 2019

Hmm. I wanted to answer "none of the above" to most of the questions. Maybe that's the "stubbornly picky" school of epistemology.

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

Chadrho said:
I got post-positivist. I thought positivism had been discredited due to the self-referentially incoherence of its main premise. If I believe that a statement is meaningful, if and only if, it can be empirically verified or potentially falsified, then my criteria for a meaningful statement is itself beyond falsifiability.

At any rate, I am on board with critical realism in so far as there is a reality independent of our thinking about it. I'm not so sure that every aspect of this reality is something science can study.

Critical realism does seems to fit with my Epistemology now that I think about it.
As a theory about knowledge and how we actually know anything as essentially biblically related it really is getting to the point of going over what is considered truth and proving one’s conviction to arrive at wisdom from the point of knowledge.

Critical realism seems to argue from the point of what can be seen to that which cannot in the biblical meaning pertaining to that which we can see. I can see that as:

- the literal-real reading of the bible,
- then the actual of the moral compass,
- culminating in the spiritual aspect of experience of divine communion, stemming from the previous.

public hermit · Sep 17, 2019

~Zao~ said:
Critical realism does seems to fit with my Epistemology now that I think about it.
As a theory about knowledge and how we actually know anything as essentially biblically related it really is getting to the point of going over what is considered truth and proving one’s conviction to arrive at wisdom from the point of knowledge.

Critical realism seems to argue from the point of what can be seen to that which cannot in the biblical meaning pertaining to that which we can see. I can see that as:

- the literal-real reading of the bible,
- then the actual of the moral compass,
- culminating in the spiritual aspect of experience of divine communion, stemming from the previous.

That's an interesting take. So, critical realism assumes there is a reality that transcends us, or our thinking. Nonetheless, science enables us to access the real that transcends our thinking. You are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that the bible (something concrete that we can access) enables us to access the spiritual, or divine communion, which without it would be inaccessible to us? That's interesting. I like it.

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

Chadrho said:
That's an interesting take. So, critical realism assumes there is a reality that transcends us, or our thinking. Nonetheless, science enables us to access the real that transcends our thinking. You are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that the bible (something concrete that we can access) enables us to access the spiritual, or divine communion, which without it would be inaccessible to us? That's interesting. I like it.

The methodology would be scientific in application but spiritually applied ... hmm ya.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
But my scientific investigation would include the full spectrum of theodicy to determine the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.

Tone · Sep 17, 2019

Subjectivist!

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

Tone said:
Subjectivist!

can you post the definition for a fun comparison

or not

if you’d prefer

Tone · Sep 17, 2019

~Zao~ said:
can you post the definition for a fun comparison or not if you’d prefer

It was something like, "We're making all this up."?

A_Thinker · Sep 17, 2019

You got: Positivist

"In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic -- they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive reasoning to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesn't fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism -- the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation."

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

Chadrho said:
I got post-positivist. I thought positivism had been discredited due to the self-referentially incoherence of its main premise......

Positivism seems to come from the aspect of sociology (as in love thy neighbour) rather than an aspect of theological (love the Lord God) so perhaps the other side of the same coin? Correct me if I’m wrong. Altho it can go to the extreme of “scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.”

Or here’s probably why it is not believed to reach biblical conclusions in it’s use of so many other ism’s.

three stages in the development of positivism

Law of three stages - Wikipedia

- naturalism

- polytheism

- monotheism

public hermit · Sep 17, 2019

~Zao~ said:
Positivism seems to come from the aspect of sociology (as in love thy neighbour) rather than an aspect of theological (love the Lord God) so perhaps the other side of the same coin? Correct me if I’m wrong. Altho it can go to the extreme of “scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.”

Or here’s probably why it is not believed to reach biblical conclusions in it’s use of so many other ism’s.

three stages in the development of positivism

Law of three stages - Wikipedia

- naturalism

- polytheism

- monotheism

You're right. I forget about the association of positivism with sociology (Comte). I was thinking "Logical Positivism" as associated with the Vienna Circle.

Logical positivism - Wikipedia

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

Chadrho said:
You're right. I forget about the association of positivism with sociology (Comte). I was thinking "Logical Positivism" as associated with the Vienna Circle.

Logical positivism - Wikipedia

I honestly am looking this up as I go along to understand what my own truth finding methods are. I have never followed the progression of logic according to any church history. But I can usually find my own beliefs in comparison. What I have found in this method of research that I follow (what is presented to me to research from what I believe to be guidance) certainly contains my epistemology always in line with wisdom over knowledge because of the personal communion and refusal to act on what is meant to be placed on the back burner for another meal.

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

Ok so that overlaps onto this thread ....

NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

public hermit · Sep 17, 2019

~Zao~ said:
certainly contains my epistemology always in line with wisdom over knowledge

"Wisdom over knowledge" sounds like a commendable approach. I have known a good many folks who hold doctorates, and yet some seem to have more "change than sense." It appears you are sensitive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You're definitely in good hands.

The classical approach to epistemology, forever and a day, rested on JTB (Justified True Belief). According to JTB:

S knows P if:
1. P is true
2. S believes P
3. S is justified in believing P

(1) and (2) are intuitive. I can't know something if it is not true (1). I can't know something if I don't believe it (2). (3) is where the problems come in. What does it mean to be justified in believing something? The idea is that you have good reasons for believing it.

So take a Christian point of belief. Let P = "Jesus is raised from the dead." I certainly believe P, but do I know it according to JTB?

1. It is true that Jesus is resurrected (We certainly believe this is true. But, for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and assume its truth).
2. I believe it is true
3. What justifies me in believing it is true? I think we might say something like "The inspiration of the Holy Spirit" is the reason we believe it is true. And since God doesn't lie, I am justified in believing the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, none of this will convince someone who doesn't already believe. But, I do find a bit of pleasure thinking about it.

Now, according to your method of "Wisdom over knowledge" we might say all that JTB stuff doesn't get us anywhere. And, I would be inclined to agree!

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

Chadrho said:
"Wisdom over knowledge" sounds like a commendable approach. I have known a good many folks who hold doctorates, and yet some seem to have more "change than sense." It appears you are sensitive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You're definitely in good hands.

Well I also believe that truth is narrow but infinitely deep. So even tho the foundation remains the same I find that the last truth I was standing on always gets knocked out from under my feet to be replaced by a higher truth, so the foundation gets deeper too. That’s when epistemology (sorting truth from traditions/ truth behind convictions, ) gets a continuous workout to keep up.

The classical approach to epistemology, forever and a day, rested on JTB (Justified True Belief). According to JTB:

S knows P if:
1. P is true
2. S believes P
3. S is justified in believing P

(1) and (2) are intuitive. I can't know something if it is not true (1). I can't know something if I don't believe it (2). (3) is where the problems come in. What does it mean to be justified in believing something. The idea is that you have good reasons for believing it.

Lots here. Intuition is from God to the human spirit. That is the final stage. So a believer would be getting info ideally thru that means. So... assuming that... Knowing is conviction. The conscience then tells us it’s truth and should be acted on. The action is then justified by the intuition.

Except it falls flat for the cannabil on the bus that ate his seat mate because God told him to. Was he acting from the Christian God represented in Jesus Christ. No.

So take a Christian point of belief. Let P = "Jesus is raised from the dead." I certainly believe P, but do I know it according to JTB?

1. It is true that Jesus is resurrected (We certainly believe this is true. But, for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and assume its truth).
2. I believe it is true
3. What justifies me in believing it is true? I think we might say something like "The inspiration of the Holy Spirit" is the reason we believe it is true. And since God doesn't lie, I am justified in believing the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

Experience tells us it’s true when we can rise above situations because of our own rebirth. Justification doesn’t come into the equation.

Of course, none of this will convince someone who doesn't already believe. But, I do find a bit of pleasure thinking about it.

Now, according to your method of "Wisdom over knowledge" we might say all that JTB stuff doesn't get us anywhere. And, I would be inclined to agree!

Wisdom is just acting from biblically based knowledge of ‘what would Jesus do'

ViaCrucis · Sep 17, 2019

I got post-positivist. But honestly I wasn't a fan of the limited choices provided, and many of my choices were chosen because they were "least wrong", but still not very good. It felt like being presented with a picture of an apple and being asked, "Is this a banana, an alligator, or Einstein's theory of general relativity?" And I had to answer "banana" because at least bananas are a fruit.

-CryptoLutheran

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
I got post-positivist. But honestly I wasn't a fan of the limited choices provided, and many of my choices were chosen because they were "least wrong", but still not very good. It felt like being presented with a picture of an apple and being asked, "Is this a banana, an alligator, or Einstein's theory of general relativity?" And I had to answer "banana" because at least bananas are a fruit.

-CryptoLutheran

Not the greatest quiz to chose from

and others have said the same. But thanks for participating!

PloverWing said:
Hmm. I wanted to answer "none of the above" to most of the questions. Maybe that's the "stubbornly picky" school of epistemology.

lol

public hermit · Sep 17, 2019

~Zao~ said:
Experience tells us it’s true when we can rise above situations because of our own rebirth.

Agreed. That's a great way to put it.

~Zao~ · Sep 17, 2019

Chadrho said:
Agreed. That's a great way to put it.

Jesse Penn-Lewis’s book on War and the Saints would place rising above principalities as the determining factor also and I would agree with her theodicy.

Manifold wisdom of Christ revealed by the church to the priciplalities of the sky.

Epistemology And You! A Quiz

Wisdom’s child

social troglodyte

Episcopalian

Wisdom’s child

social troglodyte

Wisdom’s child

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Wisdom’s child

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Well-Known Member

Wisdom’s child

social troglodyte

Wisdom’s child

Wisdom’s child

social troglodyte

Wisdom’s child

Confessional Lutheran

Wisdom’s child

social troglodyte

Wisdom’s child

Similar threads