Is Science the Only Means of Knowing?

[Ophiolite]

1) How do you know your behavior would not differ?

Logic. If I were to believe reality was "for real" then consider that in scenario A I would take action B. Now, if I simply accept that what is described reality is the best current explanation for "things" the best course of action is still B.

2) Was there a time when you felt you knew something about reality?

Do you mean, was there a time when I thought reality was definitely real? I have always thought I had an awareness of some aspects of reality. What changed was that I decided to embrace uncertainty.

3) If so, what caused you to change?

Reflection upon many things: religion, philosophy, science, human behaviour, Monty Python, etc.

4) If it makes no difference, why is it important to you?

I don't think that I said it was important. The question was asked. I offered, as an answer, my viewpoint. Not all my viewpoints are important to me.

On reflection, prompted by your question, I suppose it is important because of honesty. If my actions arise out of a viewpoint then it is honest to acknowledge that viewpoint. It doesn't matter if a different viewpoint would produce the same actions, failure to acknowledge the actual basis of those actions would be dishonest.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then you referred me to this thread which isn´t really supporting your claim.

It's not, though 1 vote is not zero, and there is post #54. Still, it doesn't prove I'm wrong either.

You aren´t willing to substantiate this claim, either?

It would be easily substantiated if you recalled the conversation. If you do recall, why would you deny it? To "win" at the expense of lying?

 

[quatona]

It would be easily substantiated if you recalled the conversation. If you do recall, why would you deny it? To "win" at the expense of lying?

I haven´t denied it. I don´t recall it, and - yes - seeing the way you go about things here I neither rely on your memory nor on your ability to paraphrase correctly and contextually accurate.
I asked you to produce a link to the conversation.

 

[Resha Caner]

On reflection, prompted by your question, I suppose it is important because of honesty. If my actions arise out of a viewpoint then it is honest to acknowledge that viewpoint. It doesn't matter if a different viewpoint would produce the same actions, failure to acknowledge the actual basis of those actions would be dishonest.

Touche'

I have always thought I had an awareness of some aspects of reality. What changed was that I decided to embrace uncertainty.

I can't recall a time when I was unaware of uncertainty or rejected it. I guess I consider uncertainty part of reality. So uncertainty is not reality?

I didn't realize you were saying there are only parts of reality you don't know - or accept without knowing their real - or whatever ... anyway, What aspects of reality are you aware of?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don´t recall it.

1) Do you recall having any prior conversations with me?

2) Do you disagree with what I said about my recollection of our conversation? Would you agree that if I feel sad, I should just say I'm sad - that I don't need to defend what I feel to others?

3) Do you find it easy to search CF to create summaries of conversations you've had over the years?

 

[Ophiolite]

I can't recall a time when I was unaware of uncertainty or rejected it. I guess I consider uncertainty part of reality. So uncertainty is not reality?

I didn't realize you were saying there are only parts of reality you don't know - or accept without knowing their real - or whatever ... anyway, What aspects of reality are you aware of?

I have been unclear. Reality abounds with uncertainty. The reality of the individual even more so. I was not talking about that contained uncertainty, the uncertainty within reality.

I am talking about the uncertainty as to what reality is. For example, here are a handful of possible "realities":

• Everything is a figment of my imagination
• We are all part of a vast computer simulation
• The world started eight weeks ago (not last Thursday)
• The Earth is 6000 years old and God faked the fossils
• The reality most people seem to accept

I am uncertain as to which of these realities (and many more), if any, is the "real" one. That's the uncertainty I have embraced.

Note: you seem more interested in my views on this than I am.

 

[Resha Caner]

Note: you seem more interested in my views on this than I am.

Actually, I'm probably less interested, but I am occasionally like a dog with a bone. Today is your lucky day.

[H]ere are a handful of possible "realities":

• Everything is a figment of my imagination
• We are all part of a vast computer simulation
• The world started eight weeks ago (not last Thursday)
• The Earth is 6000 years old and God faked the fossils
• The reality most people seem to accept

I am uncertain as to which of these realities (and many more), if any, is the "real" one. That's the uncertainty I have embraced.

To reiterate a previous question, what is an example of an aspect of reality you are aware of?

Then, moving on to what I quoted here, I would imagine not all possible realities are created equal. Would you argue with equal vigor for the possible reality that all fossils are fake as you would for the possible reality that paleontologists have properly assessed fossils?

 

[Ophiolite]

To reiterate a previous question, what is an example of an aspect of reality you are aware of?

If my earlier posts had been clear you need not have asked that question. I'm not aware of reality. I am aware of many things that are purported to be reality and these fall, broadly, into what I understand most scientifically inclined, educated, thoughtful, rational people consider to be reality. As noted previously, I accept these as reality for practical reasons.

Then, moving on to what I quoted here, I would imagine not all possible realities are created equal. Would you argue with equal vigor for the possible reality that all fossils are fake as you would for the possible reality that paleontologists have properly assessed fossils?

Correct. I view the most probable "reality" is the one recognised by most scientifically inclined, educated, thoughtful, rational people. I just don't rule out the possibility that they and I may be wrong.

 

[Resha Caner]

Correct. I view the most probable "reality" is the one recognised by most scientifically inclined, educated, thoughtful, rational people. I just don't rule out the possibility that they and I may be wrong.

Just so we're crystal clear ... the reality you accept is based on what scientifically inclined people think, or is it based on the results of their scientific work?

 

[MrsFoundit]

In the other thread you stated that a whole lot of atheists assert "Science is the only way of knowing".

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens.

Is Christopher Hitchens talking about scientific evidence ?

Is Christopher Hitchens talking about dismissing what we do not know?

Is Christopher Hitchens an atheist at the time of speaking?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Can you give me an example of something you know about the natural world because of Jesus.

Why there is one.

 

[Larniavc]

Why there is one.

I don’t understand?

 

[MrsFoundit]

I don’t understand?

You asked: Can you give me an example of something you know about the natural world because of Jesus.
I said: Yes. Why there is one (a natural world).

 

[Larniavc]

You asked: Can you give me an example of something you know about the natural world because of Jesus.
I said: Yes. Why there is one (a natural world).

Can you substantiate that claim?

 

[Ophiolite]

Just so we're crystal clear ... the reality you accept is based on what scientifically inclined people think, or is it based on the results of their scientific work?

If scientifically inclined people are educated, thoughtful and rational then what they think will tend to align with their scientific work, if they are practising scientists, or with such scientific work that they are familiar with, if they are not scientists. Consequently I will take into account the thoughts as well as the findings of those who "tick all the boxes".

The reality that I favour as the more probable is not based exclusively on scientific inclinations. Education, focused reflection and rational, sceptical thinking also contribute to the construction/perception of that reality.

Note: I am puzzled by your stream of questions. Am I really so unclear in my posts that you require such repetition and restatement? Are you hoping to catch me out in one or more contradictions? (Good luck with that - contradictions are an essential part of my philosophy.) Is it a technique for avoiding answering the couple of questions I have asked? Or has your streaming service just died and you have nothing else to do?

 

[Resha Caner]

I am puzzled by your stream of questions.

Sorry.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry.

There is no need to apologise. I just can't figure out your motives. It is said, in science, that the most significant words are "That's odd", rather than "Eureka". "Puzzling" fits the same category.

 

[MrsFoundit]

It is said, in science, that the most significant words are "That's odd", rather than "Eureka".

 

[Ophiolite]

That's odd.

 

[quatona]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens.

Is Christopher Hitchens talking about scientific evidence ?

Is Christopher Hitchens talking about dismissing what we do not know?

Is Christopher Hitchens an atheist at the time of speaking?

Ask him.