The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit

[Ana the Ist]

If something is truly personal people may not want to put it up on the internet for others to dissect and ridicule. But you have a point in that they probably shouldn't bring it up in the first place if they're not going to explain it, which is why I don't much talk about personal stuff. Plus it's simply that some things can be very real, but yet ineffable, very hard to explain.

I've been there. I remember a thread I made regarding the way I had begun to view the concept of "self"...and since I'm no philosopher, it took more than a couple attempts before I think anyone fully understood me. Still, it's a wide gap between hard to explain and unexplainable..

On what do you base the belief that there's no esoteric knowledge?

No one who does this gambit ever seems to present any. It wouldn't be a frustrating experience if they did...and I wouldn't have made this thread.

Someone tells me they love their mother and she was a wonderful woman. I've never met the mother, so this would be esoteric knowledge for them, wouldn't it? I can tell them scientifically that no, you didn't love her, and she wasn't wonderful. Love is just a useful biological illusion, and that whatever wonderful things she did were not wonderful, they are just normal, natural things that human females are programmed by nature to do.

I should've specified the EKG always seems to be presented as factual...not opinion. I understand that feelings are something you can factually have, they just don't necessarily represent any facts external to one's self.

I think he's a bit futuristic. He once wrote a work of fiction about a time when Islam takes over Britain. Another novel of his had a scene which was inspiration for a scene in the novel/movie "Fight Club". He inspired Ghandi to strive for Indian independence from Britain. He described "political correctness" before Mao thought up the words. Lots of other stuff.


I wouldn't bother chatting if I didn't want your opinion, and I prefer honest opinions over other kinds.

I may agree on your characterization of him if I had read his works. Just because one is dim in one field of knowledge doesn't mean one is dim in all of them. I was only referring to the quote you provided.

There's a couple of ways to dissect that quote. One is very long where I break it down into individual statements and point out all the logical fallacies that are contained therein. False equivocations, appeals to popularity, shifting the burden of proof and so on are basically riddled throughout the entire quote. I understand it's his opinion...but he's stating his opinion as an argument in defense of a position. I'm not going to break down his quote this way though...I'm going to opt for the shorter way...

By saying he's full of it lol. Seriously though, he seems to be making the argument that he accepts any claims of a supernatural nature as long as they're made by an eyewitness. I don't think he does. He is a Catholic, after all, is he not? If I were to wager, I'd say he probably rejects are far far greater number of supernatural claims than he ever lends any credence to....simply because they are incompatible with his faith. He picked some rather safe examples in "ghosts" and "miracles" because they don't require any reconciliation with his Catholicism. Chances are though, he doesn't believe that a thugee cultist is actually murdering and robbing people because Kali told him to do so.

No, the world of supernatural claims is far and wide and the few that he accepts on simple testimony creates but a narrow and unforgiving path through the world of supernatural claims. It's a nice try...but he's either outright lying or he hasn't fully considered the magnitude of what he's claiming to accept.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But the evidence isn't really the issue in this case. Once can claim alien abduction and present some mutilation as evidence. Evidence is generally secondary to explanation of any given event.
Sure, evidence will contribute to explanation, but strict empiricism won't get you very far in science.

The quality of the evidence allows us to assess the quality of the claim.

In science there are plenty of "supernatural" explanations that are simply wrapped up in "natural" language.

Such as?

Some people make miraculous claims without any given explanation. This thing happened. I can't explain it, but most empirically-minded will not be pleased with the claim.

Without corroborative evidence, it's not possible to do more than make a rational assessment of the claim, and a rational assessment is generally Bayesian, taking into account prior probabilities, i.e. what does our prior experience (our existing body of knowledge) tell us about the likelihood of the claim being true. So if I tell you I saw a horse in the street you'd give my claim a higher probability of being objectively true than if I said I saw a unicorn in the street. The claims could be judged according to the prior evidence that such things can happen (have happened), and the evidence that people can be mistaken by deception, misperception, hallucination, delusion, memory error, etc.

I think to take this fork further, we need a clear definition of 'miracle', and/or 'supernatural'.

 

[durangodawood]

All of the experience is subjective.

Sure, strictly speaking.
But we can distinguish pure subjectivity from shared-subjective experience, where you can direct another person the the same experience.
If not, then Hello, solipsism!

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Even if God were to introduce Himself to an atheist and raise a dead person from the grave as proof of His existence, the atheist can still deny that God exists. The atheist might say to himself, "There has to be another explanation for this." From there, it's easy for the atheist to think up something else to explain it, especially since today's secular relativism philosophy denies the possibility of knowing that anything is real. So think about how hard it is for a Christian to convince an atheist of a personal spiritual experience that we had with God and our ongoing spiritual relationship with Him.

 

[Dre Khipov]

The quality of the evidence allows us to assess the quality of the claim.

Well, then you have yourself a classic demarcation problem. Who qualifies the adequate quality of evidence and on which bases?

Such as?

You can start with "Dark Matter", for example, or any other distant theorized entities or properties derived from scientific necessity for something to be there to hold explanations together.

Without corroborative evidence, it's not possible to do more than make a rational assessment of the claim, and a rational assessment is generally Bayesian, taking into account prior probabilities, i.e. what does our prior experience (our existing body of knowledge) tell us about the likelihood of the claim being true. So if I tell you I saw a horse in the street you'd give my claim a higher probability of being objectively true than if I said I saw a unicorn in the street. The claims could be judged according to the prior evidence that such things can happen (have happened), and the evidence that people can be mistaken by deception, misperception, hallucination, delusion, memory error, etc.

Sure, but by such means of demarcation you are disqualifying things that we've never experienced and can't will not experience directly. Strings like strings in string theory would have to be discarded outright by means of your logic, but scientific community dedicated some 30+ years attempting to work up a model that may facilitate unifying quantum and classical physics.

Typically, in philosophy of science, the elegance of explanations trumps the evidence. Evidence tends to always be subjective. By calling it "collective subjective" you are not really getting rid of the problem, you merely distribute it among larger population.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Sure, strictly speaking.
But we can distinguish pure subjectivity from shared-subjective experience, where you can direct another person the the same experience.
If not, then Hello, solipsism!

But there are plentiful things that you can't. The only thing you can point to is a consistent flow of reasoning that one correlates with explaining a phenomenon.

Essentially, what you are suggesting is that unless any given phenomenon is repeatable... it doesn't exist .

 

[durangodawood]

But there are plentiful things that you can't. The only thing you can point to is a consistent flow of reasoning that one correlates with explaining a phenomenon.

Essentially, what you are suggesting is that unless any given phenomenon is repeatable... it doesn't exist .

No I didnt.
I just said that some things (most really) arent totally subjectively private.
And i agreed that some things are.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It may or may not point to the supernatural. It may not even be unexplainable depending on what one wants to accept for explanation. If I say I've felt a "presence" there are lots of atheists who'll explain it (or explain it away) with normal, natural processes of psychology, even if they can't be very specific.

Then just say it and let the chips fall where they may.

If you are failing to make a successful rational argument that can be evaluated by other people because your evidence depends on what is subjective to yourself, just admit to that. You wouldn't be getting anywhere playing the mysticism game mentioned in the OP. You would simply be admitting that you don't actually have a rational argument, and you are really only presenting a "personal truth" of yours.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even if God were to introduce Himself to an atheist and raise a dead person from the grave as proof of His existence, the atheist can still deny that God exists.

If Odin were to introduce himself and raise a person from the dead as proof of his existence, the Christian can still claim that he was Satan in disguise. Or can play the skeptic card and claim that the person wasn't really dead.

So what? Anyone can deny anything. That doesn't mean that there is something wrong with rational arguments. It only means that rational arguments have standards, and someone is either playing fair with those standards (whether they are convinced or not), or they are refusing to accept those standards (whether they are convinced or not).

You either trust your discussion partner to fully entertain rational arguments, or not. It doesn't help to get all passive-aggressive and assume dishonesty just because there isn't instant agreement. It may be that you are failing to meet rational standards.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dysert]

By this, do you mean it's just there - something you know without any idea how you know it?

Because there are plenty of things that I just know, without any idea of how I know them - but I can take a good guess that it's probably something I experienced (learnt) at some time, an experience I have no recollection of having, but which left some knowledge behind when it faded.

Can you distinguish between what I'm describing and what you're describing? If so, how?

Not really. I'm talking about the conduit through which knowledge passes. There's knowledge that passes through the senses, and then there's knowledge that bypasses the senses. I'm trying to think of a decent example... Like an audio signal passes through speaker wire whereas AC voltage passes through a power cable. If you want to get AC voltage from point A to point B you need a power cable; even though you may have speaker wire, it won't work. In a similar way, there's knowledge that passes through the senses, but there's knowledge that passes through the spirit. The spirit of the believer can handle this knowledge, but the spirit of the unbeliever cannot. (There are two different types of spirit.)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not really. I'm talking about the conduit through which knowledge passes. There's knowledge that passes through the senses, and then there's knowledge that bypasses the senses. I'm trying to think of a decent example... Like an audio signal passes through speaker wire whereas AC voltage passes through a power cable. If you want to get AC voltage from point A to point B you need a power cable; even though you may have speaker wire, it won't work. In a similar way, there's knowledge that passes through the senses, but there's knowledge that passes through the spirit. The spirit of the believer can handle this knowledge, but the spirit of the unbeliever cannot. (There are two different types of spirit.)

Yeah, okay. This is where we have a problem. It doesn't make sense that such a thing would be knowledge. It would be something entirely subjective in search of justification before it could be considered knowledge. At best, it would be introspective data about which one might draw conclusions about human psychology.

Knowledge doesn't even "pass through" the senses. It is justified by sensory data in cognition. There is no effortless knowledge like an electric current from beyond.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dysert]

Spiritual knowledge or spiritual truths was the subject of another thread I created awhile back. I don't remember if you participated or not dysert. If you didn't, and you could answer some questions, it would help a lot with explaining what you mean by spiritual knowledge...

Is this knowledge capable of being expressed in words? Is it capable of being expressed another way (like pictorially, mathematically, conceptually, emotionally, etc)?

If not, how is it possible that you can think of it? If you can't "think of your spiritual knowledge" how do you know you have it?

If you can express it, and someone else expresses a contradictory spiritual truth, how can you tell which of these "truths" is true?

I think spiritual knowledge is, for the most part, capable of being expressed through the senses. My point is that that's not how it is obtained. It is obtained through the spirit (of the believer) and disseminated through physical means. Your last question is a good one, and one that has plagued believers from Day One. How does one believer know that his/her spiritual knowledge is true when another believer says that their (contradictory) spiritual knowledge is also true? Personally, I think the only recourse here is to go to the Bible and use it as the standard for truth. The question can only be answered by two (or more) believers going to the Bible to hash it out.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think spiritual knowledge is, for the most part, capable of being expressed through the senses. My point is that that's not how it is obtained. It is obtained through the spirit (of the believer) and disseminated through physical means. Your last question is a good one, and one that has plagued believers from Day One. How does one believer know that his/her spiritual knowledge is true when another believer says that their (contradictory) spiritual knowledge is also true? Personally, I think the only recourse here is to go to the Bible and use it as the standard for truth. The question can only be answered by two (or more) believers going to the Bible to hash it out.

I appreciate your candid answers...

You said a spiritual truth can be expressed through the senses...can you give an example? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.

You said that you turn to the bible for clarification on who actually has a spiritual truth. Surely you realize that there are many believers of many faiths all claiming to have spiritual truths...suppose the contradictory truth of my last question came from someone who is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Would you still turn to the bible? Or is there another way of determining who's spiritual claim is a spiritual truth?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think spiritual knowledge is, for the most part, capable of being expressed through the senses. My point is that that's not how it is obtained. It is obtained through the spirit (of the believer) and disseminated through physical means. Your last question is a good one, and one that has plagued believers from Day One. How does one believer know that his/her spiritual knowledge is true when another believer says that their (contradictory) spiritual knowledge is also true? Personally, I think the only recourse here is to go to the Bible and use it as the standard for truth. The question can only be answered by two (or more) believers going to the Bible to hash it out.

Why should we use the Bible as a standard in the first place?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure, but by such means of demarcation you are disqualifying things that we've never experienced and can't will not experience directly. Strings like strings in string theory would have to be discarded outright by means of your logic, but scientific community dedicated some 30+ years attempting to work up a model that may facilitate unifying quantum and classical physics.

No, @FrumiousBandersnatch isn't disqualifying such things. Notice that she is talking about a situation in which corroborative evidence is lacking. She isn't suggesting that we cannot revise our understanding in light of new information.

Typically, in philosophy of science, the elegance of explanations trumps the evidence. Evidence tends to always be subjective. By calling it "collective subjective" you are not really getting rid of the problem, you merely distribute it among larger population.

I think you are confusing "evidence" with "data."

 

[quatona]

Even if God were to introduce Himself to an atheist and raise a dead person from the grave as proof of His existence, the atheist can still deny that God exists.

Theoretically, yes, of course. But why would I?
To my knowledge I have never denied the existence of beings that have introduce themselves to me.
So it appears that it would be worth an attempt to do that which is demonstrably the most simple and successful method of convincing me of one´s existence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think spiritual knowledge is, for the most part, capable of being expressed through the senses. My point is that that's not how it is obtained. It is obtained through the spirit (of the believer) and disseminated through physical means. Your last question is a good one, and one that has plagued believers from Day One. How does one believer know that his/her spiritual knowledge is true when another believer says that their (contradictory) spiritual knowledge is also true? Personally, I think the only recourse here is to go to the Bible and use it as the standard for truth. The question can only be answered by two (or more) believers going to the Bible to hash it out.

The way you describe this spiritual knowledge, it sounds like something that you imagine is floating through the air...something that exists externally...something that exists independent of a person or a mind capable of perceiving it. Is that about right?

To you, a believer, it's as if you have an antennae capable of picking up this knowledge. Metaphorically, you're tuned in to this spiritual frequency that this kind of knowledge is being "broadcast" upon. Would you agree?

I don't want to put words in your mouth...this is just the picture you're creating in my mind with the way you've described it so far.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

X is the idea that all knowledge is empirical and sharable. X is fallible. Therefore, the X men may be wrong. Really, truly wrong.

All else is dogma.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Lets say an angel (or an apparently supernatural being, luminous etc) appeared to you and said "hide", and you hid, and thus escaped an unforseen tragedy.

How would that be shareable empirical knowledge, and not tin foil hat territory....?

Even if (lets say , know it or not, be you convinced, deterred etc) it really happened...

Objectively, it would still be disregarded by skeptics.

 

[dysert]

I appreciate your candid answers...

You said a spiritual truth can be expressed through the senses...can you give an example? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.

You said that you turn to the bible for clarification on who actually has a spiritual truth. Surely you realize that there are many believers of many faiths all claiming to have spiritual truths...suppose the contradictory truth of my last question came from someone who is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Would you still turn to the bible? Or is there another way of determining who's spiritual claim is a spiritual truth?

Assuming I know what you mean by "expressed through the senses"... It is a spiritual truth that I have the Holy Spirit indwelling me. I just expressed that through typing and you're learning it through reading. Is that the kind of example you're looking for?

Of course I realize there are many faiths and many "holy books" behind those faiths. When I use the term "believer", though, I'm exclusively referring to believers in Jesus Christ as the only way to God. Here we go with the exclusivity of the Christian faith, but I think it is exclusive. It's really a non sequitur to ask about contradictory spiritual "truths" in those other faiths since I don't think they would receive spiritual truth any more than you would. (No offense intended.)