Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I can barely tell where the second article begins. Can you give me the short version?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I can barely tell where the second article begins. Can you give me the short version?Read the second article by Pym van Lommel, on this blog:
The Bridge: A Science and Spirituality Resource: Mysticism
Perhaps you should restate that to say that falsifiability destroys the possibility of something ever, with *absolute* certainty, being known as true.
Take the scientific theory of evolution; How much uncertainty do you think there is that one day there might be found fossilized rabbits in the precambrian?
Can I change the channel?I think it said, NDE... therefore our brains are like TV sets.
How can it be knowledge if it's wrong?I don't think that would undermine evolution so much as throw a big wrench into speciation. But let's stick with this as if it applies to evolution as a whole: I do not want to live in a world where I'm forced to titrate my certainty below anything that's basically 100% (or 99.9%). I'm confident enough to say that I know evolution is true, that evolution is in fact something that actually happened, and not "just" something that I'm feeling 99.9% certain about and by definition open to falsifiability and therefore because of this can't claim that I "know" that evolution is true. The 99.99% certainty part is supplied by science; the "I know this is true" part is inductively ascertained by me. That is, science can only aim at probabilities and therefore can't technically make claims of knowledge, because knowledge implies truth; but I can aim at knowledge and truth, precisely because I'm a human being, and because of such I'm not limited just to the scientific method.
Whoa, wait, I'm only comparing the two (evidence qua empiricism and evidentialism) to make a point against conflating the two, like evidentialists do. I'm not saying they're the same, and in putting them in my first premise I'm simply stating what evidentialism holds. What I'm telling others not to do is conflate evidence understood empirically (which I understand to be different than evidentialism, in that the latter makes claims like the first premise) with evidentialism (i.e., scientific evidence is the limitation of truth).
Please let me know if this tete-a-tete is confusing to you, because it took me five minutes to understand what we're saying on this point. Could it be that (because or the convoluted nature of this discussion, I take credit) that you've misperceived my point?
I'm just saying I don't know what "absolute" (contra "relative") truth means.
That's fine, but 1) so long as the other standard is truth, which can be ascertained by reason, we're fine, and 2) what works "best" doesn't at all mean that because it works best, that this should be the defined limitation of our epistemology.
I'm saying you're arbitrarily and authoritatively setting up a standard that what works best should be used to the disposal of reason, intuition, and other standards
We should keep to empiricism.
Why?
Because it works the best.
Why should something be kept as the limitation of our knowledge because it works the best?
Because it works the best.
I'm saying you're arbitrarily and authoritatively setting up a standard that what works best should be used to the disposal of reason, intuition, and other standards;
and I'm saying that my appeal to reason and intuition are not even set up or handed down by me, but are intrinsic to our very psychology.
Empricism may work best, but it's a small sphere compared to reason (another sphere),
Again (and this might be seen as the summary of my entire position with this debate): empiricism has philosophical presuppositions which are based in premises that are in turn the conclusions of reasoning from other premises. And these premises (based on previous conclusions) are also based on intuitive, "just feels right" beliefs, like the existence of the external world, uniformity in nature, and the reality of inductive reasoning (on which the scientific method rests). We call these intuitive deals axioimatic truths; Bertrand Russell called them "instinctive beliefs". So given that empiricism has philosophical presuppositions, these very reason- and intuition-based presuppositions mean that reason and intuition are "deeper" than empiricism, precisely because they are the content of these presuppositions.
Disagree to infinity. We don't "claim" axioms; evolutionary psychologists say that these axioms, which underlie our philosophies (including empiricism) and reason itself, are instinctual. IOW (and this is a science-revealed statement, BTW), unless we had instinctual axioms that underlay our philosophies, we would never get off the ground. We need axioms to even make our philosophies intelligible and agreed upon, or else it's all about an authority that gives down whichever standard. And if it's not authority, it's pure caprice, where we choose our standards for truth like we do our fashion of clothes. You want to talk about relativism, well...
Begging the question: "we need to trust evidence because you need to supply evidence." And notice the "I do" here and its implications. Okay, you can demand evidentialism as a standard, which is fine, so long as you realize it's an assumed standard.
To limit yourself just to science as a means of ascertaining truth (without implementing it with, say, reason, or other truth-attaining means) would mean you technically can't know anything at all, given that falsifiability destroys the possibility of something ever with certainty being known as true.
If you 'know' a statement is true, but that statement is actually incorrect, how can you have 'known' it was true?If what's wrong?
Your entire syllogism is based on the conflation between empiricism and evidentialism. Look at the second premise:
"Evidentialism has no evidence."
What do you mean by "evidence"? This again goes back to the first premise where you define evidence as coming from the natural sciences.
Absolute truth means proven, as in 2+2=4 is absolutley true within the epistemology of math.
Surely you want to use the best epistemology for gathering knowledge, do you not?
Or do you want to use an epistemology where something dreamt up at the drop of a hat has the same weight as a scientific theory supported by 150 years of scientific discovery?
False on all accounts. I am not arbitrarily choosing standards. I am using proven track records. That is not arbitrary.
Second, I am saying that if you want to convince ME that you are right, then I need to see evidence. It just so happens that a lot of other people use the same standard for the same reasons, not because I tell them to, but of their own free will.
If you can't name a better standard, then what exactly are you complaining about? ALL epistemologies limit what can and can't be counted as evidence. ALL epistemologies set out a method for determining what is and is not knowledge.
I mean by evidence as defined by the natural sciences, and my entire premise is based on the confusion evidentialists have with assuming that everything that can be proven can be proven through evidentialism; so I guess you could say that it doesn't speak of empiricism at all.
Evidentialism has no evidence.
Then I would just stick with "proven" and "not proven", and not "absolute" truth.
"best epistemology" -- let's skip this as irrelevant.
Let's just go with: I want to use a standard of knowledge that actually helps me know things. But I don't want to limit my knowledge just to this standard, without appealing to other standards like reason and intuition.
That is an epic leap: "do you want to be down with science, or magical fairy land?" I want to be down with science, and me allowing other standards means I'm not twisting science into a magical fairy land where only what is known can be known through science, which is a self-negating statement, sorta like fairies.
But it is begging the question: I'm using what works. Why use what works? Because it has the best track record (i.e., because it works).
That's fine. All I'm asking is you're holding this standard from a type of assumption, even if this assumption is "it appears to work best for me." But that's problematic, IMO, because it relativisizes our standards, sort of like making our standards for truth comparable to picking out clothes we think are good.
What I'm saying, though, is that we don't need to divide these things into independent epistemologies, but can integrate them into one epistemology.
Well, maybe. Problem is, I don't know what "absolute" certainty means. I know what certainty means: the feeling or intuition of veracity being attained completely (note the emphasis on feeling or intuition); if this is a good definition, then adding "absolute" is unnecessary, IMO.
I am sure that the universe has taken your 'wants' under careful consideration.I don't think that would undermine evolution so much as throw a big wrench into speciation. But let's stick with this as if it applies to evolution as a whole: I do not want to live in a world where I'm forced to titrate my certainty below anything that's basically 100% (or 99.9%).
You can aim for this 'truth' of yours, but tell me: how are you going to know when you hit it, and how are you going to convey that to me?I'm confident enough to say that I know evolution is true, that evolution is in fact something that actually happened, and not "just" something that I'm feeling 99.9% certain about and by definition open to falsifiability and therefore because of this can't claim that I "know" that evolution is true. The 99.99% certainty part is supplied by science; the "I know this is true" part is inductively ascertained by me. That is, science can only aim at probabilities and therefore can't technically make claims of knowledge, because knowledge implies truth; but I can aim at knowledge and truth, precisely because I'm a human being, and because of such I'm not limited just to the scientific method.
So your syllogism is focused on evidence as defined by the natural sciences, but you don't speak of empiricism at all? You are contradicting yourself.
Evidence is evidence. That is where your syllogism breaks down.
If you 'know' a statement is true, but that statement is actually incorrect, how can you have 'known' it was true?
Please explain, in as much detail as you think is necessary, what you mean here. I just don't understand what you're saying. How is not speaking of empiricism a contradiction, when I'm speaking of evidentialism (which is different than empiricism) and the self-negating statements it holds.
How?
Then I don't know what you are saying since you consistently conflate the two (empiricism and evidentialism).
You are trying to make the evidence go away, and yet it remains.
You might as well argue that facts don't exist because factualism isn't a fact. You are twisting in the wind trying to make the importance of evidence go away.
How am I conflating the two? That's what I'm asking.
This does tell me something, but not about the argument per se. It sounds like you're thinking my very attempt to reveal the self-negating nature of hermetically sealed philosophies is just plain stupid.
But be sure and say that I'm just trying to escape from things and wishing evidence away.
Right here:
"Only things that can be evidenced (i.e., through the natural sciences) can be considered true (evidentialism)."
No, I think your continued use of meaningless phrases like "hermetically sealed philosophies" is stupid. Just say what you mean to say. You don't need to use such klunky phrases.
Then what is the point of arguing against the use of evidence?
Again, you're stating just what I said without offering the needed interpretation that I'm asking. What about this stated phrase is problematic to you? Please, please spell it out for me.
You don't need to use words like "stupid".
You don't need to use words like "stupid". See what I'm talking about? Look, I know this is an Internet board, and I know communication means, well, communicating. But I also have my own style of communicating -- I really like words, and I like that phrase "hermetically sealed philosophy" -- and I've defined (in previous posts) what this phrase in particular means.
I'm not arguing against the use of evidence.
I think it clearly speaks for itself. You directly compare the natural sciences to evidentialism.
"This does tell me something, but not about the argument per se. It sounds like you're thinking my very attempt to reveal the self-negating nature of hermetically sealed philosophies is just plain stupid."--Received
Perhaps you should use English instead of Received-ese. Just sayin'.
"Therefore, evidentialism can't be true."--Received
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?