Which philosophies do you oppose most?
- Thread starter GrowingSmaller
- Start date
E
Elioenai26
Guest
I have an array of various methods that I utilize in establishing what is true. But before I enumerate them, I must state that with regards to the semantical precondition of meaning, I am a realist, and I adhere to the
"correspondence theory of truth which states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. The theory is opposed to the coherence theory of truth which holds that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by its relations to other statements rather than its relation to the world.
Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true".
Definition courtesy of Wikipedia*
With regards to methodology, my skill-set is comprised of sundry methods such as:
1. Scientific method, specifically, the inductive and experimental logic method of modern science. In addition, the forensic method with its principle of uniformity is an excellent tool.
2. Socratic method, that is, systematic questioning.
3. Deductive method, i.e. via the use of various logical syllogisms.
4. Inductive method, imperfect and perfect.
5. Cartesian method, beginning in systematic and methodical doubt.
6. Euclidian method, which has a mathematical flavor
7. Transcendental method, which is more or less reductive.
8. Abductive method, which sometimes utilizes intelligent guesses and or dreams and visions. It is akin to an intuitive flash or insight into something.
9. Retroductive method, which is a method of enrichment.
10. Historical method, the search for historical probability and correspondance to what is known to be true.
This list is by no means exhaustive. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What is meant here by "accurately describes that reality"? Do you mean to say that truth is when a concept corresponds to the thing it seeks to describe?
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Excellent question.
I would begin by asking questions. Is this a repeatable event? No it is not. Can I go back in time to see the first biological life form, no I can not. I then ask, does this mean I have no way of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt how the first biological life came to be? I answer, no it does not.
I then ask can this occurance be repeated in a laboratory, no it cannot.
From there I would ask, what are the prevailing contemporary views from the experts in this matter. I gather all prevailing views and collect them under two broad explanatory categories: The naturalistic explanation(s), and the supernaturalistic explanation(s).
From there I examine each with objective critical thinking and assimilate the findings of the experts in their respective fields using a variety of means and methods which are pertinent to the evidence being examined. I examine the origins of the naturalistic framework, I examine the origins of the supernaturalistic framework. I make use of the inductive method and the cartesian, as well as the forensic science method with its principle of uniformity.
I examine the claims of each and understand that opposing truth claims cannot both be true. Either naturalism is that framework which best corresponds to reality, or either supernaturalism is. I start with certain unshakable presuppositions and build my case from there. I presuppose the intelligibility of the world around me and that it can be known.
The specific question is when did the first biological life forms appear on earth.
This question is hotly contested by many who are engaged in seeking to find a reasonable answer and I know before I even set out to find an answer, that if I do indeed find one that is widely accepted, it is not going to be an exact date, I dont expect it to be. I first begin by going to my computer and typing in: "when did the first biological life forms appear".
Simple huh? Hahah
In several milliseconds have a vast treasure trove of information that needs to be sorted and compiled. Boom! Wikipedia comes up with an article on:
Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Under the basic timeline heading it states:
The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:
- 3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
- 3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,
- 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
- 1 billion years of multicellular life,
I then scroll down and see:
3900 MaLate Heavy Bombardment: peak rate of impact events upon the inner planets by meteoroids. This constant disturbance may have obliterated any life that had evolved to that point, or possibly not, as some early microbes could have survived in hydrothermal vents below the Earth's surface;[12] or life might have been transported to Earth by a meteoroid.[13]3900-2500 MaCells resembling prokaryotes appear.[14] These first organisms are chemoautotrophs: they use carbon dioxide as a carbon source and oxidize inorganic materials to extract energy. Later, prokaryotes evolve glycolysis, a set of chemical reactions that free the energy of organic molecules such as glucose and store it in the chemical bonds of ATP. Glycolysis (and ATP) continue to be used in almost all organisms, unchanged, to this day.[15][16]
I say to myself, hmm ok...I have a rough foundation I can work on and build from here. I then check every source for credibility. I then examine any other prevailing views concerning the above dates and see how they agree or diverge. I by no means take the Wikipedia article to be conclusive. We all know why, but it is a good place to start. I assimilate the prevailing naturalistic views as well as the prevailing supernatural views. And see where they agree and where they diverge. I then ask, why the divergence if any, and then examine each side's case. I examine all prevailing origin of life hypotheses, theories, and explanations for consistency, internal coherence, and correspondence. I examine all related subjects such as the varying age of the earth views, etc. etc.
In sum,
Utilizing the information at my disposal, (much is still contested with regards to the origin of life research) I can come to a reasonable conclusion that among those who fall under the naturalistic category, they believe life began approximately 3 billion years ago give or take a billion. Among those who comprise the supernaturalistic camp, views differ accordning primarily to one's view of the age of the earth.
The above once taken into consideration leads to an even more profound question. Not so much as when it occured, but how it occured, and even more profoundly, entering into the philosophical disciplines, why? For even if a general consensus is reached on when, we must ask how and why life exists. These two questions are the motivation for most of the work going on in contemporary scholarship with regards to the origins of life and it should be our aim to ask the most important questions.
In addition to the above, one must ask, what is the relevance of the question I am asking? How does knowing the approximate time in which life arose on earth affect me? Many pursuits for knowledge on various subjects have been undertaken with zeal by men and women alike only later to be abandoned for something more important. This is a question we all must ask and answer ourselves.
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
I do not know. I have not researched the matter enough to speak authoritatively on it, although I do believe we can know the truth regarding this matter. I am doing some other research that will tie into this, but only incidentally. When I am confident I have ascertained what I feel is a defendable case, I may present an argument for it to you. If time permits.
In passing, I want you to know that I have no problem with scientists positing the theory of evolution by natural selection as a possible explanatory biological mechanism. In fact, I am sure you are aware, Francis Collins who is an eminent physician-geneticist and head of the HGP and a former atheist who is now an outspoken Christian sees no explicit contradiction in maintaining that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the mechanism by which God superintended the creation of biological life. I am not even really concerned with it.
What I do disagree with is philosophical naturalism which states that everything that is must have a natural explanation. This I wholeheartedly disagree with because it is based on implicit assumptions which are simply not justifiable.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
I am saying quite simply that the simplest definition of "truth" is "telling it like it is". I.e. I have a lotion bottle sitting on my desk beside my computer. There are only two possibilities: either it has something inside of it or it does not. Now, I cannot see through the plastic to say for sure if it has something in it or not. But I can investigate. I can pick it up and see how much it weighs. I can shake it, I can take the lid off and look in. I can turn it upside down and see if anything comes out. I can cut it open with a knife and see whats inside.
I say there's something in it. This is an objective truth claim on the contents of the bottle. I am either right or wrong about there being something in the bottle. Now I will pick it up.... yes it is heavy. I conclude there is lotion in it. My assertion, "there is lotion in the bottle" corresponds to the actual state of affairs regarding the lotion bottle. And this beyond reasonable doubt. I dont have to pump the top to see if lotion comes out because I have no evidence that anyone has been in my room, removed the lotion and replaced the lotion with some other viscous liquid. In the absence of some reason for me to think that the white liquid is anything other than lotion, I can rationally, and justifiably conclude that there is lotion in the bottle and that my assertion is true.
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
Why did you not just say that, and save yourself some typing?
Then you have a problem, as in what you said here, where you would need to know the 'truth' part of "non-correspondence to truth".
Can you state why these assumptions are not justifiable without asking me a question?
I am aware that Francis Collins is unable to provide evidence for his "supernatural" beliefs, even with all he has at his disposal.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Because I felt like explaining myself.
The problem is?
The assumption that "all that is has a natural explanation" is to rule out the possibility of the supernatural at the outset and is therefore question begging for naturalism.
Unable to provide evidence? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Telling it like it is is your criterion for truthfulness. Consider then the statement "Unicorns have one horn". Following your criterion, is that statement true?
Upvote
0
How is it true? In your previous example (the lotion bottle), you could form hypotheses and test them to examine whether "There is lotion in this bottle" is telling it like it is. What investigations could you conduct to conclude that "Unicorns have one horn" is telling it like it is?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Since a unicorn is a legendary animal from European folklore, all we have to do is research the various folklore stories and various origin accounts of this legendary creature. Do the writings inform us that the beast has one horn or two? Does it have five horns or none? We can look at drawings and pictures that represent this mythological creature. What do they portray? They portray a creature which resembles a white horse with a large pointed spiraling horn projecting from its head.
"The unicorn is a legendary animal from European folklore that resembles a white horse with a large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead..." -Wikipedia
From the above, we can conclude that the statement: "unicorns have one horn" is true and is telling it like it is.
Upvote
0
The key word there is legendary. Beyond those legendary accounts, there is no evidence to suggest that unicorns actually exist. Which is problematic because it casts doubt on whether the claim "Unicorns have one horn" is, in fact, telling it like it is. If there are no unicorns, then what is there to tell at all?
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Now you have shifted the topic from discussing the attributes of a unicorn to whether or not it exists.
You see Archaeopteryx, you asked me if the statement: "unicorns have one horn" is true. That is what you asked me. You did not ask me if the statment: "unicorns exist" is true.
The two are dealing with completely different subjects. The first is dealing with a property, the second with existence.
It is true that unicorns have one horn. That is what unicorn means.
Not problematic at all, for there is no reason to see the two different questions as being the same.
Of course we know unicorns are legendary creatures seen in drawings and movies. However, just because a unicorn exists chiefly as a concept in our minds, does not mean that we cannot truthfully describe said concepts.
As long as our description of said concept is faithful to its conceptual nature, we are speaking the truth.
If I were to say unicorns had long trunks and big flappy ears, then of course I would not be speaking the truth. The fact that you no doubt agree with me on this is evidence that you have a right or true idea of what a unicorn is, even if it does not exist in the actual physical world.
Another note here:
We must not say that we know for a fact beyond all doubt that unicorns do not exist. We cannot say that at all, for then we would have to have omniscience which entails knowing all possible states of affairs. What we can say is that according the evidence we have, there is no good reason to believe they exist.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
But are those two questions independent of one another? Your response was "Yes, it is true that unicorns have one horn" when perhaps it should have been "No, it is not true, because unicorns do not (as far as we can tell) exist". Telling it like it is assumes, of course, that it is.
But it's nature is imaginary. How can we be telling like it is, when the crucial it is part really isn't? Perhaps telling it like it is really isn't a good criterion for truthfulness. There are assumptions attatched to what it is means.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
E
Elioenai26
Guest
You're reading way too much into my usage of the phrase "telling it like it is". That phrase is a simplistic way of saying that truth is that which corresponds to its object. What you seem to insinuate is just because said object is a conept or idea that it cannot be described accurately. If that is the case, then how can we even talk about concepts or ideas meaningingfully? If we took your view and applied it to every concept and idea we as humans have and say that any and all talk regarding such concepts is not meaningful, then ... well, im sure you are aware of how restrictive this would be. It is akin to scientific naturalism, and of course you know the weaknesses inherent in that position.
Ironically, the very fact that you are formulating arguments based on your accurate conceptualizations and ideas about unicorns is proof against what you are saying. You maintain on one hand that because a unicorn is not, that any talk or descriptive statements about said unicorn is not actually true, and then on the other hand, your most recent posts have all been about unicorns! Do you really mean to say that all that you have written is not true and therefore meaningless?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
