What Do We Consider Legitimate Ways to Find Evidence About Reality?

Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What Do We Consider Legitimate Ways to Find Evidence About Reality?

 

In the course of many arguments it's clear that there is a difference between what theists and atheists consider to be legitimate evidence for truths about reality. In fact, oftentimes, it seems this is at the core of many a disagreement, with atheists insisting things must be proven to be true scientifically and theists saying that subjective evidence based on personal experience is equally legitimate.

Theists also accuse atheists of relying on scientific data that provides an incomplete picture of the nature of things, saying this reliance amounts to a sort of faith in the predictive power of the scientific method. And they will claim that because all perceptions are subjective, science is as subjective an explanation for reality as the explanations contained in religious doctrine.

I would say that science is simply establishing natural explanations for the things we see in the universe. Science is built on theories - propositions - about the universe to which hypotheses are applied and these hypotheses make falsifiable predictions about the way scientific theories operate.

Theories hold up on the strength of their hypotheses and if multiple hypotheses support a theory, that theory is considered confirmed. This said, all scientific knowledge is exposed to testing, to the findings of related and unrelated hypotheses, to new data, new experiments and the application of new technologies to old problems. 

It's true the scientific method of testing and re-testing hypotheses offers predictive power. Spectroscopy allows us to recognise the gases emitted from stars, we can detect magnetic fields and deflections from Earth's iron core, ascertain the presence of black holes in the centre of the galaxy and use induced beta decay to detect neutrinos from the sun passing through all matter on and in the earth.

On the side of the theistic opposition, the nature of what is considered evidence is different, except when a lack of understanding, or a hole in scientific knowledge is seized on as proof of a theistic position based on complexity or a gap in knowledge. Evolution elegantly explains and predicts the development of life on earth. But creationism does no more than make assertions based on no data, ultimately inserting the word god in place of the word ignorance.

Another type of theist accepts some elements of science, such as the fossil record, but insists at some point in the past, natural processes were directly managed by supernatural means, the proof of which is simply that there are things we don't know. Or they'll insist there's a god thanks to the information provided in the bible. In any case, they will contend their traditional cultural assertions deserve to be treated with the same respect as thoroughly tested scientific hypotheses.

So, what do others think is acceptable evidence and technique for knowing truths about reality? Would atheists say there are things that can be known about the natural world in the absence of scientific observation? And what about theists - especially 50-50 theists. Why does the scientific method only work for you folks part of the time? And is there a coherent, repeatable religious method for comprehending the truth about reality?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
When one is not debating the

When one is not debating the issue of deities it is obvious what the answer is, it is only willful ignorance that allows the theist to dodge what they accept outside that issue.

There is no debate, there is only the delusion people have.

The only credible tool to measure reality is the ability to test a claim and falsify it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
One can only arrive at

One can only arrive at epistemological answers via empiricism.  I don't see how anyone can confuse rationalism as a primary source of knowledge.  I understand how rationalizing would seem as a unique source of ideas, but one has to use empirically gained symbols in ones inner narrative to arrive at those ideas.  

In other words, as we are born, the only available means of gaining knowledge is our senses.  Nothing but tangible data is processed via smelling, seeing, touching, tasting and hearing.  Due to our limited brain capacity, we have to idealize classes of objects in order to communicate symbols internally to ourselves and externally to others.  This is where the whole 'rational' process comes into play.  But no new knowledge is gained that would be possible without empiricism.

When arguing metaphysical concepts such as the Ontological Argument, theists always assume an idea as a priori, and some go as far as to claim that asking for empirical proof of god is a classification fallacy, due to the fact that meta-physical = beyond physical.  But what they fail to see is that any metaphysical concepts are communicated via empirical symbols.  One can't start with a metaphysical priori and claim empiricism not only flawed, but unnecessary.  It would be analogous to someone typing out an argument that the alphabet is useless and flawed.  

Mind you, that's never stopped theists before.  Smiling 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:One can only

Ktulu wrote:

One can only arrive at epistemological answers via empiricism.  I don't see how anyone can confuse rationalism as a primary source of knowledge.  I understand how rationalizing would seem as a unique source of ideas, but one has to use empirically gained symbols in ones inner narrative to arrive at those ideas.  

In other words, as we are born, the only available means of gaining knowledge is our senses.  Nothing but tangible data is processed via smelling, seeing, touching, tasting and hearing.  Due to our limited brain capacity, we have to idealize classes of objects in order to communicate symbols internally to ourselves and externally to others.  This is where the whole 'rational' process comes into play.  But no new knowledge is gained that would be possible without empiricism.

When arguing metaphysical concepts such as the Ontological Argument, theists always assume an idea as a priori, and some go as far as to claim that asking for empirical proof of god is a classification fallacy, due to the fact that meta-physical = beyond physical.  But what they fail to see is that any metaphysical concepts are communicated via empirical symbols.  One can't start with a metaphysical priori and claim empiricism not only flawed, but unnecessary.  It would be analogous to someone typing out an argument that the alphabet is useless and flawed.  

Mind you, that's never stopped theists before.  Smiling 

 

You cant simply just leave it up to your senses. We know far too much about the human brain and how easy it is to allow our senses to fool us. You have to have claims tested independently of one's self to completely insure testing and falsification filter out personal bias. When a claim has had the shit kicked out of it and continually gets confirmed by independent peer reviewed testing, then you have something. But you cannot simply rely on your own senses.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You cant

Brian37 wrote:

You cant simply just leave it up to your senses. We know far too much about the human brain and how easy it is to allow our senses to fool us. You have to have claims tested independently of one's self to completely insure testing and falsification filter out personal bias. When a claim has had the shit kicked out of it and continually gets confirmed by independent peer reviewed testing, then you have something. But you cannot simply rely on your own senses.

I think you missed what I wrote, perhaps I was unclear.  What I said was that empiricism is THE ONLY WAY that you can get fundamental knowledge about reality.  The theistic view is that knowledge can get beamed into your brain from god, or through some other process, or that we are born with this knowledge. 

This is the definition of Empiricism.  

wiki wrote:

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which opposes other theories of knowledge, such as rationalism and historicism. Empiricism asserts that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience as opposed to rationalism that asserts that knowledge comes (also) from pure thinking. 

It is one of the building blocks of rational atheism.   I'm not sure what you're arguing here...

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I agree, I guess I was

I agree, I guess I was confused by the comments on our senses.

As an aside. Which one of the ancient Greeks postulated that we were born with all knowledge and simply uncovered it as we grew up?

I know Plato fucked up humanity with his "seek perfection and you can find it". But wasn't there someone else, or maybe him, who also postulated that we were born with knowledge?

And yes, it is patently absurd that a disembodied magical super brain with magic super powers beams knowledge to your brain.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 <Moved from General

 <Moved from General Conversation to Philosophy and Psychology>


Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I honestly think that the

I honestly think that the discrepancy between theists and atheists is more due to the way that the evidence is interpreted. The scientific method is the accepted rational way to go about interpreting evidence. This method starts by collecting evidence, developing a hypothesis, testing exhaustively and lastly ending with a verified theory. The theist's method starts with the theory and works backward so that any evidence predicatively reinforces the aforementioned theory.

If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost.

When Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't saying that people shouldn't be stoned. He was requesting the first pitch.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is true

 

Neoatheist wrote:

I honestly think that the discrepancy between theists and atheists is more due to the way that the evidence is interpreted. The scientific method is the accepted rational way to go about interpreting evidence. This method starts by collecting evidence, developing a hypothesis, testing exhaustively and lastly ending with a verified theory. The theist's method starts with the theory and works backward so that any evidence predicatively reinforces the aforementioned theory.

 

but scientific modeling works the same way to some extent - projecting a theory and then trying to find support for it. The difference is that a scientific model is understood to be a model. The church, however, does not preach on the 'as yet unproven Theory of Creation'.

I think theists flat out reject huge banks of evidence. My younger fundy brother refuses to read science texts that assume evolution is true as he claims they are 'biased'. He will only believe an author who lends similar weight to creation and to evolution. Go figure. Sometimes I think theists don't think about the evidence at all, but dive for the gaps in order to preserve their cognitive investment. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I disagree that science

I disagree that science modeling works in that way.  It is not a theory that is projected, but a hypothosis and as much as it may appear as though these Hypothoses were simply pulled out of thin air, they are the product of observable evidence. I agree with your second point.

If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost.

When Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't saying that people shouldn't be stoned. He was requesting the first pitch.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't necessarily say

I wouldn't necessarily say there are differences between atheist and theists in terms of finding evidence.

 

Just because an atheist applies it to religion, doesn't mean they apply it to other. Just because a theist doesn't apply it to religion doesn't mean they don't apply it to other things.

 

Also, with nature of accepting evidence, we all think our views are supported by evidence, such as thinking the complexity of the universe points to the creator they're just wrong.  Same with atheists. It may not be on religion, but it can pop up others such as conspiracy theories for example.

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I do think

 

 

Neoatheist wrote:

I disagree that science modeling works in that way.  It is not a theory that is projected, but a hypothosis and as much as it may appear as though these Hypothoses were simply pulled out of thin air, they are the product of observable evidence. I agree with your second point.

 

 

that scientific modeling presents an abstracted sense of overarching complexities of reality that are not completely understood - an interpretation. But I agree this is not the same as totally unsupported theistic claims about something like the events of creation, for example. I obviously agree a scientific model, tied as it is to presenting empirical evidence logically, has no possible connection to theology.  

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Of course.

 

Neoatheist wrote:

It is not a theory that is projected, but a hypothosis.

 

excuse momentary vocab failure...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't think the

I don't think the qualification 'natural' is necessary in talking about what science seeks.

That is ultimately a weasel word, at least in the way theists use it, to put a fence around what Science can access.

It really is about some minimally consistent evidence of any kind, which can be independently tested/checked.

Pure internal experience and intuition, as a source of contact with reality, is far LESS reliable than what we get via our senses, so Theists are really fooling themselves with that argument about the 'limitations' of science and empiricism. Intuition and 'pure' reason brought us the ideas of perfect heavens beyond the moon, the Four Elements, the Ontological Argument and its relatives, the earth as the center of the universe, etc. 

Only an application of all our sources of information and tools, ie our direct sensory data, indirect 'physical' data via our instruments, analysed via the tools of logic and math, are likely to take us forward in knowledge and understanding.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Good point.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

I don't think the qualification 'natural' is necessary in talking about what science seeks.

That is ultimately a weasel word, at least in the way theists use it, to put a fence around what Science can access.

It really is about some minimally consistent evidence of any kind, which can be independently tested/checked.

Pure internal experience and intuition, as a source of contact with reality, is far LESS reliable than what we get via our senses, so Theists are really fooling themselves with that argument about the 'limitations' of science and empiricism. Intuition and 'pure' reason brought us the ideas of perfect heavens beyond the moon, the Four Elements, the Ontological Argument and its relatives, the earth as the center of the universe, etc. 

Only an application of all our sources of information and tools, ie our direct sensory data, indirect 'physical' data via our instruments, analysed via the tools of logic and math, are likely to take us forward in knowledge and understanding.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I don't

BobSpence1 wrote:

I don't think the qualification 'natural' is necessary in talking about what science seeks.

That is ultimately a weasel word, at least in the way theists use it, to put a fence around what Science can access.

It really is about some minimally consistent evidence of any kind, which can be independently tested/checked.

Pure internal experience and intuition, as a source of contact with reality, is far LESS reliable than what we get via our senses, so Theists are really fooling themselves with that argument about the 'limitations' of science and empiricism. Intuition and 'pure' reason brought us the ideas of perfect heavens beyond the moon, the Four Elements, the Ontological Argument and its relatives, the earth as the center of the universe, etc. 

Only an application of all our sources of information and tools, ie our direct sensory data, indirect 'physical' data via our instruments, analysed via the tools of logic and math, are likely to take us forward in knowledge and understanding.

 

We're on the same page here Bob, it's the fundamental way that knowledge is perceived, hence my earlier rant on empiricism.  Once you accept that you can rationalize unique concepts from pure thought, rather than compound them from empirically gained concepts, you are pretty much in Plato's world and everything is possible.  The OA and TAG are perfect examples of the sort of fallacies one can conclude when empiricism is tossed out.  

The evidence classification fallacy is secondary to the incorrect priority one sets on concepts and how they relate to reality.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Another aspect of empiricism

Another aspect of empiricism is the distinction between third person and first person data.  We have a rich and developed language that obtains to scientific objectivity with third person data and our formal language presentation of such data. With first person empirical data our formalities are primitive and lack a rich vocabulary. For example when a person says his head hurts we assume it as true based upon subjective privilege.  The person is the only one who knows his/her experience. We can doubt this information based upon third person data such as we know the person lies for a specific reason or is a hypochondriac.  If I say my son enjoys playing with me and his Thomas the Train set the report is empirical but need not be reduced to a scientific analysis.  Historical research often falls into this category. The hypotheticals are subject to falsification nonetheless.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


luca
atheist
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Could I add my token?

I agree with what's written above, and I want to add this: theists get confused from the fact that science is valid only in the contest the premises limit it to BUT as the predictions get realized another bit of theory gets true. Also, an abstract concept is usually indipendent from concept related to other matters, but when they apply to reality they are not.
They are indipendent because we have not explained everything, but evidently the path we are trying to follow is to unify everything, so we are beginning to see how everything is interrelated, how our world is a complex machine (complex as for every part in his functioning it needs and modifies the functioning of a lot of other parts).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Another aspect

TGBaker wrote:

Another aspect of empiricism is the distinction between third person and first person data.  We have a rich and developed language that obtains to scientific objectivity with third person data and our formal language presentation of such data. With first person empirical data our formalities are primitive and lack a rich vocabulary. For example when a person says his head hurts we assume it as true based upon subjective privilege.  The person is the only one who knows his/her experience. We can doubt this information based upon third person data such as we know the person lies for a specific reason or is a hypochondriac.  If I say my son enjoys playing with me and his Thomas the Train set the report is empirical but need not be reduced to a scientific analysis.  Historical research often falls into this category. The hypotheticals are subject to falsification nonetheless.

Scientific and technological progress is almost at the point, or perhaps already there in some cases, where we can establish as an empirical fact that someone's 'head hurts', or that they enjoy some specific activity. Versions of brain-scanning equipment are becoming more portable all the time:

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni8824778/ wrote:

NeuroFocus, a firm that brings brain research to marketing, today unveiled what it deems “the first dry, wireless headset designed to capture brainwave activity across the full brain.” The device, three years in the making, debuted at the 75th Annual Advertising Research Foundation conference in New York.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:TGBaker

BobSpence1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Another aspect of empiricism is the distinction between third person and first person data.  We have a rich and developed language that obtains to scientific objectivity with third person data and our formal language presentation of such data. With first person empirical data our formalities are primitive and lack a rich vocabulary. For example when a person says his head hurts we assume it as true based upon subjective privilege.  The person is the only one who knows his/her experience. We can doubt this information based upon third person data such as we know the person lies for a specific reason or is a hypochondriac.  If I say my son enjoys playing with me and his Thomas the Train set the report is empirical but need not be reduced to a scientific analysis.  Historical research often falls into this category. The hypotheticals are subject to falsification nonetheless.

Scientific and technological progress is almost at the point, or perhaps already there in some cases, where we can establish as an empirical fact that someone's 'head hurts', or that they enjoy some specific activity. Versions of brain-scanning equipment are becoming more portable all the time:

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni8824778/ wrote:

NeuroFocus, a firm that brings brain research to marketing, today unveiled what it deems “the first dry, wireless headset designed to capture brainwave activity across the full brain.” The device, three years in the making, debuted at the 75th Annual Advertising Research Foundation conference in New York.

Yea I really like what V. Ramachandran and Christoff Koch are doing with NCC and neuroscience. I think we are still hard pressed at finding NCC of qualia. I recently was on a chemo anti-fungal which caused visual experiences of vivid colors and associative visions of sceneries that were obviously constructed by my unconscious yet so detailed that they were close to external experiences.  I also could almost instantaneously create the image I wanted on a blank wall or with my eyes closed.  These things are worthy of a good fMRI scan. 

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: In

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

In the course of many arguments it's clear that there is a difference between what theists and atheists consider to be legitimate evidence for truths about reality. In fact, oftentimes, it seems this is at the core of many a disagreement, with atheists insisting things must be proven to be true scientifically and theists saying that subjective evidence based on personal experience is equally legitimate.

Theists also accuse atheists of relying on scientific data that provides an incomplete picture of the nature of things, saying this reliance amounts to a sort of faith in the predictive power of the scientific method. And they will claim that because all perceptions are subjective, science is as subjective an explanation for reality as the explanations contained in religious doctrine.

I would say that science is simply establishing natural explanations for the things we see in the universe. Science is built on theories - propositions - about the universe to which hypotheses are applied and these hypotheses make falsifiable predictions about the way scientific theories operate.

Theories hold up on the strength of their hypotheses and if multiple hypotheses support a theory, that theory is considered confirmed. This said, all scientific knowledge is exposed to testing, to the findings of related and unrelated hypotheses, to new data, new experiments and the application of new technologies to old problems. 

It's true the scientific method of testing and re-testing hypotheses offers predictive power. Spectroscopy allows us to recognise the gases emitted from stars, we can detect magnetic fields and deflections from Earth's iron core, ascertain the presence of black holes in the centre of the galaxy and use induced beta decay to detect neutrinos from the sun passing through all matter on and in the earth.

On the side of the theistic opposition, the nature of what is considered evidence is different, except when a lack of understanding, or a hole in scientific knowledge is seized on as proof of a theistic position based on complexity or a gap in knowledge. Evolution elegantly explains and predicts the development of life on earth. But creationism does no more than make assertions based on no data, ultimately inserting the word god in place of the word ignorance.

Another type of theist accepts some elements of science, such as the fossil record, but insists at some point in the past, natural processes were directly managed by supernatural means, the proof of which is simply that there are things we don't know. Or they'll insist there's a god thanks to the information provided in the bible. In any case, they will contend their traditional cultural assertions deserve to be treated with the same respect as thoroughly tested scientific hypotheses.

So, what do others think is acceptable evidence and technique for knowing truths about reality?

The answer is as varied as the number of fields of study. Also, the paradigms shift based on doctrines in use and the perspective of observation. An individual obviously values their own experience given reality, even if it is  through a faulty consciousness - a consciousness at fault of insanity, neuroses, past traumas, and what have you that inevitably damage a person's ability to function in society and to process "sense data". Personal experience is extremely important for an infant -it wouldn't be able to learn and develop without it!

When it comes to doctrines, two people can almost appear to use different languages (yet still be speaking English.) 

For example, when I say "certain", I simply mean "free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure."

Bobspence, on the hand, appears convinced I mean "free from error of any kind".  Yeah, worlds apart, to say the least.

 

There is also group membership... which culture a person is a member of; a person might be given to critically examine the utterances of a total stranger, but... a trusted cohort? The prevailing attitudes of their nation? Their favorite magazine/newspaper/tv channel? Sports team? Not so much, if at all.

In the study of nature, only the most critical observation, with similar reproducible  results amongst multiple groups all demonstrating the same correlation is admissible. Practical science and related studies? In this case, all that's required is a mechanism or technique that produces a desired outcome. Practical science is, often... a great deal easier on the mind, because it plays more into our natural thought processes than, say, pure science (or study of nature, that is) does.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 BobSpence1

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Scientific and technological progress is almost at the point, or perhaps already there in some cases, where we can establish as an empirical fact that someone's 'head hurts', or that they enjoy some specific activity. Versions of brain-scanning equipment are becoming more portable all the time:

 

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni8824778/ wrote:
NeuroFocus, a firm that brings brain research to marketing, today unveiled what it deems “the first dry, wireless headset designed to capture brainwave activity across the full brain.” The device, three years in the making, debuted at the 75th Annual Advertising Research Foundation conference in New York.

 

Very interesting BobSpence1. Although when I saw the link to imdb, I had to google the company to see if it was real or a publicity stunt. As far as I can tell and that is from a youtube link to a real news report, the company does seem to have something going on.

 

That being said, one of the claims which they made was a bit far reaching as far as I could see. Specifically, the tester asked the subject if he was a motorcyclist, bicyclist, mountain biker based on some of the readings that he saw when the guy was looking at pictures of bicycles.

 

The most obvious thing here was that the question was so vague as to border on cold reading. Also, any positive response could help to bring about a confirmation bias. It would be interesting to see the technology evaluated by some university researchers to see if they can find similar results.

 

That being said, I do know of two other examples.

 

There is a doctor Persinger at Laurentian university in Ontario who has developed a device he calls the “god helmet” which can supposedly induce a neurological response in subjects. As far as I can tell, he has yet to publish his work. The only accounts which I have found on the matter are two pieces by Michael Shermer which are not consistent with each other, so who really knows.

 

The other is a gaming controller which supposedly is a passive reader of brain waves. That seems to be based on other technology but dumbed down for the gaming market. People who have used it claim that it can be used effectively in games but again, all of those stories are anecdoatal.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826100006

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I certainly had some

Yeah, I certainly had some doubts when I read it, followed a couple of links and it looked like there was something to it.

I already knew from serious science podcasts that this sort of thing is becoming more feasible.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Anybody who suggests that

Anybody who suggests that the scientific method is the only way that we can know things is a really poor philosopher and has never read any arguments against his or her position.  This is some version of a philosophical view known as "empiricism".

The easiest defeater to empiricism is this: if you think that the scientific method is the only way to know something about reality, then did you use the scientific method to determine that?  If so, then your reasoning is circular.  If not, then clearly it is not the only way to know something about reality.

This sort of empiricism today, much like logical positivism (i.e., the belief that all statements are either true by definition or true by observation) has no currency; it is pretty much dead.  So, it surprises that there are atheists today who still endorse it.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Anybody

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Anybody who suggests that the scientific method is the only way that we can know things is a really poor philosopher and has never read any arguments against his or her position.  This is some version of a philosophical view known as "empiricism".

The easiest defeater to empiricism is this: if you think that the scientific method is the only way to know something about reality, then did you use the scientific method to determine that?  If so, then your reasoning is circular.  If not, then clearly it is not the only way to know something about reality.

This sort of empiricism today, much like logical positivism (i.e., the belief that all statements are either true by definition or true by observation) has no currency; it is pretty much dead.  So, it surprises that there are atheists today who still endorse it.

I think the suggestion is that fundamentally we are limited to empirical concepts.  Of course you use rational to formulate abstract ideas, but the underlining currency is still empirically derived symbols.  I consider scientific method as a rationalization of observable empirical data.  How I see our views contradicting, is in that you assume a rational concept as part of reality without deriving it from empirical data.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I think the

Ktulu wrote:

I think the suggestion is that fundamentally we are limited to empirical concepts.  Of course you use rational to formulate abstract ideas, but the underlining currency is still empirically derived symbols.  I consider scientific method as a rationalization of observable empirical data.  How I see our views contradicting, is in that you assume a rational concept as part of reality without deriving it from empirical data.

 

Mr. M has a rational concept in all of his mashuga?  Who could ever tell?

Reality is what can be measured.  If something can not be measured, we haven't invented equipment that can measure it or it doesn't exist.  If your position is that it is immeasurable, then it doesn't exist.  I can not conceive of a third choice - as I understand it, Mr. M's idea is that immeasurable entities are still real, which is just nonsense.  And leads us to invisible pink unicorns for crying out loud.

Nonexistance is not a bad thing.  It may be that we are discussing symbols or concepts that are a model of some bit of reality.  Such as infinity.  Infinity is a concept about reality, not a real thing.  The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.

Mr. M wants god/s/dess to exist.  And he wants to justify this belief.  So he gave it his best shot and got all pissy when we pointed out his errors.  I don't waste my time with people who get pissy.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Anybody

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Anybody who suggests that the scientific method is the only way that we can know things is a really poor philosopher and has never read any arguments against his or her position.  This is some version of a philosophical view known as "empiricism".

The easiest defeater to empiricism is this: if you think that the scientific method is the only way to know something about reality, then did you use the scientific method to determine that?  If so, then your reasoning is circular.  If not, then clearly it is not the only way to know something about reality.

This sort of empiricism today, much like logical positivism (i.e., the belief that all statements are either true by definition or true by observation) has no currency; it is pretty much dead.  So, it surprises that there are atheists today who still endorse it.

All of this is loaded with common terms that become uncommon when philosophically analysed. For example in "the only way we can know things"  what do we mean by "know". There are a varieties of empirically based philosophical approaches such as pragmatism or phenomenology.  However to suppose that there is a better or as productive of a methodology as the scientific method does not  bare out with history.   In fact it is only with some type of pragmatism that we can suppose that our conclusions have to do with reality.  A phenomenological analysis of what occurs consciously in observation alone demonstrates that what we actually are dealing with are our mental experiences and constructs.  For example a physicists is looking at a red block.  Is he actually conscious of the block or of the effects in the mind of neurological activities that call up past memories and learnings and brings to a nexus a type of meaning about the delivered color red, the shape, and position of the block ( and the name and idea of block in association with language areas of the brain). AS for me truth is an ethical category.  I think the reckless use of fact and truth as synonyms is a problem. Truth is an ethical handling of the reporting of experience, knowledge and belief. Fact has to do ontologically with what is. The fact is truth can fail factually.  I think the Gettier and counter-Gettier examples about Justified True Belief have shown this.  But as for empiricism every thought or belief is an experience and therefore empirical or it would not be known. John sees Jill at the VW dealership. She tells him she is going to buy a car.  He goes back to work and tells Mary that Jill is buying a BMW to make Mary jealous. Jill pulls up with a BMW which she later bought after leaving the VW dealership.  John lied even though we would at first tend to call his statement to Jill as truthful or the truth given the outcome. If so the truth was a lie because that was John's intent. His statement was factual but untrue.  So in a "metaphysical sense" the area of real import beside cosmology for me is consciousness.  As to using the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is valid misses the point that the scientific method is a system of using empiricism which is proved in its success and usage empirically. 

 

EDIT: We want to know truths not accessible to our senses. We still empirically abstract logical or physical laws from what is observable whether they are externally or in our minds as thoughts. Thoughts are empirical events to the conscious. They are likely to be causes completely physically effected by the brain. If not they are still understood empirically.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Mr. M wants

cj wrote:

Mr. M wants god/s/dess to exist.  And he wants to justify this belief.  So he gave it his best shot and got all pissy when we pointed out his errors.  I don't waste my time with people who get pissy.

You don't want to waste your time with me, yet you are here posting a response to what I wrote.

My favorite part is how you constantly say "we"; who is "we" here?  You have shown repeatedly that you have no understanding (nor interest) in any of the arguments for God, and yet somehow you've played a role in debunking them?

If you really want to press the issue with me, then feel free to debate me one on one.  I will eat you for supper like I did the other guy (redhat or whatever his name was).


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:All of this is

TGBaker wrote:

All of this is loaded with common terms that become uncommon when philosophically analysed. For example in "the only way we can know things"  what do we mean by "know". There are a varieties of empirically based philosophical approaches such as pragmatism or phenomenology.  However to suppose that there is a better or as productive of a methodology as the scientific method does not  bare out with history.

Hi TG, could you do me a favor and separate your posts into paragraphs?  When you lump everything together, it is really difficult to follow, especially since you tend to drop long esoteric terms.

The scientific method presupposes the validity of mathematics, as evidenced by the mathematical equations that are ubiquitous in quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Mathematics is much more productive than the scientific method in producing facts, although its scope is admittedly much more limited.

Now, are you claiming that if a method produces successful results, then it follows that the underlying assumptions that went along with the method are all true?


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

All of this is loaded with common terms that become uncommon when philosophically analysed. For example in "the only way we can know things"  what do we mean by "know". There are a varieties of empirically based philosophical approaches such as pragmatism or phenomenology.  However to suppose that there is a better or as productive of a methodology as the scientific method does not  bare out with history.

Hi TG, could you do me a favor and separate your posts into paragraphs?  When you lump everything together, it is really difficult to follow, especially since you tend to drop long esoteric terms.

The scientific method presupposes the validity of mathematics, as evidenced by the mathematical equations that are ubiquitous in quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Mathematics is much more productive than the scientific method in producing facts, although its scope is admittedly much more limited.

Sorry I was on the line with ATT about my slow internet and trying to type at the same time. I do tend to just throw out my thoughts rather than formalize them sorry.  Mathematics produces an infinite amount of facts  and in a sense is a precursor if not part of science itself.  But again I know mathematics only through a phenomenological  and empirical way. I can use it with consciousness.  What part of what I posted was esoteric??????


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
All of this is loaded with

All of this is loaded with common terms that become uncommon when philosophically analysed. For example in "the only way we can know things"  what do we mean by "know". There are a varieties of empirically based philosophical approaches such as pragmatism or phenomenology.  However to suppose that there is a better or as productive of a methodology as the scientific method does not  bare out with history.   In fact it is only with some type of pragmatism that we can suppose that our conclusions have to do with reality. 

A phenomenological analysis of what occurs consciously in observation alone demonstrates that what we actually are dealing with are our mental experiences and constructs.  For example a physicists is looking at a red block.  Is he actually conscious of the block or of the effects in the mind of neurological activities that call up past memories and learnings and brings to a nexus a type of meaning about the delivered color red, the shape, and position of the block ( and the name and idea of block in association with language areas of the brain).

AS for me truth is an ethical category.  I think the reckless use of fact and truth as synonyms is a problem. Truth is an ethical handling of the reporting of experience, knowledge and belief. Fact has to do ontologically with what is. The fact is truth can fail factually.  I think the Gettier and counter-Gettier examples about Justified True Belief have shown this.  But as for empiricism every thought or belief is an experience and therefore empirical or it would not be known. John sees Jill at the VW dealership. She tells him she is going to buy a car.  He goes back to work and tells Mary that Jill is buying a BMW to make Mary jealous. Jill pulls up with a BMW which she later bought after leaving the VW dealership.  John lied even though we would at first tend to call his statement to Jill as truthful or the truth given the outcome.

If so the truth was a lie because that was John's intent. His statement was factual but untrue.  So in a "metaphysical sense" the area of real import beside cosmology for me is consciousness.  As to using the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is valid misses the point that the scientific method is a system of using empiricism which is proved in its success and usage empirically. We want to know truths not accessible to our senses. We still empirically abstract logical or physical laws from what is observable whether they are externally or in our minds as thoughts. Thoughts are empirical events to the conscious. They are likely to be causes completely physically effected by the brain. If not they are still understood empirically.

Paragraphed for Mr. M

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

TGBaker wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

All of this is loaded with common terms that become uncommon when philosophically analysed. For example in "the only way we can know things"  what do we mean by "know". There are a varieties of empirically based philosophical approaches such as pragmatism or phenomenology.  However to suppose that there is a better or as productive of a methodology as the scientific method does not  bare out with history.

Hi TG, could you do me a favor and separate your posts into paragraphs?  When you lump everything together, it is really difficult to follow, especially since you tend to drop long esoteric terms.

The scientific method presupposes the validity of mathematics, as evidenced by the mathematical equations that are ubiquitous in quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Mathematics is much more productive than the scientific method in producing facts, although its scope is admittedly much more limited.

Sorry I was on the line with ATT about my slow internet and trying to type at the same time. I do tend to just throw out my thoughts rather than formalize them sorry.  Mathematics produces an infinite amount of facts  and in a sense is a precursor if not part of science itself.  But again I know mathematics only through a phenomenological  and empirical way. I can use it with consciousness.  What part of what I posted was esoteric??????

You just used some big words, that's all.

Anyway, you are now claiming that mathematical truths are a posteriori?  You are claiming that 1 + 1 = 2 is justified in experience, or is it logically impossible for our experience to not accord with it?


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 

Now, are you claiming that if a method produces successful results, then it follows that the underlying assumptions that went along with the method are all true?

No. The Gettier stuff shows we can have correct answers and results with wrong assumptions. Was that the esoteric stuff?  What we as humans do is go with that which works so we accept the assumptions because they carry us. Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions does a better job than Karl Pooper in defeating logical positivism I think. We have cultural shifts. We have shifts in science when we have working assumptions like Newton's Law. But a Michelson -Morley experiemtn can come up with a fact that does not fit the paradigm ( the constancy of the speed of light) and the paradigm is ruptured the parts are reinstituted with the new data and anew worldview or paradigm such as Einstein's Relativity.  I am skeptical of M=E/c2. It is an interpretation rather than an assumption and simply is a formula that the ratio of measure keeps the speed of light constant in comparison to another point or object. But it works and science relies on that assumption until it is defeated.  Such an idea of knowledge is quite different than a revealed knowledge. 

I suppose the real test of the assumptions would be their playing out in history.  Almeder in his Blind Faith Utopian Realism I think demonstrated that we know things and we will eventually know more and more and perhaps all things but we will not know the certainty when we have. Certainty on last analysis is a brain based practical function that has only secondarily to do with reason. It primarily has to do with responding quickly to situations.  When that area of the brain is damaged we have examples such as a man who says her face is exactly like my mother's as well as her voice and dress but she is apt to be an impostor. 

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

All of this is loaded with common terms that become uncommon when philosophically analysed. For example in "the only way we can know things"  what do we mean by "know". There are a varieties of empirically based philosophical approaches such as pragmatism or phenomenology.  However to suppose that there is a better or as productive of a methodology as the scientific method does not  bare out with history.

Hi TG, could you do me a favor and separate your posts into paragraphs?  When you lump everything together, it is really difficult to follow, especially since you tend to drop long esoteric terms.

The scientific method presupposes the validity of mathematics, as evidenced by the mathematical equations that are ubiquitous in quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Mathematics is much more productive than the scientific method in producing facts, although its scope is admittedly much more limited.

Sorry I was on the line with ATT about my slow internet and trying to type at the same time. I do tend to just throw out my thoughts rather than formalize them sorry.  Mathematics produces an infinite amount of facts  and in a sense is a precursor if not part of science itself.  But again I know mathematics only through a phenomenological  and empirical way. I can use it with consciousness.  What part of what I posted was esoteric??????

You just used some big words, that's all.

Anyway, you are now claiming that mathematical truths are a posteriori?  You are claiming that 1 + 1 = 2 is justified in experience, or is it logically impossible for our experience to not accord with it?

No they are an aspect of reality and a property of nature which we abstract and attribute to our view of reality and nature. We justified 1+1+2 FROM OUR COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE. If our experience did not accord with it we would call it dame bramage I mean brain damage. I do not know of a type of synethesia like that but it could be some poor fellow like that such as to see 3 instead of 2 consistently.  But we are leaving epistemology and going to ontology or cosmology. 1+1=2 is factual. Me communicating it is truth if it obtains factually the way I see it.  Truth is meaningless without communication, language, and epistemological baggage.  It requires and presupposes entities and moral handling of information or facts.  Facts would exist in a possible world without us but not truth. It only becomes truth if we look at it from outside such a world in which we discuss its nature, aspects or existence.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

TGBaker wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

All of this is loaded with common terms that become uncommon when philosophically analysed. For example in "the only way we can know things"  what do we mean by "know". There are a varieties of empirically based philosophical approaches such as pragmatism or phenomenology.  However to suppose that there is a better or as productive of a methodology as the scientific method does not  bare out with history.

Hi TG, could you do me a favor and separate your posts into paragraphs?  When you lump everything together, it is really difficult to follow, especially since you tend to drop long esoteric terms.

The scientific method presupposes the validity of mathematics, as evidenced by the mathematical equations that are ubiquitous in quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Mathematics is much more productive than the scientific method in producing facts, although its scope is admittedly much more limited.

Sorry I was on the line with ATT about my slow internet and trying to type at the same time. I do tend to just throw out my thoughts rather than formalize them sorry.  Mathematics produces an infinite amount of facts  and in a sense is a precursor if not part of science itself.  But again I know mathematics only through a phenomenological  and empirical way. I can use it with consciousness.  What part of what I posted was esoteric??????

You just used some big words, that's all.

Anyway, you are now claiming that mathematical truths are a posteriori?  You are claiming that 1 + 1 = 2 is justified in experience, or is it logically impossible for our experience to not accord with it?

No they are an aspect of reality and a property of nature which we abstract and attribute to our view of reality and nature. We justified 1+1+2 FROM OUR COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE. If our experience did not accord with it we would call it dame bramage I mean brain damage. I do not know of a type of synethesia like that but it could be some poor fellow like that such as to see 3 instead of 2 consistently.  But we are leaving epistemology and going to ontology or cosmology. 1+1=2 is factual. Me communicating it is truth if it obtains factually the way I see it.  Truth is meaningless without communication, language, and epistemological baggage.  It requires and presupposes entities and moral handling of information or facts.  Facts would exist in a possible world without us but not truth. It only becomes truth if we look at it from outside such a world in which we discuss its nature, aspects or existence.

Except that I deny that they are a property of nature; where in nature do you observe a mathematical truth?  Where can you locate the number "7"?  By saying that we justified 1 + 1 = 2 from our collective experience, you are saying nothing more than that math is justified in experience; but how can that be?  This is pertinent to epistemology, because we are discussing how one comes to know things; you are saying that our knowledge of mathematics is based in experience.  I don't think this is particularly justified.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

All of this is loaded with common terms that become uncommon when philosophically analysed. For example in "the only way we can know things"  what do we mean by "know". There are a varieties of empirically based philosophical approaches such as pragmatism or phenomenology.  However to suppose that there is a better or as productive of a methodology as the scientific method does not  bare out with history.

Hi TG, could you do me a favor and separate your posts into paragraphs?  When you lump everything together, it is really difficult to follow, especially since you tend to drop long esoteric terms.

The scientific method presupposes the validity of mathematics, as evidenced by the mathematical equations that are ubiquitous in quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Mathematics is much more productive than the scientific method in producing facts, although its scope is admittedly much more limited.

Sorry I was on the line with ATT about my slow internet and trying to type at the same time. I do tend to just throw out my thoughts rather than formalize them sorry.  Mathematics produces an infinite amount of facts  and in a sense is a precursor if not part of science itself.  But again I know mathematics only through a phenomenological  and empirical way. I can use it with consciousness.  What part of what I posted was esoteric??????

You just used some big words, that's all.

Anyway, you are now claiming that mathematical truths are a posteriori?  You are claiming that 1 + 1 = 2 is justified in experience, or is it logically impossible for our experience to not accord with it?

No they are an aspect of reality and a property of nature which we abstract and attribute to our view of reality and nature. We justified 1+1=2 FROM OUR COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE. If our experience did not accord with it we would call it dame bramage I mean brain damage. I do not know of a type of synethesia like that but it could be some poor fellow like that such as to see 3 instead of 2 consistently.  But we are leaving epistemology and going to ontology or cosmology. 1+1=2 is factual. Me communicating it is truth if it obtains factually the way I see it.  Truth is meaningless without communication, language, and epistemological baggage.  It requires and presupposes entities and moral handling of information or facts.  Facts would exist in a possible world without us but not truth. It only becomes truth if we look at it from outside such a world in which we discuss its nature, aspects or existence.

Except that I deny that they are a property of nature; where in nature do you observe a mathematical truth?  Where can you locate the number "7"?  By saying that we justified 1 + 1 = 2 from our collective experience, you are saying nothing more than that math is justified in experience; but how can that be?  This is pertinent to epistemology, because we are discussing how one comes to know things; you are saying that our knowledge of mathematics is based in experience.  I don't think this is particularly justified.

I can understand that. I often have used number to explain the idea of transcendence. You can not locate a number 7 and i have often in the past used the term that  it is real but does not exit using the dichotomy also to separate the definition of Being and existence. We are justified in our experience because we come to know by experience. In fact we have problems separating  experience, consciousness and perception. Math is discovered through our experience of nature/reality. I understand that math is also more than this.  But we learned about math from prehistoric times to present through our experience. Some cultures can and species can only count to two. Some to three.  Through historical times we can see the development of our understanding of math.

 

But yes we abstract this from our experience of reality, We have brains that have the capacity to categorize number( one section of number recognition is close to color and sometimes causes a bleed over of us seeing the number 7 for example as blue).  But what you really want to get at is what we are experiencing....right?  We do experience 7 just as we experience and even sometimes unconsciously concepts that are not objects nor objectifiable. Some of these are aesthetic in nature.  I would say that I agree with you that 7 for example is not a physical object. But neither is the idea of peace or a chair for that matter. Like the defeater of a Platonic form of chair ( it can;t have both arms and no arms etc.; )we are faced with a few possibilities.

There is a transcendence in which "7" is resides in a Being (qua potentiality)as transcendent, it resides from the formative state of the big bang as the physical forces cooled or the math resided in source of the big bang an instructed or informed the natural state of reality.  These are all worthy of discussion ( which we did not get to in our one on one).  Empirically we can posit that we experience from nature the structure of math from particular to abstract. We can plausibly say that we get it our understanding from relaity and specifically or experience of it.

Our experience of math is of our actual brain structure that allows us to abstract. We have a similar language sections of the brain.  And to some extent so do other mammals. I would say our knowledge of math is based upon experience but math is itself is not. It is based upon the possibilities I mentioned above of the boundary conditions of the universe and that "struction" we abstract. We want to understand its instruction or construction. I think the latter would point toward a theism but the former goes with the idea of information as being a natural phenomena not requiring an intelligence.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Anybody who suggests that the scientific method is the only way that we can know things is a really poor philosopher and has never read any arguments against his or her position.  This is some version of a philosophical view known as "empiricism".

The easiest defeater to empiricism is this: if you think that the scientific method is the only way to know something about reality, then did you use the scientific method to determine that?  If so, then your reasoning is circular.  If not, then clearly it is not the only way to know something about reality.

This sort of empiricism today, much like logical positivism (i.e., the belief that all statements are either true by definition or true by observation) has no currency; it is pretty much dead.  So, it surprises that there are atheists today who still endorse it.

 

I get this all the time from my philosophically-inclined christian brother. "Knowledge is immaterial - god is truuuuuuuue!!!!" Stick around Mr M - I'd love to thrash out what we consider it is that's possible to really know outside of observable reality.   

When I argue with big bro I can't help putting much down to differences in our brains. He cheerfully strides through what I consider the assertions of philosophy pointing out landmarks while I stand at the doorway shaking my head. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck