Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Tht1Gy!, Nov 3, 2007.
I found this intriguing. I feel like I am missing something.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Methinks he should mean quite the opposite....
That's what I was thinking, but didn't want to presume as much.
That would be the first time anyone has given me the epithet of optimism... lol
Surely, problems do persist. This is why I made a point to say that it's a pragmatic issue. Ultimately, this method pays dividends, much more so than any alternative.
Your guess is correct. I wouldn't make a claim that any epistemological system can even possibly approach being exhaustive, and so, gaps will always remain. I suspect however, that this incompleteness has more to do with us observers, as opposed to the object(s) of our observations.
I am in complete agreement.
Again, certain to never be complete, but quite capable of rectifying the vast majority of cases.
If every single person had to learn everything from 'scratch' so to speak, we would, quite literally, never get anything done....
But there's nothing wrong with this. Why do we need to have an (to me..) unfair expectation of "Knowledge" to be something somehow beyond what you describe here? I feel no need.
Do note that the one key element we have here is a self-checking phase built right into our system: all it takes is for one contrary case to nullify a standing agreement. It's not as if we all move along blindly accepting our historical ten
ets, and move from there to build others.
Mind, I must note this proviso: my theory of knowledge is somewhat off the beaten track compared to most of what you'll see on here....
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am hoping he doesn't, because I do feel there is a certain distaste for sense data amongst empiricists and would not mind exploring that.
I think the issue comes up around implications and what it means if a certain experiment can be interpreted well by thinking in terms of certain kinds of entities or building blocks or processes. From the relative safety of restrained context related language, a game of telephone occurs, even in the brains of the researcher herself, and suddenly a widely applied AND DOMINANT ontology is posited that precludes others. This is real, these are the blocks, therefore that cannot be a block.
I am horrified at how much time I have spent reinventing wheels in a number of discplines, including those little practices that go into being a functional adult.
No, I wouldn't say I want to go beyond. It that I want more sophistication about how constructed that might be. I think I also want people to face their own demons. IOW if they are going to be rigorous about the conclusions of others the do not share, they should be similarly rigorous about their own. Because, for example, many people may be fairly well read in science, but not in anthropology or psychology, they may not really understand what it is to have a fundamental entity challenged. This leads to a false sense of superiority - one I have never felt from you - - deftness as a writer or pleasant personality and humility as potential sources all being beyong my 'knowing' at this point -- poor approaches to interpersonal conflicts around contested entities and perhaps even direct understanding of how entities may indeed be founded in ways now deemed unacceptable.
I think some behind the scenes political experience - with lobbyists, for example - might make humbler people's certainty about the existence of certain political 'entities'.
yes. I am not contesting the value of the conclusions themselves in their restricted areas.
For sure. Ultimately, this was a huge stumbling block for pure Empiricists. And of course, it became the delight of the Phenomenalists.
But note that it is we, through our practice, that put those blocks in place. As you wisely noted, this is predominantly done through language. This is why correct language use is so important: it can, and does directly modify not only our practices, but how we think about them. This also explains why it's so often the case that serious developments are made by someone who approaches the problem from a new position, say, someone not 'entrenched' in the direct field. Sometimes a different position can bring light to an old situation simply due to an 'unhindered' view of the language involved.
I agree with you here. As I tried to note above, being 'entrenched' in a field can often lead one into a sort of myopia, and any new 'eye' can, sadly, be viewed as a threat. This defensive reaction is odd, because it runs so contrary to the real spirit of discovery. But it is all too human.
Well, let's just say it's been my experience on here that most folk seem to hold to an archaic form of Rationalism (capital 'R', a la Descartes, et.al.).
You'll often see people talk about how things 'really' are, or 'truth', or 'objectively',etc.
"Well that's a weird question. If youre talking about a supreme being, like a Greek type god, no"
That is what I was asking.
"If youre talking about some unknown/probably unknowable source, something from which all things manifest, I'd say yes. Calling the latter god, is probably inappropriate. hows that?"
Thank you for your answers. So you want to leave the door open for future discoveries that may change your belief system one way or the other and to allow for greater truths we may learn to enter into the equation. That is very close minded of you. (kidding or course)
So you do have a belief but are agnostic. Your belief is also determined by how the question is phrased whether it's related to a god claimed by religions or not.
Fair enough and thanks again.
Simon and Glaucon,
“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Since I am an atheist/agnostic I am trying to avoid the appearance of empiricism. ”
"I found this intriguing. I feel like I am missing something"
Methinks he should mean quite the opposite…".
So maybe I was confused on your meaning and I think that I simply felt you were implying that I was making an all knowing statement without the ability to prove anything.
Empiricism "The theory that all concepts emanate from experience and that all statements claiming to express knowledge must be based on experience rather than on theory. Valid statements must be based on what can be proved to exist, not on what appears to exist."
So by being an atheist/agnostic I am not claiming knowledge of what I can not prove to exist or not exist. I just don't believe in god. I want to avoid the appearance of claiming to know what I can not know. I can believe there is no god however.
So I see where my error was, "avoid the appearance of empiricism". When the opposite is the case.
"Although, this admittedly requires a clear distinction between "belief" and "knowledge". This is tricky at best"
Simon and Glaucon,
Sounds better than Glaucon and Simon. Sorry Glaucon.
"“ Originally Posted by Simon Anders
I am hoping he doesn't, because I do feel there is a certain distaste for sense data amongst empiricists and would not mind exploring that. ”
For sure. Ultimately, this was a huge stumbling block for pure Empiricists. And of course, it became the delight of the Phenomenalists."
Well where does empiricism come in on these two questions and where does it end ?
Do you believe in god ?
Can you prove there is a god ?
just to keep the tally running. I think Q is another atheist who believes there is no God.
Setting aside the bad grammar the bolded portion is fairly clear. I realize you have already acknowledged that some people use the word in a way which you consider incorrect, so you have nothing to admit and I have proved nothing more. Just pointing out that your language reformation task, which I think is actually a good one - two different words would be useful - will be uphill on several fronts.
And Glaucon sounds much better than Garfunkel.
And every realist should be caught in an elevator with a positivist and a Buddhist.
You think Q is an atheist that believes God doesn't exist? You "think"?
I thought this was as evident as an elephant in a raincoat...in the middle of Times Square...
Hey, sometimes you have place an elephant on someone's head around here to get acknowledgement an elephant is heavy. I point at the deep footprints over and over and get told I am fruit loops. Fortunately I get along well with animals, if not Q, so when I can I ask them to sit on the occasional resistant mind.
I can't tell if you're saying you had to put the elephant on my head, or...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The boy has yet to leave his bedroom, I think. No one can understand so little about the world if he has left his room, can he?
"I thought this was as evident as an elephant in a raincoat...in the middle of Times Square..."
The other day I walked past this elephant wearing a raincoat in Times Square, I thought it was odd becuase it was not raining.
That is the same level of logic I have applied here from time to time. So I apologize.
Those atheists want to pride themselves on being skeptics. That sucks. They let themselves be not free with thought. What the flop ever gives with them and their being anti belief and them [skeptics] fooling themselves and stating that nothing exists unless has been proven when standing right there in front of them such as already proven theories. Some are into reproving things that are already known since they say they don’t exist without doing so and such madness.
I am not religious at all. I am non practitioner at the moment of pantheism. Atheism has not ever made sense to me.
I did suppose Atheism before a while ago when I wanted to be against all the religious fakeness. But aha atheism be no option. I must simply be. That’s all.
"Atheism has not ever made sense to me."
"I did suppose Atheism before a while ago when I wanted to be against all the religious fakeness. But aha atheism be no option. I must simply be. That’s all."
Huh. Lordznebula5 are you Sarah Palin ?
"They let themselves be not free with thought"
So are you saying if we believe in god(s) that our minds will be then free of the shackles of having to actually provide evidence to substantiate our belief.
OMG it's so easy. Thank you Lord znebula5
That's not entirely accurate. I think the possibility of a god existing is as relevant as any other invisible and undetectable phenomenon purported to exist, but also think the probability of such a god existing is infinitesimally small.
Does that help?
Now Simon, if you want someone who really does believe gods don't exist and argues within those parameter, meet JDawg.
And, I believe you mentioned in another thread that JDawg argues that many things are possible. Pfft.
Look at what he has to say here, which contradicts his argument against me in another thread:
He can't seem to get anything straight.
Q-So why do other people thinking that invisible and undetectable phenomenon occur bother you on such an apparent, personal level?
Jdawg seems pretty clear, all things are deniable.
Hey Kids, How's every little thing? OP here, and I've been gone for a while. It looks like not much has been resolved. It does, however, seem that MUCH has been discussed. Why should I choose now to 'pop back in'? Kismit, I guess. I will say this however: THIS IS THE SANEST POST (other than mine of course,Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) I've read in this thread. Not that I've read the entire thread, mind you. I have only skipped around upon returning.
This finds its way to to the crux of the issue. And quite possibly does resolve it! IMHOPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is what PM is for.
Separate names with a comma.