|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Omphalism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes: If there is no conflict of epistemologies as you say then on what basis does the omphalist even arrive at a conclusion regarding the age of the universe that differs from the empirically evidenced conclusion? What are you asking for? Evidence? Wouldn't that be the empirical way of doing things? Omphalism is not based on evidence. It's not supposed to be, and, as far as I am aware, nobody who practices it thinks it is. You want a different epistemology to work the way yours does, with methodologies and clear-cut, distinct bases on which to found arguments that can be evaluated by observation and experimentation. You want conclusions, you want processes and you want formulas. And, you are apparently under the impression that this is what non-empiricists do. But, omphalism and theism and spiritualism and animism and whatever else do not work the way empiricism does! That's what makes them different epistemologies! -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
You did not explain what you mean by "physical" and why you treat the omphalist's claim as a physical one.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "physical." Omphalists are making a claim as to how long the universe has physically existed. And claiming some non-empirical means of knowing this. Straggler writes:
Well, so do I. But that does not change the fact that they have introduced a radical skepticism about empirical evidence. I think they are talking out of their arses. Edited by nwr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I suspect that what you are advocating here might amount to citing belief as a form evidence in itself whether you realise it or not. But let's carry on and find out.
Yeah, to some extant. Well I think this leads to inconsistencies.
I'm sure it could. But that's neither here nor there on my position on omphalism. For that, there's really not much I can add that I haven't already said in this thread.
If you are wiling to play along I’d like to pretend that I am a biblical omphalist. Is that OK? I guess. I don't think I'm going to be able to fake my sincerety very well though.
If so I would ask you to remind us exactly on what basis you reject biblical omphalism whilst remaining agnostic to other forms of omphalism? In Message 35, I brought up the distinction between TAP and PAP agnosticism:
quote: In Message 50 I said what would answer your question above:
quote: quote: Because it seems to me that, your world view aside, my claim that the universe was created 10,000 years ago fully formed is just as valid as your empirical conclusion that it is billions of years old. Tell me why it isn't? In Message 39 I wrote:
quote: and
quote: So, where's your evidence? How did you come to conclusion that the universe is 10,000 years old? You said you're a biblical omphalist, if you're going to respond to scientific evidence with an 'it could have been' position, then you can find my reponse above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
If there is no conflict of epistemologies as you say then on what basis does the omphalist even arrive at a conclusion regarding the age of the universe that differs from the empirically evidenced conclusion? What are you asking for? Asking for? I am pointing out that if an omphalist denies the validity of empirical evidence and conclusions regarding the age of the universe then they must have some alternative basis upon which they have drawn their rival conclusion regarding this matter.
Evidence? If they call it evidence. A "reason for belief" if they want to be more coy about it.
Wouldn't that be the empirical way of doing things? Only if the "evidence" (or reason for belief) in question is empirical. If it isn't empirical then (by definition) it isn't "the empirical way of doing things". I don't care what basis for their belief they cite. I simply ask why they have any confidence in that method of knowing. Why is that such an outrageously unreasonable question?
Omphalism is not based on evidence. It's not supposed to be, and, as far as I am aware, nobody who practices it thinks it is. The only actual omphalists I am aware of are biblical omphalists. And they very definitely do claim that biblical literalism (specifically regarding chronology) is a superior form of knowing to empirical investigation in relation to determining the age of the Earth. See the links in Message 28 if you don't believe me. The very term "Omphalos" is derived from this exact epistemology. I posited Last Thursdayists who have drawn their Last Thursdayist conclusion on the basis of subjective evidence as a hypothetical alternative to this. Precisely because I am unaware of any other actual omphalists in existence. What other omphalists are you talking about? And are you seriously suggesting that they have made their omphalistic conclusion on the basis of no reason whatsoever? Isn't a conclusion made without any reason at all simply called "randomly guessing"?
You want a different epistemology to work the way yours does, with methodologies and clear-cut, distinct bases on which to found arguments that can be evaluated by observation and experimentation. You can make me out to be the rabid goggle eyed empiricist if it makes you feel better. All I am actually requesting is that any proposed form of knowing be able to demonstrate that it is able to draw conclusions that are more reliable than guessing. And suggesting that if it cannot do this then it is simply faith and should rationally be treated as no differently to any other entirely faith based unevidenced position.
You want conclusions, you want processes and you want formulas. No. I want people to explain why they are agnostic towards some things that are by definition evidentially unknowable and unfalsifiable whilst rejecting other things that are evidentially identical. If faith is the answer then fine. But don't tell me I should lower my skepticism and be agnostic towards some things just because others have faith in them.
And, you are apparently under the impression that this is what non-empiricists do. What are you talking about? Where are you getting this from? And why the sudden hostility?
But, omphalism and theism and spiritualism and animism and whatever else do not work the way empiricism does! Well on that we agree.
That's what makes them different epistemologies! This thread is effectively about methods of knowing. Are all epistemologies equal? Or are some methods of knowing superior and deserving of more confidence than others? It is not at all clear whether or not you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be superior in terms of reliability and validity to the biblical omphalist conclusion. Can you clarify your position on this? You seem to be suggesting that all epistemologies are to be considered equally valid and reliable? But does not a demonstrable ability to make reliable and testable predictions elevate some forms of knowing ahead of others in terms of the confidence we can have in them and the conclusions derived from them? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
You did not explain what you mean by "physical" and why you treat the omphalist's claim as a physical one. Do you accept that time is a physical property? Then short of being a pedantic arse you will understand that there is a conflict of both conclusion and method of knowing when a Last Thursdayist claims that the universe has existed for less than a week whilst the empiricist claims that it has been in existence for billions of years.
Well, so do I. But that does not change the fact that they have introduced a radical skepticism about empirical evidence. I am sorry Nwr but I see no point conversing with you further on this matter. I may be wrong. It may be that the succinct intelligence of your points is being lost on me. Others reading this can decide that for themselves. But I personally see no further point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
"Time" is a name we use for a physical property. It does not follow that every use of the word "time" is making a physical claim.
Do you accept that time is a physical property?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So, where's your evidence? How did you come to conclusion that the universe is 10,000 years old? I came to on the basis of biblical chronology. I am not saying that I know this to be true. I am simply saying that this method of knowing is no less valid than your empirical methodology.
Last Thursdayism is not a claim from any kind of evidence, it is a philosophical possibility, I have PAP agnosticism. If somebody proposes Last Thursdayism on the basis of no reason whatesoever how is this any different to guessing that omphalism is true and randomly picking a date that it occurred? Yet you claim agnosticism to this form of philosophical guessing whilst rejecting my form of omphalism which has an epistemology behind it that is no less valid than your empiricism. How can you justify this? (How am I doing on the pretending? )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
"Time" is a name we use for a physical property. Yes the physical property of time. What alternative form of "time" are you proposing that omphalists are using?
It does not follow that every use of the word "time" is making a physical claim. So what exactly is a Last Thursdayist claiming with regard to time then? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I came to on the basis of biblical chronology. I am not saying that I know this to be true. I am simply saying that this method of knowing is no less valid than your empirical methodology. Empirical methodology put a man on the moon. What has biblical chronology done? Isn't it obvious that empirical methodology is more valid?
If somebody proposes Last Thursdayism on the basis of no reason whatesoever how is this any different to guessing that omphalism is true and randomly picking a date that it occurred? Huh? How could a proposition being on the basis of no reason whatsoever ever be any different than a random guess?
Yet you claim agnosticism to this form of philosophical guessing whilst rejecting my form of omphalism which has an epistemology behind it that is no less valid than your empiricism. How can you justify this? Because empiricism IS more valid. But it says nothing to the philisophical possibility of Last Thursdayism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Empirical methodology put a man on the moon. Has it? Not if Last Thursdayism is true. I thought you were agnostic towards Last Thursdayism? So you don't actually know what empiricism has achieved or not achieved do you?
Isn't it obvious that empirical methodology is more valid? If you believe in empiricism it is very obvious. But it is equally obvious to me that God exists, that Jesus is my saviour and that the bible is the most reliable method of knowing anything. More reliable than mere temporal empirical theories.
If somebody proposes Last Thursdayism on the basis of no reason whatesoever how is this any different to guessing that omphalism is true and randomly picking a date that it occurred? Huh? How could a proposition being on the basis of no reason whatsoever ever be any different than a random guess? It can't. But bidn't you say you were agnostic towards the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism made on the basis of no reason or evidence whatsoever? Are you agnostic about all random guesses? Or do you usually consider such a method to be rather unlikley to result in reliable results?
Because empiricism IS more valid. But it says nothing to the philisophical possibility of Last Thursdayism. Well if Last Thursdayism is true empirical conclusions pertaining to any date prior to last Thursday are not valid. Are they? You are simply assuming that they are. Which is an invalid assumption if you are truly agnostic about Last thusdayism Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
He is claiming that empirical methods for determining time give wrong answers. The reasonable conclusion is that his concept of time is very different from that of the physical time that we ordinarily use.
So what exactly is a Last Thursdayist claiming with regard to time then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes: All I am actually requesting is that any proposed form of knowing be able to demonstrate that it is able to draw conclusions that are more reliable than guessing. And, how does one demonstrate reliability? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Empirical methodology put a man on the moon.
Has it? Not if Last Thursdayism is true.
Well then neither would your biblical chronology be true.
I thought you were agnostic towards Last Thursdayism? So you don't actually know what empiricism has achieved or not achieved do you? As an unfalsifiable philisophical possibility, we are unable to know if it is true or not, but this casts the same agnosticism on your biblical chronology as well. All that aside, and considering what we do know, we're left with empirical methodology acheiving more than biblical chronology.
If you believe in empiricism it is very obvious. But it is equally obvious to me that God exists, that Jesus is my saviour and that the bible is the most reliable method of knowing anything. More reliable than mere temporal empirical theories. How have you tested the reliability of the bible as a method? And what has a biblical methodology acheived?
Huh? How could a proposition being on the basis of no reason whatsoever ever be any different than a random guess? It can't. But bidn't you say you were agnostic towards the philosophical proposition of Last Thursdayism made on the basis of no reason or evidence whatsoever? As an unfalsifyable philisophical possibility, in an 'it could have been' sense, yes. But as an actual claim I would doubt.
Are you agnostic about all random guesses? Or do you usually consider such a method to be rather unlikley to result in reliable results? Yes, but Last Thursdayism isn't a random guess, its philisophical proposition.
Because empiricism IS more valid. But it says nothing to the philisophical possibility of Last Thursdayism. Well if Last Thursdayism is true empirical conclusions pertaining to any date prior to last Thursday are not valid. Are they? You are simply assuming that they are. Which is an invalid assumption if you are truly agnostic about Last thusdayism. But this is about biblical chronology making an actual claim on the age of the universe, not just a musing on the tentativity of an unfalsifyable possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So the entire premise of your argument is that last Thursdayism has nothing whatsoever to do with last Thursday. Call me an pedantic old stick in the mud if you will but I would suggest that the clue is the name.
But whatever. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
It is not at all clear whether or not you consider the empirically evidenced conclusion regarding the age of the Earth to be superior in terms of reliability and validity to the biblical omphalist conclusion. Can you clarify your position on this?
All I am actually requesting is that any proposed form of knowing be able to demonstrate that it is able to draw conclusions that are more reliable than guessing. And, how does one demonstrate reliability? Well let me ask you - How do you think it is even possible for one to practically demonstrate the reliability of a method of knowing? And if one suggests a form of knowing that is unable to be demonstrated as reliable in any practical sense then how can one consider confidence in the conclusions of that form of knowing as anything but faith? And if faith is all you are advocating with regard to omphalism then on what basis is agnosticism rather than scepticism the rational conclusion to omphalism?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024