Verifying Epistemologies

Hi, Straggler.I'm already quite familiar with your position, and I don't think we need to go through this again.Besides, I think we can end on good terms right now. Well, it was never my contention that they were practical: just that they were technically true (where "true" means "the result of strict application of logic).I think we differed in all our discussions in that you focused on pragmatism and reliability, and I insisted on metaphysics and technicalities.I still say you're judging all epistemologies based on how well they meet the standards of just one of them (which is logically invalid), but I also acknowledge that pragmatic empiricism is sofar the only epistemology that is useful in solving problems in the only life that we know we have.I still say that you're not justified in concluding that supernature doesn't exist (or in concluding that anything doesn't exist): but I agree that you're justified in ignoring it as an explanation for physical phenomena.I'll say no more on this topic for now: I think you and I know each other's positions well enough, and only disagree on such minor technicalities that it's not reallly worth us taking over another thread to discuss it.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I really don't understand why you like to spend so much time beating dead horses.You are seeing a problem where there isn't one.I have a system of arithmetic that I use. In fact many people use this system of arithmetic. In the system of arithmetic, it turns out that 1+1 = 2.I also have another system of arithmetic that I use, and quite a few people use that, too. It happens that in this alternative system of arithmetic (arithmetic mod 2), that 1+1 = 0.As it happens, I believe in both of these systems of arithmetic. Both are quite useful. There might be a superficial appearance of a contradiction between them, but since I know better than to mix and match, I never actually run into any contradiction.It's the same with your systems of knowledge. There isn't a problem of mutual contradiction as long as one doesn't mix and match inappropriately. In ordinary life, I use empirical methods of knowing. But Last Thursdayism is of academic interest, and I happen to be agnostic with respect to it (as a system of purely academic interest). There's no actual contradiction there. That you perceive it is being contradictory is a problem that comes from your own way of looking at them. There is no actual contradiction as I am using them.

How old do you think the Earth actually is?
How reliable do you think this conclusion is?
How confident are you in this conclusion? Not really. I am simply insisting that whatever epistemology one chooses to deploy to gain knowledge about reality it must at some point result in conclusions that can be actually objectively compared with reality.Otherwise how can your chosen epistemology even be considered a method of knowing anything at at all? As opposed to a method of deceiving yourself into concluding that simply believing what you want to believe is a reliable form of knowledge. I have never said supernature definitely doesn't exist. I would however say that confidence in the conclusion that the entire concept of supernature is a product of the internal human mind with no basis in external reality is as justified as the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old and wasn't thus created omphamistically last Thursday.Seriously Bluejay - If there is absolutely no evidential reason for concluding such things how can they be derived from anywhere but human imagination? (even if by some rampantly improbable coincidence they also turn out to be correct) There is a reason why we don't rely on the "strict application of logic" without refererence to reality itself as the best basis for drawing reliable conclusions about reality. This is because pure rationalism has been found to be relatively lacking as an epistemology. That is up to you. But it still seems that your thinking results in an inability to actually know anything at all. Even tentatively.

How old do you think the Earth actually is?
How reliable do you think this conclusion is?
How confident are you in this conclusion?
What epistemology was deployed in drawing this conclusion?These are not rhetorical questions. There is no contradiction because your argument forbids you from ever actually drawing any conclusions at all.The Earth is billions of years old and 10,000 years old and less than a week old and a nano-second old and any other omphalistic age one cares to name all at once and not at all. Well let's see how superficial this contradiction is. The conclusion that the Earth was omphamistically formed last Thursday was derived from a particular method of knowing. Based on this same method of knowing it has been predicted that gravity will be suspended next Thursday.Are you agnostic to the conclusion that gravity will be suspended next Thursday?
How reliable do you think this conclusion is?
How confident are you in this conclusion?
What epistemology was deployed in your rejection or acceptance of this conclusion?These are not rhetorical questions.Please note that there is no epistemological difference between the basis of the last Thursday omphalist conclusion (which you have stated your agnosticism towards) and the next Thursday gravity suspension conclusion. The only difference is that one can ultimately be tested against reality and the other cannot.So are you agnostic towards gravity being suspended next Thursday or not?

Still beating that dead horse? Bullshit! No, I am ignorant with respect to that. I have only heard it from you, and that turns out to be a highly unreliable source.Here's what I have been doing this morning:

• After starting my browser, I clicked the "Home" button. That brought up the APOD image, which was of a star cluster with a clearly visible recently discovered comet. I looked at it from a heliocentric perspective.
• I drove my wife to the local train station. I navigated the local streets using a flat earth perspective.
• After returning home, I noticed the first glimmer of the sun rising in the east, a geocentric notion and one that is quite compatible with the flat earth perspective.

Your entire argument is based on a simplistic view about knowing.Edited by nwr, : fix formatting

Hi, Straggler. Yes, I know. And, this is called "pragmatism," which, as I just said, is an epistemology.Other epistemologies do not regard palpability as a metric of truth; so, once again, epistemologically, you are validating your epistemology, and rejecting others, based on an application of your epistemology.----- Yes, I know. And the reason rationalism has been found to be lacking is entirely pragmatic. Rationalists would not agree with you that pure rationalism has been found to be lacking.Once again, pragmatism is an epistemology, and you're judging the merits of a rival epistemology based on it.For another example, there is an epistemology described in the Book of Mormon (don’t get stuck on this: it’s just an easy example that I happen to know about):

quote:

---

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

​

--Moroni 7:16

---

We could substitute yours in there and say:

quote:

---

...for every thing which yieldeth tangible results... ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is true.

---

I realize that you would probably word that differently, but, I retained the wording just to emphasize the parallels.The Mormon epistemology doesn’t care at all about tangible results, because, within the Mormon epistemology, tangibility is not a standard by which truth is judged. Tangibility is only a standard of truth in pragmatism and empiricism.So, when you use the tangibility of conclusions as a means to determine whether an epistemology is reliable or relatively lacking, you are really just asserting that pragmatic truth is the correct definition of truth, and all other definitions of truth are wrong.But, that’s not demonstrating, verifying or validating anything: it’s just stating your epistemology!That’s the whole point! Epistemology is essentially just an assertion about what truth is and how to find it.Science is considered reliable by pragmatists because it yields useful, practical conclusions.
Science is not considered reliable by Mormonists because it doesn’t invite people to believe in Christ.In order to show that your epistemology is valid, and the Mormon epistemology is not, you would have to find some way to show that your truth is actual truth without appealing to either epistemology’s standards of truth.This cannot be done! So, please, just satisfy yourself with the pragmatism, the usefulness, the reliability of science (that’s what I’ve advocated from the beginning), and stop trying to argue that this is somehow a valid comparison between epistemologies, because it’s really not: it’s actually just a comparison of methodologies using epistemological pragmatism as the judge.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

What did you know in these cases, and how did you acquire this knowledge? And how does it show Straggler's view to be simplistic? I was following along with your argument until this bit. You were using contradictory empirical models this morning, which it turns produce equivalent results at the scales measured, but that's not the same as using contradictory epistemological models.

I am an empiricist. So, yes, I look for buses. But you still didn't answer the question: why should I look out for buses? If you wish to answer the question, please do answer it; if not, just tell me and I'll stop asking it. Because I am an empiricist. Why should this preclude me from also being honest? Besides, how do you know how I treat anything? Meaningless in what sense? On what grounds do you judge its meaning?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Because you're an empiricist.It is your nature. You descend from long lines of empiricists on both sides. Natural selection weeds out non-empiricists.So, you are obliged by your nature to look for buses. Try stopping, and you'll see what I mean. Are you honest? Has someone on this thread suggested that being an empiricist precludes one from being honest? How do I know you treat your keyboard as a keyboard?Because I know you're an empiricist.And, in case you're thinking of asking how I knew you were an empiricist before you said so, the answer is "because you're alive". {ABE}It is meaningless to pretend to be anything other than the empiricist that you are, but as you're no longer pretending, perhaps you agree.Edited by bluegenes, : Marked. Missed two of questioning Jon's questions.

Sigh!Epistemology is mostly an exercise in sophistry, carried out by philosophers who are intelligent enough that they ought to be able to find better uses for their time.I cannot answer "what did you know", because there is no answer. The knowledge that we have is mostly in the form of abilities rather than propositions. I base that on his frequently repeated demands for answers to absurd questions. No, I was just acting normally, and that does not depend on models. I just described my actions in terms of the empirical models that would be most appropriate if it became necessary to use such models.

Rationalists also look for buses.

Indeed, I may have stretched the acceptable use of the terminology. My apologies for that, but I felt there was a point worth making. I believe so, yes. Let me try to expand on my point: In general, an epistemology describes not only what is knowable, but by virtue of doing this also what is true. The 'tenets' of an epistemology are what I would mostly consider axioms in the sense I defined the term, i.e., as statements merely accepted as true because there lacks means to prove their truth. While a given premise may support a conclusion, without something further we have an argument that is only internally consistent. As of yet, this sort of argument does not speak of anything true (or, equally, anything knowable), nor of anything from which truth (knowledge) may be derived. This is where our epistemological axioms come in, for they allow us to assign values to the particles of our argument and thus discern their veracity (knowability). For example, if we were empiricists, we would have an axiom (as I've defined it as being something lacking support/proof for its truth and so only being accepted as true as a matter of course) that states: 'empirically derived particles are knowable (true)'. Looking at the premise and determining how it was derived we could apply our axiom and judge its veracity. If our premise is empirically derived, then we can say it is knowable and so true. If our premise is not empirically derived, then we cannot say this.Ultimately, my argument is that truth and knowledge rest upon what we accept as being knowable, and this statement of acceptance is inherently unprovable, so that what is known/true rests entirely on an unprovable belief of what is knowable. Hence what I said earlier: if we are seeking truth, then no matter what our premises, their veracity always rests on unprovable assertions (what I call axioms), such that nothing is entirely provable, including and especially, any given epistemology.That all being said, I still live my life as an empiricist. Why? Because I'm an empiricist. But being an empiricist, contrary to what some others here may think, does not prevent me from sitting down and reasoning that my system is based on a single unprovable premise (what I call an axiom) from which the entire thing develops. In other words, saying 'I cannot know for sure that the bus is in the street' and deciding to wait for the bus before crossing myself are not contradictory and exclusive positions; I find them, instead, rather complimentary and enlightening.I hope that cleared it up. Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

I find your usage of "epistemology" a bit confusing.All of the online dictionaries that I checked define it as a theory of knowledge. But you seem to be using it as a body of beliefs.

How do you know that? Yes. Perhaps I am also other things in addition to being an empiricist. I do not know offhand if I am or not, though. Agree to what?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

I guess I do not see these as contradictory. As a theory of knowledge, an epistemology makes assertions regarding what is and is not considered knowable. These assertions, I would say, are beliefs: statements accepted without backing. As such, I find all epistemologies to rest on anywhere from one to a possibly infinite number of unsupportable beliefs. In other words, it is a body of beliefs that forms the theory of knowledge.Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!