Verifying Epistemologies

I will ask again: Demonstrable on what grounds? You cannot know something outside of an epistemology; it is the definition of an epistemology. That any given epistemology allows us to know something does not prove or refute anything. Bill's a smart guy; he uses logic and consistent epistemological axioms to arrive at valid conclusions. I wish others could do the same. I am convinced that you still fail to grasp what an epistemology is. How many times are you going to ask the same question? I have admitted to everyone here that I am an empiricist; what difference does this make? Why do you keep asking me? How do you determine what is reality?I am still worried that you still fail to grasp what an epistemology is. Perhaps you can fill in the blank above and put my worries to rest.Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

A good question. I posted a segment of Hume's earlier and I'd probably give an answer similar to that. As Hume and I both agree - it isn't strictly speaking 'rational'. As such, I have decided not to edit the paragraphs and allow them to stay in the order I think of them. This might be a bit strange:The straightforward answer is that I perceive things. For the purposes of my discussion it does not matter if those things are projections, abstractions or matrix-esque computer simulations. I still have a perceptual experience. I also have memory. These two things combined gives me a perception of pattern: A cause-effect relationship between the entities in my perception (including me).Thus, if I was to meet you and tell you "Watch out, I know there is a bear around the corner", it could be understood under these terms "I am experiencing the memory of the perception of a self-proximal bear that I had recently while I was having perceptual experiences around that which I am presently experiencing as 'a corner'"This is a simple straightforward definition of knowledge that anybody who has a perceptual experience can relate to (assuming normally functioning mind). This makes it good. Very few people debate that there are simple discernible patterns between the experience of a nearby aggressive bear and the experience of being mauled for instance.Since we perceive that there are other entities that act is if they perceive the same perceptual world from a different viewpoint, and we observe that our perception is prone to occasional errors, as well as their perception. This, along with the recursion argument, leads us to adopt a principle of fallibilism: that is, when we say we know something we are not making a claim to absolute truth. This means that a good way to be confident of truth so as to say it is 'known' is to rule out the most likely alternatives.Logic has a complex side issue - since I think that logic is actually a formal way of describing the patterns we experience - though that is a discussion it's own right. I think though - the merits (and drawbacks) of logic are well enough...known to avoid going down that road. The end result is - if we abandon logic we abandon (by definition) reasonable discussion so we kind of need it for those times we want reasonable discussion.I think a system of knowledge should be sensible (pun kind of intended). It should therefore be at least possible to 'know' things about the perceptual experience (like Descartes knows he is, so to does Descartes know he has experiences). Once we perceive errors in our own perception our naive empiricism is brought to its knees.Up to this point - just about every epistemological system in actual use agrees in broad strokes.The difference often comes in how to deal with this perception error we perceive (and can say we know, in the context of the experiential field). One tactic is to ruthlessly question our perceptions, and only if we can rule out perceptual error for all intents and purposes do we accept it as knowledge. Another is to periodically 'run with it', and simply revert to a sort of naive empiricism (I'm experiencing God, a ghost, an alien spaceship etc therefore I know it is an alien spaceship that is there to be perceived). This is problematic since by the rules of knowledge so far set, they can't know it isn't a perceptual error therefore they can't know it was an alien spaceship.This periodic naive empiricism seems to me to create doubt within knowledge, which are not words that associate together.So - I prefer it because it gives me a useful working definition of knowledge that I can employ within my perceptual realm to achieve the ends that I desire in a fashion I can rely on within the context of said experiential field, given my perception of the errors in perception I and others make.I think knowledge is as strong a word a person can employ when it comes to claims to truth. Therefore, an epistemological system should be conservative in what it allows as knowledge, while also allowing knowledge to exist. I think rational empiricism ticks all the relevant boxes

We all know for a fact that getting hit by a fast moving bus isn’t going to do you much good.We all know that any epistemology, no matter how internally consistent or logically valid it may be, which results in the conclusion that a fast moving bus will pass through you harmlessly is foolishly wrong and can be considered a rather unreliable method of knowing anything.How do you think we know these things? Empiricist bias or unavoidable interaction with shared reality? Even if that knowledge demonstrably conflicts with reality? Even if the epistemology from which that knowledge has been derived has a track record of unreliability in the form of false conclusions? How are you not applying an epistemology whenever you decide which epistemologies are valid or invalid, reliable or unreliable? Absolutely not. As I have relentlessly repeated to you across multiple threads I will accept any method of knowing that can demonstrate itself to be reliable as compared to reality in objective terms.We find alien Mormons who have independently come to the same conclusions as their human counterparts and I’ll start seriously looking into Mormonism as a valid method of acquiring knowledge about reality . The demonstrable reliability of empiricism as an epistemology is not dependent on anyone’s beliefs. The demonstrable reliability of empiricism (or indeed any other epistemology) depends on it’s ability to result in conclusions that can be independently verified as being in accordance with reality.Iano, Buzsaw and ICANT can believe whatever they want. But if a fast moving bus hits them neither the predicted result derived from empiricism nor reality itself will care what any of them believe. No. You have this completely the wrong way round. I consider empirical and mathematical results to be superior because those methods of knowing have demonstrated themselves as being reliable in terms of being in accordance with objective reality. Independent minds achieving the same result regardless of belief. If you think you have objective evidence of the efficacy of prayer you may well be on course for a nobel prize.Would you expect an advanced alien civilisation to have independently derived knowledge such as the frequency of radiation emitted by hydrogen (the frequency scanned for by SETI BTW) or the value of pi?Would you expect an alien civilisation to have derived the conclusions of Mormonism? If we did find Mormon aliens who had entirely independently come to the exact same Mormonistic conclusions as their human counterparts would that not be a fantastic vindication of Mormonistic epistemologies and conclusions?How can you deny the importance of objectivity in distinguishing reliable knowledge from wholly subjective wishful thinking?

Is Bill's epistemology as reliable as any other when it comes to being in accordance with reality? Do you think that you being an empiricist has any bearing at all on the actual effect of being hit by a bus? Bill thinks that the bus will pass straight through you. You say his conclusion is as valid as the empirical conclusion.Which epistemology is more reliable? That is my question to you. Bill stepped in front of a bus thinking it would pass right through him and is no longer with us.How smart is Bill now? Objectively.Or (to put it another way) by avoiding buses. How do you know that? I am still convinced that you think you can distinguish between valid and invalid epistemologies without applying some form of epistemology.

Odd you would think that; I stated exactly the opposite not so many posts ago (added emphasis):

quote:

---

Jon in Message 187:

​

I see no reason why we must conclude that if there are no verifiable premises (only axioms) to our epistemology, that we should abandon it and just wallow in stupidity. Saying that abandoning our axioms leaves us with nothing is simply no way to support them. Abandoning anything will leave us without that thingalong with all things by it supported; and this is applicable to all things, false or true; so we cannot say it applicable only to true things. We pick a point we can all agree on. The quote you [= Modulous] give admits to this much, and gives us good reason to not be extreme skeptics in practice: "... no durable good can ever result from it; while it remains in its full force and vigour." Questioning is good for the soul, but to get somewhere, we have to start, and so we have to agree to accept some things without questioning them, even if we think them questionable and they are. For this thread, I believe that point of acceptance to be the Reality of Logic (that logical functions are real and can be used as a means to creating knowledge). It was my assumption that, come what may, we would all desire our positions to be logical, and so this seemed naturally an agreeable epistemology against which to judge the others.

---

It is time you stop misrepresenting my position, Straggler, and start addressing the points put to you. So far, you've scarcely answered a single question asked of you. Before we continue, you need to go back through the thread, find the questions you have not answered and answer them. You cannot win a debate if you don't participate.Come back when you're ready.JonEdited by Jon, : SubtitleEdited by Jon, : -ed

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Logical validity is fine as a starting point. Nobody is advocating logically invalid epistemologies. But is logical validity alone enough of a basis on which to compare competing epistemologies?I say logic alone is desperately insufficient. Because one can construct a perfectly internally consistent and logically valid epistemology which results in conclusions which are foolishly wrong in comparison with reality.As Bill (now flattened by a bus after believing it would pass harmlessly through him) found out to his cost. I'll answer anything you want to ask of me. What I will not do with you is play battle of the dictionaries which is all you seem interested inIf you want definitions how about you provide them and I'll let you know if I mean anything radically different?If you want any questions answered just ask them in response to this.

Sorry, Straggler, but as far as I can tell your position is nonsensical, and I cannot attempt to understand your position by telling you mine. If you want your position understood, you must lay it outincluding definitions. I have asked you many questions in an attempt to get your position out of you, but you have so far been unwilling to participate, only to repeat the same things over and over again.As I said before, you need to go back and figure out where you've been unclear and clarify by answering the questions others have asked you about your position. If you do not want to do this, then we can call it a day now while we're still somewhat ahead.JonEdited by Jon, : Shortening...

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

I have told you my position.In a nutshell it is that logical validity alone is an insufficient basis upon which to claim knowledge because internally consistent and logically valid epistemologies can be constructed which lead not only to mutually exclusive conclusions but more importantly conclusions which blatantly contradict reality. You ask me a direct question (as opposed to relentlessly using the debate tactic of "define your terms") and I will answer it.Ask me any question you don't think I have answered. Bill was flattened by a fast moving bus because his unreliable epistemology told him that it would pass harmlessly through him if he stepped in front of it.Bill was an idiot.I will let you logically deduce what tha makes you.

Whatever, Straggler.

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

I have told you my position.In a nutshell it is that logical validity alone is an insufficient basis upon which to claim knowledge because internally consistent and logically valid epistemologies can be constructed which lead not only to mutually exclusive conclusions but more importantly conclusions which blatantly contradict reality.You ask me a direct question (as opposed to relentlessly using the debate tactic of "define your terms") and I will answer it.Etc.

Responding to Message 518Then can you expand further?Bluejay: "Simultaneous validity of two mutually exclusive conclusions is thus not a problem, so long as the two conclusions are based on different premises.""Second, I think that all lines of reasoning will ultimately trace back to an axiomatic foundation, and that different epistemologies result from different axiomatic foundations." Which is why you cannot see how the internally consistent conclusions that led to Bill's tragic bus accident were wholly avoidable if a more sensible approach had been taken. An exaggeration on my part. But they have all displayed these inclinations when it suits them. I can link to various posts if you want me to? Starting points that cannot distinguish between epistemologies that will get you killed by buses and those that won't you mean?