Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
86 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 85 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,071 Year: 5,183/6,534 Month: 26/577 Week: 14/80 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality v3
Straggler
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 25 of 40 (726759)
05-12-2014 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
05-12-2014 9:26 AM


Re: what about non-scientific questions?
Firstly - Wouldn't we hope that one's political views are evidence led....?

Secondly - Where does knowledge of future events based on past experience fit into your diagram?

E.g. If I put a piece of potassium in water tomorrow (or at some other point in the future) we know it will react in a certain way as described in any chemistry book you can lay your hands on. We haven't actually put that specific piece of potassium in water yet but we still know what it will do when we do so. Which of your rings does that knowledge lie under?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 9:26 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 10:21 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 27 of 40 (726769)
05-12-2014 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
05-12-2014 10:21 AM


Re: what about non-scientific questions?
RAZD writes:

Putting potassium in water will cause the same reactions as before ... that kind of past experience ?

Yes.

RAZD writes:

Science.

OK - So no inherent distinction between past and present in terms of your classification of knowledge/confidence then. Just checking as many would make such a distinction.

Straggler writes:

Firstly - Wouldn't we hope that one's political views are evidence led....?

RAZD writes:

Yet hoping doesn't make it so

That is as true of any evidence on any subject.

RAZD writes:

just look at global climate change and !bengazi!

Indeed. And there are still people who genuinely believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

So with your diagram - Are you attempting to describe what people actually do in terms of classifying their beliefs/knowledge? Or are you prescribing how knowledge/beliefs should be classified?

The two will look very different so it is important to know whether your diagram is trying to be descriptive or prescriptive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 10:21 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 6:30 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 40 (726802)
05-12-2014 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
05-12-2014 6:30 PM


Re: what about non-scientific questions?
So for someone like Faith we would have a "fact" circle that had biblical inerrancy in it because her perception of reality is founded on that. Its totally individual. Is that what you are doing - Examining individual perceptions of reality looking for common ground no matter how different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 6:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2014 11:47 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 35 of 40 (726850)
05-13-2014 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
05-13-2014 11:47 AM


Re: what about non-scientific questions?
RAZD writes:

Everyone would have slightly different circles like the YEC example

I think you are underestimating the differences. In the case of a YEC such as Faith if the objective empirical evidence appears at odds with the word of God then it is the objective empirical evidence that is wrong or which has been wrongly interpreted. In effect the perceived word of God lies in the inner core circle you have labelled as containing "facts".

RAZD writes:

So we could have a circle that contains facts -- objective evidence that we think is "true" to reality (or else all is illusion)

The equivalent for a YEC (e.g. Faith) would be something like - So we could have a circle that contains facts -- the word of God that we think is "true" to reality (or else all is illusion)

Or something like that....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2014 11:47 AM RAZD has taken no action

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 36 of 40 (726959)
05-14-2014 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
05-13-2014 11:47 AM


Solipsism (and other animals)
It’s interesting to consider how “world views” which don’t ground themselves in objective evidence would look in your diagrammatic form. We have already considered how a “world view” based on the word of God might be represented.

I was wondering how something like solipsism would be represented in your diagrammatic form.

Metaphysical solipsism would hold that the only thing known to exist is one’s own mind and that the whole notion of objectivity is itself therefore nothing other than an evidentially baseless philosophical construct.

So a solipsist would presumably be represented by an inner core circle labelled something like ‘my mind’ with things like objectivity lying in the outer ‘philosophy’ circle.

It’s difficult to see how such a world view, which classifies your inner circle of objectively evidenced facts in the outer reaches of the philosophy circle, would have much overlap with your original diagrams at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2014 11:47 AM RAZD has taken no action

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 40 (727056)
05-15-2014 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by AZPaul3
05-15-2014 8:26 AM


Re: Reality can be swayed by faith
No no no. You are both wrong. The fact that bees appear to be able to fly despite the fact they cant is in fact incontrovertible evidence that we are in the matrix and that bees are agents of the machines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2014 8:26 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2014 6:51 PM Straggler has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022