Marcion

Hello all,

I have quite enjoyed my first few weeks on this board, and the issues which have been raised are often quite profound.

I have noticed however, that many theistic "attacks" focus on science, such as evolution and geology. I believe the arguments to be unpersuasive, but more importantly even if true, they do not prove anything. They do not prove that science itself is invalid, and even the complete rejection of evolution is no evidence that Zeus or anyone else "created the universe"

A more powerful and sophisticated line of argument pursued by theists is an assault on knowledge itself. By questioning our certainty about experience, they attempt to throw us all in the "well, you have faith in nature, I'll have my faith in God - it's the same thing."

This excessively rambling introduction finally brings me to my point...

Can anyone recommend those of who are fairly new to a good, fairly sophisticated (for laymen) online article on modern epistemology.. It seems to me that this is where the rubber meets the road.

I believe that such a source would be useful for a number of us, and I did not see anything on current trends in epistemology in the library.

Thanks

Keith Russell

Marcion:

Are you looking for an epistemological framework?

If so, I'm not sure that a 'Modern' one would be beneficial. I am sure that a 'Post-Modern' one would more than likely be harmful.

Epistemology, as you know, exmines how human beings 'know' what we 'know'; how we gather and verify information.

Their are only three possibilities:

Knowledge is intrinsic: knowledge of relaity is present in the 'external' world, and known only via [mystical] revelation. Religion begins here.

Knowledge is subjective: the 'external' world is unverifiable; 'knowledge' and 'truth' vary for each individual.

Knowledge is objective: the real world exists, but we are able to understand it only by careful observation, combined with rational evaluation of the data we've observed.

As an Objectivist, I recommend the latter. It is not as old an epistemological view as the first type, but it is still quite old.

Keith.

AtlanticCitySlave

<a href="http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~kak7409/EpistemologicalResearch.htm" target="_blank">This is the site </a> I always go to regarding epistemology. I could recommend books, but online I think this is one of the best sites. You can browse through all of the topics under online papers and see if any really are what you're looking for.

Marcion

Atlantic,

I have briefly checked out this site and it looks good, a lot of detail on a number of different topics, this should help quite a bit.

Keith,

Thanks for the info, I consider myself a realist and fall into the "knowledge is objective" camp. The problem I have seen is that science is a process of approaching truth, and as such we never claim absolute certainty for scientific theories.

The problem I have seen with this is the argument used by theists - "well theory x may seem pretty good for now, but it is bound to be abandoned just like every other theory."

The question is, how do we know we are approaching objective, real world "truth" instead of just utilitarian theories that solve some of our problems?

I appreciate the input.

Primal

There are three directions any valid line of reasoning can take:

1) The reasoning can end somewhere, at some sort of self-evident truths or axioms.

2) The line of reasoning can continue forever.

3) The line of reasoning can be circular.

Number 2 and 3 are unworkable.

Number 2 could never be justified in itself for how can one reason for the infinite if such reasoning would take forever? It would be like building one's house on bottomless quick sand. Everytime something was built it'd be sucked down, needed something to be built again. The whole project would never end or work.

Number 3 demands the invalid establish the invalid and is hence unworkable unless one already established number three by number 1 means, seeing the cirularity as axiomic. Hence that does not work by itself anyways.

Of course all this criticism is itself based on number 1 reasoning, for which one must have already accepted axioms as standards.

Now since number 1 seems like to only working way of reasoning, one's epistemology will likely be reflected by how one views one's axioms.

Do you seem them as all equally founded and arbitrary? Then you may be a subjectivist/relativist/idealism or construtivism.

Do you see superiority given to some axioms established as mystical notions stemming from God, God's, some other supernatural force and/or a transcedent realm? Then you may be into mysticism/spiritualism/Platonism.

Do you see some axioms as self-evident, used to establish more standards of evidence or proof? Then you are likely a foundationalist, which contains the subgroups of rationalism, empiricism etc.

Now mysticism and foundationalism are not mutually exclusive per se it should be noted. And some may seen certain truths others hold to be self-evident as divinely inspired. What seems to divide the two is whether or not such self-evident axioms are secular, and whether those other then secular count as legitimite knowledge.

For the most part I am a foundationalist. This is because I see construtivism as incoherent and full of contradictions. Of course this judgement follows from my positions already accepted, but it does not refute my position (how could a constructivist disprove anybody really?). I see constructivism fundamentally wrong. I don't know what a constructivist would see me as, because right and wrong lose their meaning in such a system.

As for mysticism I see it as at odds with certain derived principles of self-evident truths, mainly Occam's Razor which makes such notions superfluous in light of secular observations and interpretations.

Primal

BTW, I would like to know if anyone has heard anything similiar to the three lines of reasoning description given above. The 1, 2 and 3 type argument. I thought of it myself actually via thinking of how words can be defined, via end/undefined words, infinite series of definitions or circularity. And compared the problem of definitions to the problem of all reasoning. Incidentally, I would like to know if anyone thought of it before or if I can take credit for the insight. I'm hoping for the latter but I figure the former is more likely by far. Wittgenstein prolly did me thinks, with his notion of axioms. Help here would be apreciated.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

John Page

Keith:

Do you consider the above possibilities mutually exclusive? Here's what I'm thinking. Some knowledge is intrinsic because of our physiology - even if the knowledge is not innate our brain thinks in a particular, physiologically determined, manner. Some of our knowledge is subjective - opinions, imaginations etc. Some of our knowledge is more objective because it takes into account some of the distortions/deficiences that can occur above.

I think there is a lot of exciting stuff being done in the cognitive/neurological areas to explain how we perceive what we perceive - has anyone put it all together to show how the mind works? Not to my (subjective) knowledge.

Cheers, John

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

xeren

Primal, Keith, AtlanticCitySlave,

What you guys are talking about really interests me, but i don't know where i should get started, especially in that big website one of you posted, so maybe one or more of you could give me links to specific essays regarding epistemic thought. Something that would, among other things,

1. help me learn about objectivism
2. give me the knowledge to have an answer to people that say "how can we really know anything?"

Thanks guys

Polemic

xeren,
There are other alternatives to the above offered solutions to knowledge. Epistemology is not the closed set of above possiblities or propositions. Wittgenstein did offer a point and click understanding of the universe which he later distroyed. Some how that fact has escaped the attention of most everyone. I will offer this up as a hint. Poetically man dwells. For those of you without poety in you hearts...its language that is the ruler of our perceptions and so our knowledge.

Amos

May I add that based on the declinig order of our vision noetically man is and poetically man dwells.