Skeptical

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but my purpose in starting a separate thread was that I wanted to focus on your singular response regarding non-scientific ways of knowing. I think this question is central to everything else you've said. I realize you posited many other criteria, I just want to focus on this one topic.

Yes, science does have its limitations. There are questions which science cannot address, questions which are outside the domain of empiricism, which is exactly my point. If it cannot be experienced through the traditional human senses (including a mediating device, such as a microscope, telescope, etc), it is outside the domain of science. I don't think anyone who understands science would disagree with this.

I agree, science will never be able to answer this question since it is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical question. This, again, is exactly my point. One does not ask a philosopher about chemistry (if you want a legitimate answer). Some questions are not even in principle in the domain of ojective reality. This is my point.

You have not addressed my question at all. I'll ask it again differently since I don't seem to be getting my point across.

Instead of science, let's use the term "empiricism". Empricism, by definition, can only deal with objective reality. I supplied examples earlier as to what I consider to be obvious examples of emprical displines such as Physics, Chemistry and Astronomy and constrasted it with disciplines that I think are obvious examples of those that are not such as alchemy and astrology.

You posit things such as theology and value theory as "sciences". Theology, value theory, alchemy and astrology all fall outside the domain of what can be known through empirical means. The only way one can say that one "knows" these things is through some non-sensory means. I can say that I "just know" anything I want about theology and you cannot disprove it because there is no objective criteria to point to. If I say that god talks directly to me and tells me what is right, no one can disprove this by any empirical means. This is my central point.

Let me ask my question this way:

1) How do you propose to validate non-empirical ways of knowing? That is, how does this approach _not_ lead us to inevitable solipsism where every idea is just as good as every other idea?

2) If we cannot validate non-empirical ways of knowing, then why should it be considered when examining things which _can_ be validated empirically? That is, we know that discplines such as physics and chemistry work, we use their products every day. Why would we use anything which cannot even in principle be validated as a benchmark against discplines which are validated every day?

My question is _not_ whether non-empirical disciplines have any merit, my question is only whether and why they should be considered when examining the validity of empirical displines.

I hope this make it clearer what I'm asking.

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Skeptical

Vander, if you are still here I would very much appreciate a reply

Oolon Colluphid

Hold on there Tonto. Evidence won’t explain anything. It will support or refute explanations.

Your grasp on epistemology seems rather loose.

That’s what Darwinian RM&NS is all about. I’d suggest some books if I thought you’d read them.
&lt;sigh&gt; Do a Google for ‘speciation’ and/or ‘isolating mechanisms’. There’s a range of mechanisms that result in species genetic isolation, ie speciation. But I’m not doing your homework for you.

TTFN, Oolon

Vanderzyden

Response to skeptical #2

(Emphasis mine)

Don't you see that you are answering your own questions, Skeptical? You are equating the objective with the sensory, in the same fashion as the empiricist philosopher David Hume. And, for example, while you are making that assertion, you are doing it with a mind (as distinct from the brain) that is non-empirically observable. There's no doubt that you believe that a mind is responsible for this reply to you. But you have no way to prove that my mind exists, certainally not by empircal means! Or, using a simple mathematical example, I can "objectively" conceive of that 2 + 2 = 4 is a valid expression. What is empirical about the formulation or the acceptance of this equation?

Yes, I have found that the assertion of "just knowing" is the equivalent of the plentiful "just-so" stories of many naturalists. It is "just-so" that it is not possible that anything involving God is scientific. You're insisting that methodological naturalism is the only valid epistemology. Sure, you can say that the result of 2 + 2 is 5, but you can say nothing that will practically defend that assertion.

And, no, I cannot prove that God doesn't talk directly to you. But I can compare what you say to the prophets of old and see if your claims match those of the I AM THAT WHICH I AM that is written about extensively in the historically reliable collection of documents known as the Bible. In particular, I would look for consistency with the truth claims of Jesus of Nazareth. (Incidentally, empirical sciences that are relevant in such investigations are textual criticism, history, and archaeology).

Simple answer: Perception and intuition are examples. Surely you don't deny these as valid epistemologies?

Let me get this straight: Are you telling me that you reject (or have less respect) for non-empirical disciplines metaphysics and logic? (You should realize that your answer to this question has strong implications for consistency with respect to theology. I emplore you to think carefully before answering).

You can validate that your mind exists by thinking a thought. That isn't an empirical observation. And yet, you would find me ludicrous if I were to insist that you are unjustified in using your mind!

The natural sciences have limitations that the natural sciences themselves cannot demarcate. Metaphysics, logic, perception, intuition, etc. will set these limits, however unexacting the limits may be. I gave you several examples of philosophical disciplines that place limitations on the natural sciences. I will tell you that the answer to your question would be found if we began to discuss truths of logic, perceptual truths, truths about the past, and truths about other minds. But it is also clear that the boundaries are not well-defined.

Empirical sciences cannot explain the immensity of difference between humans and apes. Contrary to Darwin's musings, there is much non-empirical, non-physical evidence indicating that the differences are in kind, not merely in degree. Where science fails, a particular epistemology has the answer: People are justified in relying on the authority of Moses, who writes in Genesis that man is made in the image of God. Moses and the Hebrew people make strong claims to have had direct encounters with God. This provides an explanation for the difference. Just because the events are ancient does not make them unbelievable.

Empirical sciences, or theoretical ones, for that matter, can't explain what occured during or before the Big Bang. That is a clear limitation. And yet we read in Genesis "In the beginning, God created" This is yet another explanation where science does not have an answer. As I said, the empirical sciences will never have an answer. The answer of the theist is quite reasonable. Can you demonstrate that it is not?

Let me ask: Do you consider theoretical physics to fit you definition of a proper science? Please explain.

But we can easily validate non-empirical claims to knowledge. 2 + 2 = 5 is invalid, not by empirical examination, but conceptual understanding. Other examples are: I know that my mind exists. I know about the past. I know that logic works, because I use it everyday. However, because of its success in particular areas, I am not justified in simply asserting that Darwinian macroevolution is the truth because some logic is employed in the proposal. It must also have verifiable evidence and powerful explanations.

I think you are the best one to answer your own question, which hinges on what you consider to be validation. If you say that the validation of non-empirical disciplines must be on wholly empirical grounds then you are arguing in a circle. Empirical and non-empirical study are not mutual exclusive: my point is that both are necessary.

Are you willing to admit that believing without seeing is justifiable?


Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus

I want to take you up on this.

One: your idea that science will never answer that question is an unjustified assumption. Physics already has a lot to say about what happened during and before the big bang. Please state why you think science will hit a wall at some stage, when it clearly has not done so yet.

Two: Your answer to the question is no better than any other mythological creation story. I have no reason, empirically OR intuitively, to believe this instead of believing that the rainbow serpent did it. I may not be able to demonstrate that moses was wrong about the creation, but unless you can show some reason that your explanation is better that the rainbow serpent explanation what reason do we have to accept it? Empirically or otherwise?

To accept moses's explanation, I need to satisfy for myself that he did not make up the explanation. Do you have something to satisfy this criteria?

Doubting Didymus

A second reading of your post produces this:

Yet you want us to consider "In the beginning, God created" as a "quite reasonable" explanation? Produce your verifiable evidence.

You are applying an unforgivable double standard. You want to use intuition and conceptual undertanding to examine god, but constantly demand impossible standards of empirical proof from darwinism. If you want to be allowed to believe "In the beginning, God created" intuitively, then I would be allowed to believe "Evolution occurs just because" based on the same standard, no?

Skeptical

The inner workings of my mind are non-empirical. The results of my mind, such as my typing this response, are empirically observable. This is a key distinction. The contents of my "inner thoughts" are non-empirical but this is hardly relevant. When I put my thoughts out on this board, they become empirical, everyone can see them for themseleves. We don't deal with peoples inner minds, we deal with the results of those minds. (speech, actions, etc.)

False. The outward effects of a mind are proof that it exists. I see your results, I conclude you have a mind. The results are empirical, anyone can look at them.

Not sure what you mean here. By definition, the sum of the integer 2 added to the integer 2 is the integer 4. It's objective in the sense that anyone who understands what integers are would come to the same conclusion. What would _not_ be objective is if I said that 2 + 2 = 5, not because of the properties of mathematics, but because god told me so. You cannot prove to me that 2+2=4 without appealing to the empirical data of what integers are.


Exactly my point. Empirical = practical. If you cannot use empiricism to show why something is true, you cannot show why it is true _at all_.

I'm not going to get sidetracked into a discussion of the bible, so I'll let that stand for now.

In any case, you should see though that you have now proved my point. As soon as you appealed to physical, tangible evidence, you have appealed to empirical data. We can examine historical documents, compare them to other historical documents use logic and reasoning to argue about them. These things are all in the domain of empirical data. The discussion ends as soon as I say "Jesus talks to me personally and he told me everything about him in the NT is wrong". Any appeal to non-empirical information effectively ends any meaningful discussion.

This again reiterates my point in starting this thread; you cannot use non-empirical methods to benchmark the truth or falsehood of empirical claims, it just doesn't work. You seem to be agreeing with me, but I think you are not seeing the whole picture.

I don't know what you mean by "perception", but I assume you equate it roughly to "intuition". By both of these I will assume that you mean some non-sensory, and therefore non-empirical, means of "knowing".

I'll state it plainly: If you cannot know it empirically, you cannot know it at all. If something is outside the domain of objective knowledge, what does it mean to say you "know" it? This is exactly the same as the argument just given above in which you seem to agree. We can look at objective evidence about things such as the NT, but no further conversation is even possible as soon as one of us appeals to non-empirical data. As soon as one of us says "well, I just know because Jesus talks to me personally", no amount of appeal to any objective data is relevant.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that appeals to empirical data is the best way of understanding the world, I am saying it is the _only_ way in which it can be said that we "know" anything.

Depends on your definition of "metaphysics". I'll answer it this way: Any method of "knowing" which does not at its root rely on some sort of shared, empirical, objective data is no different from opinion. If you can think of a single argument that does not in any way shape or form rely on empirical data that would survive an argument in which your antagonist said "I just know", please spell it out, I'm all ears. (no, logic does not meet this criteria, we must agree on the rules of logic, which are empirical)

I would not find you ludicrous if you stated my mind didn't exist (this is different from my using it, but I think its what you really meant to say), I would think you were a fan of Shirley Maclaine, she says these things.

In freshman philosophy class oh so long ago we used to sit around at 3am having conversations about whether any of us existed outside of each others minds. It was interesting at the time, but it gets old rather quickly. The bottom line is that whether or not your mind exists, the products of your mind certainly make it _look_ as if your mind exists, which is good enough for me. If your mind doesn't exist, its not relevant to my conversation with you. I can empirically experience the products of your mind, which is all that is required. I don't need to _really_ prove that your mind exists, anymore than I need to prove that I'm not making everything up with my mind. We all might be the figment of some gods imagination, but for pragmatic purposes we at least keep living as if we're all real.

The limits aren't unexacting, they don't exist _even in theory_. All of these things your talking about have no substance whatsoever unless they are grounded in empirical data. None, nada, zippo. For any argument you choose to make based on "intuition", I can say "my intuition tells me your wrong, in fact, my intuition comes from god, so I know for a fact your wrong". There can be no possible response to this that doesn't degenerate into a "your wrong", "no, your wrong" conversation. This is so patently obvious that I have a hard time understanding what position it is that your taking that you disagree with?


No, you gave me things you think place limits, without realizing that without empirical data, it's like trying to stand on your own head, there's nothing there to support them. None of your criteria can stand without empirical data. Logic rules rely on an objective agreement about those rules. If I deny that A=B=C is true and that I "just know it", logic fails. If I deny that the "truths of the past" are true and that "I just know it", the past is unproven. etc. etc. All of these fail unless we agree upon empirical data.

</strong>

This thread is not about evolution, the bible, the big bang or theoretical physics, please stick to the topic at hand.


False. The underpinnings of the "conceptual understanding" are entirely based on a shared view of objective reality. If I say that 2+2=5 because I "just know", you cannot prove me wrong without getting me to agree on what 2 is, what + means and what = means. If at every step I just say "I just know 2+2=5" then the conversation is over. Without the empirical objective data the conversation is over before it starts.

And this all relies on empirical data. To any of this I can say "I know your wrong and I just know" and the _only_ appeal you have is to empirical data and a shared view of objective reality. (with the exception of mind, which as I argued before I'm not concerned with, I see the results of mind which is good enough)

Your getting sidetracked again, let's stick to the topic of this thread.

It is hardly a circular argument to say that without having a shared, objective reality to argue about, discussions become meaningless. Let me ask again: give me a single, solitary example of a claim that does not in any way rely on empirical data that I cannot dismiss simply by saying "god told me your wrong". (again, logic does not meet this criteria)

This is too vague to merit a detailed response. I believe that Lincoln was shot, but I wasn't there to see it. I believe it because all of the empirical data we have indicates that he was. It could all be wrong, but if it is wrong the _only_ way that it could be shown to be wrong would be through other _empirical_ data. As soon as someone says "I just know he wasn't because god told me so", the conversation ends.

It's very simple: No empirical data means no objective information. No objective information means no shared reality, which means its all just an opinion and everyones is as good as anyone else's. I would think it crystal clear why non-empirical data cannot be used to judge empirical data, but it didn't seem to be clear to you which is why I started this thread.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Skeptical

Let me try this by way of an example:

Imagine for a moment that you, myself and 4 random people we'll call A, B, C and D, are taken back in time to the day the Wright Brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk. A, B, C and D are all agreed that man-made flying is impossible through scientific means.

We sit and watch while the WB's fly. They come back over to where we are seated and start explaining to A, B, C and D about lift and thrust and the mechanics of flying. Our companions are unimpressed and offer the following explanations:

A: God made the airplane fly
B: Satan made the airplane fly
C: Aliens from Gilgamesh made the airplane fly (you can't see them or talk to them, only I can)
D: I made the airplane fly with my mind, only I can't do it on command, I can only tell you I did it after the fact (the powers come and go)

They all say they know they are correct through "perception" and "intuition".

We now have 5 mutually contradictory explanations of what made the airplane fly.

Question #1: Is there any way for you to show A, B, C and D that the WB's explanation is correct _without appealing to empirical data_?

Question #2: Is there any way for you to show A, B, C and D that any one of their explanations is more/less correct than the others _without appealing to empirical data_?

*NOTE: The rules of logic are empirical data

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Nat

"Empirical sciences, or theoretical ones, for that matter, can't explain what occured during or before the Big Bang."

Holy Cartoon Theory of the Big Bang! Please explain how the term "before" even makes sense using standard Big Bang cosmology. As for the term "during," I hate to break this to you, but the "during" is still going on.

" That is a clear limitation. And yet we read in Genesis "In the beginning, God created" This is yet another explanation where science does not have an answer."

Interestingly enough, cosmologists actually do have some answers to your question of "Why is there something and not nothing." Look up some of the work of Higgs and the Hawking-Hartle equations.

" As I said, the empirical sciences will never have an answer."

Funny - I doubt you have even bother to read some of the popular lay texts on the subject, much less the actual journal articles produced by people actually working on the problem. Nice to be an armchair philosopher though - doesn't require much real work.

" The answer of the theist is quite reasonable. Can you demonstrate that it is not?"

The principle of parsimony demonstrates that it is less reasonable than an explanation that involves fewer unobserved entities.

Cheers

lpetrich

One perceives one's mind as a result of being conscious; one does not perceive it from the outside.

And is mind really due to some special mind-stuff? And can minds exist apart from bodies?

It depends on one's standards of proof.

That's a statement of logic, not an empirical statement.

I see the Bible as being no more necessarily historically reliable than the Koran or the Vedas or the Iliad or numerous other sacred books. You might want to peruse this site's discussions of Biblical errancy some time.

VZ, do you accept the existence of Allah as described in the Koran? The existence of Zeus as described in the works of Homer and Hesiod? And for what reasons?

WHAT evidence? And I suggest that VZ study chimp behavior some time.

Except that if there was a historical Moses, he had written essentially none of the Bible. The oldest books are a composite of 4 sources: Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P). Genesis 1 is the Priestly creation story, while Genesis 2 is the Yahwist creation story.

Lots and lots and lots of people have claimed to have had direct encounters with various deities.

I find those accounts no more convincing than many other similar ancient accounts.