Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

[lightgigantic]

What do you mean? This whole thread has been one big joke from the start!
Just look at the oxymoron; Atheist-Fundamentalism.

If you take a closer look and examine the OP you can see how the joke is on you

 

[Myles]

already done

discussion of universals can be made without taking shelter of reifications
eg platonic idealism

If you don't understand how that is possible, perhaps we could discuss platonic idealism, but I would have thought it was quite straightforward

You have still not answered my question. I am begining to think you do not understand it. Of course it's possible to discuss universals; about two sentences should do it. I suggested you look up reification. You had better try again .

Read my question and try again. All you are doing at the moment is confirming my suspicion that you are thoroughly confused and have no real understanding of what I am saying to you or what you, yourself, are saying for that matter.

 

[Myles]

LG,

I have just read a recent post of yours which supports my view that you are very confused and unable to follow an argument. You don't think for yourself;you let others do the thinking and you then come up with half-baked objections,

Example: "If we got knowledge from the senses we would not have to go to school."

The reason we go to school is to acquire knowledge from those who have more of it than we do. Our teachers have obtained knowledge in a similar fashion. So school is a place where we get the benefit of pooled, organized knowledge. It's as simple as that

Knowledge of the world comes ONLY through the senses. If you disagree, tell me where your knowledge comes from.

 

[lightgigantic]

You have still not answered my question. I am begining to think you do not understand it. Of course it's possible to discuss universals; about two sentences should do it. I suggested you look up reification. You had better try again .

Read my question and try again. All you are doing at the moment is confirming my suspicion that you are thoroughly confused and have no real understanding of what I am saying to you or what you, yourself, are saying for that matter.

its not clear why you think reifications inhibit discussing universals

frankly myles, I'm not a mind reader, so if you think you are being misunderstood, better that you clarify or reiterate your questions

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

I have just read a recent post of yours which supports my view that you are very confused and unable to follow an argument. You don't think for yourself;you let others do the thinking and you then come up with half-baked objections,

Example: "If we got knowledge from the senses we would not have to go to school."

The reason we go to school is to acquire knowledge from those who have more of it than we do. Our teachers have obtained knowledge in a similar fashion. So school is a place where we get the benefit of pooled, organized knowledge. It's as simple as that

Knowledge of the world comes ONLY through the senses. If you disagree, tell me where your knowledge comes from.

I think you have missed the point completely

knowledge, per se, cannot be empirically reduced

IOW you can't reduce the state of being "in knowledge" to electrons or some other sub-atomic analysis

thats what the analogy of the forensic scientist and the janitor was supposed to indicate - its not like the janitor's inability to "see" what the forensic scientist can "see" is due to his eyeballs

 

[Myles]

What is knowledge per se. as opposed to knowledge ?
What do you mean when you say " knowledge. per se. cannot be empirically reduced ?
Your IOW is confusing. Please clarify it

 

[Myles]

PS You still have not answered my request to explain how you would show me " whiteness" I asked it in the context of your dismissal of my explanation of justice being demonstrated.

I have a good reason for asking this question. Answer it and you may learn something to your advantage.

 

[SnakeLord]

sorry

You are forgiven.

every since we started discussing this I have been quite clear that empircism can define dull matter but not concepts, what to speak of god.

My question is as empiricsm cannot be used to detect god, what else do we use? What particular brand of non-sense must we utilise?

Take into account that you assert that god is an object, (an existing thing), and not a mental concept and thus you cannot try and draw a comparison between god and justice.

I keep asking you to show me this god, using any method you want. You keep evading.

then why did you write this

Because I am unaware of other methods with which to discern levels in envy/wrath other than by empirical means. I have asked you what these methods are countless times. That you haven't answered is hardly my fault.

do you mean to say that you are totally stumped how to determine different levels of states of being?

Without using my senses? Absolutely.

if a janitor is called upon to do the work of a forensic scientist, does he use his senses?

Like looking at strands of hair, fingerprints and so on? Yes.

if a forensic scientist is called in, does he use his senses?

Yes.

If the answer to both these questions is yes, why are you introducing the notion that one of them is using his non-senses?

I'm not. You were the one that brought up forensic whatevers when I asked you to explain how not using your senses works.

Pay attention.

 

[Myles]

IOW you can't reduce the state of being "in knowledge" to electrons or some other sub-atomic analysis


You use language in a most interesting , not to say, confusing way. What is the " state of being in knowledge " ?

 

[Myles]

I think you have missed the point completely

knowledge, per se, cannot be empirically reduced

IOW you can't reduce the state of being "in knowledge" to electrons or some other sub-atomic analysis

thats what the analogy of the forensic scientist and the janitor was supposed to indicate - its not like the janitor's inability to "see" what the forensic scientist can "see" is due to his eyeballs

I asked you where your knowledge comes from if not through your senses. You have not offered an explanation.. Would you like to do so now ?

I am giving you an opportunity to show all empiricists where they are going wrong. Take it !

 

[lightgigantic]

PS You still have not answered my request to explain how you would show me " whiteness" I asked it in the context of your dismissal of my explanation of justice being demonstrated.

my point is that empiricism falls short of indicating these things, so holding empiricism as the final last word in defining reality offers a narrow perspective

I have a good reason for asking this question. Answer it and you may learn something to your advantage.

we can't see "whiteness" any more than we can see what we are seeing with.
"whiteness" however can be determined by the mind - for instance if we see something white (the phenomena) we can understand that there must be a state of being that causes that (noumena) - hence whiteness

 

[lightgigantic]

What is knowledge per se. as opposed to knowledge ?
What do you mean when you say " knowledge. per se. cannot be empirically reduced ?
Your IOW is confusing. Please clarify it

"knowledge per se" is the state of being in knowledge.
The reason it lies outside of empiricism is that we cannot (for eg) conduct a brain scan to determine if a person knows 1+1=2

IOW you can't reduce the state of being "in knowledge" to electrons or some other sub-atomic analysis


You use language in a most interesting , not to say, confusing way. What is the " state of being in knowledge " ?

for eg the forensic scientist is the sate of being in knowledge of extracting evidence from a crime scene
the janitor is not
the difference between the forensic scientist and the janitor cannot be reduced to an empirical standard (ie material reductionist terms, eg atoms, electrons etc)

I asked you where your knowledge comes from if not through your senses. You have not offered an explanation.. Would you like to do so now ?

I am giving you an opportunity to show all empiricists where they are going wrong. Take it !

if it is simply an issue of gaining knowledge from the senses, why doesn't the janitor know how to extract evidence from a crime scene like a forensic scientist?
Does he have something wrong with his eyeballs?

My point is that knowledge empowers the senses and that knowledge (or "knowledge per se", the state of being in knowledge) lies outside of empiricism.
If you disagree, what empirical test could you perform to see if I know anything?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
every since we started discussing this I have been quite clear that empircism can define dull matter but not concepts, what to speak of god.
”
My question is as empiricsm cannot be used to detect god, what else do we use? What particular brand of non-sense must we utilise?

as I mentioned previously, you seem to be using the word "non-sense" to mean knowledge
the president is also an existing thing - still, on account of his special position, you have no direct perception of him (you have never - most likely - seen him in the flesh).
Given that this is a parallel to your question about God (who is deemed as being quite a few times more special than the president) and given that your use of the word "non-sense" seems like another way of saying "knowledge", how would you answer this .... "what must we know in order to directly perceive the president?"

Take into account that you assert that god is an object, (an existing thing), and not a mental concept and thus you cannot try and draw a comparison between god and justice.

the purpose of discussing things like "justice" was to show how we can quite comfortably work things that lie outside of empirical verification and still cultivate knowledge.
For instance there are lots of people researching the nature of justice, despite justice remaining outside of empiricism.
IOW to flat out reject something because it doesn't fit into existing empirical frameworks is not only impractical but absurd

I keep asking you to show me this god, using any method you want. You keep evading.

from my side it seems like constant reiteration and clarification

“
then why did you write this
”
Because I am unaware of other methods with which to discern levels in envy/wrath other than by empirical means. I have asked you what these methods are countless times. That you haven't answered is hardly my fault.

really?
what are the empirical standards they utilize for determining levels of envy?

“
do you mean to say that you are totally stumped how to determine different levels of states of being?
”
Without using my senses? Absolutely.

what about using your senses and your knowledge base?

“
if a janitor is called upon to do the work of a forensic scientist, does he use his senses?
”
Like looking at strands of hair, fingerprints and so on? Yes.

so given the average knowledge base of a janitor in regards to forensic science, do you think they will "see" these things?

“
if a forensic scientist is called in, does he use his senses?
”
Yes.

“
If the answer to both these questions is yes, why are you introducing the notion that one of them is using his non-senses?
”
I'm not. You were the one that brought up forensic whatevers when I asked you to explain how not using your senses works.

Pay attention.

if both the janitor and the forensic scientist have equal levels of vision, why can one "see" somethings that the other cannot?

 

[Myles]

my point is that empiricism falls short of indicating these things, so holding empiricism as the final last word in defining reality offers a narrow perspective


we can't see "whiteness" more by the mind - for instance if we see something white (the phenomena) we can understand that there must be a state of being that causes that (noumena) - hence whiteness than we can see what we are seeing with."whiteness" however can be danyetermined



In what way does empiricism fall short?

As you say we can see something white. Whiteness is abstract so we cannot form an image of it without thinking of an area of whitness, a white shirt, a white wall and so on. It follows that whiteness is not independent of objects which can be observed by our senses. This was the point I was getting at when I spoke about justice. It can be demonstrated in action which is observable by our senses. Alone, it is just a mental construct.

So, if you believe whiteness has an existence independent of observable phenomena, please explain in what sense it can be said to exist and how we can become aware of it

 

[superluminal]

What I would like to get from LG is a better understanding (without BG references, thanks) of his proposed mechanism of "direct perception", i.e. knowledge of reality that is somehow deposited directly in the mind, bypassing the empirical sensory channels.

 

[lightgigantic]

my point is that empiricism falls short of indicating these things, so holding empiricism as the final last word in defining reality offers a narrow perspective


we can't see "whiteness" more by the mind - for instance if we see something white (the phenomena) we can understand that there must be a state of being that causes that (noumena) - hence whiteness than we can see what we are seeing with."whiteness" however can be danyetermined



In what way does empiricism fall short?

As you say we can see something white. Whiteness is abstract so we cannot form an image of it without thinking of an area of whitness, a white shirt, a white wall and so on. It follows that whiteness is not independent of objects which can be observed by our senses. This was the point I was getting at when I spoke about justice. It can be demonstrated in action which is observable by our senses. Alone, it is just a mental construct.

So, if you believe whiteness has an existence independent of observable phenomena, please explain in what sense it can be said to exist and how we can become aware of it

my point is that the senses cannot indicate "whiteness" - I never said it was independent of sense perception - I said it was beyond it
obviously there must be a state of existence of whiteness (IOW there must be some objective nature of whiteness) but we cannot approach it with the senses - hence to hold that that sense perception has the means to approach objectivity is absurd

 

[lightgigantic]

What I would like to get from LG is a better understanding (without BG references, thanks) of his proposed mechanism of "direct perception", i.e. knowledge of reality that is somehow deposited directly in the mind, bypassing the empirical sensory channels.

its not that the senses are bypassed
Its that they are empowered

empirical discipline only has a jurisdiction on objects that can be observed in a controlled environment - this is part of the reason why psychology relies less on strict empirical standards (there is no way to place human society in a controlled environment, since we - the observer - are the very products of human society)

If we had a means to "step outside" of that human social context, the way we would "look" at human society would be vastly different. In other words our senses would be empowered to grant a greater vision.

This "stepping out" of existing "pre-controlled frameworks" (not just human society but the "society" of the entire material creation) is the precise opportunity afforded by religious discipline.

IOW by (properly) coming into contact with god (or getting the "mercy" of god) one gets pulled out of the frameworks that our mind and senses are products of, and thus one's mind and senses are empowered to work in ways that are otherwise impossible. (much like it is impossible for a janitor to call upon their mind and senses to act in the fashion of a forensic scientist)

 

[Myles]

"knowledge per se" is the state of being in knowledge.
The reason it lies outside of empiricism is that we cannot (for eg) conduct a brain scan to determine if a person knows 1+1=2

for eg the forensic scientist is the sate of being in knowledge of extracting evidence from a crime scene
the janitor is not
the difference between the forensic scientist and the janitor cannot be reduced to an empirical standard (ie material reductionist terms, eg atoms, electrons etc)


if it is simply an issue of gaining knowledge from the senses, why doesn't the janitor know how to extract evidence from a crime scene like a forensic scientist?
Does he have something wrong with his eyeballs?

My point is that knowledge empowers the senses and that knowledge (or "knowledge per se", the state of being in knowledge) lies outside of empiricism.
If you disagree, what empirical test could you perform to see if I know anything?

I don't think you are up to speed with what brain scans can show. But why go to all that trouble when we can ask a simple question. e.g., what is the sum of 1+1. Ask a kid who has had no exposure to arithmetic and you will not get the correct answer. Ask a five-year old at school and he will say 2 because he is beginning to learn how we define and use numbers.
Which brings us back to knowledge gained by the senses. No problem there.

Let's give the janitor perfect eyesight and let the same go for the forensic scientist. The scientist will see more evidence because he has been trained to use his powers of observation in a particular way.

If we credit the janitor with equal intelligence, he can be trained to become a forensic scientist. You are overlooking the fact that the forensic scientist wasn't born with his knowledge and skills. He was trained to use his brain and his senses in a particular way. So, there is no escaping sensory perception.

As to testing your knowledge, you have passed with flying colours. You have told me that 1+1=2 and that's the correct answer. So I know that you know, unless you cheated and got the answer from someone else.

I just can't see what your problem is.

 

[Myles]

my point is that empiricism falls short of indicating these things, so holding empiricism as the final last word in defining reality offers a narrow perspective


we can't see "whiteness" any more than we can see what we are seeing with.
"whiteness" however can be determined by the mind - for instance if we see something white (the phenomena) we can understand that there must be a state of being that causes that (noumena) - hence whiteness

No. Whitness is a contingent property of some objects. It cannot exist independently of them.
If you continue to disagree about this then the onus is on you to say in what sense whitness has an independent existence and how it may be perceived

 

[lightgigantic]

Myles

I don't think you are up to speed with what brain scans can show.

So there are brain scans that can detect what people know?
(I am talking about science and not science fiction)

But why go to all that trouble when we can ask a simple question. e.g., what is the sum of 1+1. Ask a kid who has had no exposure to arithmetic and you will not get the correct answer. Ask a five-year old at school and he will say 2 because he is beginning to learn how we define and use numbers.

how do you know if I am telling the truth about what I know?
Or how about if I temporarily have amnesia only to recall my knowledge several months later?

Which brings us back to knowledge gained by the senses. No problem there.

technically no
knowledge is gained by existing knowledge and the senses.
If you lack a certain element of knowledge,it doesn't matter how great your senses are (eg a janitor with perfect vision is not even half as effective as a forensic scientist wearing coke bottle glasses)

Let's give the janitor perfect eyesight and let the same go for the forensic scientist. The scientist will see more evidence because he has been trained to use his powers of observation in a particular way.

yes, there is some special element that is empowering his senses - and that special element (knowledge per se) cannot be empirically reduced

If we credit the janitor with equal intelligence, he can be trained to become a forensic scientist.

similarly, if we credit the cynical atheist with coming into line with normative descriptions in scripture, we have a changed situation

You are overlooking the fact that the forensic scientist wasn't born with his knowledge and skills. He was trained to use his brain and his senses in a particular way. So, there is no escaping sensory perception.

once again, knowledge or the process of receiving knowledge cannot be empirically reduced (educational programs have a strong behavioral element - its no coincidence why kids don't like school) so at the heart of your argument ("everything real is empirical") something is flawed

As to testing your knowledge, you have passed with flying colours. You have told me that 1+1=2 and that's the correct answer. So I know that you know, unless you cheated and got the answer from someone else.

I may not know it - after all a parrot can also be trained to say "1+1=2"