Mundane knowledge is a myth

[redarmy11]

Character, yes. Calibre? Bit judgemental.

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

if science operates on models (many of which are beyond the scope of science to validate), and if such models are provisional, on what grounds are they given the status to determine something (particularly something that it has no scope to approach) as mythical?

Provisionally, they determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical. If evidence to the contrary ever comes to light, those things will be subject to scientific revision, just like any other fact.

 

[superluminal]

Just be patient. I'm sure the Vedas will be invoked here at one point or another and all will become clear.

 

[lightgigantic]

Nasor

”
Actually, I suspect that he wants to make some sort of point about only "divine" knowledge being valid- or at least, he wants to argue that it's just as valid as empirical knowledge.

what is the valid base of empirical knowledge?

He's annoyed that it's impossible to verify the fantastical claims of his religion with observations in the real world, and that observations of the real world sometimes directly contradict his religion. So he wants to make the case that figuring out what's true by observing the real world and thinking about what you see is over-rated.

JamesR made a statement to the effect that people in science don't adhere values such as "real" or "truth" to their claims,


“
We cannot identify science with truth... ”
One of your mistakes is to think that scientists do that kind of thing.
particularly in the light of statements from Karl Popper


We cannot identify science with truth, for we think that both Newton's and Einstein's theories belong to science, but they cannot both be true, and they may well both be false.
....
At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

do you want to save face by adjusting your statements or do you want to ride a line of thought that is at odds with established authorities in empiricism and science?

nasor

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Unfortunately, as we have seen time and time again, knowledge that draws its authority from empiricism and rationalism cannot be objective.
”
Well, there's certainly more than one system of epistemology. You can look around at the world carefully and think about what you see.

rationalism takes over where empiricism leaves off, but still it remains nothing more than guessing
(If I told you to guess what was going on behind a door while restricting you from seeing what was going on, you would never be able to establish what was "really" going on in a million years even though you may be able to come up with 100 million possibilities)

Or you can randomly pick an ancient magic story - maybe one with talking plants and people conjuring things out of thin air - and just believe in whatever it says.

just like you can pick up some contemporary magic story that the mind and senses are somehow capable of approaching absolute categories – and just believe whatever it says ....

It would certainly save you the trouble of making all those tedious empirical observations, and you don't have to waste valuable time thinking about things.

depends how much one declared one's mind and senses (aka established norms of logic and sense perception) as one's worshipable deities

IOW it might appear as a waste of valuable time to analyze how our minds and senses are inherently limited and imperfect ...

“
We cannot identify science with truth, for we think that both Newton's and Einstein's theories belong to science, but they cannot both be true, and they may well both be false.
”
This is long, but I think it responds to this sort of argument better than I could:

still it remains there are three things you cannot be "a little bit of" in science

1. pregnant
2. dead
3. wrong

 

[lightgigantic]

Just be patient. I'm sure the Vedas will be invoked here at one point or another and all will become clear.

just as well since the prospects of things becoming clear by empiricism are next to nil

 

[lightgigantic]

Character, yes. Calibre? Bit judgemental.

one's character can determine issues like reliability, efficiency, etc and a host of other strengths and weaknesses

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:



Provisionally, they determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical. If evidence to the contrary ever comes to light, those things will be subject to scientific revision, just like any other fact.

so what is the evidence for these 5 foundational assumptions of science?

the universe is rational,
the universe is accessible,
the universe is contingent (i.e. its appearance involves chance or choice)
the universe is objective
the universe is unified.

 

[redarmy11]

one's character can determine issues like reliability, efficiency, etc and a host of other strengths and weaknesses

I was referring to less essential aspects of the character, clearly. Try not to patronise - it's very... patronising.

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

so what is the evidence for these 5 foundational assumptions of science?

the universe is rational,
the universe is accessible,

The proof is in the pudding. The universe has proven amenable to scientific investigation. For example, the fact that your computer exists is testament to the fact that the universe is rational and acceptable.

the universe is contingent (i.e. its appearance involves chance or choice)
the universe is objective
the universe is unified.

I don't know what you mean by these things.

 

[Grantywanty]

so what is the evidence for these 5 foundational assumptions of science?

the universe is rational,
the universe is accessible,
the universe is contingent (i.e. its appearance involves chance or choice)
the universe is objective
the universe is unified.

I tend to go for the two assumptions of science:
distance is primary, direct interaction rare
non-living matter is primary, consciousness and intelligence and life are exceptions

It is from this vantage scientists make guesses about the likehood of many phenomena. It is also fromt his vantage scientists take reductive explanations are primary and central, ignoring other more inclusive holistic explanantions for the same phenomena. (soon we will all be considered ((sadlly inefficient but repairable)) biochemical machines.)

 

[lightgigantic]

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so what is the evidence for these 5 foundational assumptions of science?

the universe is rational,
the universe is accessible,
the universe is contingent (i.e. its appearance involves chance or choice)
the universe is objective
the universe is unified.
”
I tend to go for the two assumptions of science:
distance is primary, direct interaction rare
non-living matter is primary, consciousness and intelligence and life are exceptions

actually these are 5 assumptions that science has inherited from western religion

It is from this vantage scientists make guesses about the likehood of many phenomena. It is also fromt his vantage scientists take reductive explanations are primary and central, ignoring other more inclusive holistic explanantions for the same phenomena. (soon we will all be considered ((sadlly inefficient but repairable)) biochemical machines.)

I expanded this topic in another thread, since it occurred to me that the 5 foundations needed a bit of explanation - needless to say holistic explanations (number 4 and 5) don't hold if their foundation is number 2 in the form of mundane sense perception
BTW - I made a new thread to deal specifically with these 5 things

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:



The proof is in the putting. The universe has proven amenable to scientific investigation. For example, the fact that your computer exists is testament to the fact that the universe is rational and acceptable.



I don't know what you mean by these things.

maybe it is deserving of a sepcific thread