(March 22, 2019 at 9:31 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 8:38 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: By reality, I mean, that which is real.

For the second time, we only know things through thinking -- memory, interpretation, plugging new data into existing theories. 

Some of the things we think can be given greater credence through empirical evidence and some of it can't. The former is science and the latter is metaphysics, generally speaking. 

Thank you LFC!

Thank you for taking his pseudointellectual ass down to the core, where he shows that he hasnt understood fundamentals, while babbling about high level philosophy.

(March 23, 2019 at 3:46 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

Yesterday you accused me of saying a lot of things I've never said. I asked you to quote from my posts where I said those things. 

Why are you avoiding the burden of proof? Are you one of those people who accuse others of things and then run away when you can't back it up? 

Lying makes you look bad.

(March 22, 2019 at 9:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 9:39 pm)Belaqua Wrote: And that's why I'm skeptical of your metaphysical assertion that science is the ONLY way to know things. You can't prove it.

I’m not making an assertion, but nice try. I’m saying that I’ll believe another reliable method of knowing things exists when someone shows it to me, lol.  It’s what I’ve been asking for, for several years now.  No one has ever been able to offer me anything.  Just like god.

This statement seems a little peculiar to me, and I'd like you to clarify on it.  Is science really the vehicle by which you know what exists?  Like, are you suspicious of putting books on a new desk until you confirm the hypothesis that it's a real desk?

(March 23, 2019 at 5:56 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 9:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’m not making an assertion, but nice try. I’m saying that I’ll believe another reliable method of knowing things exists when someone shows it to me, lol.  It’s what I’ve been asking for, for several years now.  No one has ever been able to offer me anything.  Just like god.

This statement seems a little peculiar to me, and I'd like you to clarify on it.  Is science really the vehicle by which you know what exists?  Like, are you suspicious of putting books on a new desk until you confirm the hypothesis that it's a real desk?

The way to confirm that hypothesis would be to put books on what appears to be the desk.  If the books remain supported by the desk, we may consider the hypothesis confirmed, or at least supported (get it?).

If, on the other hand, the books fall through what appears to be the desk and land on the floor (or the desk turns into a flock of hummingbirds or the desk begins singing an aria, etc) we can be pretty confident in rejecting the 'This is a desk' hypothesis.

Boru

(March 23, 2019 at 5:56 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 9:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’m not making an assertion, but nice try. I’m saying that I’ll believe another reliable method of knowing things exists when someone shows it to me, lol.  It’s what I’ve been asking for, for several years now.  No one has ever been able to offer me anything.  Just like god.

This statement seems a little peculiar to me, and I'd like you to clarify on it.  Is science really the vehicle by which you know what exists?  Like, are you suspicious of putting books on a new desk until you confirm the hypothesis that it's a real desk?

Also there may well be a built-in contradiction to the alleged open-mindedness.

If by "reliable" she means a way of knowing things exist that can be confirmed by intersubjective empirical evidence, then what she's really describing is already science. In other words, she defines reliability in such a way that only science meets the definition. 

How do we know that knowledge through revelation isn't reliable? Because it isn't confirmable through science-like methods. But that doesn't in itself mean that it's false. Only that it's not science. 

Note to Deesse, who jumps to conclusions: this doesn't mean I'm saying we should take revelation seriously. Only that there may well be a trouble with Mrs. Camus' alleged metaphysical open-mindedness.

(March 23, 2019 at 6:21 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 23, 2019 at 5:56 am)bennyboy Wrote: This statement seems a little peculiar to me, and I'd like you to clarify on it.  Is science really the vehicle by which you know what exists?  Like, are you suspicious of putting books on a new desk until you confirm the hypothesis that it's a real desk?

Also there may well be a built-in contradiction to the alleged open-mindedness.

If by "reliable" she means a way of knowing things exist that can be confirmed by intersubjective empirical evidence, then what she's really describing is already science. In other words, she defines reliability in such a way that only science meets the definition. 

How do we know that knowledge through revelation isn't reliable? Because it isn't confirmable through science-like methods. But that doesn't in itself mean that it's false. Only that it's not science. 

Note to Deesse, who jumps to conclusions: this doesn't mean I'm saying we should take revelation seriously. Only that there may well be a trouble with Mrs. Camus' alleged metaphysical open-mindedness.

"knowledge thorough revelation" is NOT reliable. 
The brain is an extremely unreliable tool. 
Much of what people think is real is the brains interpretation of what it thinks its experiencing which can be confused and miss led by many many things.
Even Dickens knew this "there is more of gravy than of grave about you!".
So everything that is experienced only through the brain needs backing up by other means.
So in order to be trustworthy anything must be detectable by something other than the human mind.
Revelation is not and so is unreliable.

(March 23, 2019 at 6:28 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: "knowledge thorough revelation" is NOT reliable. 

Please demonstrate this through empirical means.

Quote:The brain is an extremely unreliable tool. 
Much of what people think is real is the brains interpretation of what it thinks its experiencing which can be confused and miss led by many many things.

That's right. But an illusion perceived by an unreliable brain isn't revelation. It's an illusion. 

Your argument here only works if you assume, a priori, that all revelations are illusion.

Quote:Even Dickens knew this "there is more of gravy than of grave about you!".

What do you mean by "even Dickens"? Do you think he's generally unreliable? 

Quote:So everything that is experienced only through the brain needs backing up by other means.
So in order to be trustworthy anything must be detectable by something other than the human mind.
Revelation is not and so is unreliable.

Good. So you are also saying that the word "reliable" means "testable through scientific methods."

So if our metaphysical commitments tell us that the word "reliable" always and only means "available to science," then we are not open-minded to other methods than science.

By the way: look! You attempted to use logic alone to prove something about the world! Mrs. Camus will reject this out of hand.

(March 23, 2019 at 6:02 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(March 23, 2019 at 5:56 am)bennyboy Wrote: This statement seems a little peculiar to me, and I'd like you to clarify on it.  Is science really the vehicle by which you know what exists?  Like, are you suspicious of putting books on a new desk until you confirm the hypothesis that it's a real desk?

The way to confirm that hypothesis would be to put books on what appears to be the desk.  If the books remain supported by the desk, we may consider the hypothesis confirmed, or at least supported (get it?).

If, on the other hand, the books fall through what appears to be the desk and land on the floor (or the desk turns into a flock of hummingbirds or the desk begins singing an aria, etc) we can be pretty confident in rejecting the 'This is a desk' hypothesis.

Boru

If you had doubt, you could do that.  But I see very many objects in my environment, and do not normally test their existence.  Most things, I take for granted-- for pragmatic reasons, I suppose, though I never really make a philosophical decision to treat them that way.

In other words, I don't think most of our existential beliefs are based on scientific observation.  My view is quite different-- we have a collection of experiences, and we categorize and systematize them in order to communicate or to look for useful patterns.

Some experiences, however, are not shareable.  If I want to understand how my mind works, I may very well read a book about neurology.  I'm also quite likely, however, to see different kinds of truths in the experience of musical or artistic ideas, in meditation, in drug use, or whatever.  And nobody else can have any access to that experience of truth except insofar as I can verbalize them.

Quote:In other words, I don't think most of our existential beliefs are based on scientific observation.  My view is quite different-- we have a collection of experiences, and we categorize and systematize them in order to communicate or to look for useful patterns.

Isn't that the essence of scientific observation?  If I put a book on my desk 1000 times, and both the book and the desk behave the same way each time, I can reasonably make the empirically-based conclusion as to what will happen the 1001st time.

Experience, categorizing and systemization for useful patters is exactly what happens when we move from hypotheses through testing to theories.

Boru

(March 23, 2019 at 3:23 am)Catharsis Wrote:

(March 22, 2019 at 9:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’m not making an assertion, but nice try. I’m saying that I’ll believe another reliable method of knowing things exists when someone shows it to me, lol.  It’s what I’ve been asking for, for several years now.  No one has ever been able to offer me anything.  Just like god.

I'm sure you don't mind. So why bother?

...what...?