Quote:(Looks up epistemology on wikipedia... scoffs and existential scoff that sounds like a cough)
Precision does not imply accuracy. Every measurement you have access to might consistently show you x, when the reality is y. I don't mean to undermine the importance of the scientific method, but it is hardly a negligible problem associated with it. I accept the precision of said method to also be accurate, but I would be a fool to say I did not do so out of my strong bias in a 'material' and measurable world.
Every measurement you have access to is ALL that you have access to, coming to the rational and consistent conclusion based on that information is what matters, not what your conclusion would be given some information that you simply do not have access to.
Justification is all I am concerned with, eliminating my biases, using information and considering the types of information and the reliability of the methods that yielded that information I have to come to the rational conclusion. If you do not have that you do not have a rational belief, end of story. Truth and knowledge is a complete after thought, absolutes are of no concern. We can only say that given the information we have it is most likely that x and if you cannot show that which you believe is the most likely explanation you do not have an epistemological justified belief.
Quote:That one sees fewer biases present in a thing does not mean it is any more true or false. Bias is irrelevant to truth.
Fuck absolutes, what we want is justification. Biases are absolutely critical in coming to an epistemically rational conclusion.
Quote:What bias does is cloud one's ability to adapt to new perceptions of the truth. You and I are heavily biased that our perception of the universe is 'true'. Ultimately it is not, but truth makes no difference to us while it is our perceptions of the world that are even remotely useful to us.
Your terminology is entirely confused, biases do not affect your ability to "adapt to new perceptions of the truth" (a statement that is nonsensical) they impact the weight you place on standards of evidence, the weights that ultimately dictate how information is perceived and what the model of reality looks like post consideration - A bias can lead to an entire body of evidence being mis-considered and cause you to arrive at an irrational conclusion - Epistemology is anti-bias, working from a sound and valid epistemology is by far the best way to eliminate biases and thus puts you in a position with the greatest tenancy towards truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iloTS0wU9...ideo_title
Quote:I agree that science is open to questioning and refutation, and I believe that this is perhaps the single strongest point in its status as a unifying factor for us. Religious or otherwise 'personal' viewpoints require a common frame of reference to understand well, and many of us simply lack these 'spiritual' experiences (ie: some of us like me believe they do not exist).
You are equating science and epistemology, that will be a fatal flaw in your ability to comprehend the subject.
Quote:It is hardly difficult to create one, if this indeed were the case.
That is untrue, there is only one theory of justification that is ultimately true, discovering what that is can be easily considered one of the most important intellectual pursuits that we will ever engage in, were we to discover and then consistently implement this epistemology we would necessarily have the most effective methodology for arriving at true beliefs.
Quote:If he considers his belief to be justified, then that's it. You don't have to accept the same justifications, nor do I, for him to be 'justified' in believing something.
You clearly have next to no comprehension of what you are talking about.
Quote:You mean like many already irrationally wave over his head?
It's one thing to let the masses think you are a moron. It's another thing to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of ensuring all of them think you are a moron always.
If he operates from a flawed epistemology then he is doomed to reach irrational conclusions, how many irrational conclusions depends entirely on how flawed his epistemology is and how consistent he is at applying it.
.
