RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 22, 2019 at 2:38 pm
(This post was last modified: March 22, 2019 at 2:59 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(March 22, 2019 at 1:34 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Well...wait a minute....we'd already agreed on the issue of the manticore (it was a subtle end run, I'll admit it..... I make no apologies!, lol). No matter. Sure, the notion of intuition doesn't rule out false intuition (but I've got another one that does, for when we turn the heat up to eleventy), which is why it's the weakest non-empirical argument as I framed it.
Still, the existence of false intuitions doesn't rule out the existence of true intuitions..so in a meaningful sense, while it's a relevant criticism, it's a non-issue of concept. Having an experience can also be a "false experience". Yes, you experience it, but the contents of your experience are inaccurate with respect to their alleged referents. Presumably, deduction (in either case, intuition or experience), could help to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Sure. Having an objective way to distinguish between true and false intuitions (as well as sensory experiences) would be necessary in order for them to be useful, or practically meaningful in any way. Otherwise, you're just guessing at shit, lol.
Quote:I'll also tip the hat to seeing pictures of a manticore, it may be the case that manticore knowledge is empirical knowledge based on pictures of manticores (or pictures of tails..whats a tail, right?)...but that's an easy problem to solve. Just replace every use of the word "manticore" with "beejatzulifren" and every use of the words "a tail" with "kenbanhindra" What are those things, you might ask? Doesn't matter. What you know, is that beejatzulifren have kenbanhindra, and that if a thing doesn't have kenbanhindra, it can't be beejatzulifren. This can't be empirical knowledge, you have no experience of either.
Well, sure I do! I have a physical photograph of a beejatzulifren, and when I look at it, I see that it has a kenbanhindra (and damn you for making me have to type out those words, lol.
) It really doesn't matter how we're labeling the pictures in the book; there is still a physical book with pictures in it. But, I understand where you're going with this. Quote:It's stated as a truth by definition of concept. Like math, or, in some formulations, morality....or...gods.
Right. And, I can imagine the concept of a unicorn, but that doesn't necessarily mean that, "unicorns are real" is a truth statement. You'd be right to say I have no empirical knowledge of unicorns, because there is no empirical evidence that unicorns exist. We have concepts of unicorns that may or may not be universally agreed upon, but I'm not sure how concepts qualify as some separate or special category of knowledge, or realness. I have empirical knowledge of a human constructed concept that is borne out of the empirically demonstrable physical characteristics of things currently in existence (horses, horns, animals that fly etc). People imagine things, and we know people imagine things because we tell each other about it. What's the big deal about that?
Quote:Can we appeal to empirical data to show that sense experience is at least sometimes unreliable? Well...yeah. If we need to dive in on this one we can (say the word) but..I'm hoping that we can both agree that empirical data suggests that sense experience is not universally reliable. The whole point of science (for example) was to reduce this known vector of error in empirical analytics.
Agreed.
Quote:The intuitionist only needs to present a single example of some knowledge that is not empirical. Empiricism states that all x is y, intuitionism responds with some x that is not y, thus, sense experience may be the foundation of some knowledge or most knowledge or even a great way of verifying knowledge, but cannot be the foundation of knowledge.
Give me an example of knowledge about something in existence that is not grounded in empiricism.
Quote:Beyond all that, though, I want to ask. Are there notions that you consider true that are intuitive to you. When I describe this set, can you say with authenticity that all of the things you know are known by empirical means, and that you possess no true intuitions? I'm not going to ask you how you verify them, or ask you to prove them, or even what they are. I just wonder whether or not you possess them, or are aware of possessing any of them.
I honestly don't know. I'm finding that I distrust human intuition more and more as time marches on, because so many assumptions that we make based on intuition end up being incorrect once the evidence comes in. I guess, it's intuitive to me that I exist, and others exist. I have to make that assumption in order to function, or at the very least, it would be a lot more cumbersome to function assuming the alternative. But, I wouldn't say that I am in possession of non-empirical knowledge that points to a fact that I, and others exist.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
