(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.
