Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[Brakeman]

Yeah I don't know why she would act like such a jackass either. Must be something in the water here. That said, I claim nothing "with fervor". Yes, there are no scientism churches. But people are adherents of scientism. Ie, they don't just think science is useful and it works. They go further, believing science is the ultimate source of knowledge. This is the kind of belief that used to be held among intellectuals during the fifties, except it was called "logical positivism". But it was self-refuting then and it is self-refuting now. It's irrational nonsense.

Which explains why so many atheists believe it.

Could you elaborate on how it self refutes? I don't see that.
What is an "ultimate source of knowledge?" Are you defining that as the "Best" source, the "only" source, or the source from which all other sources derive?

I googled the tenets of "logical positivism" and of course had to pour through a mess of marshmallow vague-speak that philosophers like to hide in.
Here I found a reasonably clear posting.
http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/logpos.htm

THE MAIN PHILOSOPHICAL TENETS OF LOGICAL POSITIVISM.

According to logical positivism, there are only two sources of knowledge: logical reasoning and empirical experience. The former is analytic a priori, while the latter is synthetic a posteriori; hence synthetic a priori does not exist.
..
A statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false, at least in principle, by means of the experience -- this assertion is called the verifiability principle
..
Metaphysical statements are not empirically verifiable and are thus forbidden: they are meaningless. The only role of philosophy is the clarification of the meaning of statements and their logical interrelationships. There is no distinct "philosophical knowledge" over and above the analytic knowledge provided by the formal disciplines of logic and mathematics and the empirical knowledge provided by the sciences.

Rewording to layman's terms as I read it:
A logical positivist believes that:

1. Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning. Exceptions are not considered true knowledge.

2. A statement is only to be relied upon, ergo meaningful, if it can be tested.

3. Spirit world "woo" is not considered knowledge as it cannot be tested, logically reasoned, or experienced.

So if these are indeed the tenets of logical positivists, then I would say there are a great many of us here. However, few of us would self-identify ourselves as "logical Positivists" as we have no use for the name. We don't want to play in the philosopher's mental masturbation pool of wispy definitions of societal segregation. I would better describe these folks as smart guys that don't like the wool being pulled over their eyes.

[DeistPaladin]

Bullshit! You claim that God does not exist.

If this is your definition of "atheism", there aren't very many in the world. I've never met one or known of one.

For example, you never hear an atheist say, "I never said God didn't exist."

You'll hear it all the time if you ask.

[Tonus]

To be fair, I think it can be boiled down to that. To me, god is like any other mythical creature. I do not believe in him. I do not think he exists. If pressed to "prove that he does not (or cannot) exist", I admit that I cannot prove that he doesn't (or cannot possibly) exist. But I would give the same response if someone asked me whether I can prove that unicorns do not exist. Or Bigfoot, or fairies, or Santa Claus. It's really only an issue to people who believe that Bigfoot is real. Or Santa. Or god.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Yeah I don't know why she would act like such a jackass either. Must be something in the water here. That said, I claim nothing "with fervor". Yes, there are no scientism churches. But people are adherents of scientism. Ie, they don't just think science is useful and it works. They go further, believing science is the ultimate source of knowledge. This is the kind of belief that used to be held among intellectuals during the fifties, except it was called "logical positivism". But it was self-refuting then and it is self-refuting now. It's irrational nonsense.

Which explains why so many atheists believe it.

Could you elaborate on how it self refutes? I don't see that.
What is an "ultimate source of knowledge?" Are you defining that as the "Best" source, the "only" source, or the source from which all other sources derive?

I googled the tenets of "logical positivism" and of course had to pour through a mess of marshmallow vague-speak that philosophers like to hide in.
Here I found a reasonably clear posting.
http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/logpos.htm

THE MAIN PHILOSOPHICAL TENETS OF LOGICAL POSITIVISM.

According to logical positivism, there are only two sources of knowledge: logical reasoning and empirical experience. The former is analytic a priori, while the latter is synthetic a posteriori; hence synthetic a priori does not exist.
..
A statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false, at least in principle, by means of the experience -- this assertion is called the verifiability principle
..
Metaphysical statements are not empirically verifiable and are thus forbidden: they are meaningless. The only role of philosophy is the clarification of the meaning of statements and their logical interrelationships. There is no distinct "philosophical knowledge" over and above the analytic knowledge provided by the formal disciplines of logic and mathematics and the empirical knowledge provided by the sciences.

Rewording to layman's terms as I read it:
A logical positivist believes that:

1. Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning. Exceptions are not considered true knowledge.

2. A statement is only to be relied upon, ergo meaningful, if it can be tested.

3. Spirit world "woo" is not considered knowledge as it cannot be tested, logically reasoned, or experienced.

So if these are indeed the tenets of logical positivists, then I would say there are a great many of us here. However, few of us would self-identify ourselves as "logical Positivists" as we have no use for the name. We don't want to play in the philosopher's mental masturbation pool of wispy definitions of societal segregation. I would better describe these folks as smart guys that don't like the wool being pulled over their eyes.

Scientism is the claim that science is the only source of knowledge. It's like a modern-day version of logical positivism.

And it looks like your findings agree with me.

So, how to show it self-refuting? I'll use the very principles you laid out from your research.

Take the first point:

1. Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning. Exceptions are not considered true knowledge.

-In order for (1) to be true, it must thus be derived from experience and/or reasoning.
-However, the definition of knowledge (including "true knowledge") is not arrived at by experience or by reasoning. Therefore, according to logical positivism, it's own definition of knowledge is meaningless.
-Thus logical positivism, as your research has defined it, is self-refuting.

[bennyboy]

For the millionth time... atheists don't make claims.... ok, some may make a few, but not in general.

Bullshit! You claim that God does not exist. Only the agnostic does not make a claim, one way or the other. For example, you never hear an atheist say, "I never said God didn't exist."

The ones here are constantly saying exactly that.

I have to say, I don't the weak definition of "atheist," since my beagle and my bunion both lack a belief about the existence of God/gods. I prefer a ternary choice: yes/no/I don't know. Since I also lack the belief that God/gods DON'T exist, I believe "agnostic" is a more sensible choice for me, and don't like the word atheist.

But I don't have control over the dictionary, and the "weak" position is one of the valid definitions: a + theist = not a theist.

[Simon Moon]

The ones here are constantly saying exactly that.

I have to say, I don't the weak definition of "atheist," since my beagle and my bunion both lack a belief about the existence of God/gods. I prefer a ternary choice: yes/no/I don't know. Since I also lack the belief that God/gods DON'T exist, I believe "agnostic" is a more sensible choice for me, and don't like the word atheist.

But I don't have control over the dictionary, and the "weak" position is one of the valid definitions: a + theist = not a theist.

It doesn't matter if you don't like the word.

If you do not hold the premise that a god exists to be true, you are an atheist.

Agnosticism is not a ternary choice to the question about BELIEF. It is a position that concerns knowledge.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

"Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it"

If your belief of the existence of a god is anywhere above nonzero, you are a theist. ANYTHING else is atheism.

[Brakeman]

Take the first point:

1. Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning. Exceptions are not considered true knowledge.

-In order for (1) to be true, it must thus be derived from experience and/or reasoning.
-However, the definition of knowledge (including "true knowledge") is not arrived at by experience or by reasoning. Therefore, according to logical positivism, it's own definition of knowledge is meaningless.
-Thus logical positivism, as your research has defined it, is self-refuting.

That is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from the definition of knowledge.
knowl·edge
ˈnälij/
noun
noun: knowledge; plural noun: knowledges

1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
expertise, skill, proficiency, expertness, accomplishment, adeptness, capacity, capability;
informalknow-how
"his knowledge of history"
learning, erudition, education, scholarship, schooling, wisdom
"people anxious to display their knowledge"
familiarity with, acquaintance with, intimacy with
"an intimate knowledge of the countryside"
information, facts, intelligence, news, reports, hot tip;
informalinfo, (the) lowdown
"inform the police of your knowledge"
antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy
what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.
"the transmission of knowledge"
Philosophy
true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge" Google.

Your claim that "the definition of knowledge (including "true knowledge") is not arrived at by experience or by reasoning" is the polar opposite of the definition of knowledge.

I think you didn't make yourself clear enough for me. Can you spell it out in simple layman's terms? Some examples of it's self refutation would be nice.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Take the first point:

1. Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning. Exceptions are not considered true knowledge.

-In order for (1) to be true, it must thus be derived from experience and/or reasoning.
-However, the definition of knowledge (including "true knowledge") is not arrived at by experience or by reasoning. Therefore, according to logical positivism, it's own definition of knowledge is meaningless.
-Thus logical positivism, as your research has defined it, is self-refuting.

That is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from the definition of knowledge.
knowl·edge
ˈnälij/
noun
noun: knowledge; plural noun: knowledges

1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
expertise, skill, proficiency, expertness, accomplishment, adeptness, capacity, capability;
informalknow-how
"his knowledge of history"
learning, erudition, education, scholarship, schooling, wisdom
"people anxious to display their knowledge"
familiarity with, acquaintance with, intimacy with
"an intimate knowledge of the countryside"
information, facts, intelligence, news, reports, hot tip;
informalinfo, (the) lowdown
"inform the police of your knowledge"
antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy
what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.
"the transmission of knowledge"
Philosophy
true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge" Google.

Your claim that "the definition of knowledge (including "true knowledge") is not arrived at by experience or by reasoning" is the polar opposite of the definition of knowledge.

I think you didn't make yourself clear enough for me. Can you spell it out in simple layman's terms? Some examples of it's self refutation would be nice.

When we are talking about the definition of knowledge, we're not talking about the dictionary definition, but the definition that the logical positivists are using. The definition the logical positivists use is found in (1) of your list of tenets. For the purpose of the argument, we will use their own definition. After all, logical positivists are certain to agree with it.

I.
Look at (1): "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning. Exceptions are not considered true knowledge." Stated clearly, it says " Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." This much should be uncontroversial.

II.
"Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." is a knowledge claim. Ie, logical positivists claim to KNOW that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only."

III.
Therefore, the claim that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." must have experience and reasoning to support it.

IV.
Nothing in our experience and reasoning tells us that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only."

V.
Therefore, "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." is not knowledge.

VI.
Logical positivism affirms (1), "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." therefore logical positivism affirms something that is not knowledge.

VI.
Therefore logical positivism is self-refuting.

The debatable premise for you might be (IV), ie whether there is experience and reasoning that supports the claim that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only."

You could argue from induction, something like "We have ten trillion examples of knowledge learned from experience and reasoning." But this is fallacious reasoning. If we see ten trillion white swans, that doesn't mean a black swan cannot exist.

Therefore IV is true.

[Brakeman]

III.
Therefore, the claim that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." must have experience and reasoning to support it.

IV.
Nothing in our experience and reasoning tells us that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only."


You could argue from induction, something like "We have ten trillion examples of knowledge learned from experience and reasoning." But this is fallacious reasoning. If we see ten trillion white swans, that doesn't mean a black swan cannot exist.

Therefore IV is true.

No, I don't agree at all that IV is true. You are confusing the classification of knowledge by others as a proposition. It isn't, it is a value statement.

If I say I consider blonds to be beautiful, you don't falsify my claim by finding a blond I dislike, you've merely found an exception to my classification. You would have to prove that all blonds repulse me to negate my classification. The "only" word of the positivist tenet is to claim a classification quality, meaning, " any other claims of knowledge sources are inferior to us."

When Positivists claim that all knowledge comes from reason and experience, they do so from first gaining experience. Experience comes first as a child, then reason is built upon the experience to create knowledge. Even seemingly non-experience related information, such as the classification of a song as beautiful or something rather abstract such as algebra, can be easily broken down into the factors of experience and reason.

I would like to see an example of some recognized knowledge that doesn't come from reason and experience, if you can think of one.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

III.
Therefore, the claim that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only." must have experience and reasoning to support it.

IV.
Nothing in our experience and reasoning tells us that "Knowledge comes from experience and reasoning only."


You could argue from induction, something like "We have ten trillion examples of knowledge learned from experience and reasoning." But this is fallacious reasoning. If we see ten trillion white swans, that doesn't mean a black swan cannot exist.

Therefore IV is true.

No, I don't agree at all that IV is true. You are confusing the classification of knowledge by others as a proposition. It isn't, it is a value statement.

If I say I consider blonds to be beautiful, you don't falsify my claim by finding a blond I dislike, you've merely found an exception to my classification. You would have to prove that all blonds repulse me to negate my classification. The "only" word of the positivist tenet is to claim a classification quality, meaning, " any other claims of knowledge sources are inferior to us."

When Positivists claim that all knowledge comes from reason and experience, they do so from first gaining experience. Experience comes first as a child, then reason is built upon the experience to create knowledge. Even seemingly non-experience related information, such as the classification of a song as beautiful or something rather abstract such as algebra, can be easily broken down into the factors of experience and reason.

I would like to see an example of some recognized knowledge that doesn't come from reason and experience, if you can think of one.

That doesn't make sense to me. When you say "value statement" do you mean a subjective opinion? Like

"In my opinion, all knowledge comes from reason and experience?"
"I prefer dealing with knowledge that comes from reason and experience?"

Or is it a weakened form of the claim, like
"Most knowledge comes from reason and experience?"

If it is just your subjective opinion, we can safely reject logical positivism as saying anything objective about epistemology.

And if it is a weakened form of the claim, it would permit theistic claims to be rational thereby defeating any claims by atheistic L-P against theism.

But properly speaking, the definition of L-P is even more stringent than we've discussed. We've been focusing on the first axiom in your finding. But L-P also entails verificationism which we haven't discussed yet. You'll find it in (2) of your tenets list.

This raises the question of historical truth claims: How do you test them? Since you can't test or verify the existence of Lincoln, do you simply reject the past? (Speaking of Lincoln check my website )

Thus L-P leads to skepticism of all past events because they fail the verificationist criteria.

Before you become too enamored with it, I have to point out that L-P is rejected today by almost all philosophers, even epistemologists.

So I hope you don't go crazy thinking it's a good position to take on truth.