Street Epistemology - Practice

[Neo-Scholastic]

Firstly I need to ask whether you care that what you believe in is true.

If you don't care, then practicing epistemology on you will be ineffective.

I seriously question if philosophically inclined atheists actually believe in truth. They almost always weasel away into some kind of vague nominalism to avoid the logical conclusions of Aquinas.

[vulcanlogician]

I seriously question if philosophically inclined atheists actually believe in truth. They almost always weasel away into some kind of vague nominalism to avoid the logical conclusions of Aquinas.

[vulcanlogician]

I seriously question if philosophically inclined atheists actually believe in truth. They almost always weasel away into some kind of vague nominalism to avoid the logical conclusions of Aquinas.

1. Philosophically inclined atheists almost always weasel away into some kind of vague nominalism to avoid the logical conclusions of Aquinas.
2. Almost always weaseling away into some kind of vague nominalism to avoid the logical conclusions of Aquinas indicates that one does not actually believe in truth.
Therefore, philosophically inclined atheists do not actually believe in truth.

I challenge premise 2.

[curiosne]

Sorry for the long delay, been on a break and just coming back now. My reply to your post:
1)  Agreed on this. The evidence for existence of the gospels is not in doubt but there is no epistemic value on the gospels existing.
2)  Agreed on this but again there is no epistemic value in the gospels being intended as historical.
3)  Which witnesses? This is where the evidence becomes more substantial.
4)  There is no epistemic value in this. There are many religions and each one has changed many people's lives.
5)  I don't understand this. Please explain.

No problem on the delay.  I was rather busy myself with the holidays (I hope yours was good).

It seems like you are just saying a lot, that there is "no epistemic value" a lot.  I obviously disagree, but this doesn't give me much to work with, unless you are more specific  in your critique, or give an example what you might be looking for.  Do you think that the testimony of others has epistemological value? Do you think that the study of history has epistemic worth?  Do you think we have to have absolute certainty in order to have knowledge or epistemologically valid belief?

Apologies on this, I'd been rushing as well. I'll re-post my answer with better replies.

[curiosne]

---

---

I don't understand which part you don't agree with. Can you do me a favour and re-write the summary in the same format that I used to summarise your position, as it would make the discussion much easier.

You're right that you never said the word "magic", I'll retract that as I was trying to invoke a word that describes God's power. From what I understand of epistemology, it starts off being more general but then to understand how one would truly know something, it gets down to the detail after a while which I'd like to do. Note that we are talking about your belief so if we cannot get into the details on how you actually know if your belief is true by understanding the details surround the belief, we cannot further the conversation.

Also I don't think that I've begun debating so give me a heads up if I do and I'll stop. The whole point of epistemology isn't to debate but to analyse a belief and understand how one knows it's true.

But you've just agreed to my summary below on the general philisophical/scientific arguments below. What I was trying to say is that the philisophical/scientific arguments don't prove that the Judeo/Christian God exists, all it does is to justify that there's a certain (unknown) power out there influencing our universe.

Sorry for the delay,  this isn't quite as good as I would like, but it is a quick bulleted point list for you.

1) Occurs within history – The Gospels where not written in a far, far, away land, in a time long ago.  (Well at least not for their immediate audience.)  There where written in a particular time and place.  With the effects of it seen emanating from this time.
2) Was intended, and received as historical.  
3) Attested as true by multiple witnesses. We of course have the Four Gospels written by those who were present, and those close to them.  We also have indirect evidence from the early Churches and their writings who also testified to the same, and that they were founded and received this      information from Jesus’s disciples
4)  Many who changed their lives drastically, to both follow Jesus, and to tell the Gospel as seen in the above.
5) Further indications of truthfulness.  Criteria of embarrassment, falsifiable claims (especially for those of the time), pressure to lie, and external corroboration.  

In the end, I find that the conclusion that it is true, matches the facts better than other conspiracy theories or accusations of legend, which those that I have heard, have very little foundation.

1)  Agreed on this. The evidence for existence of the gospels is not in doubt. 
2)  Agreed on this. 
3)  Can you provide more details on the witnesses? I don't think anyone though knows who wrote the Gospels and the names given to the writers were assigned arbitrarily.

4)  So are you saying that because the gospels have benefited people then it must be true? 
5)  I don't understand this. Please explain.

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry for the delay,  this isn't quite as good as I would like, but it is a quick bulleted point list for you.

1) Occurs within history – The Gospels where not written in a far, far, away land, in a time long ago.  (Well at least not for their immediate audience.)  There where written in a particular time and place.  With the effects of it seen emanating from this time.
2) Was intended, and received as historical.  
3) Attested as true by multiple witnesses. We of course have the Four Gospels written by those who were present, and those close to them.  We also have indirect evidence from the early Churches and their writings who also testified to the same, and that they were founded and received this      information from Jesus’s disciples
4)  Many who changed their lives drastically, to both follow Jesus, and to tell the Gospel as seen in the above.
5) Further indications of truthfulness.  Criteria of embarrassment, falsifiable claims (especially for those of the time), pressure to lie, and external corroboration.  

In the end, I find that the conclusion that it is true, matches the facts better than other conspiracy theories or accusations of legend, which those that I have heard, have very little foundation.

1)  Agreed on this. The evidence for existence of the gospels is not in doubt. 
2)  Agreed on this. 
3)  Can you provide more details on the witnesses? I don't think anyone though knows who wrote the Gospels and the names given to the writers were assigned arbitrarily.

4)  So are you saying that because the gospels have benefited people then it must be true? 
5)  I don't understand this. Please explain.

3.)  Since we are talking about epistemology, I would highly recommend you ask anyone who is telling you that the Gospel authors where assigned arbitrarily "how do you know that?"  We have a number of manuscripts and copies of Gospels.  It is my understanding, that each place, where we have the top of the scroll or there is a heading on a page, the gospels are attributed to their traditional author.  There is no dispute about the authors, as well it seems there would be little reason to ascribe them to those of lesser authority (Mark, Luke)  if they are just choosing someone. 

4.) I'm afraid, that this is not the lines of which I was thinking.   I was speaking more to those had met Jesus and drastically changed their life because of it.  While it doesn't mean that it is necessarily true,  I think that it does speak towards the truth, if someone acts like it is true (especially in the face of adversity).   Paul had a fairly high position, which he gave up, to join those he was previously persecuting.  John  the brother of Jesus is reported to be skeptical early in Jesus ministry.  Many dropped what they where doing to follow Jesus.  

5.)  This also connects to the last.  Many of the claims of the new testament where done in public, they where falsifiable to those who they where preaching to.  Persecution a conspiracy theory or a lie, is more likely to fall apart, when there is pressure against it.  There is some questions about some of the tradition of martyrdom, but it is difficult to say that the early church wasn't persecuted.  Criteria of embarrassment is an indicator of truthfulness, in that it paints the teller in a poor light (which most people are unlikely to do if given a choice).   

AS well we have witness to the following outside of Biblical and Early Church writers which comes from early and often hostile writers.  From these external sources you can verify quite a bit about the story of Jesus.  -Cold Case Christianity

Jesus was born and lived in Palestine. He was born, supposedly, to a virgin and had an earthly father who was a carpenter. He was a teacher who taught that through repentance and belief, all followers would become brothers and sisters. He led the Jews away from their beliefs. He was a wise man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. He had unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He accurately predicted the future. He was persecuted by the Jews for what He said, betrayed by Judah Iskarioto. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink vinegar and wear a crown of thorns. He was crucified on the eve of the Passover and this crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the time of Tiberius. On the day of His crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there was an earthquake. Afterward, He was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later found to be empty. He appeared to His disciples resurrected from the grave and showed them His wounds. These disciples then told others Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Jesus’ disciples and followers upheld a high moral code. One of them was named Matthai. The disciples were also persecuted for their faith but were martyred without changing their claims. They met regularly to worship Jesus, even after His death.

[polymath257]

Do you accept that I have a cat?

Do you accept that I have an invisible garage dragon?

Why or why not?

No;  I accept neither on epistemological grounds.  You haven't provided sufficient evidence.

Do you agree, that between two similar scenarios given the same facts, and given the same reasons, that a coherent and consistent logical foundation should come to the same conclusion?  If not, how do you logically justify the discrepancy.

One of the clear differences in the two scenarios is that people are known to have pet cats, and commonly do so. But nobody is known to have a pet invisible dragon.

If I live in a location where cats are never seen and someone local claimed to have a pet cat, I might well ask for more evidence to substantiate their claim.

This works for more ordinary examples. When I was growing up, having pet lizards was quite rare (I knew nobody who did), so someone claiming to have one would be asked for more proof.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

No;  I accept neither on epistemological grounds.  You haven't provided sufficient evidence.

Do you agree, that between two similar scenarios given the same facts, and given the same reasons, that a coherent and consistent logical foundation should come to the same conclusion?  If not, how do you logically justify the discrepancy.

One of the clear differences in the two scenarios is that people are known to have pet cats, and commonly do so. But nobody is known to have a pet invisible dragon.

If I live in a location where cats are never seen and someone local claimed to have a pet cat, I might well ask for more evidence to substantiate their claim.

This works for more ordinary examples. When I was growing up, having pet lizards was quite rare (I knew nobody who did), so someone claiming to have one would be asked for more proof.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Thanks, we had talked about this a while ago; so I’m going to recap. I find this maxim, to be vague, subjective, inconsistent, and unjustified. Your reply is very similar to what was said before, and I really never get anything when I ask why this should held, and people get upset when I use it. Perhaps you could answer the questions I asked.

[polymath257]

One of the clear differences in the two scenarios is that people are known to have pet cats, and commonly do so. But nobody is known to have a pet invisible dragon.

If I live in a location where cats are never seen and someone local claimed to have a pet cat, I might well ask for more evidence to substantiate their claim.

This works for more ordinary examples. When I was growing up, having pet lizards was quite rare (I knew nobody who did), so someone claiming to have one would be asked for more proof.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Thanks, we had talked about this a while ago; so I’m going to recap.  I find this maxim, to be vague, subjective, inconsistent, and unjustified. Your reply is very similar to what was said before, and I really never get anything when I ask why this should held, and people get upset when I use it.  Perhaps you could answer the questions I asked.

On the contrary, it is based on statistical evidence, and uses maximum likelihood to establish when more evidence is required. It may be used inconsistently by people, but that doesn't mean the basic principle is inconsistent. And it is justified by the overall justification used for induction as a key to knowledge in the physical sciences.

I could go deeper and provide a Bayesian analysis if you would like.

The claim is that similar circumstances demand similar conclusions, but I deny that it is a case of similar circumstances when the commonality of feline pets is well-established and that of invisible dragons is not. Your claim to what type of pet you have is not the only aspect of the relevant circumstances.

[RoadRunner79]

Thanks, we had talked about this a while ago; so I’m going to recap.  I find this maxim, to be vague, subjective, inconsistent, and unjustified. Your reply is very similar to what was said before, and I really never get anything when I ask why this should held, and people get upset when I use it.  Perhaps you could answer the questions I asked.

On the contrary, it is based on statistical evidence, and uses maximum likelihood to establish when more evidence is required. It may be used inconsistently by people, but that doesn't mean the basic principle is inconsistent. And it is justified by the overall justification used for induction as a key to knowledge in the physical sciences.

I could go deeper and provide a Bayesian analysis if you would like.

The claim is that similar circumstances demand similar conclusions, but I deny that it is a case of similar circumstances when the commonality of feline pets is well-established and that of invisible dragons is not. Your claim to what type of pet you have is not the only aspect of the relevant circumstances.

I’m curious.... but this is a little bit off topic. If you would like to have an in depth discussion, perhaps it would be best to start another thread. I do like to test principles though. I’m also curious what is extraordinary evidence and how we determine what is necessary for a particular event.