Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should  not just be a  classroom exercise.


I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?

The problem I see on why people don't think critically is due to how they are taught in school. Schools mainly try to get students to memorise facts without teaching the to properly assess facts and evidence in a critical way.

When I started trying to do street epistemology, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed with trying to improve people's rational thinking. It wasn't until the last few posts where polymath257 mentioned statistical evidence to determine what is ordinary and what is extraordinary that one piece of the puzzle came together.

I had the statistical evidence in the back of my mind when I was reply to your questions earlier in the thread but couldn't articulate it properly, however it is an appropriate term to use to gauge what is ordinary and what isn't.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

I don't know that I see the connection between improving peoples rational thinking and polymaths mention of Bayes Theorem.  This seems like the answers to the two separate questions, and I'm not seeing the relationship.   Are you saying, that you are just starting street epistemology, and where not sure how to proceed with the questions I asked, until polymath reminded you of statistics?     I'm sorry, but I don't think that I am understanding what you mean here properly (or the connection).   

As to using statistics, I would agree, that they are good for telling us whether something is common or rare.  The patterns that I have noticed from past experience and searches however don't bode well for it's use in regards to the extraordinary claims mantra.  However, we will see what the evidence and reason in this instance has to say.  Do you think that PolyMath has to overcome my knowledge of previous patterns of occurrence , in order for the claim to be reasonable?  Or is only necessary to demonstrate that it is reasonable  rather than extra reasonable in order to be believed?

As well, now that you have been reminded of the Bayes Theorem and want to discuss it, I would be happy to entertain anything you would like to add as well.

[curiosne]

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.

3) From what I've read (wikipeadia, Bart Earlman Blog, Quora, etc), the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John are anonymous writings with the names being given the them as a Christian tradition. The identity of authorship for the Gospel of Mark is though being debated still. Would you agree with this?

4) But again, if your evidence does not speak towards its truth, should it be discussed at all? I can also give several examples where people were influenced by religious leaders drastically changed people's lives. I'm an ex-Buddhist so Buddha comes to mind where he has also influenced several kings and nobles.

5) This point needs more research from my end. I'll get back to you on it.

[RoadRunner79]

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

3) From what I've read (wikipeadia, Bart Earlman Blog, Quora, etc), the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John are anonymous writings with the names being given the them as a Christian tradition. The identity of authorship for the Gospel of Mark is though being debated still. Would you agree with this?

4) But again, if your evidence does not speak towards its truth, should it be discussed at all? I can also give several examples where people were influenced by religious leaders drastically changed people's lives. I'm an ex-Buddhist so Buddha comes to mind where he has also influenced several kings and nobles.

5) This point needs more research from my end. I'll get back to you on it.

3.)   No I wouldn't..... and I would ask how they came to the conclusion that they where anonymous.  The only reasons I heard are not very good, while all the information for these books seem to point to the traditional authors without dispute to anyone else.  

4.)  If it gives us reason towards a belief, then doesn't that mean that it speaks towards the truth?  It doesn't have to get you to 100% to your destination, but getting you a little further down the road is still helpful. 

I believe I asked before;   do you think that you need 100% certainty in order to know (or have justified belief)?   Do you believe that others can testify to their knowledge, and thus you gain knowledge that you did not personally experience?

[curiosne]

3) From what I've read (wikipeadia, Bart Earlman Blog, Quora, etc), the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John are anonymous writings with the names being given the them as a Christian tradition. The identity of authorship for the Gospel of Mark is though being debated still. Would you agree with this?

4) But again, if your evidence does not speak towards its truth, should it be discussed at all? I can also give several examples where people were influenced by religious leaders drastically changed people's lives. I'm an ex-Buddhist so Buddha comes to mind where he has also influenced several kings and nobles.

5) This point needs more research from my end. I'll get back to you on it.

3.)   No I wouldn't..... and I would ask how they came to the conclusion that they where anonymous.  The only reasons I heard are not very good, while all the information for these books seem to point to the traditional authors without dispute to anyone else.  

4.)  If it gives us reason towards a belief, then doesn't that mean that it speaks towards the truth?  It doesn't have to get you to 100% to your destination, but getting you a little further down the road is still helpful. 

I believe I asked before;   do you think that you need 100% certainty in order to know (or have justified belief)?   Do you believe that others can testify to their knowledge, and thus you gain knowledge that you did not personally experience?

3) The Matthew, Luke and John gospels do not mention names of their authors in the actual writing. I am sure this is actually a fact which is not in dispute by the clergy.

4) Speaking from a completely objective view, no. Reasons could have unfounded claims. The claims here are what should be analysed and any influence the claims have on your belief need to be discarded until the claims are proved true. It is unhelpful that the claims should sway your opinion as then you will most likely become unbiased in your assessment of the truthfulness of the underlying the claim.

I think I've answered this one (not sure) but I don't need 100% certainty to believe in something just sufficient evidence to get me to a high confidence level.

Let's talk about the principle that we agreed earlier:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity/quality of evidence for a claim where you have low confidence of it's truth
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

Others can testify to their knowledge but again depending on what the context will be depends on how sufficient their testimonies are.

If I have low confidence of the truth of something then just someone's testimony would not get me to a high confidence level, no matter how much that person believes what they are saying is true, Eg I would not accept testimony of truth from an alien abductee as sufficient evidence, would you?.

[RoadRunner79]

3.)   No I wouldn't..... and I would ask how they came to the conclusion that they where anonymous.  The only reasons I heard are not very good, while all the information for these books seem to point to the traditional authors without dispute to anyone else.  

4.)  If it gives us reason towards a belief, then doesn't that mean that it speaks towards the truth?  It doesn't have to get you to 100% to your destination, but getting you a little further down the road is still helpful. 

I believe I asked before;   do you think that you need 100% certainty in order to know (or have justified belief)?   Do you believe that others can testify to their knowledge, and thus you gain knowledge that you did not personally experience?

3) The Matthew, Luke and John gospels do not mention names of their authors in the actual writing. I am sure this is actually a fact which is not in dispute by the clergy.

4) Speaking from a completely objective view, no. Reasons could have unfounded claims. The claims here are what should be analysed and any influence the claims have on your belief need to be discarded until the claims are proved true. It is unhelpful that the claims should sway your opinion as then you will most likely become unbiased in your assessment of the truthfulness of the underlying the claim.

I think I've answered this one (not sure) but I don't need 100% certainty to believe in something just sufficient evidence to get me to a high confidence level.

Let's talk about the principle that we agreed earlier:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity/quality of evidence for a claim where you have low confidence of it's truth
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

3.)  Yes, I would agree.   However it doesn't follow that because an author doesn't mention himself in the body of the text, that it is anonymous.   I am currently reading a biography, and the author doesn't speak about himself much at all.  

4.)  This doesn't make sense to me.   It seems to me, that you are saying that evidence which points me towards a particular direction, but doesn't count, until it is proven to be true, because that may bias me... .is this correct?  I thought that evidence was suppose to bias you!

Others can testify to their knowledge but again depending on what the context will be depends on how sufficient their testimonies are.

This I wanted to separate out.  What do you mean, about what the context is and testimonies being less sufficient.  

If I have low confidence of the truth of something then just someone's testimony would not get me to a high confidence level, no matter how much that person believes what they are saying is true, Eg I would not accept testimony of truth from an alien abductee as sufficient evidence, would you?.

It sounds like you are starting out with bias, and the previous concept of not allowing evidence, until it's proven.   Forgive me, but this seems like a good way to ignore what you do not want to hear rather than critical thinking.  For aliens, I think that you can make some arguments against them, which give it a little to overcome.  However while I'm skeptical about aliens I don't' how you would justify a need to provide more reason to believe in them other than sufficient evidence or that they should need to overcome me stacking the deck against them.  You talk about being objective and unbiased.... I think that you may want to do some self examination, as you appear to be inserting bias and subjectivity quite a bit.

[curiosne]

3) The Matthew, Luke and John gospels do not mention names of their authors in the actual writing. I am sure this is actually a fact which is not in dispute by the clergy.

4) Speaking from a completely objective view, no. Reasons could have unfounded claims. The claims here are what should be analysed and any influence the claims have on your belief need to be discarded until the claims are proved true. It is unhelpful that the claims should sway your opinion as then you will most likely become unbiased in your assessment of the truthfulness of the underlying the claim.

I think I've answered this one (not sure) but I don't need 100% certainty to believe in something just sufficient evidence to get me to a high confidence level.

Let's talk about the principle that we agreed earlier:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity/quality of evidence for a claim where you have low confidence of it's truth
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

3.)  Yes, I would agree.   However it doesn't follow that because an author doesn't mention himself in the body of the text, that it is anonymous.   I am currently reading a biography, and the author doesn't speak about himself much at all.  

4.)  This doesn't make sense to me.   It seems to me, that you are saying that evidence which points me towards a particular direction, but doesn't count, until it is proven to be true, because that may bias me... .is this correct?  I thought that evidence was suppose to bias you!

Others can testify to their knowledge but again depending on what the context will be depends on how sufficient their testimonies are.

This I wanted to separate out.  What do you mean, about what the context is and testimonies being less sufficient.  

If I have low confidence of the truth of something then just someone's testimony would not get me to a high confidence level, no matter how much that person believes what they are saying is true, Eg I would not accept testimony of truth from an alien abductee as sufficient evidence, would you?.

It sounds like you are starting out with bias, and the previous concept of not allowing evidence, until it's proven.   Forgive me, but this seems like a good way to ignore what you do not want to hear rather than critical thinking.  For aliens, I think that you can make some arguments against them, which give it a little to overcome.  However while I'm skeptical about aliens I don't' how you would justify a need to provide more reason to believe in them other than sufficient evidence or that they should need to overcome me stacking the deck against them.  You talk about being objective and unbiased.... I think that you may want to do some self examination, as you appear to be inserting bias and subjectivity quite a bit.

3) The biography should have an inner cover or pages at the end of it explaining who the person in the biography is. Is there something similar for the Gospels?

4) Yeah, that was confusing and a hasty answer on my part. Let me restate it. I won't write their reasons off completely but I would need to know their reasons for their drastic life change. Is it due to Jesus's magic? Charisma? A cult following? If it's just because Jesus was like a life coach and positively impacted someone, then it doesn't give me any confidence that the Gospels are true. Look at what L. Ron Hubbard did with Scientology where he's had a positive impact of many people, it doesn't give me any confidence that Scientology is true.

The context is whether the claim is something that has occurred in reality and we have evidence for it. The less frequent the occurrence the more evidence that I'd need.

Yes, I'm biased. But biased towards what has occurred in reality and has been proven to be true.

Can you explain to me though why you're skeptical about aliens? How do you assign the confidence levels of a particular claim? I still do not have an understanding of your logic?

[RoadRunner79]

3.)  Yes, I would agree.   However it doesn't follow that because an author doesn't mention himself in the body of the text, that it is anonymous.   I am currently reading a biography, and the author doesn't speak about himself much at all.  

4.)  This doesn't make sense to me.   It seems to me, that you are saying that evidence which points me towards a particular direction, but doesn't count, until it is proven to be true, because that may bias me... .is this correct?  I thought that evidence was suppose to bias you!


This I wanted to separate out.  What do you mean, about what the context is and testimonies being less sufficient.  


It sounds like you are starting out with bias, and the previous concept of not allowing evidence, until it's proven.   Forgive me, but this seems like a good way to ignore what you do not want to hear rather than critical thinking.  For aliens, I think that you can make some arguments against them, which give it a little to overcome.  However while I'm skeptical about aliens I don't' how you would justify a need to provide more reason to believe in them other than sufficient evidence or that they should need to overcome me stacking the deck against them.  You talk about being objective and unbiased.... I think that you may want to do some self examination, as you appear to be inserting bias and subjectivity quite a bit.

3) The biography should have an inner cover or pages at the end of it explaining who the person in the biography is. Is there something similar for the Gospels?

Yes, this is what I was saying before.  We have many manuscripts, and in each case where we have the top or cover where the attribution of the author would be, we find that it points to the traditional author.  Now we do not have the originals for the Gospels, but that it not uncommon for documents of that time period.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionpro...ymous.html

4) Yeah, that was confusing and a hasty answer on my part. Let me restate it. I won't write their reasons off completely but I would need to know their reasons for their drastic life change. Is it due to Jesus's magic? Charisma? A cult following? If it's just because Jesus was like a life coach and positively impacted someone, then it doesn't give me any confidence that the Gospels are true. Look at what L. Ron Hubbard did with Scientology where he's had a positive impact of many people, it doesn't give me any confidence that Scientology is true.

The context is whether the claim is something that has occurred in reality and we have evidence for it. The less frequent the occurrence the more evidence that I'd need.

I would agree, if you are saying we need to critically examine them. It seems that too often in these discussions people want to go to one extreme or the other, either blind trust or blatant denial.    Unless you are advocating one of these extreme positions, then I agree, that it is not quite as simple and requires some critical thinking of the facts particular to the case.  

This part about the frequency of occurrence requiring more evidence I think needs justification on your part.   I don't see how this follows.  Why would evidence that is sufficient for one thing, not be sufficient in another similar thing.  For the sake of discussion lets isolate frequency of occurrence as the only difference.   From my experience, when examining something that does not occur frequently, then it may be difficult to acquire the necessary evidence.  So if you are using extraordinary in the same sense, then what evidence you do have from an extraordinary event is extraordinary often evidence, seeing that there was less opportunity to produce/gather that evidence. 

Yes, I'm biased. But biased towards what has occurred in reality and has been proven to be true.

Can you explain to me though why you're skeptical about aliens? How do you assign the confidence levels of a particular claim? I still do not have an understanding of your logic?

If the question is if it is true, then how can you be biased before hand?   That seems like a logical issue to me.

I am skeptical about aliens, because I am not yet convinced by the evidence that has been presented to me.

As to how I assign a particular confidence level.  I think that I did explain before, that I believe putting numbers to this type of thing is somewhat artificial, and perhaps a little different than what you are thinking.  What I am looking for is a weight of evidence, which is sufficient to demonstrate the claim.   I don't know that I have thought about this overall confidence level, in the way that you have.  My focus is more on the principles, the logic behind those principles, and being consistent with those principles.  How would you answer this question of how you assign confidence levels?