The focus of this thread is to answer these questions:

1) If we're all composed of a multitude of hypocrisies between competing belief systems, whom or what should we believe?

2) How should we go from uncertainty to belief in the future?

I'll be building on an ongoing philosophical discourse to do so. I want to be clear about this: I want EVERYBODY's opinion who is willing to productively participate in the discussion.

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: I've accepted it and I'm fine with it. I think that this is the only real way to overcome it. The only people faulted by their hypocrisy are those who refuse to understand and accept this fundamental truth about human nature."

I totally agree with you. Note how I consider myself a flaming hypocrite.

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: This doesn't put all sides of ideological battles on equal footing. Not to say you said that, I'm just drawing extra perspective."

Agreed. This is where the "silent arbiter" comes into play, and I'll argue, maligns truth but internalizes its conclusions into its belief systems. And usually, will insist the belief system in no way maligns truth at all.

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: You might have much too strict a standard for hypocrisy."

Hypocrisy, GC Definition:

The evidence of a belief system whose elements are simultaneously constructed of some form of "x" and "not x."

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: There are many stances to approaching and tackling different aspects of human life. Being able to use contradictory sets can be an asset -- it is not necessarily a bad thing. It's only bad when you attribute absolute truth to one of the sets (which cannot be held consistently with contradictory sets)."

Yep. Since people are predisposed to doing so, I don't understand why that isn't the subject people focus more heavily upon. Instead, they limit their arguments to who's evil and who's good.

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: Personal belief doesn't matter. Knowledge requires truth."

Does it?

Truth isn't an absolutist, concrete thing. It's not like an aircraft carrier. Or hydrogen atoms. The world isn't composed of truth and not-truth, it's composed of ideas about the capacity to understand the varying degrees of truth within experience.

How does one realize, then, that his knowledge is reflective of an acceptable degree of truth?

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: I think people will resolve their cognitive dissonance in different ways, depending on the AMOUNT of stress that it causes. This means that, when people REALLY want there to be a pleasant afterlife for themselves, they'll challenge opposing viewpoints that'll keep them up at night. Yes, even with violence and murder if the level of stress warrants it."

So you're attributing violence to the stress level born out of cognitive dissonance?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:44 PM. Reason : ...]

9/19/2006 4:39:56 PM

i'm starting to think you're strung out on meth or something man

all this over-thought and posting bonanza

seems like drugs

9/19/2006 4:42:23 PM

Gamecat already admitted he essentially doesnt form conclusions he justs keeps asking questions

Now he's asking whom or what should we believe?

Don't believe something just because you read it on TWW, I'll tell you that much

9/19/2006 4:43:32 PM

This is a good point in time to hammer out some definitions, so let's tackle our problems with those first.

Quote :

" The evidence of a belief system whose elements are simultaneously constructed of some form of "x" and "not x.""

I'd rather call that belief system one that is not satisfiable. Hypocrisy implies some sense of morality, that somebody owns a standard for action and then violates that standard. I don't see hypocrisy as being remarkably relevant to epistemology -- it has too many ethical overtones. Epistemology should deal with what we can know and why, while ethics deals with how we should act. To me, this seems fundamentally different.

Quote :

"Does it? Truth isn't an absolutist, concrete thing. It's not like an aircraft carrier. Or hydrogen atoms. The world isn't composed of truth and not-truth, it's composed of ideas about the capacity to understand the varying degrees of truth within experience."

You're a realist, yes? This would mean that there is a world external to us. Whether we can come to know it as it is (the thing within itself) is very unlikely. This is one of the central epistemological issues -- how can we know the world as it is? Can we? To what degree?

In this sense, there is truth. Depending on the level of generality our ideas contain, our beliefs can be knowledge or not. I know there's a table in front of me that my laptop is on. If it really didn't exist, then that wouldn't be knowledge -- it'd be a belief. This is to say that knowledge does not equal belief -- such a standard would allow people to believe things into existence. Knowledge does, however, require some element of truth-in-the-world (contingent truth).

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:48 PM. Reason : (analytically false? what was i smoking)]

9/19/2006 4:47:28 PM

^^^ Dopamine can make a person stupid. It can also make them brilliant. I could care less what distinction I'm ultimately given by people on message boards.

Basically, science would say we're all permanently and inextricably strung out on the chemical, which enables us to be motivated to do pretty much anything. All I'm doing is asking people questions, and within this thread, trying to contain it so it doesn't spill out into other places.

I realize the over-thought and posting bonanza look weird. Imagine my impression when I walked into a living room watching broadcast media intentionally or unintentionally ally with Al Qaeda, without being reprimanded by government or editorial boards.

And for the record, I've never done meth.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ...]

9/19/2006 4:48:33 PM

is this a post or pm?

9/19/2006 4:57:46 PM

Quote :

"I want to be clear about this: I want EVERYBODY's opinion who is willing to productively participate in the discussion."

---

ChknMcFaggot:

Quote :

"I'd rather call that belief system one that is not satisfiable. Hypocrisy implies some sense of morality, that somebody owns a standard for action and then violates that standard. I don't see hypocrisy as being remarkably relevant to epistemology -- it has too many ethical overtones. Epistemology should deal with what we can know and why, while ethics deals with how we should act. To me, this seems fundamentally different."

I'll agree with you. All it causes me to do is re-evaluate a hypothesis, though, and ask more questions.

If a given sense of morality is based upon an epistemologically-constructed belief system whose central premise is that avoiding unsatisfiable belief systems is beneficial to an individual or whatever tribe or tribes he identifies with, what are the risks involved in popularizing it?

Quote :

"You're a realist, yes? This would mean that there is a world external to us. Whether we can come to know it as it is (the thing within itself) is very unlikely. This is one of the central epistemological issues -- how can we know the world as it is? Can we? To what degree?"

Every question I ask tends to resemble these questions for a reason. There's a veritable jungle of information and energy fields floating around us. How do people navigate within it?

Quote :

"In this sense, there is truth. Depending on the level of generality our ideas contain, our beliefs can be knowledge or not. I know there's a table in front of me that my laptop is on. If it really didn't exist, then that wouldn't be knowledge -- it'd be a belief. This is to say that knowledge does not equal belief -- such a standard would allow people to believe things into existence. Knowledge does, however, require some element of truth-in-the-world (contingent truth)."

People internalize belief as knowledge, and vice versa. Operationally, they lead to similar behaviors.

This is where even a two-bit post-modern author can wreak havoc with belief systems, though. If knowledge isn't belief, and people cannot believe things into existence, how do you explain national borders to GrumpyGOP? Or the alleged Jewluminati conspiracy to salisburyboy? Or nondirect mediums of exchange to LoneSnark?

They very much resemble belief solidified into "knowledge" in our world. (A world, I'll add, that barely even understands the word epistemology).

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ...]

9/19/2006 4:58:18 PM

If we're going to discuss ethical systems we should discuss them from both a teleological view and a uh... I guess there's an epistemological view in the sense of, why should the propositions listed in the premises be given warrant?

The epistemology of this subject feels far removed, to me.

9/19/2006 5:04:16 PM

It's far removed to me, too. But philosophy isn't known for avoiding touchy questions.

To me this is where epistemology ends and rational speculation begins. People will challenge your underlying hypotheses regardless of what you say. I examine the advancements of socio-political and soci-economic preferences for certain forms of epistemological debate over others.

9/19/2006 5:15:06 PM

Well the reason it doesn't feel very epistemological to me is because we aren't dealing so much with knowledge. We're claiming these as systems of belief. We can argue basic epistemological issues such as what deserves good warrant, but this, in any case, will not necessarily mean the beliefs that are warranted are true.

That's fine with me. We can begin the discussion of what beliefs are warranted from there.

9/19/2006 5:18:45 PM

I know more than you know I know you know I know you know I know.

9/19/2006 5:36:41 PM

If that's what this discussion looks like for you, then I feel bad for you son.

9/19/2006 5:37:45 PM

^nah, I'm not mocking the discussion, I'm just sober and bored.

The nature of knowledge has always been interesting to me……

I don't think Gamecat's questions can be answered. (Duh)



[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:44 PM. Reason :

9/19/2006 5:41:06 PM

Then engage in actual discussion.

Mocking a well-reputed, productive subsection of philosophy is a sure-fire way to make yourself look like a dumb ass.

9/19/2006 5:41:37 PM

Just about all of us could argue in an area that other people know nothing about.

But I wouldnt look down on someone for not have my same specialized knowledge, because thats how academia works, you specialize in what you like.



[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:45 PM. Reason : 234]

9/19/2006 5:44:55 PM

^^I already did.

Will you engage in the discussion that I started?
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=433830


Oh, and I do know more than you know I know you know I know you know I know.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:48 PM. Reason : wouldn't it be impossible not to?]

9/19/2006 5:47:54 PM

Quote :

"^^I already did. Will you engage in the discussion that I started? http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=433830"

Not interested. That's why I'm posting in this discussion instead. You should post things relevant to it, or you should go back to your thread.

Quote :

"Just about all of us could argue in an area that other people know nothing about."

This suggests that I make some qualitative statement or assumption about my own abilities, which I do not.

Quote :

"But I wouldnt look down on someone for not have my same specialized knowledge, because thats how academia works, you specialize in what you like."

How do you draw the conclusion that I look down on somebody for not having a knowledge of epistemology? I look down on somebody who mocks it. Mocking it typically stems from the simultaneous lack of understanding and feeling of superiority, as if one is somehow better than or beyond considering the concepts discussed (HELPFUL HINT: You're not.)

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 5:57 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 5:52:13 PM

Quick question for hempster. Why, since the question can't be answered, do people try to?

9/19/2006 6:12:29 PM

Unask question #2 and you'll have an answer.

9/19/2006 6:19:07 PM

I think question two should be reworded as:

"How should we adduce reasons to a belief such as to make it more certain?"

That being, what sorts of reasons provide justification for beliefs. It's a very valid question, and refusing to answer it doesn't suddenly synthesize knowledge. You might be able to deduce an answer, but you can deduce an answer in any sufficiently small, closed system.

9/19/2006 6:30:07 PM

Quote :

"Well the reason it doesn't feel very epistemological to me is because we aren't dealing so much with knowledge."

This is frankly why I think people mistrust philosophers. Most lack a demonstrable understanding of most people in public discourse. But knowledge and belief are intertwined, and that fact must be recognized before any real rational philosophizing about what historical record lies behind our current worldviews.

Quote :

"We're claiming these as systems of belief. We can argue basic epistemological issues such as what deserves good warrant, but this, in any case, will not necessarily mean the beliefs that are warranted are true."

Thanks for outlining the terms. That's fundamentally why I have to use very long sentences to explain my views to people. Otherwise, I'm likely to offend them by not understanding their terms.

Most people seem not to grasp basic epistemological issues of what deserves good warrant. You can usually notice this by listening to them argue, reading their debates, or reading the news. Ultimately, in arguing for or against a specific ideological viewpoint an individual is caught in the intellectual wild without his armor: accurate information. Lacking that, he is faced with the unknown, at which point he makes a binary decision:

1) Accept the unknowable aspects of existence, or
2) Reject the unknowable aspects of existence.

From there, the arbiters of truth must vigorously debate what "is" and "is" not rational for an individual to do at that point. From there, ensuring that the definition survives forever seems to be the aim of most philosophies. But since speculating beyond the data of existence leads to illogically founded conclusions, all we are left with are uncertainties and a variety of philosophically plausible means of speculating to explain them.

Beyond there, it's short order before he has moved into the realm of speculating beyond the data, and usually for emotional, or at least irrational reasons. This isn't dangerous in any absolute regard. It's only dangerous insofar as probabilistic, relatistically-dependent dangers exist in our lives. Perhaps some kid like salisburyboy discovers The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which I'm convinced is a forgery), and grows up to be Hitler. Perhaps he grows up detest faceless fascism, instead, and remains relatively mindful of the degree of secrecy present within given societies.

I'd say either case is more attributable in many ways but not all to socially distorted influences on the part of the observers and actors within a given interaction between their philosophical orientation systems. This must be more than established before I can begin to reasonably speculate further.

9/19/2006 6:35:15 PM

Quote :

"But knowledge and belief are intertwined, and that fact must be recognized before any real rational philosophizing about what historical record lies behind our current worldviews."

Yes, belief is a subset of knowledge.

Quote :

"Lacking that, he is faced with the unknown, at which point he makes a binary decision: 1) Accept the unknowable aspects of existence, or 2) Reject the unknowable aspects of existence."

This can probably be restated as "he chooses to speculate or to refrain judgment" for clarity's sake. Your way is just as good, though.

Your post makes a few good points, but I think it gets ahead of the issue too much. Right now, we need to define more than good reason to believe in something. We must also begin to understand how this reason might be "transfered" to propositions through inferences. Additionally, we must ask if there are any non-inferential bits of knowledge (a proposition that you know due to the nature of the proposition). Philosophers are in disagreement as to whether non-inferential knowledge can exist.

So let's break this down cleanly, we must be concerned with:

1) What constitutes a good reason for a belief.
2) How a good reason for a belief "emerges" (inferentially, through some emergent property in adducing reasons for a proposition, or non-inferentially, through some intrinsic property of the proposition itself).

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 6:55 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 6:53:42 PM

Quote :

"Why, since the question can't be answered, do people try to?"

In oversimplified terms, journey vs. destination ?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 7:01 PM. Reason :

9/19/2006 7:00:24 PM

Quote :

"hempster: In oversimplified terms, journey vs. destination ?"

As philosophically valid an explanation as any other. Thanks for recognizing that.

---

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: Yes, belief is a subset of knowledge."

A subset, or component of?

The two appear to have more of a cyclic effect on one another. An individual's belief is informed by societal knowledge. That knowledge was based on societal beliefs.

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: Philosophers are in disagreement as to whether non-inferential knowledge can exist."

Clearly, I'm one of them.

Quote :

"1) What constitutes a good reason for a belief."

Excellent question to ask. Utilitarianism, a priori, other, or varying degrees of both all attempt to tackle. I'll refrain for answering in certitudes from here, just my haphazardly personal degrees certitude. The synergetic advantages between systems of accurate information sharing between the variously defined components within a given society.

Quote :

"2) How a good reason for a belief "emerges" (inferentially, through some emergent property in adducing reasons for a proposition, or non-inferentially, through some intrinsic property of the proposition itself)."

Ultimately, I'd argue all epistemelogically-grounded systems ultimately develop according to inferential systems. All but Pyrrhonism.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 7:11 PM. Reason : ...]

9/19/2006 7:11:13 PM

any philosophy so reliant on use of linguistic semantics has very little value.

case in point

Quote :

"A subset, or component of?"

9/19/2006 7:17:30 PM

Quote :

"A subset, or component of?"

All propositions that are knowledge are believed.

Quote :

"The two appear to have more of a cyclic effect on one another. An individual's belief is informed by societal knowledge. That knowledge was based on societal beliefs."

What distinguishes societal knowledge from belief for you?

Quote :

"Clearly, I'm one of them."

You believe all knowledge is inferential upon other knowledge? Are you aware of the infinite regress problem? If so, how do you suggest that you have solved it, relying only on inferential knowledge?

Quote :

"Excellent question to ask. Utilitarianism, a priori, other, or varying degrees of both all attempt to tackle. I'll refrain for answering in certitudes from here, just my haphazardly personal degrees certitude. The synergetic advantages between systems of accurate information sharing between the variously defined components within a given society."

Can you structure this into a definition for a reason?

Quote :

"Ultimately, I'd argue all epistemelogically-grounded systems ultimately develop according to inferential systems. All but Pyrrhonism."

Sometimes. Some think there's a stopping point for inferences, a foundation of knowledge (some special sort of proposition -- either perceptually grounded or analytic in nature).

EDIT:

Quote :

"any philosophy so reliant on use of linguistic semantics has very little value."

First of all, to judge an entire field of philosophy based solely on two people with the level of expertise (or lack thereof) that Gamecat and I have is silly.

Second of all, I don't think the distiction of "component of" and "subset of" in the case of all propositions considered makes a difference semantically, as sets are defined by their members. However, this attempt by Gamecat to seek extra clarity says nothing about the field in general. Your attempt to belittle epistemology because you think a question Gamecat asked about my terminology was stupid exposes your gross ignorance.

ANOTHER EDIT:
Why do you think that philosophy shouldn't be as precise as possible? Why would that be a weakness?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 7:25 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 7:18:05 PM

Quote :

" First of all, to judge an entire field of philosophy based solely on two people "

this is exactly what i am talking about. i was very clear about saying the basis was not two people, it was the reliance on liguistic semantics. this was all 100% pointless. nothing productive was done by all these word games.

9/19/2006 8:17:52 PM

There weren't word games at play here. There's a concern with precise definitions, and with making sure that you understand exactly what is being said.

What's wrong with that? Why does it render something useless? For philosophy, shouldn't it render it MORE valuable?

Why is it you're so ignorant about everything involving philosophy, yet still feel qualified to post about it? You should open a book and learn what's out there.

EDIT: I can provide a list of readings for you to get started on basically any subdiscipline of philosophy you'd like, just let me know. I'm not in any sense an "expert" of this stuff, at least I don't consider myself one, but I feel that I have a good grasp of the material.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 8:31 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 8:22:03 PM

Quote :

"There weren't word games at play here. There's a concern with precise definitions"

and that concern is counter-productive. yea you two are such experts of philosophy but one of your didnt know the difference between subset and component. i am not oposing exactness, redefining words so they suit your needs doesnt do that. i could pick apart any argument on the basis of dictionary definitions or academic definitions all day long.

9/19/2006 8:35:18 PM

Quote :

"and that concern is counter-productive."

So we shouldn't be concerned with the precise arguments at stake?

Quote :

"yea you two are such experts of philosophy but one of your didnt know the difference between subset and component."

1) My own quote:

Quote :

"I'm not in any sense an "expert" of this stuff, at least I don't consider myself one, but I feel that I have a good grasp of the material."

2) Gamecat was asking for clarification of that point. I'll forgive him for not recalling the axiom of extentionality, here. It doesn't invalidate the rest of his reasoning, at least not to my perception. I'd ask you what you think, but you apparently have no comprehension of the material (why else would you have latched onto such a pointless section of this thread?).

Quote :

"i am not oposing exactness, redefining words so they suit your needs doesnt do that."

It's not a matter of redefining words to my needs. It's a problem with finding precise enough definitions that will fulfill a reasonable picture of the situation. We determine what's reasonable and not reasonable by engaging in rational arguments.

Quote :

"i could pick apart any argument on the basis of dictionary definitions or academic definitions all day long."

And you'd be missing the entire point of what's at stake here. The definition of knowledge, especially illustrating how it stands in relation to belief, is a very important philosophical issue. It's what separates your beloved science from unjustified religious beliefs, or belief in magic.

9/19/2006 8:41:07 PM

Thanks but I dont need to know the definition of knowledge to know what to believe.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 8:47 PM. Reason : 8]

9/19/2006 8:46:46 PM

So you base what you believe on some arbitrary, magical standard?

You don't sound so scientific about this anymore, Josh.

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 8:52:11 PM

yes. and everyone else's beliefs are based on individual discretion. they must.

9/19/2006 8:55:11 PM

Individual discretion based upon universal concepts. Just like there are essential properties to every existence. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Did a philosopher touch you when you were a little boy or something? I don't understand your aversion to philosophical thought as a scientist, owing every ounce of your progress to the foundation of science: philosophy.

9/19/2006 8:56:41 PM

I am not a scientist. I dont have an aversion to philosophy.

Quote :

"Individual discretion based upon universal concepts. "

Not at all. I dont have to base my beliefs on anything objective.

9/19/2006 9:04:31 PM

Folks, ChknMcFaggot is recognizing a fundamentally correct point. Of course we should be concerned with the precise arguments at stake. The counterproductivity is, as I appreciate that you realize, when we fail to realize that more often than not the "devil" in our society can sometimes very much be in such details. Neurolinguistics govern much of our society's mechanisms much in the way lubricants/frictional forces govern the actions of machines.

Certainly, a sitting Presidential administration knows this today as the definitions of many of his words (i.e. "torture," "evil," "humane," "dignity," "security," "liberty," "freedom") have been called into question by many different intelligent, rational, non-biased people. Finally, a clearly unilateralist president has been reigned into the idea of multilateralism by having his definition of at least one of those words come into play.

Welcome the phase one of progress into the world of Globalization folks. We're now diplomatically introduced to the international whims of definitions for the next few centuries. The cowboy has surrendered to the legislators and judges. It's all up to linguists to figure out how to explain or react to executive actions for the next several years when confronted by international ideas about what "dignity" and "torture" really are. And their definitions will be as real as the "waterboarding" technique, I assure you.

If more people realized this particular aspect of perspectivism and relativism, I'd fear less for our future when I take a deterministic viewpoint to consider a particular hypothesis about the future. Everyone wonders about that. Even the kinds who are concerned with precise definitions.

I assert that it is the fact that cultures lose that concept AND the ability to be philosophically aware of their own ignorance that underlies or motivates many social ills that haunt not only our present culture, but all of history.

What you said here: "I'm not in any sense an "expert" of this stuff, at least I don't consider myself one, but I feel that I have a good grasp of the material."

That's the kind of thing I've been waiting to see spring from the Soap Box like a little alien from a chest in the movie, well...Aliens. Who the hell are these people, generally speaking, that our society refers to (or defers to) as experts? What underlies their beliefs and assumptions? What are their unstated assumptions?

In philosophical terms, what gives their ideas the credulity from society that they are granted? What is the currency? Fear? Money? Information? Technology? Logic? What's the distribution?

Are experts simply magicians using smoke and mirrors? Or do any of them know what the 'proverbial fuck' they're talking about?

This underscores the modern media debate. I'm not so sure it's liberal bias or conservative bias at stake in that argument. It's rational vs. irrational bias.

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: It's not a matter of redefining words to my needs. It's a problem with finding precise enough definitions that will fulfill a reasonable picture of the situation. We determine what's reasonable and not reasonable by engaging in rational arguments."

Thank God. Another person who's worth arguing it out with in The Soap Box. Maybe now I can keep this shit in one thread.

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: And you'd be missing the entire point of what's at stake here. The definition of knowledge, especially illustrating how it stands in relation to belief, is a very important philosophical issue. It's what separates your beloved science from unjustified religious beliefs, or belief in magic."

Game, motherfucking, on.

That is at it's most fundamental (and almost incoherent) basis, my point. And has been since writing On Anecdotes. How does anything become knowledge from ignorance?

The best I could understand of most people's responses were any combination of: (1) popularity, (2) historical scrutiny by various interacting forces, and (3) lack of alternatives.

What a truly inefficient way for the mass culture of "humans" within any given tribe to be internalizing information!! From a philosophical viewpoint, it became obvious, quickly that much of the extremism we see in the world stems from the same thing: a lack of accurate information being disseminated through the proper channels.

Without it, people spread ridiculous ideas like salisburyboy's presumably anti-Semitic interpretations of 9/11. While philosophically difficult to invalidate, his hypothesis is--as most of you suspect--still pretty fucking farfetched. But a philosophically curious person like myself wanted to know why then, was it so difficult to argue an argument with him to any kind of conclusion?

The answer hit me like a ton of bricks while I was thinking up rational questions to ask him. How the hell does he know the intelligence services haven't deceived him? How does he know that intelligence involvement, even if the Mossad knew anything about 9/11 we didn't, had to have been malicious?

Like a weatherman, I'm going to say the future conversation (since he didn't continue it, we've evidently got to speculate--sorry--beyond the data) would look like this:

Protest: "People don't know what the intelligence agencies of the world are up to."
Response: Big deal.

Protest: "They're classifying shit."
Response: Have been for decades before 9/11. What made you wake up?

Protest: "This video tape might be an intelligence agency's forgery!"
Response: Right. Could be. And?

All he did to argue with people was challenge their underlying assumptions. Namely, that they are the most trustworthy arbiters of truth in the world. Just like salisburyboy did. If you went at him by challenging his underlying assumptions and forcing him to actually articulate a hypothesis within reasonable constraints (that he's afraid to argue with, I might add), he had nothing but the most basic bunch of speculation to actually explain himself. In other words, nothing any rational expert would ever accept to entertain such a ridiculous hypothesis.

To extend from that into future debates, it was obvious language had a lot to do with it. The purest form of it, as the early Hebrews and oddly even many of today's more rational philosophers agreed, was logic. Don't believe me skeptics? Grab a Bible and read the first sentence. In the beginning was "the word." In Hellenic Greek, from which the original gospels were translated, that word is logic.

Where people draw distinctions of language is more at play when you look at the problems of the following fields: history, any science, theology. In other words, the three paradigms I'd say most directly inform people's self-concepts of Where They Stand® in the philosophically ambiguous jungle we all live in.

In the terms of one of the greatest philosophers I've ever had the pleasure of knowing (Dr. Nacoste), I just want to make sure everyone here understands where one another "is calling from."

---

So, ChknMcFaggot et. al., whose belief systems should we trust?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ...]

9/19/2006 10:10:41 PM

Gamecat sometimes I think you blur philosophy with psychology, which I naturally object to in this kind of discussion.

Quote :

"The best I could understand of most people's responses were any combination of: (1) popularity, (2) historical scrutiny by various interacting forces, and (3) lack of alternatives."

These are all poor choices.

I believe that there are things we know in virtue of the proposition. These non-inferential bits of knowledge can transfer their warrant to justify other beliefs inferentially.

9/19/2006 10:51:43 PM

No amount of experimentation can ever prove someone to be completely right, however a single experiment can easily prove someone to be completely wrong. Knowing this, no matter what you believe to be true, a healthy amount of disappointment is natural when evaluating your own reasoning. Remember to have faith in the people that are forever seeking the truth, and doubt those people who claim to have found a truth. The long and the short of my personal philosophy on truth is this... believe what you think is right, because in the end, the truth can only be discovered by those who seek it despite all odds.

9/20/2006 12:00:37 AM

Quote :

"however a single experiment can easily prove someone to be completely wrong."

well yea if you throw out the entire scientific process, look up reproducibility.

9/20/2006 12:55:34 AM

^ Not completely wrong, just wrong.

[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 1:32 AM. Reason : typo]

9/20/2006 1:31:11 AM

now i could either say here that science cant prove things, only disprove, or i can say that yes in fact you must reproduce an experiment to validate it or assign ANY meaning, and i mean ANY meaning. one single experiment shows NOTHING untils its reproduced (prefferably, by someone else). you can disagree with me, but youre still objectively wrong.



[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 1:44 AM. Reason : 34]

9/20/2006 1:43:23 AM

Reproducability in science is crucial. As far as a logical or philosophical argument or definition, however, a counter-example is devastating.

9/20/2006 8:01:04 AM

and single experiment =/= a counter example

i thought you were big on exact definitions?

9/20/2006 10:29:54 AM

A single experiment can prove something to be wrong. Just because you have to replicate the experiment to know that it's valid, does not interfere with the fact that that initial experiment did prove something to be wrong.

[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 12:06 PM. Reason : -]

9/20/2006 12:04:55 PM

Quote :

"and single experiment =/= a counter example i thought you were big on exact definitions?"

Where did I say a single experiment is a counter example? You're not a very good reader.

Quote :

"Just because you have to replicate the experiment to know that it's valid, does not interfere with the fact that that initial experiment did prove something to be wrong."

Scientifically, it suggests something to be wrong. Reproducability is important because it can expose some contigent factor that artificially affected the experiment.

[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2006 12:19:18 PM

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: Gamecat sometimes I think you blur philosophy with psychology, which I naturally object to in this kind of discussion."

How are the fields mutually exclusive in the first place?

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: These are all poor choices."

I agree.

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: I believe that there are things we know in virtue of the proposition."

But do we know them? Or do we presume to?

I'm a little leery on the philosophically debateable matter of the proposition. Applied to historically propagated anecdotes, for instance, how do you respond to the idea of the accuracy of information being "lost" or at least "indeterminant" as it passes through translation?

Just for clarification (haha ), could you explain or give an example of what you mean by "virtue of the proposition?" I want to make sure we've got a definitionally level playing field. It's been a long time since I've formally debated such matters.

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: These non-inferential bits of knowledge can transfer their warrant to justify other beliefs inferentially."

To simplify philosophically into an example: the many alleged non-inferentially derived experiences of the infinite transfer their warrant to other beliefs (i.e. God, aliens, angels, psychics, etc) through the inferences of the actor.

Am I close?

9/20/2006 3:41:47 PM

Quote :

"As far as a logical or philosophical argument or definition, however, a counter-example is devastating."

yea and such is the inherent problem with philosophy, people almost always lean toward the belief that was argued last. i both insulted philosophy and answered question 1. somebody better post a 3 page long reply.

[Edited on September 20, 2006 at 4:28 PM. Reason : yukyu]

9/20/2006 4:28:12 PM

I must've missed where you did either.

9/20/2006 4:31:10 PM

thats not my problem.

9/20/2006 4:37:35 PM

Quote :

"yea and such is the inherent problem with philosophy, people almost always lean toward the belief that was argued last. i both insulted philosophy and answered question 1. somebody better post a 3 page long reply."

Why yes, philosophers tend to accept well-reasoned beliefs that refute older, less well-reasoned beliefs.

You didn't answer question 1. You haven't even begun to construct an argument that addresses question 1. Try again. I'm not sure whether the level of this topic is simply above your intelligence, or if you're simply not trying. But if you actually ARE smart enough to understand this material, let me offer you some advice: stop shooting from the hip.

Quote :

"How are the fields mutually exclusive in the first place?"

Psychology is a scientific field that requires empirical observation. While our experiences, no doubt, play into our philosophy as well (especially in Kant's view of the synthetic a priori judgment), philosophy's problems exist at a more fundamental level than psychology. That being said, psychology cannot be used to answer philosophical questions -- philosophical problems render psychological explanation useless until a philosophical solution re-allows the use of psychological explanation. A drawn-out example: we cannot use facts about our brain or its functioning to explain how we can know things if we doubt what we know in the first place -- this is because we know psychology through a method which is currently in doubt.

I hope that was clear enough.

Quote :

"But do we know them? Or do we presume to?"

There are statements we know in virtue of the structure of the proposition -- those being analytic a priori statements. We can always poll our internal mental state, and we're always right about it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's also argued that enough warrant can come through empirical observation as well, either through:

1) a special kind of "perceptive inference" that allows one to believe that what they see is, most likely, what currently exists there

or

2) a belief that when I see X, that it is a good reason to believe that seeing X is symptomatic of X existing before me. This belief is formed through past experience, but does not regress to that past experience. The current belief that allows one to think that what they see is what is there is formed by previous experience, but does not regress to it as a direct "reason". Even so, there's still a stopping point when you regress backwards. It's like saying "When X obtains, I perceive that X obtains" or something to that agree. Why does X obtain? It's a statement about the world -- it just is. I might have muddled that up a bit.

Either way, the answer to your question is yes -- we do know at least some things. Even if you take an extremely skeptical view and claim that all sensory input is fully deceptive all of the time, then I'd tell you that we can still know analytic a priori judgments in and of themselves.

Case in point: provide me your reasoning for believing that all things that last exactly an hour last exactly sixty minutes. Why do you believe it? I'd argue you believe it simply because you understand what is being said.

Quote :

"To simplify philosophically into an example: the many alleged non-inferentially derived experiences of the infinite transfer their warrant to other beliefs (i.e. God, aliens, angels, psychics, etc) through the inferences of the actor. Am I close?"

No no, I'm not suggesting some Kantian "moral necessity" or anything similar to make us accept the existence of the noumenal world. I'm talking about things that are quite phenomenal. Non-inferential knowledge is knowledge that you know simply because you know it -- but this isn't to suggest that "anything goes". We're talking about very basic things here, like very basic perceptive inferences and analytic a priori judgments.

9/20/2006 4:43:17 PM