But science will show you the path taken to reach a conclusion, and you have the option to take the path if you wish instead of just relying on the words of others.
Religion? Not so much. It’s not really possible to see someone else’s vision.
I wasn’t really talking about religion; I was just wondering if “education” counted as a separate path to knowledge from empiricism.
It’s the path most of us have followed when it comes to science! Sure, there are a lot of “amateur scientists” out here, who’ve played around a little. But when it comes to the gravitational effects of spinning black holes…we pretty much have to take someone else’s word for it.
Does this count as a valid source of knowledge? And, yeah, it depends on empiricism to begin with. Somebody actually had to split the atom. But the rest of us, who never have, know about it, without ever having done it.
I’m just probing at The Hamster King’s question, “Are there really ANY other viable epistemologies? Is there any other justified way of forming knowledge about the world besides some form of empiricism?”
Is “Education” an answer to that question?
It’s still the same answer-when education/science gives the answers, it shows the work on the back of the test. You don’t have to take anyone’s word for 99% of it if you are willing to follow the same path blazed by those who came up with those answers. If education says “So-and-so found out that this means that”, then it is possible, if you wish to put in the time and effort, to follow the path provided by the person who made the discovery and find out for yourself if they got it right. I really can’t think of a field of science where there is only one expert whose word we have to take on faith.
Does the tribal elder have a track record of offering good advice?
If I’m living in a tribal setting I have years of experience with the people around me. I know that some people are more likely to know useful things that others. “Don’t eat those berries” may or may not be good advice. Whether I follow a particular piece of advice or not depends on whether it makes sense within my overall understanding of the situation, including my understanding of the person offering the advice.
We are justified in accepting the opinions of experts if we have evidence to justify them as experts. In a tribal society, this comes from day-to-day interactions over multiple years. In a modern society (where we often need to accept the opinions of strangers), this often comes from some sort of certification by a public body (a government, a university, a company). For example, I have an opinion of MIT built up from years of empirical evidence. This opinion makes me more likely to trust MIT as a certifying authority. So I’m more likely to accept the opinion of an expert who is certified by MIT. However, if I repeatedly discover that that trust is misplaced, then my opinion of MIT will also change. This new evidence will not only undermine my opinion of the expert that failed, but also my opinions of every other expert that MIT certifies.
This is all empiric. I don’t trust the tribal elder because he’s the authority. I trust him because I have empirical evidence justifying him as an expert. If I don’t have that evidence, I don’t trust him.
That’s an everyday application of Bayesian updating. If it were the scientific method, it would involve not a post hoc interpretation of past experience, but rather taking pains to construct a falsifiable hypothesis and follow up with a controlled experiment. I agree that both are forms of empiricism.
History is also a scholarly endeavor, but the larger story-telling wing of it does not involve the scientific method – cliometrics does not dominate the field.
Incidentally, mathematics is one instance of non-empirical knowledge building. So there are both multiple types of empiricism and valid non-empirical methods of building knowledge. I admit I don’t know what mathematical knowledge is in an ontological sense.
Oh yeah. I’m an empirical agnostic. I would guess that the facts will be in sufficient for me to form an opinion on the Great Deity by the end of this century though I may not be around to view those facts of course. My empiricism allows for withholding judgment in addition to routine probabilistic evaluation.
An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the person in question is not an authority on the subject at question.
We rely on authorities in various ways all the time. Doctors, engineers and so on. It does not necessarily make them right but they are worth listening to on topics in their area of expertise.
I would think it is probably worth listening to the tribal elder on what plants in the area of his village are edible and which will make you sick.
That said village elders can get it wrong too. They might think bleeding you would be a good way to cure your illness. But then we know he is not in fact an expert on medicine.
As you point out, mathematical knowledge is ontologically problematic.
We can certainly construct axiomatic systems and then draw conclusions based on those axioms. For example, if we accept the premises of Star Wars, then Luke Skywalker is Darth Vader’s son. This doesn’t mean that there is a real person named Luke Skywalker who really is the son of a real person named Darth Vader. It only means that the proposition “Luke is Darth’s son” is true if we start by accepting certain axioms (the narrative of Star Wars) as a given.
Mathematical truths are conclusions drawn from axiomatic systems. If you accept certain premises as true, then parallel lines don’t intersect. If you accept other premises as true, then parallel line do intersect. Math doesn’t represent knowledge of the world, but rather conclusions drawn from operations within a closed axiomatic system. It’s pointless to ask questions like “Do parallel lines REALLY intersect?” or “Is Darth REALLY Luke’s father?” because such question only makes sense within a particular set of arbitrary axioms.
Mathematical truths sometimes produce useful real-world answers, just like fictional truths sometimes produce useful real-world answers. Understanding that Luke is Darth’s son may given me interesting insights into the behavior of real fathers and sons, just like Euclidean geometry may give me useful insights into how to lay out a football field. But there’s no guarantee that an axiomatic system WILL be useful in the real world. Non-Euclidean geometry is not useful for laying out a football field. We select for axiomatic systems that give us useful answers, discarding those that don’t. This gives some people the sense that some axiomatic systems have some ontological significance, but we have no reason to think such a thing is true.
This brings us back to theology. Theology makes claims about the real world. If theology limited its claims to conclusions draw from within its own set of arbitrary axioms, then there wouldn’t be any problem. If you accept the Bible as an axiomatic system, then God created the universe. But this statement only makes sense within the contexts of an assumed set of axioms. It’s a fact of the same sort as “Darth is Luke’s father” or “2+2=4”, i.e. a fact that is only true if you take certain axioms as givens.
In order for such a fact to represent knowledge about the world you have to justify your selection of axioms by demonstrating that they produce accurate predictions about the world. Otherwise you’re in the same situation as using non-Euclidean geometry to lay out a field. And if you’re demonstrating that your axioms produce accurate predictions, then you’re operating within an empirical epistemology.
Which brings me back to my original question: Are there any epistemologies other that empiricism that produce an accurate understanding of the world?
Any comments on my suggestion? “Education” can produce an accurate understanding of the world, and is not itself empirical.
(It is usually grounded in empirically-derived knowledge, so there is a kind of inductive chain involved. Schoolteacher Z teaches what Professor Y teaches, which is derived from the experiments of Physicist X, who really did split the atom…)
But math is much more reliable guide to the real world than fiction is. Fiction jerks us around a lot. Math is helpful, baffling so. And it is a legitimate form of knowledge in its own right.
…but not a form of knowledge that has to do with the world directly.
But it certainly has been shown to be an intrinsic aspect of an accurate understanding of the world.
But to answer your question, I wouldn’t say “Math”. I would say, “Common sense”. Common sense, folk knowledge and experience is superior for answering certain questions that science hasn’t reached yet. The questions I have in mind have mostly to do with navigating ones personal life or choosing a brand of salsa at the grocery store. You can broaden the definition of empiricism to include those things, but then you might run into a tautology: “Only epistemologies of the world produce an accurate understanding of the world.” For example, you can certainly fold in authority (expert opinion) into a broad definition of empiricism.
So we’re back in Philosophy 101: we have to define our terms better, which is typically harder than one might think.
Nearly all people who claim that a god exists say that it is omniscient, omnipotent and and omnipresent… AND that it WANTS me to believe in it.
So what evidence would it take to convince me that a god exists?
I don’t know.
However, if any kind of a god does exist and it indeed does want me to know him, then that god should know what it would take to convince me and do so.
This has not happened, therefore god is either is not capable of giving me proof, does not want to give me proof, or does not exist.
Any way you look at it, it’s not my problem.
I believe that god is a 5 year old zombie.
191 replies to a “one and done” poster. Pretty good score for a troll.
Brains!
Guy didn’t even respond to his own thread.
…and really pissed at being reawakened. :eek:
God wants you to believe in Him without Him doing anything to convince you because reasons. Check and mate!
You, good sir, win the Internet today!
That would certainly explain the behavior problem.
No one can really comprehend the mystery of why God isn’t more transparent to us.
Great mysteries will always challenge mankind.
Like the mystery of why a poster with almost 20 years on this board would open up this turd-ball zombie thread.
Eonwe may have to share the internet today.