Show that reason is a valid epistemology.
(Note: for obvious er, um, reasons, you cannot use reason to do it. Consider the Bible thumpers who claim that the Bible is a valid epistemology because the Bible says so.)
Reason is a valid epistemology because ice cream has no bones.
Disprove that, Lib! (Without using reason, of course. 
)
And your point is, I guess, that reason is accepted as a valid epistemology on faith?
Wasn’t that one of the gags in the final exam from hell? I remember Biology:
“Remove your appendix. You will find suture, gauze, and a bottle of scotch under your desk. You have fifteen minutes.”
Actually, I was thinking of EPISTEMOLOGY:
“Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your position.”
Take the Final Exam for yourself!
Well, at least with that you could use reason without begging the question. But what that has to do with the matter at hand is beyond me.
::stepping up the hot chair::
The following array of statements will strike you as a compelling argument, if it does, not because each claim follows from the previous one as an incontrovertible consequent of it, but because in general the statements and the explicit or implicit connections between them appeal to your mind as congruent with your overall picture of the universe and how it functions.
This much is true of any descriptive characterization of what is so; its epistemological powers depend on you already having a picture of the universe, a database of everyday foreground things that we know. If a new descriptive characterization is going to overturn a bunch of that foreground-notion of what is real, it had better provide a schematic way of assembling raw observations and experiences differently so as to replace them with one that seems to “fit” better than the old one.
Even that is a sort of shorthand for the actual process, which is an endlessly recursive pattern-matching operation in which nothing has meaning except in the context of the overall “map” that is constantly being constructed as an attempt to recognize an overall pattern in raw observations, which at their rawest are just sensory and emotive experiences without cognitive evaluations (yet; but almost immediately, inseparably so, because you can’t stop yourself from figuring out experiences by deciding to feel “just the raw stuff” either).
So at the other end of things, reason is a compelling mechanism for most of us most of the time in explaining a position because it reviews a subset of the “map” to establish agreement (often as hypothetical “if” statements) and then proceeds with a self-conscious and self-referential casting of a limited number of raw observations into slots and spaces in that agreed-upon pattern.
When it doesn’t work, it is most often because the other person(s) objects to the misrepresentation or decontextualization of the subset of the “map”, although occasionally it is due to disagreements with the “fit”.
Ain’t that pretty much how it works?
I really don’t understand the question. Reason is another word for thought right? Reason is another Divine form – like Love. In so much as you can not love your way to Reason nor can you reason your way to Love. It is a universal – I think therefore I am – we presume everyone is capable of thought. I would say Reason is a lesser being than Love, of course. For an exellent study, see Porete’s “Mirror of Simple Souls” available in finer bookstores (I recommend the circa 1992 edition, although if you can find one from the 1200’s, snap it up).
Open a dictionary. There is your “proof”.
We have defined the words “reason” and “epistemology” to be inextricably bound. If you don’t like it, create your own language. I consider it a waste of time to debate why words mean what they do. If you want to use wholey non-linear thought to arrive at your conclusions, then I quote Gaudere
May this thread die soon.
AlHunter3
What a brilliant effort! Basically you are validating deduction with induction. Unfortunately, we will have to wait eternally to see whether there is a counter-example.
For this to be a successful debate, we must use some epistemology other than reason of any kind. Personally, I accept the validity of reason on faith.
JMullaney
Sorry, no, not in this context.
Morgan
What a mystical statement. No different from “open a Bible; there is your proof”.
We who? There are other epistemologies besides reason.
And may you visit often.
I am disappointed that so many atheists here, from whom I have learned so much, refuse to acknowledge that they themselves hold certain unprovable assertions as true, or else, they try to claim their unprovable assertions as somehow superior to ours.
Especially disappointing since they are so quick to chastise Bible thumpers for their question begging assertions.
I personally support the right of atheists to peacefully believe that their reason is superior to faith in improbable events, as long as they do not use force to coerce others to believe the same way.
So, um, in this context what do you reason is reason to mean, and what do you reason a reasonable reason is for reason meaning what you reason reason to mean, and does this reason have a raison d’être?
(Beyond “le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point” as I was saying)
[takes deep breath]
Are you suggesting that the only first principle an athiest possesses is “reason is a valid epistemology”?!?
That is patently ridiculous, to say the least.
“Begging the question,” is called petitio petendi in Latin.
Lib, I believe Rene Descartes answered your question in
“Meditations on First Philosophy.”
Isn’t a disallowing of using reason to prove reason itself using reason?
Gaudere
Or alternatively, reason fails by one of its own fallacies.
GoBoy
With all due respect, Descartes’s “proof” of his own existence was moronic.
Morgan
I said nothing of the kind.
JMullaney
In this context, reason is an epistemology of extrapolation from axioms or experiences accepted on faith, either from the general to the specific (deduction) or from the specific to the general (induction).
And why do you accept the validity of faith?
You submarined me, Spiritus. I saw your name on the Last Post list and expected a sarcastic quip; instead, I enter and find the best question of the day. Thank you.
I accept the validity of faith because, without it, I cannot construct an epistemology of reason. But your point is an excellent one: metaphysics and epistemology might just both be ethics.
Empiricism shows that reason is valid. It’s not proof, but proof would require the use of reason.
You’re gonna have to back that up with some logic, cowboy. You’re also gonna have to explain what that remark had to do with GoBoy’s comment.
Apparently, it is valid because of tautology. Or is it possible for an epistemology to be invalid and still be an epistemology? Or are all epistemologies invalid?