[QUOTE=BrainGlutton
Nevertheless, if God exists, then God is a proper subject of scientific (or natural-philosophical) study – just as soon as somebody invents a reliable theoscope; until then, theology is but vanity and a striving after wind.[/QUOTE]
This a true statement if your bassing your presupposition on empiricism, whose to say that observation is the only way to know anything? I would actually say that I know NOTHING based upon observation and that the only way i know anything is through systematic doubt.
A train leaves Philadelphia at noon, traveling 30 mph…etc. Do you honestly believe you need to set up an observation station with a stopwatch to find out the answer?
The knowledge of mathematics is aquired through sensory input. So is the data about the train. The calculation itself is not an acquistion of new information, it’s the processing of new information.
Holy cow. If I’d said that, I would be beseiged by accusations of nitpicking. So you are drawing a distinction between acquiring information and processing information? When you find out that the answer is 12 minutes, is that information which you’d previously known but had been blind to in some way? Was solving the problem some sort of process of opening a closed door?
I would say you would need to set up an observation station to know the answer. Insofar as anything outside the Laws of Thought and the existence of thought itself can be “known”.
It’s exactly the same information. Processing information does not add to information, it just tells you how you can respond to it. Your hypothetical is really just a more sophisticated version of seeing a red ball and then assigning the color “red” to it in your mind. The information is the same, you’ve just assigned symbolic values to it. You’ve organized it differently, you haven’t added to it. No matter how you arrange the blocks, you’re never going to have any more blocks.
Not according to computational theory. It’s certainly possible to create new information within an system as long as the localized decrease in entropy is balanced by an increase in entropy somewhere else.
Systematic Doubt is doubting all that is rationally possible to doubt. It is what Des Cartes did when he finally concluded “Cogito Ergo Sum” (I think therefore I am). He came to the conclusion that he could doubt everything but his own existence, because his ability to doubt proved that he must exist. In the end I can doubt everything, but that is the only thing I can know, I can only know that I exist, I cannot know for sure that you exist, I cannot know for sure that the anything else exists but myself.
Do you think Cartesian Doubt would be a valid defense in a courtroom? It’s not a useful or serious argument. It’s just an evasive tactic as far as I’m concerned.
We arent talking about a courtroom, we are talking epistomology which is quite different from a courtroom. We are talking about the knowing of knowledge, or how we know what we know. Your assumption is that your senses work and that they perceive reality in the way that it is, I on the other hand realize that reality might not exist in the way that I perceive it, and that the only thing that I can know in absolute is that I exist. Its not an evasive tactic its an honest look at knowledge.
Solipsism is a fine philosophical parlor game, but on their way home everyone stops at the red light rather than test the reality of the oncoming truck.
Yes. I am familiar with the kind of epistemelogical equivocation you’re engaging in. It seems to be quite trendy lately. It’s still not useful or serious as a debate topic because it can be effectively used to end any debate over anything. Without at least some basic ontological assumptions, it’s impossible to discuss anything at all.
Resorting to Cartesian Doubt doesn’t really work the way you want it to anyway, Denying the epistemological value of empiricism doesn’t really make all knowledge “equal,” it just equivocates about the only meaning of “knowledge” which has any value.
cartesian or systematic doubt does not neccesarily lead to solipsism. And secondly I do not think that that test would be worth the possible risk. I am not saying that it does not exist, but that I can’t know for sure that it exists.
But that block was never in your head. You know now what time the train will arrive. You did not know that before. Thus, you have acquired knowledge. Contrary to popular opinion among physicalists, CTM is not the only game in town.
Incidentally, this from you to Bobthebuilder was quite astonishing…
…given that I’ve been trying to pin you down over what we both mean by existence and knowledge. Shouldn’t you, for the sake of honesty, afford me the same courtesy you demand?
