However, I would still argue that, when it comes to the real world, we can never have knowledge (in a practical, rather than a theoretical, sense) without some degree of perception. We can know that 2 + 2 = 4 without accessing the real world in any way. But, if we want to know that a train which leaves Pittsburgh (etc etc) reaches a certain point at a certain time, we have to actually look at it. Our knowledge of arithmetic can lead us to say “It ought to be there at that time, and, if it isn’t, something has gone wrong”, but, until our hypothesis is tested empirically, we can’t (IMO) claim any knowledge of the situation.
Diogenes, Tevildo, as I’ve mentioned on these boards before, I have a long history of sleep disorders including hypnogogic and hypnopomic episodes and quite a bit of lucid dreaming (lucid dreaming is when you’re dreaming and at some point in the dream you suddenly know you are dreaming. You can then consciously affect the dream: fly, climb walls like Spider-man, etc. Some lucid dreamers can even signal to outsiders via eye movement while they’re fast asleep).
I don’t see how my acquisition of the knowledge that I’m dreaming is empirical or perceptual. There certainly is no sensory input involved.
What block? Your knowledge of when the train would arrive was the empty set. Empty sets don’t contain blocks.
That’s fine, but that does not mean that people who define it differently are equivocating. It is not the case that you are the central orb around which the rest of us revolve. My objection is that you do not acknowledge that existence and knowledge are controversial, and that theories other than your own are valid.
In the pre-lucid portion of the dream, I did not know I was dreaming, and could not manipulate the dream (nor would it occur to me to try). Since I was not aware that I was dreaming, how is subsequently becoming lucid not the aquisition of new information?
It’s not really new information, it’s just a new way of processing it. On some level, all dreaming is “lucid.” Your brain knows the difference even if you don’t.
I’ll go back to the “reading” analogy. Your translating raw sensory input into “information” which is meaningful to you.
Empirical definitions of knowledge and existence are the only ones which can be rationally discussed. Bringing Cartesian doubt into a rational debate just crashes the debate and makes further discussion impossible. I see it as equivocating, evasive and cheating. It’s taking the ball and going home. It’s useless.
Okay. Thank you! We’re in a position where I may address our difference directly.
The sensory exercise from reading is the collision of photons with your retina, just as it is with witnessing an event. But what you are observing as you read is not an event; you are observing abstractions — symbols that represent ideas, many of which are not physical at all. That is a very different sort of observation from the one used to conduct a scientific experiment. My point is that you may acquire the exact same knowledge about gravity two different ways: (1) by analytics, i.e., reading the General Theory of Relativity; or (2) by empiricals, i.e., watching a star during an eclipse. The mathematical determination of the train’s arrival time is an example of an analytical epistemology. You may also wait until you see the train come 'round the bend. That would be an empirical epistemology.
But that input is completely abstract. The words are doing nothing.
I never said anything about Cartesian doubt. I gave you a link to an excellent summary of theories of existence spanning two thousand years. To lay claim to one of them as superior to all others by nothing more than declaratory fiat is patently absurd. Perhaps it is the case that you cannot discuss alternate theories rationally, but projecting that limitation onto others is arbitrary to the extreme. These theories have been rationally discussed for hundreds of generations, and the discussions are even now ongoing.
In the St Pete Times, 1/7 page B1, it says the Pinellas County high school’s new science biology textbooks will have four sentences explaining the earth’s creation based on intelligent design. How can they do that in sight of the Dover, PA vs U.S.Supreme Court decision? Please?
I want to add that also in the paper it says that the majority (here we go again) of the parents in Pinellas County are in favor of intelligent design being taught in their schools.
The Dover decision affects only the jurisdiction of that court. It can provide discussion points and exemplars for other suits in other jurisdictions, but it does not have the effect of setting the rules for the nation. If a school district in that part of Pennsylvania tried to repeat the Dover experience, then the judge at that trial would have to follow the Dover decision, but if Pinellas was sued, the judge would only have to acknowledge the existence of the Dover decision and might find (based on a different presentation of the suit) in favor of the Pinellas District. If several such cases are tried with differing outcomes, the losing party will tend to appeal, based on the precedent of the decision they preferred. Eventually, such cases would wander up to the Appellate Courts of the U.S., and, if pursued, to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Once the SCOTUS makes a ruling, that decision is binding on the whole country (until someone decides to argue to for the opposite outcome using a different logic, pursuing that as far as the SCOTUS).
I know a few non-religious, poorly educated people who reject evolution because they’re offended at the idea that we evolved from monkeys.
The fact that the theory of evolution doesn’t say we evolved from monkeys doesn’t really dissuade them. Even if that’s what the theory did say, what’s wrong with monkeys?
