Given recent posts here at TSZ challenging the validity of presuppositions and self-evident truths I thought the following list might be worthy of debate.
Presuppositions of Science
1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. The knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers
When critics object to the Logos as a presupposition and offer instead 10 other presuppositions, Ockham’s Razor flies out the window.
I was asking about testing, though. My suspicion is that revelations tend to be, like palm reading or astrology, a little too vague to test.
Isn’t that a presupposition? Do we have an example of a testable revelation? In the Coyne/Myers discussion over what would be a convincing revelation (the 900 foot Jesus in Coyne’s case), I thought PZ made a telling point about hypothetical cases and how one cannot really say a prioriwhether it would be convincing.
fifthmonarchyman,
I find that fundamentalists tend to vote to deny civil rights to non-heterosexuals, to interfere with women’s reproductive choices, to impose their sectarian beliefs on secular institutions, and to interfere with science teaching in public schools, among myriad other offenses. Attempting to trivialize it as “spoiling fun” just demonstrates your lack of respect for others rights.
Do try to read for comprehension. I am saying that when your actions impact others, “I assume my preferred scriptures are correct” is an extremely weak justification. Apply the golden rule — how would you like to have Sharia law imposed on you with exactly the same lack of support you have for your beliefs?
Being able to satisfy an emotional desire for certainty in an uncertain world would be a powerful incentive. Exploiting that emotion has proved a productive strategy for many groups and individuals. It can be harmless or it can, as you say, cause people to vote in laws that oppress those that don’t conform.
I wonder if the insistence on uncertainty is a consequence of rebellion or one of the reasons for it
quote:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say?”
(Gen 3:1a)
end quote:
Rebellion? Good grief!
What counts as strong justification in your worldview and why?
peace
My question goes to the nature of truth and correspondence to reality.
One can believe that some reality exists out there, but nothing we say or believe will ever correspond to it, except approximately or probabilistically.
What? Do you not agree that Christianity teaches that fallen humanity is in a state of rebellion against God?
My comments are nothing personal I was a rebel once too.
but for the grace of God and all that
Peace
The argument you reference may be sound, but for people like me whose brain it would likely hurt, I think there is a fairly direct way of showing
(1) The existence of a theory-independent, external world
is not a required assumption to do science.
First, the theory-independent part is wrong, since one can be a scientific realist and still do science.
Now if the external world is referring to a material world, then that is not needed to do science, since (as I say in another post) one can be an idealist and still use science for its instrumental value in predicting future experience.
I suppose it is even logically possible to be a solipsist and still use science instrumentally, although it is difficult to understand how the solipsist would account for submitting articles for peer review. Maybe solipsism is a bridge too far. So on second thought I would grant that you cannot be a solipsist and still do science.
fifthmonarchyman,
I’m not insisting on it, just comfortable with it.
By the way, quoting your scripture instead of providing evidence for your claims is . . . considerably less than convincing.
fifthmonarchyman,
Pretty much the same thing you expect when you aren’t engaged in special pleading for the religious beliefs in which you were indoctrinated. Objective, empirical evidence, reason, logic, the usual. Kind of what you yourself would want before making a financial investment, for example.
If I’m incorrect and you make a habit of buying revealed bridges, please do provide me with your contact details. I have some great opportunities for you.
Gee, I thought it was to avoid the sterility and baseless nonsense of your position.
Glen Davidson
Try this: “Kant, Wittgenstein, and Transcendental Chaos” and “Rational Justification and Mutual Recognition in Substantive Domains“.
The basic idea is that in order to know that I have any mental states at all, and can therefore count as a conscious subject with mental contents, I must have criteria for identifying mental states as my mental states. But to do that, I must be able to reliably distinguish between what I experience is that of the world and what I experience that is of my own mind. If I wasn’t aware of a distinction between my mind and the world, I couldn’t count as having a mind at all.
In other words, the kind of radical internalism that we find in Descartes and everything since — the position of “it is possible that there is no world at all and only my own mind is real” — is actually incoherent. No, it is not (transcendentally) possible — that is not a possibility for any being can reliably track both regularities and irregularities in both its environment-as-experienced and its perspectives-as-experienced on its environment.
fifthmonarchyman,
When you have some objective, empirical evidence that there’s anything like that to rebel against, do let me know.
I agree with you. I just note that I find that libertarians tend to vote to allow hate speech to harass non-heterosexuals, to interfere with women’s reproductive choices by allowing religious people to intimidate them when they try to exercise those rights, to impose their sectarian beliefs on secular institutions by taking the Constitution as some kind of holy writ, and to interfere with the provision of decent public schools, among myriad other offenses (like guns everywhere). Attempting to trivialize these as stuff one just has to live with if one wants “natural rights” respected just demonstrates a lack of interest in the improvement of people’s lives, regardless of how much money the people in question happen to have.
Kantian Naturalist,
Thanks, KN, for both the links and your summary.
Is there a difference?
Does “knowledge” somehow manage to have a meaning that is independent of how we actually use that word?
I think there’s a difference. Sometimes people think they know something but come to find out they actually don’t. Therefore, not all supposed knowledge is knowledge.
The way most people actually use that word, actual knowledge requires the truth of what is believed, but ostensible knowledge does not.
walto,
You seem confused between respecting everyone else enough not to impose your will on them through force and . . . not.
fifth,
I treat it as knowledge because it is extremely likely to be knowledge. I am not absolutely certain that it’s knowledge, of course.
I look in the refrigerator. I see the calamansi juice carton. Am I absolutely certain that I’m not hallucinating? No. Am I absolutely certain that there’s calamansi juice in the carton? No. Someone might have broken in last night and replaced it with something else.
Yet if someone asks me, “Do you know whether there’s calamansi juice in the refrigerator?”, my answer would be yes, because the probability is extremely high that there is calamansi juice in the carton and that I am not hallucinating.
This isn’t that hard, fifth. Slow down and think it through.
ETA: And I should add that Jesus or not, you are in the same boat with respect to your knowledge of the contents of your refrigerator. Absolute certainty isn’t attainable, so if you insist that absolute certainty is a requirement for knowledge, then you are ruling out the possibility of knowledge for you as well as for everyone else.
Not just a lack of permissive tolerance, but a genuine lack of concern for justice motivated by a real absence of compassion and understanding.
If religious conservatives think that the demand for liberation from oppression is motivated by a desire for satisfying selfish pleasures, then religious conservatives are — there is no other way to put it — fools, and quite possibly evil fools.
Most of the big evils of the world have been imposed by or sanctioned by government. What do you do when you have given government a monopoly on power, and it doesn’t use power in a way you approve?
I note that England, Canada, and Australia periodically elect conservative governments.
Not confused about that at all, actually. Somalia just doesn’t attract me as much as it does you.
Try to throw the bums out. Literally, if necessary. What would you do?
But I wouldn’t give government a monopoly on power anyhow. Would you?
I think you can know that something you know is in fact knowledge. But if you can’t, I don’t see how you can know that it’s extremely likely to be knowledge either. Whatever defeats the possibility of knowing, would also defeat the possibility of knowing the likelihood.
fifth,
Patrick:
Exactly. It’s another double standard.
If you’re seeking the truth, you keep your critical intelligence turned on even when you’re examining your own comfortable and cherished beliefs.
Fifth isn’t seeking the truth; he’s seeking his own familiar brand of Christianity.
Right. Good on you both. Very prettily put!
fifth,
Neither. It’s a consequence of thinking.
Alan,
Some are, some aren’t. Here’s one that was.
keiths:
Alan:
No. Why would it be?
Yes. Follow my link above for an example.
Link? I know PZ has said that no evidence whatsoever could convince him of God’s existence, a position I find silly and closed-minded.
walto,
That was me, not KN.
I agree. I know that I know that there’s calamansi juice in the refrigerator. I’m just not absolutely certain that I know that, nor am I absolutely certain that I know that I know that. 🙂
What counts as evidence in your worldview and why?
In my worldview definitions have meaning. We could choose to call a battleship a turkey sandwich but that does not make it kosher.
I could to choose to treat a hunch like knowledge but It does not mean I actually know more when I get one
peace
Once again I’m not concerned with certainty but knowelege.
You say you treat something as knowledge if it is well supported. Now you say something that is well supported is extremely likely to be knowledge
Ok
In your worldview what counts as support and why?
peace
Why are these things the things that count in your worldview and not other things. IOW
What is the objective empirical evidence that you have to support the proposition that they are to be valued?
peace
Jesus the Logos is truth.
You aren’t seeking truth unless you are seeking him. Your side is has difficulty even defining truth. You can’t seek something unless you know what it is.
In my search for truth I left my “familiar brand of Christianity” behind many times I expect to continue to do so the rest of my days.
Leaving behind what is familiar is the only way to seek the truth
quote:
And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
(Mat 10:38-39)
end quote:
end of sermon
peace
fifth:
So you say, but you keep confusing the two. (By the way, why do you keep spelling ‘knowledge’ as ‘knowelege’ when Jesus has already revealed the correct spelling to you?)
Exactly. The two statements are consistent.
Likewise, I hypothesize that the round metal thing with the handle that I’m looking at right now is my frying pan. My hypothesis is well-supported, so I treat it as knowledge. Is it actually knowledge? Only if my belief is justified and true. I judge that it’s likely to be true, but I can’t be absolutely certain of that, so I can’t be absolutely certain that I know that the object is my frying pan.
The only way for you to argue that knowledge is impossible in my worldview would be to show that my beliefs — including my belief about the frying pan — cannot possibly be justified and true. Good luck with that project.
fifth:
To take that as a presupposition is to abandon the search for truth.
fifth,
That was Patrick, not me, so I’ll let him answer (though I agree with him).
I not arguing anything at all I’m asking how you know stuff in your worldview.
You now seem to be trying to say that you can know stuff if your beliefs are justified but that is circular reasoning
How are your beliefs justified? How did you decide on the particular criteria you choose to use to declare something justified?
It’s a simple question but so far It’s like trying to nail jello to a wall to get an answer.
peace
What?
What is truth in your worldview? How would you know it if you found it?
peace
fifth,
I keep telling you and you keep ignoring me. Why?
It would be circular only if justification required knowing in advance that the belief was true. It doesn’t, obviously.
The same way your non-religious beliefs are, if you’re rational. Patrick summarized it nicely.
By observing what works and thinking about why.
fifth:
keiths:
fifth:
Yes. To seek Jesus is to seek truth only if Jesus happens to be truth. Otherwise you’re just seeking Jesus.
The smart approach is to seek truth wherever it is to be found rather than limiting your search prematurely. It’s why I said:
You’ve already decided where you want the truth to be, and dammit, you’re gonna find it there whether it’s there or not!
I regard a statement as true to the extent that it corresponds with reality.
By observing its correspondence with reality. I can’t be absolutely certain that I’ve found it, of course.
fifth,
You claim that knowledge is impossible within my worldview. I would like to see you demonstrate that, taking into account the following (from my earlier comment):
ETA: I’m also interested in seeing your answers to my eight questions. How about posting a comment in which you quote the eight questions in order, with your answer underneath each of them? That way you won’t skip any.
Can you unpack this a bit? What do you mean by it? Or, alternatively, what do you think it means?
The reason for my question (please don’t let this put you off answering!) is encapsulated in Stevie Smith’s poem Our Bog is Dood:
Well, contrary to my fears expressed in above post, that summary did not hurt my brain too much.
I’d earlier said Mung’s (1) was an anthropic condition, not a presupposition of science per se. That is, for there even to be a possibility of science, there must be an external world with a community of communicators.
You make a transcendental argument that (1) is true regardless of any presuppositions.
It seems to be that the concepts of anthropic arguments and transcendental arguments are related somehow: both argue roughly that given F is a pervasive feature, something G must be the case, for otherwise F would not be possible.
On another note, it is interesting that this thread starting off as a technical discussion (here the technical topic was philosophy of science) but now seems to have progressed (or regressed?) into a “Here we go round the mulberry bush” type of dialog (to use RB’s apt phrase). I don’t know if that is a scientific law of TSZ, but it seems to be fairly regular.
keiths,
here
And yet he always speaks so well of you! 🙂
ETA
Jerry Coyne’s response
Frankly, I’m kind of disappointed in Fifth at this point. I thought he had some interesting things to bring to the table, but now he seems to be doing little more than dialing up his eight or twelve posts and repeating them willy-nilly. There’s no apparent comprehension of anything anybody says in response to any of them. Worse, he cooly repeats that nobody is answering his questions, even after they’ve been answered countless times.
The Bible quotes are, of course, utterly unhelpful since they obviously beg the question about the truth of what’s in that book. That doesn’t stop a steady stream of them though.
I expected more. And it makes me a little sad. On of the most human of posters here has become robotic.
Love her. And the movie about her (with Glenda Jackson) is one of my favorites. I must have seen it 20 times.
fifthmonarchyman,
(That was me, not keiths, by the way.)
And the answer is, they work. You also know they work because you use the same standards except when it comes to your religious beliefs. You don’t close your eyes and cross the road when your god “reveals” to you that it’s safe to do so.
fifthmonarchyman,
Prove it.
Lizzie,
You have summarized fifthmonarchyman’s position in one comment far more clearly than he has been able to in hundreds.