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.
fifthmonarchyman,
Prove it.
petrushka,
The experience is real, but the solidity may not be. That’s Berkeley’s point, and Johnson’s ‘refutation’ failed to touch it.
Yes, as I said before, I think we have to start with a concept of truth before we can move on to concepts of probability.
That’s partly right. Keiths is right that Dr. Johnson’s kick doesn’t refute Berkeley, and it’s not entirely clear what would refute Berkeley. But it’s also true that Berkeley’s metaphysics doesn’t seem to make a difference to experience. I believe it was Hume who said, “Berkeley failed to persuade anyone that his position was irrefutable.”
However, we can make explicit a problem with Berkeley’s idealism. At the very heart of his metaphysics is the claim that all of one’s experiences of the world beyond one’s own mind are produced by the contact of one’s own mind with the Mind of God. This does not actually explain anything. To use C. I. Lewis’ phrase from his criticism of idealism, “it substitutes adoration of a mystery for explanation of a fact.”
But does the concept of truth need to be an epistemic ideal or goal? Or would a strictly semantic concept of truth be sufficient?
Long time RB fan here: Bill, write a book!
I just realized that this remark from earlier is mistaken — the Trilemma isn’t motivated by a demand for absolute truth but by a demand for absolute justification.
The Trilemma is supposed to show that knowledge is impossible because any attempt at absolute justification will fall on one of the three horns of the Trilemma. That’s why the Trilemma can be avoided by adopting a context-sensitive account of justification as a historically evolving, culturally mediated social practice.
Though it is common to see “pragmatic” used here as a term to distance one’s position from “philosophy”, in fact the arguments for pragmatism (as developed by Hegel, Peirce, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Sellars, Rorty, etc.) are sophisticated treatments of the deepest issues in “traditional” philosophy (both the battle between rationalism and empiricism and the battle between physicalism, dualism, and idealism).
quote:
Science has no foundation, or means to “truth,”analogous to the foundations you claim for your Christianity.
end quote:
Reciprocating Bill
peace
Quite the opposite. It is only through the combination of scientific theory, empirical investigation and engineering efforts that, for example, knowledge of the world of the kind that enabled us to place Curiosity on Mars can be secured.
I think that’s right…but I’m glad it doesn’t say “only by adopting….”
As a presupposition it does not require proof as revealed truth the proof is in the revealing
quote:
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
(1Co 2:10-12)
end quote:
peace
KN,
Sure, but I’m not aware that Berkeley ever argued otherwise. Are you?
To me it’s the first fact — that Berkeley’s metaphysics makes no difference to experience — that explains why idealism is in fact irrefutable. I wrote in the earlier thread:
What criteria did you use to determine that what enabled us to place Curiosity on Mars was actually knowledge?
Was the proposition that empirical verification leads to knowledge empirically verified?
IOW How do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
The scare quotes indicate that what you claim is knowledge, isn’t.
What I said is that science can’t get us to “truth” analogous to that which you claim for Christianity, i.e. truth with an unassailable foundation. (Neither can Christianity, as it’s claim to do so is circular.)
It can get us to truth that enables the placement of Curiosity on Mars.
Actually, I’m enough of a quasi-Hegelian that I want to endorse the stronger claim as well — but perhaps it would be antithetical to my pragmatic fallibilism for me to do so!
Curiosity actually landed on Mars.
So in your world view truth equals “helps us do stuff”
OK
How exactly does the proposition truth is what “helps us do stuff” help you do stuff?
peace
How do you know??
Are you just saying it helps you do stuff to believe Curiosity actually landed on Mars?
Peace
Not much. As I said, the sciences generate knowledge of the world just fine, thank you, without having to address sophistries like this, which are themselves are not within the purview of science.
Not sure.
No, I am saying that the fact that Curiosity actually landed on Mars confirmed that the description of the world that enabled us to place it there was sufficiently accurate for that purpose, and warrants being regarded as knowledge.
ETA: “Sufficiently…for that purpose.”
I agree with you. There’s no way to demonstrate the falsity of idealism.
Yeah, like landing (with signals indicating as much), pictures consistent with knowledge of Mars gained in various other ways, and the sort of analyses that are consistent with expectations of Martian geologic evolution.
Funny how veridical findings bolster the “beliefs” of those who deal consistently with the scientific world. Your position allows you to cling to unsupported claims while attempting to dump upon successful enterprises for collecting knowledge that have nothing to do with your “truth.”
Glen Davidson
Actually it is a presumed revealed truth based on presuppositions so therefore it does not require proof. We have yet to determine any actual revealing has occurred beyond the presupposition that it is possible that a presupposition is capable of it.
Just curious, is it possible to be mistaken about revelation? If so how does one differentiate between true and false revelation? For instance is your belief in a mortal soul a revealed truth?
walto,
Or if there were, it would falsify realism too, and we would all poof into nonexistence. 🙂
We can reach conclusions that we can state, with a reasonable degree of confidence, as “probably mostly true” statements. But not absolute truth, no. We approach truth asymptotically in science, and it always comes with caveats and confidence estimates.
So you are saying that your chosen criteria for knowledge is not true? Or are you just saying you don’t particularly care about anything that does not help you do stuff?
If it’s the former why do you believe something that is false?
If it’s the later why should I care?
peace
I think we can do a little bit better than this, though, by reflecting on the historical failure of foundationalist justifications.
Peirce does this in “The Fixation of Belief“. He points out four different methods whereby one may arrive at settled beliefs sufficiently stable to guide action: the method of tenacity, the method of authority, the a priori method, and the method of science. Of the last he says:
and
In other words:
1. The method of science is dialectically stable in a way the other methods are not;
2. The method of science is a historical accomplishment;
3. The vindication of the method of science consists in contrasting it with other methods;
4. The history of the methods of inquiry is itself the justification for the epistemic superiority of the method of science over other methods.
I’m not asking about “absolute” truth whatever that means
I’m asking about any truth.
How can something be true and false at the same time in the same respect?
If you are just saying we don’t know the whole story yet I’d agree. Revelation is an ongoing process
Do you agree that truth is necessary for knowledge
peace
It could have a probability of being true, and a probability of being false.
Well, you aren’t telling me what you mean by “truth”. I think it’s possible to “know” something only partially, or probabilistically. But you seem to be using “truth” in some different sense from the one that is applicable to statements or conclusions.
For instance you haven’t yet (I don’t think, unless I’ve missed it) told me what you mean by “Jesus is Truth”.
I understand “Jesus said some things that are true”. But what do you mean by “Jesus is truth”?
fifthmonarchyman,
If you had read to the end of Reciprocating Bill’s comment, you would see that he identified how science can “get you to truth” (to use your term), just not the putative “truth” you claim for your religious beliefs. Your paraphrasing was inaccurate and misleading.
No, I’m saying that your question is an empty sophistry.
The model that enabled the placement of Curiosity on Mars certainly included mathematically expressed descriptions of the world such that a given force applied to a vehicle of a particular mass at a particular time on a particular course would result in that vehicle’s approach to Mars at a particular time at a particular velocity and course some months later – with great precision. To that extent the model was shown to be accurate (by it’s success), considering it knowledge, and true, is warranted.
Do you disagree?
It’s important to know that I am not exposing foundationalism here. I am exposing Christian theism. It is much closer the the Foundherentism that walto referred to.
Christian theism is a unique system all it’s own. In my opinion every other system falls short for one reason or the other.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
There is no difference in practice between what you are calling a presupposition and what is normally considered assuming your conclusion.
If you can’t provide evidence to support your claim, do the honest thing and admit it.
No it’s not.
Fer instance. At some point in the future death will be largely optional. Aging will be “solved”. This is because our understanding of biology is an ongoing process and at some point will result in biology being amenable to manipulation in similar ways we currently apply in computer code. For some extant organisms aging already seems to be something they simply don’t do. But as time progresses our understanding increases and this results in new possibilities that arise directly from that knowledge.
In what sense is “Revelation” also an ongoing process? In 100 years time will you have finally determined which creation story out of the two offered at the start of the Bible is the actual one? Will the big debate over “Gate, Rope, Animal” finally be resolved unambiguously?
To you, personally, revelation might be an ongoing thing. But you are not building anything for the future, no shoulders for those who follow to stand on. No higher ground for others to start from.
If it’s an ongoing process, name something was previously not known then demonstrate how it became known through revelation.
So success is the criteria by which you judge the accuracy models. fine
How did you decide that success was the best criteria for judging model’s accuracy?
peace
On my view of experience, it does.
Berkeley’s thesis depends on experience being passively received. However, on my view, we actively generate our own experience via our interactions. And that seems to make Berkeley’s thesis implausible.
On my view of knowledge (as abilities), that’s pretty much self-evident.
I reject the idea that you can be knowledgable, yet be a hopelessly incompetent buffoon who just happens to have a large repetoire of sentences that he can express.
In my worldview everything that is known is known by revelation.
If I know anything now that I did not know earlier it is because God had revealed it to me
Wow that is quite a belief you have . Prove it.
Do you have objective empirical evidence that aging will be “solved” instead of just prolonged?
peace
What criteria did you use to reject that idea? Did it have to do with “abilities”
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I’m sure you’re all excited that you’re going to spring some kind of deep, Aha! conclusion that somehow makes your refusal to support your own position intellectually equivalent to Reciprocating Bill’s and others clear statements of their own views, but your behavior today is hard to distinguish from garden variety trolling.
If you’ve got a point to make, make it. These silly games do not reflect well on your integrity or your personality.
My question to you was, “To that extent the model [that permitted the placement of Curiosity on Mars] was shown to be accurate (by it’s success), considering it knowledge, and true, is warranted.
Do you disagree?”
I have no point I’m just asking questions.
My presuppositions are constantly attacked here I just want to know on what basis you have for making the attack.
That process has been like trying to nail jello to a wall.
peace
Specifically, it came from this book (p. 215):
Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design
He cites this book, but doesn’t give a page number:
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
A quick glance through the chapters on Philosophy of Science in that book don’t show a list like that so I may have to do some more digging.
Yes I do disagree
If truth does not exist then knowledge is impossible. Knowledge is justified true belief
Success is not a criteria for knowledge truth is. However and you have yet to say how you get to truth in your worldview.
That is why I asked you what criteria you used to determine that success equals accuracy,
peace
Thanks, RTH. Maybe I will. Or, a nap would be good…
As opposed, say, to doing not science?
Can billions of cats be wrong?
Glen Davidson
Its inanity and (apparent) lack of intelligent comprehension of the replies you get.
So not only don’t you make sense, you don’t even understand sense.
Glen Davidson
I’m a bit confused as to how pointing out the adequacy of language to describe the world is supposed to demonstrate that language is inadequate to describe the world. Must be something lost in translation.
Are you advocating a return to early geometry where pictures sufficed to demonstrate self-evident truths?