Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I googled about epistemic justification. The best examples of these I believe is seeing the evolution vs creation debate threads in here. You see self confessed logicals with or without scientific backgrounds presenting their justification based on what articles they read, videos they watched with matching links to them. Those with scientific background incessantly said they have experience to the evidence they actually are presenting. The creationists also presents their justification based on articles they read, videos they watched with matching links to them. Some even post supernatural experiences they actually experienced like demonic possessions.
As a reader of those posts, I of course will side with the creation logic. Because we have the same foundations of our belief. Does that answer your question?
Not at all. You'd need to explore the failings of inductive logic applied to observation as used by science. You should also compare it with the utility of faith in generating knowledge about the natural world as used by creationists. "Everyone's opinion is equally valid and I'll agree with the people who tell me what I want to hear" is a less than satisfying explorations of the challenges in both of these approaches.
As a reader of those posts, I of course will side with the creation logic. Because we have the same foundations of our belief. Does that answer your question?
I was hoping to talk about the specific argument you were presenting in the other thread--I left you another post there today about it.
KC: well obviously you know more about it than I do. Like I said I just browsed it. From what I understand, ultimately the justification comes from the foundation of one's belief. No matter how complex the way of presenting the argument. The root of it all is still coming from one's own belief of what is true. Because there will always be an argument to defend why they believe what they believe. That's why I cite those debates as an example.
KC: well obviously you know more about it than I do. Like I said I just browsed it. From what I understand, ultimately the justification comes from the foundation of one's belief. No matter how complex the way of presenting the argument. The root of it all is still coming from one's own belief of what is true. Because there will always be an argument to defend why they believe what they believe. That's why I cite those debates as an example.
That's perfectly true. The foundation of one's belief is eventually going to come down to evidence. If one opts for what we call 'Blind Faith', that raises the question of which one? If one is not going to use some reasoning and evaluation to choose, how can one decide which religion is the right one? As soon as one begins to try to work out which one is the most believable religion, then one should really apply those methods to all of them and in the fullest and most tried and tested way there is.
All the Faiths then come under review as indeed, does all the corpus of knowledge. That's how we make progress in science, by questioning all the time and that's why the science - bashers can claim 'Science is always getting things wrong'.
So which Faith does science best support? Well - it's a toss -up between the Religions of the Book, Buddhism and Confucianism, with Taoism, Jainism and Zoroastrianism coming up in the rear. In fact, though the founders look at least likely, the teachings (apart from the usual exhortations to be good boys and girls, which any idiot knows anyway) and religious claims do not find a lot of support.
I know that there is:
(a) claims of historical validation for the New Testament
(b) scientific validation for the Old Testament
but they do not stand up at all well as you have seen with the Dead sea scrolls thread and the attempt to discredit 'Lucy'. If you persevere with the discussion, we can explain to you how flimsy is the support for Christianity and we know that because we have debated with the best and the best is nothing like good enough.
I haven't been on here in a while and I don't know if The Matrix is still here but there were a couple of threads that he posted that pertained to academic philosophy. MysticPHD arguments are OK and makes sense about 90% of the time, but makes some hardcore unprovable assumptions about 'the soul,' for the lack of a better term. In those cases I usually try to stay in the middle with no assumptions, but then you get attacked (metaphorically; I've never actually been attacked) from both sides.
Rarely does a thread come up that is purely academic. Either people don't know about logic, or know about logic and can't argue, or know all of the fallacies but nothing else relating to philosophical discourse. Some know, some bastardize, and the ones who really know, don't post.
On a public board this is as good as you're going to get. I don't mean any disrespect by saying these things; I just think they're tacitly understood.
On a few posts I've alluded to the, gettier problem, virtue epistemology, qualia (especially in mind/body problems) and other philosophical things that I've learned. So there is some and that's more than I can say for a lot of boards.
I haven't been on here in a while and I don't know if The Matrix is still here but there were a couple of threads that he posted that pertained to academic philosophy. MysticPHD arguments are OK and makes sense about 90% of the time, but makes some hardcore unprovable assumptions about 'the soul,' for the lack of a better term. In those cases I usually try to stay in the middle with no assumptions, but then you get attacked (metaphorically; I've never actually been attacked) from both sides.
Yeah, that'll happen. I haven't seen Matrix around for a while. I don't know whether he ever took on board that Plantinga's proposition was based on some back to front conclusions (that evolution would saddle a successful species with unreliable perceptions rather than reliable) and logical fallacies (that one should assume an unproven possibility true and thus evidentially supported facts untrue) together with denial that mechanistic naturalism had to be the empirical basis of metaphysical naturalism (or if it wasn't then metaphysical naturalism was nothing to do with the way atheists see the world - see 'challenge to atheism thread).
But I agree that a very interesting proposition foundered because of 10% or so of unjustified (actually fallacious) assumptions. I have to mention the misrepresentation of epistemology as somehow proving that evolution could never have led to consciousnes or intelligence and though he later (irritatedly) said that he never claimed that, he failed to see that admission again undermined the whole proposition.
Mystic is the same. A very interesting theory is based on the espousal of one possibility (intelligent universe Aka 'God') through the dismissal of all other possibilities by sneering at them.
Quote:
Rarely does a thread come up that is purely academic. Either people don't know about logic, or know about logic and can't argue, or know all of the fallacies but nothing else relating to philosophical discourse. Some know, some bastardize, and the ones who really know, don't post.
On a public board this is as good as you're going to get. I don't mean any disrespect by saying these things; I just think they're tacitly understood.
On a few posts I've alluded to the, gettier problem, virtue epistemology, qualia (especially in mind/body problems) and other philosophical things that I've learned. So there is some and that's more than I can say for a lot of boards.
The virtue of this board is that the 'debate' is dealt with in terms that a bod in the street can understand. I should know because I'm just a bod in the street. The main problem is getting people to listen and to accept the basic methods of coming to conclusions.
Philosophy is sometimes ransacked for pretexts for dismissing learning and evidence as just opinion and supposition, which at least claws a draw for blind faith. What strikes me is how often these examples of misperception rely on a hived off scenario which temporarily might mislead but which becomes unlikely to continue to mislead in the context of a global science researching and validating evidence.
You would not believe how often the rules of logic get challenged here by those who would much rather use twisted logic to get the answer they want.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-04-2010 at 05:12 AM..
I am, though I've alway been on my own when it comes to philosophy and honestly I have a hard time wading through the works of the masters (I've got a short attention span ).
Sadly, thinking deeply and/or learning how to think deeply is not a priority of the U.S. schools system, so philosophers are few and far between these days. Religious zealots, on the other hand....well, thats why the forum is exactly as you complain about.
No you didn't. I KNOW you did not just try to blame the religious section on US. It's YOU ATHEIST that make the religious like it is because YOU want to discuss religion day and night. So don't try that crap. Us Christians have a Christian section devoted to CHRISTIAN subjects so we do. Take a good look at the general religious section and it's nothing but ATHEIST posted threads!!
But, according to the religious apologists, Atheism (and evolution too, for that matter) is a 'religion'. So of course you should see that we are quite entitled to discuss our views here. As to arguing, have you seen the debates that go on about differing theological views on the Christianity thread? (where atheists go to post rather less than theists go on the atheism thread, I'd suggest)
No you didn't. I KNOW you did not just try to blame the religious section on US. It's YOU ATHEIST that make the religious like it is because YOU want to discuss religion day and night. So don't try that crap. Us Christians have a Christian section devoted to CHRISTIAN subjects so we do. Take a good look at the general religious section and it's nothing but ATHEIST posted threads!!
First off, I am officially "Agnostic". Second, scroll through my posts and notice I usually banter about politics in the "other" mosh pit. Third, SOMEONE has to stand up to fundies and keep them from turning our country into some kind of stagnant Christian Taliban nightmare where true knowledge is non-existent. Thank god (or not) we have atheists to balance the two extremes out, but I for one would rather talk philosophy than refute another ridiculous bible story claimed and presented as truth.
I took one class -- an introductory one -- and I remain a believer. Taking more would not change that; however, if I have a chance to take more, I plan to. Of course, many of the ancient philosophers were religious people -- religious of some sort, and some were christian. An interest in, and/or an education in, philosophy would not preclude one from being a believer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I haven't seen Matrix around for a while. I don't know whether he ever took on board that Plantinga's proposition was based on some back to front conclusions (that evolution would saddle a successful species with unreliable perceptions rather than reliable) and logical fallacies (that one should assume an unproven possibility true and thus evidentially supported facts untrue) together with denial that mechanistic naturalism had to be the empirical basis of metaphysical naturalism (or if it wasn't then metaphysical naturalism was nothing to do with the way atheists see the world - see 'challenge to atheism thread). 
