No Magic

[RestlessSoul]

Fundamentally flawed? Who can say? Maybe. Or maybe we can only know things within a certain range of applicability, or approximation. For instance, Newton is fundamentally wrong, but works very well at the NASA. Less so in case of the GPS system. Could be that we find something that will turn general relativity fundamentally wrong (which is probably the case, anyway), but it can still be used reliably in astrophysics or cosmology.

Yet, even with these limitations and uncertainties, I find it silly to demote all those things to the rank of mere beliefs. They are more than that.

Ciao

- viole

So by that token, the measure of the veracity of knowledge, lies in it's application? If knowledge can be applied in a way that works, it's real enough, right?

That is a perfectly rational, pragmatic approach. But things become problematic, when we use the knowledge we lay claim to, to dismiss ideas which we only believe to be irrational (like quantum entanglement, collapsing superpositions etc.).

 

[Tiberius]

Well, in that case knowledge is applicable only to analytic propositions. Tautologies, basically. Like all bachelors are not married.
Because if you move away from it, you can never be sure that you will never meet a black swan. e.g. a violation of the speed of light that would invalidate my knowledge of electromagnetism.

Ergo, there would be no knowledge. Everything, apart from analytical propositions, would be a belief.

However, I am not ready to make that step, since I know (or is it believe?) that knowledge and belief belong to different categories.

Ciao

- viole

I get your point.

However, I have to ask, is it possible to know something that is false? Would you say that a person can KNOW that vaccines cause autism?

 

[viole]

I get your point.

However, I have to ask, is it possible to know something that is false? Would you say that a person can KNOW that vaccines cause autism?

Well, interesting question.

Yes, it is possible to know something that is false. Probably, everything we know is false. But that does not entail that every belief, which might be also ultimately false, can be promoted to knowledge, despite the common outcome. There was plenty of evidence that Newton was right, although he was was not. While there is no evidence whatsoever, and never was, not even approximate evidence, that vaccinations cause autism.

So, those claims belong definitely to different categories.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tiberius]

Well, interesting question.

Yes, it is possible to know something that is false. Probably, everything we know is false. But that does not entail that every belief, which might be also ultimately false, can be promoted to knowledge, despite the common outcome. There was plenty of evidence that Newton was right, although he was was not. While there is no evidence whatsoever, and never was, not even approximate evidence, that vaccinations cause autism.

So, those claims belong definitely to different categories.

Ciao

- viole

There was also some pretty compelling evidence that he was wrong. Inaccuracies in observations of Mercury, for example.

And the "Vaccines cause autism" group would certainly say there is plenty of evidence that vaccines cause autism.

 

[viole]

There was also some pretty compelling evidence that he was wrong. Inaccuracies in observations of Mercury, for example.

There is also compelling evidence that Einstein is wrong, or at least incomplete, since his laws break in certain conditions. Yet, that does not suffice to claim agnosticism about what causes gravity.

Again, according to your criteria, knowledge would be applicable only to analytical statements, like tautologies or mathematical results that come from axioms via agreed laws of logical inference (also a sort of tautology), and are therefore necessarily true, if proved so.

In other words, things like "scientific knowledge" would be, according to your criteria, a hopeless oxymoron.

And the "Vaccines cause autism" group would certainly say there is plenty of evidence that vaccines cause autism.

Well, then they can claim knowledge that vaccines cause autism. The fact that they are wrong, or simply deluded about the evidence, does not logically invalidate their claim of knowledge. The statement "there is evidence of Kryptonite, therefore I know Superman exists" does not present any logical inconsistency.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tiberius]

There is also compelling evidence that Einstein is wrong, or at least incomplete, since his laws break in certain conditions. Yet, that does not suffice to claim agnosticism about what causes gravity.

Again, according to your criteria, knowledge would be applicable only to analytical statements, like tautologies or mathematical results that come from axioms via agreed laws of logical inference (also a sort of tautology), and are therefore necessarily true, if proved so.

In other words, things like "scientific knowledge" would be, according to your criteria, a hopeless oxymoron.

I think there's potential for an interesting thread in this discussion.

Well, then they can claim knowledge that vaccines cause autism. The fact that they are wrong, or simply deluded about the evidence, does not logically invalidate their claim of knowledge. The statement "there is evidence of Kryptonite, therefore I know Superman exists" does not present any logical inconsistency.

Ciao

- viole

But there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism, so how can someone claim to know it?

 

[viole]

But there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism, so how can someone claim to know it?

Then I ask you back, since you used their claims as a defeater of the inference evidence => knowledge: how can they claim to have evidence, when there is no evidence?

The problem is not that their knowledge is unjustified. It is perfectly justified, if they are convinced to have that evidence. The problem is that it is based on a wrong premise, and therefore they might know something that is probably, but not necessarily, false.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Martin]

No Magic, no supernatural stuff.

Does this make reality more or less interesting to you?

No crystals, no good luck charms, no prayer fulfillment. Nothing but physics and repeatable cause and effect. Mundane reality. Is this good enough or do you need more?

Is it possible to be happy without the other stuff?

Watch waves breaking for a while. Its a start.

 

[Tiberius]

Then I ask you back, since you used their claims as a defeater of the inference evidence => knowledge: how can they claim to have evidence, when there is no evidence?

The problem is not that their knowledge is unjustified. It is perfectly justified, if they are convinced to have that evidence. The problem is that it is based on a wrong premise, and therefore they might know something that is probably, but not necessarily, false.

Ciao

- viole

I would say they do not have knowledge, but a belief, and they are unable to tell the difference between that belief and actual knowledge. Possibly because their personal biases are influencing them, possibly for some other reason. Likewise, they have a source that they believe is legitimate evidence, but since it is not, they have a belief which they have mistaken for knowledge.

 

[viole]

I would say they do not have knowledge, but a belief, and they are unable to tell the difference between that belief and actual knowledge. Possibly because their personal biases are influencing them, possibly for some other reason. Likewise, they have a source that they believe is legitimate evidence, but since it is not, they have a belief which they have mistaken for knowledge.

How do you know what constitutes legitimate evidence? And how do you strip it away from naturalistic assumptions that you do yourself without noticing?

Take this example: I postulate here that planets orbit the sun the way they do because they are carried around by invisible angels, obsessed with conic sections, living at their core. The evidence of that claim is strong, since it is indeed the case that the planets orbits are all very close to conic sections. This example can be made arbitrarily precise just by adapting the angels motivations appropriately.

So, how do I know that it is not the case that angels drive those planets around, without knowing whether naturalism is true in general? In other words: without knowing that there are no supernatural things, and therefore no gods?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tiberius]

How do you know what constitutes legitimate evidence? And how do you strip it away from naturalistic assumptions that you do yourself without noticing?

If it can be tested and it withstands that testing.

Take this example: I postulate here that planets orbit the sun the way they do because they are carried around by invisible angels, obsessed with conic sections, living at their core. The evidence of that claim is strong, since it is indeed the case that the planets orbits are all very close to conic sections. This example can be made arbitrarily precise just by adapting the angels motivations appropriately.

So, how do I know that it is not the case that angels drive those planets around, without knowing whether naturalism is true in general? In other words: without knowing that there are no supernatural things, and therefore no gods?

However, such a claim is not testable, and it is not falsifiable. Since it is not testable, I would say it doesn't meet the conditions required to be legitimate evidence.

 

[viole]

If it can be tested and it withstands that testing.



However, such a claim is not testable, and it is not falsifiable. Since it is not testable, I would say it doesn't meet the conditions required to be legitimate evidence.

Does that entail that we can only know what is falsifiable?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tiberius]

Does that entail that we can only know what is falsifiable?

Ciao

- viole

I'd say so.

I mean, let's take a falsifiable claim. Soap is actually a living creature that uses inherent magical powers to get dirt to unstick from your skin, and every single scientific investigation that points to the way the soap interacts with lipids and the dirt is merely an attempt by the creature to remain hidden from scientific investigation.

Now, this could well be true, and I could probably come up with any number of explanations to counter any questions you have about it. So there's nothing that could show this claim is false. But since there is no evidence that supports the claim (since any such evidence could be explained by another non "soap is a magical creature" idea), there's no reason to accept this explanation as true. Occam's razor indicates that we should abandon it. And since there's no evidence that it is true, how could we justifiably claim to know it to be true?

 

[viole]

I'd say so.

I mean, let's take a falsifiable claim. Soap is actually a living creature that uses inherent magical powers to get dirt to unstick from your skin, and every single scientific investigation that points to the way the soap interacts with lipids and the dirt is merely an attempt by the creature to remain hidden from scientific investigation.

Now, this could well be true, and I could probably come up with any number of explanations to counter any questions you have about it. So there's nothing that could show this claim is false. But since there is no evidence that supports the claim (since any such evidence could be explained by another non "soap is a magical creature" idea), there's no reason to accept this explanation as true. Occam's razor indicates that we should abandon it. And since there's no evidence that it is true, how could we justifiably claim to know it to be true?

Yes, but if it is falsifiable, then it could be false. Ergo, we can only know what might be false. Which seems to contradict your initial position that we can only know what is true.

And in that case, knowing would be pure chance. I think I know the speed of light is constant in vacuum (falsifiable), but I know it only if that is indeed the case that is true in general (which I don't know, because tomorrow we could have falsifying evidence thereof). That leads directly to global skepticism.

I am afraid that no matter what avenue we follow, the conclusion is inescapable: we can only know what is tautologically true. Therefore, things like "scientific knowledge" is an oxymoron.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

Watch waves breaking for a while. Its a start.

I like to watch people smile for some strange reason.

 

[syo]

No Magic

We have giant marbles called planets flying in space. And you say there is NO magic??? All our cosmos and lives are magical.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, but if it is falsifiable, then it could be false. Ergo, we can only know what might be false. Which seems to contradict your initial position that we can only know what is true.

Not quite. Perhaps it would be clearer if I said that we can only justifiably claim to KNOW those things which are falsifiable, yet have withstood all attempts to show them false.

And yes, we can KNOW something to beyond any reasonable doubt, but we can never eliminate doubt entirely, since as you say, we could find some evidence tomorrow that falsifies it.

And in that case, knowing would be pure chance. I think I know the speed of light is constant in vacuum (falsifiable), but I know it only if that is indeed the case that is true in general (which I don't know, because tomorrow we could have falsifying evidence thereof). That leads directly to global skepticism.

And going with the above presented criteria, since the speed of light in a vacuum has always provided consistent results, and since all attempts to disprove the speed of light have failed, you are justified in believing the speed of light.

I am afraid that no matter what avenue we follow, the conclusion is inescapable: we can only know what is tautologically true. Therefore, things like "scientific knowledge" is an oxymoron.

Ciao

- viole

I get your point. I'm actually really enjoying this conversation, your posts are giving me a lot to think about.

 

[ecco]

Because I believe that those who are atheists lack the ability to perceive the divine. They are wired differently. That's my opinion.

Or, perhaps, many of us were not indoctrinated as children to unquestionably believe in the same god as our parents believed.

Your view might account for a difference between atheists and theists. It does not account for the difference between say Mormons, Pentecostals, and Catholics or between Sunnis and Shiites. Mine does.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Or, perhaps, many of us were not indoctrinated as children to unquestionably believe in the same god as our parents believed.

Your view might account for a difference between atheists and theists. It does not account for the difference between say Mormons, Pentecostals, and Catholics or between Sunnis and Shiites. Mine does.

Do you know the story of the blind men and the elephant? One blind man feels the trunk and says its a snake. One feels the leg and says its a pillar. One feels the ear and says its a fan. Etc.

The point is, although we sense the Divine, our God-radar is very primitive, like an eye that can only see light and dark. So our imaginations fill in what is missing to make sense of what we have sensed. One person may say the divine is unified. Another may experience it as fractured. Etc. Thus you have a myriad of religions in the world, all seeking to make coherent what is imperfectly sensed.

 

[ecco]

Do you know the story of the blind men and the elephant? One blind man feels the trunk and says its a snake. One feels the leg and says its a pillar. One feels the ear and says its a fan. Etc.

Yes, another fabel. Some people are very fond of fabels. There are fabels about people parting seas and fabels about people trudging hundreds of miles across deserts. There are fabels of sleeping old men whose snoring sounds like (in fact is) thunder echoing across the hills and valleys.\


And now to your point...

The point is, although we sense the Divine, our God-radar is very primitive, like an eye that can only see light and dark. So our imaginations fill in what is missing to make sense of what we have sensed.

That's very imaginative. I'm sure many people believe it.

Thus you have a myriad of religions in the world, all seeking to make coherent what is imperfectly sensed.

Well, no. You have many religions in the world because people weren't happy with the religion they were raised in or the other current known religions. So some people came up with the concept of a ONE god versus many gods. Other people tried to "fulfill" one religion's prophecies and build a new religion on that basis. Or people who go into the desert and write down the words of god. Or people who find and decipher golden tablets. Or people who are convinced that a spaceship will soon come and remove their souls? from the human bodies. Or...or...or