Is a conclusion of imperfect knowledge faulty? Would someone with imperfect knowledge ever know the difference?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You can't have perfect knowledge through science
- Thread starter I-Ching
- Start date
Same for the mystical and the scientific being crushed under the weight of common sense.
The supernatural and the mystical are nothing more than extensions of the natural. If science is a naturalistic endeavor then it'll reveal the supernatural as the natural and the mystical as the natural. I think the point of mysticism is to re-connect with primal nature anyway. Science will illuminate our earthly and cosmic connections to our own source of being. It will elevate the "mystical" and "supernatural" into their proper alignment.
Uh... I don't know. :thud:
Knowledge is true belief, which makes a statement that is at the same time both ontological and epistemological (it's where the two meet). So the only correct response is: "How would you know?"
We, being conscious beings, have to default to epistemology. If we don't, we fail ourselves and the entire universe.
(Ontology is inherent of epistemology, and vice versa.)
Last edited:
Unless and until knowledge is knowledge of knowing of knowledge.
That's what's known as a "slippery slope."
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Errr... No.
Common sense is quite regularly crushed under the weight of scientific facts.
I'm sorry, but when it comes to defining reality science wins hands down against all other contenders.
I think you sorely underestimate common sense.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
And I'm quite sure you've overestimated it.
Please watch this video for a more comprehensive explanation:
[youtube]60uJ7sOx_1A[/youtube]
Common Sense Is Worthless in Science - YouTube
I do not fully understand what you imply. I can clarify my understanding. The vidyAvidya resides in the without a second singularity. On manifestation of space-time, the vidya (true knowledge of without a second singularity) and avidya (singularity hidden from view) become bipolar. Attaining vidya is then same as attaining the singularity, wherein knowing is meaningless.
As per discussions in this thread it should read "when defining virtual reality as reality............"
Have you read the full thread?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Nope, but if you are thinking of equivalents of the Matrix hypothesis, there is absolutely no reason to think that observable reality is not, in fact, reality.
It is with common sense that the uncommon sense is brought under common knowledge.
Still, mathematicians and scientists do agree that there are truths in the strong formal system that are unprovable in the system. That was the theme of the thread, IMO. The theme is not what will crush what.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2637188-post621.html
Still, mathematicians and scientists do agree that there are truths in the strong formal system that are unprovable in the system. That was the theme of the thread, IMO. The theme is not what will crush what.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2637188-post621.html
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Sure, but I'm not certain of what this has to do with the exchange I had with
Willamena... :sarcastic
Yeah. I closed the video as soon as the author said: "...we aren't equipped with the mental tools to deal with the very large and the very..."
That's common sense. Common sense is what we're equipped with.
Do you think that you say what you say by first keeping your sense aside, common or not? :areyoucra
If you are not sarcastic always then we could have better exchange of course.
The idea of what is common and what is uncommon may be varying from person to person and from time to time in same person. But what Godel proves is not without using his common sense.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
So, you chose to remain ignorant about how limited our so called common sense really is?
Well, I guess that's your prerogative.
