Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

lmaopml

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Some religions claim to believe in the same god but with different interpretations of it, some believe in very different gods. But each of them has mutually exclusive claims about their respective gods. They cannot all be right but they can all be wrong

The problem here is....

...one 'could' be right! and you and your faith 'could' be wrong along with everybody else that doesn't know 'everything'...Unless you think you know everything??

So, given that, perhaps a bit of respect for eachother is called for. Lack of respect for one another only invites lack of respect for yourself! It's elementary my dear Watson!:)

Turtwig

lmaopml wrote: »

The problem here is....

...one 'could' be right! and you and your faith 'could' be wrong along with everybody else that doesn't know 'everything'...Unless you think you know everything??

So, given that, perhaps a bit of respect for eachother is called for. Lack of respect for one another only invites lack of respect for yourself! It's elementary my dear Watson!:)

Well when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Supernatural == impossible.
Natural == possible.

Sam Vimes

lmaopml wrote: »

The problem here is....

...one 'could' be right! and you and your faith 'could' be wrong along with everybody else that doesn't know 'everything'...Unless you think you know everything??

So, given that, perhaps a bit of respect for eachother is called for. Lack of respect for one another only invites lack of respect for yourself! It's elementary my dear Watson!:)

You're right on one thing but wrong on several. The one thing you're right on is that I could be wrong and if I am wrong on something I'm ready and waiting for you to explain why but:

Atheism is not a faith. You can keep calling it a faith if you want but you're wrong and you're just getting people's backs up by continually referring to it as such. Not believing that some Jewish guy raised from the dead is not a faith

Secondly, even if Yahweh exists that does not mean that every argument for his existence is valid

Thirdly, ideas do not deserve respect. If you cannot defend your position then it will be ridiculed and demanding that your opinion be given respect just makes your position look even weaker. But, very importantly, ridiculing a belief is different to personally insulting people who hold different beliefs

Fourthly, with the insulting attitude that you bring to this forum you have no right to be talking to people about respect. One step in the right direction would be not calling atheism a faith anymore. There's disrespecting someone's position and then there's misrepresenting their position for the purposes of disrespecting a straw man of it

liamw

mangaroosh wrote: »

As with science, the ability of the scientist, the quality of their training, the ability of their teacher and their adherence to certain guidelines, and application of their spiritual practice will materially affect the outcome of their "experiment", and therefore their ability to interpret the information.

I think you're missing the point that any significant claim in science is peer reviewed and critically analyzed by hundreds if not thousands of independent minds (often carefully chosen from different fields of expertise), so you can effectively rule out 'personal experience' of one or several individual contributors.

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

I think you're missing the point that any significant claim in science is peer reviewed and critically analyzed by hundreds if not thousands of independent minds (often carefully chosen from different fields of expertise), so you can effectively rule out 'personal experience' of one or several individual contributors.

Yeah but when thousands of trained scientists repeat an experiment and do everything in their power to try to disprove any claim that is made using the most advanced tools at their disposal, that's the same as one crackpot who claims to have seen god or a ghost or a leprauchan and has nothing to back it up other than his claim.........right

Naz_st

mangaroosh wrote: »

It must be remembered that science is the manifestation of mankinds rationalisation of the world around "him", or indeed "his" personal experience, and is therefore subject to the inherent problems of personal experience, despite the noble attempts to diminish them.

It sounds like you are talking about the "Veil of Perception" alluded to by the English philosopher John Locke, among others, as part of the philosophy of representational realism. [The "Veil" essentially refers to the fact that everything in the "real" world is only understood by a person through a subjective prism of interpretation, and as such we can only really get blurred glimpses of objective reality]

This is an interesting philosophical and psychological concept, but even if you accept it in totality, it is in no way counteractive to science. The whole point of Science is to try and lift this "Veil", not get stuck behind it.
Recognising the subjectivity of experience, and countering it with measurability, testability and peer review is an essential part of the Scientific method.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Well when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Again, explain your reasoning on this one?

We also dispute what is impossible.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, explain your reasoning on this one?

We also dispute what is impossible.

We don't don't dispute what is impossible at all, the whole point of Jesus' miracles and resurrection is that they are impossible, which is supposed to show that he's the son of god. If what he did was within the laws of nature then his feats were nothing but magic tricks that you or I could also do if we knew the methods used.

Our dispute here is whether we should eliminate the impossible and your answer is the same as ours in every case in the history of the world except one.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, explain your reasoning on this one?

We also dispute what is impossible.

I think that was said in jest

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

The problem here is....

...one 'could' be right! and you and your faith 'could' be wrong along with everybody else that doesn't know 'everything'...Unless you think you know everything??

So, given that, perhaps a bit of respect for eachother is called for. Lack of respect for one another only invites lack of respect for yourself! It's elementary my dear Watson!:)

Simply because any belief is ultimately possible given the introduction of enough supernatural clauses, doesn't mean that every belief is equally likely and therefore deserving of equal respect.

Some beliefs go to a lot of trouble to demonstrate their plausibility.

Others don't, and expect people to accept them on very tenuous reasoning, if any reason is given at all.

Naz_st

Malty_T wrote: »

Well when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, explain your reasoning on this one?

We also dispute what is impossible.

IIRC, it's a Sherlock Holmes quote in relation to deductive reasoning.

In a nutshell it refers to discounting "impossible" notions, and if there is only one remaining possible explanation after sifting out the impossible, no matter how outlandish it sounds, it must be correct. e.g. (in the context of the original quote:)):

A man is caught on CCTV robbing a bank and is identified by multiple witnesses, yet the same man is identified at a high-society event by multiple credible witnesses for the duration of the robbery, and is also on camera giving a speech at the precise time of the CCTV footage from the bank.

Explanation 1: The suspect has suspended the laws of space and time and is in fact in two places at once!
Explanation 2: The suspect has a long-lost identical twin that was separated at birth that nobody knew about.

Ruling out the impossible, leaves us with the improbable.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Some religions claim to believe in the same god but with different interpretations of it, some believe in very different gods. But each of them has mutually exclusive claims about their respective gods. They cannot all be right but they can all be wrong

This again goes back to the issue of God being independent of religion. If God exists, and for the sake of the discussion I will try not to make any presumptions [in my statements], then it is quite possible that there will be wide and varied interpretations of God across different cultures and different periods of history. It is also logical to assume that as these interpretations, as they are passed on second hand, will take on a different form and mutate somewhat, to the extent that they will be somewhat divorced from the original concept/thing/being. One need only have experience of a chinese whisper to understand this.

Therefore, arguing against various interpretations of God, is not an argument against God, but rather against those specific interpretations. By all means challenge the accuracy and validity of certain religious claims, but don't commit the logical fallacy of assuming that disproving religious claims means disproving the existence of God.

To try and put that in more real world terms. As can often be the case, there may be several witnesses to an event, and quite often the accounts of witnesses can be very varied, with many inaccuracies, even some contradictions. However, the fact that the various accounts differ, and even contradict, has no bearing on whether or not the event actually occured, or indeed the true details of the account.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh no we don't. I know that, for example, gravity makes things accelerate at 9.8m/s^2. I don't have to know anything about the boiling point of water to know that law. You do not have to know every single law of nature to know some of them.

Ok, but the example given above doesn't correspond to the point made. You are 100% correct to say, that one does not need to know all the laws of nature to know some. That wasn't the issue however.

The issue is, that in order to categorically say that something is "outside the laws of nature", then all the laws of nature must be known. For example, if a person knows only the law of gravity and the boiling point of water are the only laws that are known, then that person is not in a position to say that electromagnetism is outside the laws of nature.

To put it another way. A person might know four people from a group of twenty, so it is true to say that that person can know people from the group.

However, the person is not in a position to say that someone outside of those four [they know] is definitively outside the group of twenty, as there are sixteen other members that they do not know. This holds true for any number of known members of, up to nineteen.

Of course, any phenomenon that occurs, must be attributable to some law of nature, as nothing can occur that is outside the laws of nature. However, something can occur for which we have not yet developed a consistent theory or rationalisation - as was the case with Gravity.


It is a bit of a tricky one, because there are a number of perspecitves from which it can be interpreted.

Firstly, if we take the example of Gravity. The effects of Gravity would have been observable, prior to the development of Newton's Theory. Therefore, the effects of gravity would have been a totally, naturally occuring phenomenon, and quite clearly attributable to some law of nature. The issue would have been that the law of nature was not known, or at least it's workings. This, as mentioned, would have meant that, the effects of what was later to be known as Gravity, were, at the time, attributable to a force that was beyond scientific understanding, and therefore, by [current] defintion, would have been both natural and supernatural at the same time. That is by definition now, not subjective interpretation of the word.

To consider another perspective, that may go some way to clarifying the point, lets say that there is a person, who has never in their life seen a kettle, or indeed boiling water, and someone tries to explain this "phenomenon" to them. The person who has never seen boiling water before, cannot say [and be correct] that boiling water is outside the laws of nature, as they quite clearly would not know what all the laws of nature are - nor apparently would they know the laws of nature that are known by others.

We can extrapolate from this, the more sophisticated example of the best scientists in the world. If one scientist observes a phenomenon in the laboratory and reports it to the wider scientific community, they cannot say that it is beyond the laws of nature, as they do not know what all the laws of nature are. They can of course investigate it, and make whatever judgement they will, but the same scenario can repeatedly present itself.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you want to use the word supernatural to mean "something that has not yet been explained" with no further connotations you can do that but you should be aware that no one you're talking to uses the word in that way, their word for such things is simply "unexplained" and the word supernatural carries connotations far beyond simply being unexplained. All that's going to happen is a lot of frustrating arguments because you're using the word to mean different things and things that meet your definition of supernatural do not meet theirs and never will. You should always at the very least explain at the start what your definition of the word is to prevent confusion, and of course watch people tell you that unexplained =/=supernatural

You touch on a very valid point there, that pertains not only to the interpretation of the word supernatural but extends far beyond into every discussion, including the existence of God.

The problem is, that when two people discuss something with each other, they will usually interpret the words and concepts, used by the other person in an exceedingly subjective manner, usually according to their own subjective interpretation of those words and concepts. For example, when two people discuss the existence of God, both will usually have their own interpretations of what God actually is, and interpret the other persons statements accordingly. Ultimately they will end up arguing against their own interpretation, as opposed to the other persons interpretation/understanding. This of course is confounded when people try to clarify their statements, and those further statements are interpreted based on subjective interpretations of the subsequent words/concepts.

The use of the word "supernatural" as referring to something beyond scientific understanding, is simply using the word in the way it has been defined, as opposed to an erroneus interpretation of the word.

With regard to the above, using the word supernatural as "something that has not yet been explained", and as "unexplained", they are the very same thing. Where the issue arises, I believe is with the interpretation of the word supernatural as being something which is beyond the laws of nature, or unexplainable by the laws of science. Of course if this interpretation is being used, then it is done so erroneously and does not relate to the word supernatural.

It is of course perfectly normal for a word to be misunderstood.

Btw, if you want to say that we cannot say that something has broken the laws of nature until we know all the laws of nature, then nothing will ever meet the definition the people you are talking to use for the word supernatural

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This line of conversation started with you finding it annoying how people dismiss personal experience and all you've done is go on about the problems with personal experience and claim that science suffers from them.

The central issue is not the problems with personal experience, as I acknowledge that personal experience cannot be accepted as evidence, when presenting a theory to a wider audience. However, personal experience is the only means that is open to sentient beings for acquiring knowledge. This is the nature of existence and is unavoidable, regardless of the attempts to formalise the rules through which that experience is interpreted or indeed experienced -as is the case with scientific experiments.

It may be tempting to point to the fact that a person can acquire knowledge without direct experience, however this is of course incorrect. A person may indeed be able to learn all the facts about something, to the extent that they know every fact there is to know about an issue/procedure/thing/etc. This is of course, a certain kind of knowledge, it is the knowledge of facts about something, which of course can only be acquired through the personal experience of learning.

Again with reference to the example of sexual intercourse. A person may know all the facts possible with regard to sex, from every scientific fact to every position in the kama sutra, and this of course is a type of knowledge, again the knowledge of information about something. It does not constitute full and accurate knowledge about sex however. This can only be acquired through direct experience of the act itself.

And as was mentioned before, the experience of the act istelf is entirely more meaningful than all the facts and information about the act. Indeed it provides the platform for more meaningful understanding and insight, and interpretation of that information. In actual fact, the only way in which that information can actually be verified, is through direct personal experience.


Now, it may be an assumption that the scientific method of enquiry, somehow manages to sidestep the very nature of existence, but this is entirely mistaken. The scientific method of enquiry relies very much on the personal experience of those scientists that carry out experiments, it relies on their observations of experiments and their interpretation of results. The verification of these results relies on the subsequent personal experiences of those scientists that test their claims. This of course is carried out within a very standardised framework, that allows for close reproduction and interpretation. The fact remains however, that it is entirely reliant on the personal experiences of a wide number of people and the consensus they reach.

If a person were to read a body of scientific work, and accept that it is true, without actually carrying out an experiment, they do so based on faith. This of course is not to be confused with "blind faith", which is actually belief.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But it's becoming quite clear that you don't understand how science operates. If it operated the way you think it does it would not work. At all. But the fact that I'm writing this on a mobile phone and am going to stick it on the internet to be read worldwide in seconds shows that it works extremely well. The evidence to support the scientific method is all around you and you should look up a bit more about how science works before you continue to criticise it for something it is not guilty of

I do have a general understanding of the scientific method, but this is carried out within the wider framework of human existence - this fact is unavoidable. Therefore, the scientific method is subject to all the issues that pertain to human existence, which is entirely based on personal experience.

The above point, with regard to the use of science as the platform for this discussion, is a futher annoying argument that often seems to arise. Personally, I have no problem with science, as it is an inanimate concept that is merely the manifestation of the human mind. Indeed I find that the application of science is quite wide, varied and overwhelmingly useful, it does however suffer from the same limitations as any manifestation of the human mind, in the fact that it is, by definition, entirely subjective.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I said at the start, personal experience is the least reliable source of information and instead of arguing with that you have tried to argue that all of science is just personal experience but it's not. It's just not. Nothing in science goes unquestioned. This is actually covered quite well in the video I linked you to, you are critical of atheists for their scepticism but you are fiercely sceptical of science, a field that emphasises scepticism. Ironically, you are sceptical of scepticism

In one sense you are completely correct in saying that, as a source of information, it is the least reliable source of information, in that if one is looking for information about something, then accepting someone elses personal experience as info, can be highly unreliable.

However, with regard to knowledge of something, as opposed to information about something, personal experience is the only source of knowledge available. One cannot know something, unless one experiences it. One cannot know a fact, without the experience of reading the fact, being told the fact, or some other form of experience.

One can know all the facts about climbing Mt.Everest, however, this does not mean that someone knows what it is to climb Mt.Everest.


While accepting someone elses' say so, as a source of information, is not very reliable, it must be remembered that information can only arise from personal experience. In order for information to exist about something, someone must first experience it, and then write their own rationalisation of the experience. This is just as true for scientific information as anything else. Scientific information, may have the benefit of being repeatedly tested and questioned, but again, it must be remembered that for each verification of a claim, a personal experience is required.

Again, this is an entirely inescapable reality of human existence, regardless of how much questioning is conducted.



So, to try and tie this into the whole God thing. Don't just accept anyone's personal experience or interpretation, test the hypothesis for yourself. This, as with any subject requires a certain level of inquiry/research, and the application of common sense.

roosh

Naz_st wrote: »

It sounds like you are talking about the "Veil of Perception" alluded to by the English philosopher John Locke, among others, as part of the philosophy of representational realism. [The "Veil" essentially refers to the fact that everything in the "real" world is only understood by a person through a subjective prism of interpretation, and as such we can only really get blurred glimpses of objective reality]

This is an interesting philosophical and psychological concept, but even if you accept it in totality, it is in no way counteractive to science. The whole point of Science is to try and lift this "Veil", not get stuck behind it.
Recognising the subjectivity of experience, and countering it with measurability, testability and peer review is an essential part of the Scientific method.

I wasn't familiar with the concept of "the veil of perception", but it sounds like pretty much what I am getting at.

I accept that science does, as much as is possible, to rule out personal experience and not to get stuck behind the veil of perception, however, it may serve to entrench it further, in the sense that consensus is sought, which may effectively lead to the accepting of a particular "veil of perception", as opposed to the complete removal of it.


Something which is pertinent to this issue, and indeed "the veil of perception", is the nature of knowledge, and in particular tacit knowledge, which is knowldge that is understood without being stated, or expressed. Tacit knowledge, like that experienced among sports teams (and in other areas), does not lend itself easily to rationalisation, in that it can't be expressed easily or written down.

It may be useful to use another analogy to try and explain this.

Let's just say that you climb Mt.Everest. Upon your return, you can impart information to me about your experience. You may perhaps be the single best "explainer" in the world and explain your experience in such vivid detail that means I can imagine what it must have been like to climb Mt.Everest.

However, I still will not know, what it was like to climb Mt.Everest. There is a part of your experience, that tacit knowledge, that can only be acquired through direct experience, which you cannot possibly transfer to me, regardless of the sophisticated means of simulation open to us.

This is knowledge that is only available through direct experience, and resides in a part of the mind, or in such a format, as cannot be experessed rationally, or scientifically.

This type of knowledge, would, I would postulate, exist outside "the veil of perception".

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Now, it may be an assumption that the scientific method of enquiry, somehow manages to sidestep the very nature of existence, but this is entirely mistaken. The scientific method of enquiry relies very much on the personal experience of those scientists that carry out experiments, it relies on their observations of experiments and their interpretation of results. The verification of these results relies on the subsequent personal experiences of those scientists that test their claims. This of course is carried out within a very standardised framework, that allows for close reproduction and interpretation. The fact remains however, that it is entirely reliant on the personal experiences of a wide number of people and the consensus they reach.

mangaroosh, there really is no need to write such massively long replies, as in this case it has made me not bother to read the whole thing so I'll just respond to this part. If you actually believe the above then you're a fool if you ever step foot onto a plane, drive a car, undergo surgery or do anything where that involves taking any kind of risk based on the assumption that the science behind the risk you're taking is sound. In fact if I believed like that I'd go to live in a cave away from all man made endeavours for fear that the whole thing might explode at any second

Morbert

Regarding a few of the points made by mangaroosh about subjectivity in science:

Science's main weapons against the "veil of perception" are its rigour and its self-antagonism. The observed energy eigenvalues of some molecular device, for example, are strictly quantifiable, and different theories and models will compete to predict such observable phenomena. These are objective quantities, as they do not depend on the observer. Such quantities are, of course, tentative, and no scientist would say a scientific theory or fact is necessarily true, but we can still say it describes phenomena objectively and reliably. An alien race that experienced light and heat in an entirely different manner to us would still be able to work with our scientific theories of electromagnetism and statistical mechanics.

That is not to say that science is entirely objective. Subjectivity will always creep in where humans are involved. But it is the antagonism in science that helps scrub away this objectivity, so that reliable theories emerge from the often heated debates.

Naz_st

mangaroosh wrote: »

I wasn't familiar with the concept of "the veil of perception", but it sounds like pretty much what I am getting at.

I accept that science does, as much as is possible, to rule out personal experience and not to get stuck behind the veil of perception, however, it may serve to entrench it further, in the sense that consensus is sought, which may effectively lead to the accepting of a particular "veil of perception", as opposed to the complete removal of it.

Well, you're getting into tricky philosophical waters there, since you are effectively questioning the entire concept of "objective" knowledge. The further down that road you go, the further away from "reality" you get (and into the domain of the pure thought).

So, do you believe that there is such a thing as objective knowledge (i.e. facts, scientific laws, etc)? Because if you do, then one of the characteristics of it is going to be consensus among observers. So how do you distinguish between objective reality (which will involve a consensus among individual observers) and a "subjective consensus" (which will involve a consensus among individual observers)? Answering this question satisfactorily is one of the important foundations of the scientific method and where testability, prediction, falsifiability and peer review come in. A scientific theory isn't accepted simply because a bunch of scientists agreed about something over a morning coffee!

Perhaps Steven J Gould's definition of a "fact" is useful here:

"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world... In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

So is the law of gravity, which states that bodies with mass attract each other, no longer something that we "know", but simply something that every individual subjectively interprets?

Something which is pertinent to this issue, and indeed "the veil of perception", is the nature of knowledge, and in particular tacit knowledge, which is knowldge that is understood without being stated, or expressed. Tacit knowledge, like that experienced among sports teams (and in other areas), does not lend itself easily to rationalisation, in that it can't be expressed easily or written down.

It may be useful to use another analogy to try and explain this.

Let's just say that you climb Mt.Everest. Upon your return, you can impart information to me about your experience. You may perhaps be the single best "explainer" in the world and explain your experience in such vivid detail that means I can imagine what it must have been like to climb Mt.Everest.

However, I still will not know, what it was like to climb Mt.Everest. There is a part of your experience, that tacit knowledge, that can only be acquired through direct experience, which you cannot possibly transfer to me, regardless of the sophisticated means of simulation open to us.

This is knowledge that is only available through direct experience, and resides in a part of the mind, or in such a format, as cannot be experessed rationally, or scientifically.

This type of knowledge, would, I would postulate, exist outside "the veil of perception".

Well experiencing something is a form of knowledge, i.e. it is a subset in the domain of knowledge (a "type" of knowledge). But I can still have plenty of knowledge about a number of facts about Mt Everest that won't change if I climb it (e.g. it's height, it's geographical location, the amount of oxygen in the air at the top). Or do you think these things are only subjective interpretations? Will I be able to breathe the air at the top easily if I interpret it differently to other people?

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

mangaroosh, there really is no need to write such massively long replies, as in this case it has made me not bother to read the whole thing so I'll just respond to this part. If you actually believe the above then you're a fool if you ever step foot onto a plane, drive a car, undergo surgery or do anything where that involves taking any kind of risk based on the assumption that the science behind the risk you're taking is sound. In fact if I believed like that I'd go to live in a cave away from all man made endeavours for fear that the whole thing might explode at any second

apologies, but I have to refer you back to the previous post, as this was dealt with [further down]:

mangaroosh wrote:

The above point, with regard to the use of science as the platform for this discussion, is a futher annoying argument that often seems to arise. Personally, I have no problem with science, as it is an inanimate concept that is merely the manifestation of the human mind. Indeed I find that the application of science is quite wide, varied and overwhelmingly useful, it does however suffer from the same limitations as any manifestation of the human mind, in the fact that it is, by definition, entirely subjective.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Regarding a few of the points made by mangaroosh about subjectivity in science:

Science's main weapons against the "veil of perception" are its rigour and its self-antagonism. The observed energy eigenvalues of some molecular device, for example, are strictly quantifiable, and different theories and models will compete to predict such observable phenomena. These are objective quantities, as they do not depend on the observer. Such quantities are, of course, tentative, and no scientist would say a scientific theory or fact is necessarily true, but we can still say it describes phenomena objectively and reliably. An alien race that experienced light and heat in an entirely different manner to us would still be able to work with our scientific theories of electromagnetism and statistical mechanics.

That is not to say that science is entirely objective. Subjectivity will always creep in where humans are involved. But it is the antagonism in science that helps scrub away this objectivity, so that reliable theories emerge from the often heated debates.

Again, I fully accept the above, but must ask what definition of the understanding of the word "subjective".

Just to be clear also, that this is not a semantical argument, as the actual meaning of the word is not in question, rather the potential subjective [pun unintentional] understanding of the word.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

apologies, but I have to refer you back to the previous post, as this was dealt with [further down]:

I'm afraid you haven't dealt with it mangaroosh. Science is not subjective. I don't get to decide whether or not planes can fly. I can choose to believe that they can't but they'll go on flying no matter how strongly I believe. The speed of sound is not a matter of personal preference, I don't hear things before others because I choose to believe that sound travels faster than science says it does. If I fall in love with and become emotionally attached to the idea that the earth is flat, it'll go on being round regardless of what I think.

You are attempting to belittle science, trying to make out that an opinion backed up by a mountain of scientific data is no more valid than one with nothing but a personal preference and maybe something you personally can't explain but it's not going to work. If science was actually as you describe it we'd still be living in caves

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If science was actaually as you describe it we'd still be living in caves

I believe my cave has central heating

*dies from the cold*

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid you haven't dealt with it mangaroosh. Science is not subjective. I don't get to decide whether or not planes can fly. I can choose to believe that they can't but they'll go on flying no matter how strongly I believe. The speed of sound is not a matter of personal preference, I don't hear things before others because I choose to believe that sound travels faster than science says it does. If I fall in love with and become emotionally attached to the idea that the earth is flat, it'll go on being round regardless of what I think.

You are attempting to belittle science, trying to make out that an opinion backed up by a mountain of scientific data is no more valid than one with nothing but a personal preference and maybe something you personally can't explain but it's not going to work. If science was actually as you describe it we'd still be living in caves

Let's try and stick to logic.


Ultimately what the discussion boils down to, is the validity of this statement:


The only way in which anyone can know anything, is by direct personal experience.



Is there a logical and rational reason why this is incorrect? If so, what is it?

philologos

mangaroosh: Many men have made your argument concerning experience in the past from the secular philosopher David Hume to Immanuel Kant or John Locke. One cannot know anything without experience. I'd agree with this, and this would make me an empiricist. One has to have experience to reason upon. In the Christian case we have the experiences of men, our own experiences, and other peoples experiences to reason upon. Then we also have other means of connecting our beliefs to reality through reason only after empiricism.

Although intrigued at Descartes idea that we can know things before we experience them, I don't think it's very reasonable ultimately. It's built rather heavily on Plato's theory of forms and doesn't really work.

Empiricism vs Reason alone has been an argument hard fought out for in philosophy, and it seems it is still being fought to a certain extent.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Let's try and stick to logic.


Ultimately what the discussion boils down to, is the validity of this statement:


The only way in which anyone can know anything, is by direct personal experience.



Is there a logical and rational reason why this is incorrect? If so, what is it?

Yes, there is. Direct personal experience is extremely flawed so you cannot truly know something from direct personal experience alone. We could all be someone's dream, we could all be in the matrix. You could all be my dream. It's not possible to prove that human beings are capable of rational thought because in order to prove something you first first assume rationality. When you get into the high levels of philosophy it is impossible to truly know anything.

In the absence of true knowledge what we have are levels of probability. Each independently verifiable piece of evidence that you stack in favour of your belief or opinion or viewpoint and each attack that fails to disprove it makes it more probable that you are correct. You can never truly know if you are correct but you can be pretty damn sure. As Einstein said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong"
Just because we can't know anything with 100% certainty does not mean that all theories, hypotheses, hunches and crackpot ideas are equally valid.

Turtwig

mangaroosh wrote: »

The only way in which anyone can know anything, is by direct personal experience.

That statement is far too vague.

Do you mean:
"The only way anyone can known anything with 100% certainty, is by direct unaltered personal and empiricial experience?

If that kind of experience seems impossible to you, well, that's because it is.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes, there is. Direct personal experience is extremely flawed so you cannot truly know something from direct personal experience alone. We could all be someone's dream, we could all be in the matrix. You could all be my dream. It's not possible to prove that human beings are capable of rational thought because in order to prove something you first first assume rationality. When you get into the high levels of philosophy it is impossible to truly know anything.

Ok, we will have to flesh out a number of points here, as there are a number of issues in there.

Firstly with regard to direct personal experience being flawed. In what way is it? Is it because of the concept that we cannot know anything 100%, that we could all be someone's dream or living in the matrix?

If indeed we are just someone's dream, then that would more than likely make them God. If indeed we are your dream, then you would probably qualify as that omniscient, omnipresent being.

Based on your own reasoning below, and the law of probability, these could probably both be ruled out as improbable, as there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to support either hypothesis.

Also, when you say, one cannot truly know something "from direct personal experience alone", what is meant, is there another condition that is required for knowledge?

I would also, question the concept that nothing can be truly known. What do you mean by this?

Also, with regard to the assumption of rationality, do you mean that there is an assumption that humans are rational or that the universe is rational?

[EDIT] On both cases either one or the other is correct - either it is correct to assume rationality, or it is not, and if we work on the basis of evidence, then it would seem that it is correct to assume it.

Of course, if it isn't true, then asking for a rational explanation for the existence of God is a non-runner.[/EDIT]

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In the absence of true knowledge what we have are levels of probability.

Again, I would question the notion of an "absence of true knowledge", and further question the ability of scientific enquiry to deliver knowledge if nothing can be truly known.

Also, with regard to probability, this is the prediction of an outcome based on "knowledge", or rather a percentage of the overall knowledge. If there is no true knowledge then probability goes out the window.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Each independently verifiable piece of evidence that you stack in favour of your belief or opinion or viewpoint and each attack that fails to disprove it makes it more probable that you are correct. You can never truly know if you are correct but you can be pretty damn sure. As Einstein said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong"
Just because we can't know anything with 100% certainty does not mean that all theories, hypotheses, hunches and crackpot ideas are equally valid.

In the context of true knowledge, if nothing can ever be truly known, then there is no evidence, because if each individual piece of evidence cannot be truly kown, then it cannot be taken as evidence, unless it is accepted on the basis of consensus, which is not sufficient for determining reality, and therefore the existence/non-existence of a being.

roosh

Jakkass wrote: »

mangaroosh: Many men have made your argument concerning experience in the past from the secular philosopher David Hume to Immanuel Kant or John Locke. One cannot know anything without experience. I'd agree with this, and this would make me an empiricist. One has to have experience to reason upon. In the Christian case we have the experiences of men, our own experiences, and other peoples experiences to reason upon. Then we also have other means of connecting our beliefs to reality through reason only after empiricism.

Although intrigued at Descartes idea that we can know things before we experience them, I don't think it's very reasonable ultimately. It's built rather heavily on Plato's theory of forms and doesn't really work.

Empiricism vs Reason alone has been an argument hard fought out for in philosophy, and it seems it is still being fought to a certain extent.

Apologies, although familiar with the aforementioned, I am unfamiliar with the arguements. For that reason I prefer to discuss people's own statements, as opposed to their understanding of other concepts.


Just with regard to the idea of Empiricism vs Reason, I would ask, what is the method by which reason is verified, as in, when reason is used to arrive at a conclusion, how is that conclusion then verified, to assess whether or not it is true?

philologos

The only way that people can reason is based on what they have experienced. They can think about what they have experienced, but not much more. It's also the way science works to an extent.

Generally what would happen scientifically is that people base hypotheses on what they have experienced elsewhere, then when investigating the claim they wish to discover, they check to see if it is also true in experience.

roosh

Malty_T wrote: »

That statement is far too vague.

Do you mean:
"The only way anyone can known anything with 100% certainty, is by direct unaltered personal and empiricial experience?

If that kind of experience seems impossible to you, well, that's because it is.

Indeed that sounds like a good way of stating it, although, what exactly is meant by unaltered needs to be questioned.

Whether or not it is possible, could hinge on whether or not an unaltered experience is possible. Of course this would have wider ramifications, which of course the field of science would not be able to escape.

diverdriver

While this thread makes fascinating and interesting reading. It is fundamentally flawed from my point of view. You see, I wouldn't describe myself as a atheist, that's a label. It implies a belief system or belonging to a group. I'm don't.

I simply don't believe in any God. It simply does not exist. Simple as that. The most frustrating argument of them all.

I won't try and convince religious people otherwise and indeed I rarely tell people because quite frankly it's not up to me to dictate other people's beliefs and fantasies. Many people need religion to make sense of their lives. There was a time when so much was unexplainable and it made sense to invent an entity that oversees us all. People invented Gods as soon as they became conscious of themselves. It's a human condition. People as a rule need something bigger and better than themselves whether it be God or some cause or politics.

Let me tell you one thing about getting over the God thing. It certainly is a relief. Religion is really such an oppressive thing even if the religion itself is quite benign. Of course belief in a God who has your interests at heart is quite comforting hence it's attractiveness to many people.

So enjoy your belief. Whatever makes you happy.

roosh

Jakkass wrote: »

The only way that people can reason is based on what they have experienced. They can think about what they have experienced, but not much more. It's also the way science works to an extent.

Generally what would happen scientifically is that people base hypotheses on what they have experienced elsewhere, then when investigating the claim they wish to discover, they check to see if it is also true in experience.

Indeed, I would largely agree with you, and you are getting at the crux of the issue, here.

People can indeed reason based on experience, however, it is the point at which they attempt to rationalise their experience that is subjective, even when they rationalise it to themselves.

Just to clarify however, the point at which an experience is rationalised, does not make the experience itself subjective, rather it is the rationalisation of that experience that becomes subjective.

Indeed, experience can be very hard to rationalise, and a rational explanation can never capture the true nature of something that exists i.e. "a thing". What it does is act as a signpost to that "thing", so that if a person has a similar experience, then verbal communication is possible about that experience. That is the nature of words also.

As you mentioned above, generally in science, people base a hypothesis on what they have experienced. It is of course the hypothesis that is subjective, as it is their own rationalisation of that experience, usually in accordance with strict guidlelines, measurements, etc.

It is the subjective part, or the hypothesis, that is then verified for accuracy. This is done by following the methodology of an experiment, which is designed to ensure that the person, who is attempting to verify the subjective hypothesis, can have, pretty much, the exact same experience as the person who proposed the hypothesis.



The other side of the coin also, is that a person can reason and use logic, based on certain assumptions, so that conclusions may be deduced. Indeed, mathematical modelling follows this methodology. The only manner in which those assumptions can be verified, is through experience, often in the form of observation.

The fundamental flaw with this approach however, is that predictions can be made based on flawed assumptions, and if there is evidence that verifies a prediction, it can be erroneosly interpreted as verifying the assumption.

liamw

diverdriver wrote: »

So enjoy your belief. Whatever makes you happy.

Absolutely, as long as they keep their deluded beliefs to themselves and those beliefs are not allowed to influence anything related to the state.

philologos

The word deluded is almost meaningless on this forum anymore. It's something that can be thrown around side to side. I could equally claim that you are deluded for rejecting God's authority, but it just gets tedious. Both sides regard the other as mistaken, we get it already!

liamw

Mangaroosh, what is your point in all this? Are you suggesting that belief from personal experience should be given as much credit as a premise that has passed through scientific method, as a global truth?

Are you actually saying that if the FSM talks to me and I truly believe it happened, there is a reasonable degree of probability that the FSM actaully exists?

Or are you simply gone off topic, and arguing whether science is objective or subjective?

It would be nice if you cleared it up becuase I see Jakkass is thanking your posts which indicates to me that he thinks your arguments are giving his Christianity more credibility.

philologos

I'm thanking a few of mangaroosh's posts as they make sense philosophically. I do not believe that scientific findings are subjective however. They are at all times subject to challenge, but at any given time they are the best and by far the most accurate estimate we can come up with.

The scientific method itself involves experience. This is true. One has to be able to observe results. Therefore science involves both empiricism and reason.

It isn't really anything to do with my Christianity. I have my philosophers hat on for this one.

roosh

diverdriver wrote: »

While this thread makes fascinating and interesting reading. It is fundamentally flawed from my point of view. You see, I wouldn't describe myself as a atheist, that's a label. It implies a belief system or belonging to a group. I'm don't.

I simply don't believe in any God. It simply does not exist. Simple as that. The most frustrating argument of them all.

You touch on something very relevant here, and that is the idea of labels and concpets - something which is central to Buddhist philosophy.

God is indeed merely a label, and the word itself does not have any inherent existence, nor does any attempted rationalisation of what God is. The true nature of anything cannot be summed up using language.

The nature of words is such that they are meaningless in and of themselves. Without that thing to which they refer they would either not exist at all, or they are completely meaningless. So when a person uses a word or a concept, they must be referring to something, either existent or non-existent. It is what they are actually referring to, that determines whether or not it exists.

So for example, when one says:
"I simply don't believe in any God. It simply does not exist"

the word God must be referring to something, and it is the nature of that thing (or concept) which will determine whether or not it exists.

For example, if God is taken to refer to "a magic man, with a white beard living in the clouds", then I would say that it is pretty safe to assume that "God" does not exist.

However, this concept of God, as "a magic man, with a white beard living in the clouds", is not necessarily what God is, so proving the non-existence of this concept of God, does not disprove the existence of God, rather disproves a subjective, and indeed erroneous interpretation of what God is.


This is similar to an earlier point in the thread about the meaning of the word "supernatural", where the meaning of a word/concept can be incorrectly assumed. It is of course through open-minded discussion, that a clearer understanding can be achieved.

So, just to pose the question, when it is stated:
"I simply don't believe in any God. It simply does not exist"

what is it, that does not exist?

diverdriver wrote: »

I won't try and convince religious people otherwise and indeed I rarely tell people because quite frankly it's not up to me to dictate other people's beliefs and fantasies. Many people need religion to make sense of their lives. There was a time when so much was unexplainable and it made sense to invent an entity that oversees us all. People invented Gods as soon as they became conscious of themselves. It's a human condition. People as a rule need something bigger and better than themselves whether it be God or some cause or politics.

Let me tell you one thing about getting over the God thing. It certainly is a relief. Religion is really such an oppressive thing even if the religion itself is quite benign. Of course belief in a God who has your interests at heart is quite comforting hence it's attractiveness to many people.

So enjoy your belief. Whatever makes you happy.

Personally, I will not attempt to force my opinions on anyone, not only because it is morally reprehensible, but it is ultimately futile. The only one who can convince anyone of anything is the person themselves. A person can choose to accept, reject or investigate whatever claims are made.

What I personally will do, is try to put forward my point as logically and rationally as possible, I will question a person's statement, and expect to have my own statments questioned (particularly when I post them in a public domain). Again, it is entirely up to the individual themselves to either accept. reject, or investigate the statements made.

One issue that appears to get blurred quite often is the idea that God and religion are the same thing. This of course does not follow logically. God is independent from religion, despite the fact that religion may be dependent on God.

Religion, not God, is the invention of mankind.


One other issue with regard to religion, is this notion that it is oppressive. Religion is not oppressive, as a person can choose to accept or reject a religion, as a great many people do, or perhaps to investigate what is actually claimed by religion for themselves, as opposed to basing it on a misinterpretation of what they believe someone elses interpretation is.

In the same way that "cars don't kill people, people with cars kill people", religion is not oppressive, it is a certain number of those who operate within religion, that may attempt to use religion as a boon for oppression.

Often times religion is derided as being a means for abdicating responsibility over to the man in the sky, similarly, blaming religion for anything is like abdicating responsibility to the man on the pulpit.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Ok, we will have to flesh out a number of points here, as there are a number of issues in there.

Firstly with regard to direct personal experience being flawed. In what way is it? Is it because of the concept that we cannot know anything 100%, that we could all be someone's dream or living in the matrix?

It's flawed because we're experiencing the world with eys and ears that evolved through a blind an unintelligent process and the signals from these eyes and ears are processed by a lump of organic matter that evolved through the same blind unintelligent process. There is nothing divine in how we think, we're just slightly smarter apes. It is not only possible but extremely easy for you to have an experience that appears as real as the ground under your feet but happens entirely inside your mind. Our brains are also filled with biases that make us misinterpret events around us. That's why it's so important to use empirical data hen trying to determine if a hypothesis is correct

mangaroosh wrote: »

If indeed we are just someone's dream, then that would more than likely make them God. If indeed we are your dream, then you would probably qualify as that omniscient, omnipresent being.

Anything can happen in a dream, there are no laws of physics inside someone's imagination. There is no requirement on someone to be a god in order to dream something

mangaroosh wrote: »

Based on your own reasoning below, and the law of probability, these could probably both be ruled out as improbable, as there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to support either hypothesis.

And there isn't sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis of an omnipotent god either, it's just people using their flawed brains to decide that there must be one.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Also, when you say, one cannot truly know something "from direct personal experience alone", what is meant, is there another condition that is required for knowledge?

There is no condition for knowledge. We cannot truly know anything

mangaroosh wrote: »

Also, with regard to the assumption of rationality, do you mean that there is an assumption that humans are rational or that the universe is rational?

[EDIT] On both cases either one or the other is correct - either it is correct to assume rationality, or it is not, and if we work on the basis of evidence, then it would seem that it is correct to assume it.

Of course, if it isn't true, then asking for a rational explanation for the existence of God is a non-runner.[/EDIT]

MY point is that rationality must be assumed, it cannot be proven because proof requires an assumption of rationality

mangaroosh wrote: »

Again, I would question the notion of an "absence of true knowledge", and further question the ability of scientific enquiry to deliver knowledge if nothing can be truly known.

Also, with regard to probability, this is the prediction of an outcome based on "knowledge", or rather a percentage of the overall knowledge. If there is no true knowledge then probability goes out the window.

Eh, no it doesn't. Probability doesn't even apply to "true knowledge". Something that is truly known has a probability of exactly 100%. Probability only becomes relevant in the absence of true knowledge.

mangaroosh wrote: »

In the context of true knowledge, if nothing can ever be truly known, then there is no evidence, because if each individual piece of evidence cannot be truly kown, then it cannot be taken as evidence, unless it is accepted on the basis of consensus, which is not sufficient for determining reality, and therefore the existence/non-existence of a being.

It's a dilemma isn't it? You want to be able to assert true knowledge but human beings simply aren't capable of it. All we can do is try as hard as we can to support our hypotheses with as much evidence as possible and the evidence itself cannot be truly known either. The only certainty in this world is uncertainty

roosh

liamw wrote: »

Mangaroosh, what is your point in all this?

The point was, initially to point out some of the annoying atheist arguments that seem to crop up quite often. Some of the points were challenged, so it has developed into an attempt to clarify a number of issues.

Ultimately, and what seems to be unavoidably, the point appears to be the existence/non-existence of God, which by its very nature pretains to the nature of reality and knowledge, and the ability to know something.

This particular point is about the nature of knowledge, and how something can be known to be true or false. The point being made is that the only way in which something can be known, is through personal experience, as opposed to the rationalisation of someone else's experience.

Part of the point is to highlight that science adheres to this concept, as it is an unavoidable consequence of human existence.

The applicationof this point is to then show how personal experience is the only manner in which reality, and therefore the existence of anything can actually be known - for all individuals. This directly pertains to the existence of God.

It is also to highlight the need for personal experience in order to meaningfully interpret information, and in this particular instance, the need for personal experience in order to interpret what God actually is.

liamw wrote: »

Are you suggesting that belief from personal experience should be given as much credit as a premise that has passed through scientific method, as a global truth?

In short no.

What is being said is that the only way in which something can actually be known, and therefore said to be true, is through direct personal experience.

To clarify, a person can read facts about boiling water and believe that the boiling temperature of water is 100 degrees celcius. They cannot know that this is true however, until they actually measure it for themselves, or have the experience of actually observing the reading of a thermometer.

Similiarly, a religious person cannot know whether or not God exists, without personal experience of Gods existence. Likewise, a religious person cannot know what God actually is, without this particular experience. They may believe certain "facts" about God, and they may have a personal perception of what God is, but personal experience is required to meaningfully interpret that information.


Also, there appears to be some obscuration the nature of personal experience. For example, it appears that there is an assumption that a personal account of an experience, or a person's subjective rationalisation of an experience, is the same thing as a personal experience. This of course is incorrect.

A person can experience something and only then attempt to rationalise it. It is the attempted rationalisation of the experience that is subjective, as opposed to the experience itself. Of course this attempted rationalisation cannot not be taken to be truth by the person who hears the explanation, they can merely choose to believe it or not believe it. In order to confirm it as true, they must experience the same thing for themselves.

Similiarly, a scientific hypothesis is not accepted as either true or false, it of course can be believed by some and rejected by others. In order to verify the claim and confirm it as true or false, a scientist will have to carry out the experiment form themselves.

Some people may have faith in a particular scientist, based on their past history and good reputation, and accept the hypothesis on faith. Others may have faith in the scientific method, and choose to believe a particular finding because it has been verified by a huge number of other scientists, without verifying it themselves.

The nature of what is known in this instance is what is to be questioned. Where someone knows a fact about something, they cannot know whether or not this fact is true, without verifying it for themselves. They may however choose to believe it, based on the faith they have in the proven scientific method.


The issue of course is whether something is accepted as a "global truth". Indeed, nothing can be accepted as a "global truth", and by that I mean accepted by every single person and/or sentient being, until such point as it is experientially verified by every single person. A fact can be verified by a large number of people, only through the process of experiement, which is personal experience. This group can agree that a particular hypothesis is correct and in accordance with reality (or at least describes reality), only after they have verified it personally.

Everyone else may accept to believe that group of people, and indeed, they may have very good reason to have faith in the judgement of those people, however, they cannot actually know that it is true, unless they verify it for themselves. This is the difference between belief and knowledge of something.

Of course, a person can have knowledge of a fact, but a fact does not exist in reality, it merely describes reality, and is entirely subjective, as it is dependent on the mind for existence. Again, however, knowledge of a piece of information is not sufficient for knowledge of reality, otherwise there would be no need to verify scientific claims, as reason alone would be sufficient.

Indeed a piece of information does not become a fact until such point as it is verified, by someone, through personal experience, usually under controlled conditions.

liamw wrote: »

Are you actually saying that if the FSM talks to me and I truly believe it happened, there is a reasonable degree of probability that the FSM actaully exists?

I am unfamiliar with the term FSM, but there is an inherent flaw in the above statement, as "if the FSM talks to you" then logically the FSM has spoken to you.

The question may be, if you believe that the FSM has spoken to you, then it is quite possible that you have misinterpreted your experience, however it is only your rationalisation of the experience that is incorrect.

If someone comes along and explains an experience similar to yours, and says that it was something completely different, then based on your experience you can verify their claim, and you can verify theirs, and indeed through discussion about the personal experience, you may come to a better rationalisation and indeed understanding, of what the experience was. The accuracy and understanding of the rationalisation will likely increase the more people who share their own rationalisations.

Ultimately, of course the experience will be beyond rationalisation to the extent that the true nature of it will not be captured by any rational explanation. One may give exact details of the conditions that were present at the time of the experience, so that someone else may try and experience the same thing, and any rational explanation of the experience, will merely be a description of it.

liamw wrote: »

Or are you simply gone off topic, and arguing whether science is objective or subjective?

It was to a certain extent "off-topic" although it was very much tangential to it. The nature of objectivity and subjectivity is very pertinent to the understanding of the issue, and indeed the perception of what is and isn't subjective or objective.

The rejection of something as subjective and therefore not worthy of consideration, is a condition that either applies unilaterally or not at all. As science has both subjective and objective parts, it is necessary to explore which is which, and indeed by definition anything which is expressed rationally, or even using language is subjective, as the words, concepts, measurements, etc. rely upon the mind for existence.

On the other hand, the objective part of scientific enquiry is the experimental side of things carried out, personally by scientists, or teams of researchers.

It becomes clear, upon logical and rational examination that personal experience is very much part of the scientific method, and indeed the verification of theories is entirely dependent on it - as is the verification of anything as either true or false.

Therefore, it is perfectly logical to say that personal experience is required when it comes to determining the existence of God, and indeed understanding the nature of that which is being challenged.

liamw wrote: »

It would be nice if you cleared it up becuase I see Jakkass is thanking your posts which indicates to me that he thinks your arguments are giving his Christianity more credibility.

Hopefully the above clarifies a number of issues.

Just one question however. What do you mean by "his Christianity"? To what extent is it your subjective perception of "his Christianity", based on your own subjective interpretation of Christianity? When he talks about God, are you sure that he is talking about the same concept as you, or are you rejecting what you think his concept is, based on what your understanding is?

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's flawed because we're experiencing the world with eys and ears that evolved through a blind an unintelligent process and the signals from these eyes and ears are processed by a lump of organic matter that evolved through the same blind unintelligent process. There is nothing divine in how we think, we're just slightly smarter apes.

OK, it is probably stating the obvious, but there are more than just two senses, there are indeed more than just the five senses, through which we interpret reality. Indeed it is the combination of all the 20+ senses that accumulate to make our experience of reality.

You do touch on a central issue, and that is the issue of thinking. It is thinking and the attempt to rationalise an experience using concepts and words (which are simply thoughts), that is subjective and that is indeed flawed.

This is where the concept/act of "not thinking, just being" comes in, the idea of experiencing something with "no mind". This is how one can have a reliable experience of reality. This is in part what many of the practices of religion are supposed to help us attain. The notion of prayer is not a prayer to some external entity on a cloud, but rather as a form of "positive" re-inforcement, that is to affect our thinking, which will in turn affect our actions and therefore our experiences. Meditation is designed specifically for the purpose of cultivating this experience of "no mind".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It is not only possible but extremely easy for you to have an experience that appears as real as the ground under your feet but happens entirely inside your mind. Our brains are also filled with biases that make us misinterpret events around us. That's why it's so important to use empirical data hen trying to determine if a hypothesis is correct

It is also equally possible to have a real experience. Again, you touch on a very important issue, the idea of interpretation. Indeed it is the point at which we attempt to interpret our experienc that it becomes detached from reality, not the experience but rather the interpretation. This is the part that is not reliable and indeed, you are right,is why empirical data - data based on observation or experience - is required.

The same goes for claims with regard to God, of which there are many, and indeed some cross over into certain fields that can also be used to verify claims, about those things, for example verifying the accuracy of the account of Genesis. This can, perhaps, be verified or rejected based on certain scientific evidence. That in itself is one claim pertaining to God, that could perhaps be rejected. Of course there are others, for which empirical data is also required, and which can only be gained by following certain procedures, fully and completely. The issue, of course, is having the faith in those who are telling us what procedures to follow. Often it can be difficult to have this faith, as those telling us what to do, do not always embody the teachings, this is why it is important to seek out a reliable and experienced practicioner, with a strong and verifiable reputation in the particular field, and one who embodies what is being taught.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Anything can happen in a dream, there are no laws of physics inside someone's imagination. There is no requirement on someone to be a god in order to dream something

If this is a dream, then the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being, capable of suspending the apparent laws of physics, what is referred to within this dream state as God, is that being who is dreaming, who created what we perceive as the universe. If this is a dream, then it would be possible for water to be turned into wine, for a child to be born without sexual conception, for a man to be crucified, die and rise from the dead three days later, etc. and the practice of science has nothing to do with reality.

If of course this is not a dream, then it is possible to truly know something and personal experience is the only means in which this knowledge can be achieved.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And there isn't sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis of an omnipotent god either, it's just people using their flawed brains to decide that there must be one.

If this is a dream, the the omnipotent being that is referred to as god is the dreamer of this dream.

Alternatively it depends on one's acceptance of logic and rational thinking, one's belief in evolution, "the big bang" and their use as explanatory cranes - to paraphrase Richard Dawkins.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is no condition for knowledge. We cannot truly know anything

Knowledge is by its very nature "know-able"

Sam Vimes wrote: »

MY point is that rationality must be assumed, it cannot be proven because proof requires an assumption of rationality

Can this be further clarified? What is meant by "rationality must be assumed, it cannot be proven because proof requires an assumption of rationality".

Although, it is not necessarily in dispute, it can be stated that either rationality exists, or it doesn't.

If it doesn't, then asking for a rational explanation of God is, as said, a non-runner. It can be stated, God exists because seventeen.

If rationality does exist, then rational and logical discussion can ensue.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh, no it doesn't. Probability doesn't even apply to "true knowledge". Something that is truly known has a probability of exactly 100%. Probability only becomes relevant in the absence of true knowledge.

Indeed, you are fully correct, probability does not really apply to "true knowledge" for the reason given above.

Probability is the prediction of a possible number of outcomes, but is based on "true knowledge", and indeed is a very logical and rational concept. In order to predict the probability of a certain outcome, one must first know certain things, for example, the probability of predicting the what colour ball will be drawn from a sack, where only one ball is drawn, is not possible without "true knowledge" of a number of conditions. If one does not know how many balls of varying colours are in a sack, then assigning a degree of probability is impossible.

Probability is a degree of ignorance, or perhaps a degree of knowledge. If one knows every single factor influencing a particular outcome, then probability is increased to 100%. The degree or probability is affected then based on the number of influencing factors known. If nothing is known, the probability is non-existent.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's a dilemma isn't it? You want to be able to assert true knowledge but human beings simply aren't capable of it. All we can do is try as hard as we can to support our hypotheses with as much evidence as possible and the evidence itself cannot be truly known either. The only certainty in this world is uncertainty

If this is a dream, and nothing can be known, then, again, the omnipotent, omniscient being who can suspend the laws of physics, that is referred to in this dream state, as God, is the dreamer.

If this isn't a dream, then true knowledge is possible.

Turtwig

OH sweet mother of God,

Mangaroosh, It's because of folks like you the internetz invented tweets.
Next time : 140 characters maximum!

Funglegunk

diverdriver wrote: »

I simply don't believe in any God. It simply does not exist. Simple as that. The most frustrating argument of them all.

So you're an atheist then...

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

OH sweet mother of God,

Mangaroosh, It's because of folks like you the internetz invented tweets.
Next time : 140 characters maximum!

Indeed. Honestly mangaroosh I have neither the time nor the inclination to read and respond to all of that. Sorry

roosh

Malty_T wrote: »

OH sweet mother of God,

Mangaroosh, It's because of folks like you the internetz invented tweets.
Next time : 140 characters maximum!

Tweet's were invented for a very different type of person, perhaps those incapable of following anything over 140 characters?

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

If this is a dream, and nothing can be known, then, again, the omnipotent, omniscient being who can suspend the laws of physics, that is referred to in this dream state, as God, is the dreamer.

If this isn't a dream, then true knowledge is possible.

I decided to respond to what I think is your main point. Please try to keep your reply brief, this is not a blog.

Since human senses are fallible, how can you ever say with 100% certainty that you know something?

Do you think that externally verifiable evidence adds to the probability of something being true, even if the evidence must itself be experienced? Evidence + experience beats experience surely?

If you found yourself in a situation where you thought you had experienced something but externally verifiable evidence suggested otherwise, would you reject the evidence and maintain that the experience was true?

roosh

Unfortunately the topic of conversation does not always lend itself to brevity, but I will do my best to limit myself in my replies, although I have found that detaiuled replies, that comprehensively cover certain issues raised, can be more beneficial than shorter posts that often leave more questions than they answer.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I decided to respond to what I think is your main point. Please try to keep your reply brief, this is not a blog.

Since human senses are fallible, how can you ever say with 100% certainty that you know something?

The issue with that is, just because human senses are fallible, it does not mean that nothing can be known, as human senses may not always be fallible, and therefore certain things can be known.

Or to put it a bit more clearly, on those occasions where they are not wrong, things can be known.

This could be looked at another way, as it is not necessarily human senses that are fallible, rather, it is our interpretation/rationalisation of them that is. As is the case with tacit knowledge, we can know something but may not necessarily be able to express it accurately, as experience does not lend itself to expression all too easily.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you think that externally verifiable evidence adds to the probability of something being true, even if the evidence must itself be experienced? Evidence + experience beats experience surely?

I would say no, that externally viable evidence does not add to the probability of sometihg being true.

Either something is true, or it isn't. Truth is therefore absolute, and no degree of probability can be assigned (unless it is 0% or 100%).

Probability is a measure of how much or how little we know, and our ability to predict an outcome, based on what is known.

Externally viable evidence therefore adds to the probability of our being able to predict an outcome, and is entirely dependent on what we actually know.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you found yourself in a situation where you thought you had experienced something but externally verifiable evidence suggested otherwise, would you reject the evidence and maintain that the experience was true?

Indeed, if I only thought that I had experienced something, but evidence suggested otherwise, then I would be more inclined to go with the evidence.

This is of course different to knowing that one has experienced something.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

The issue with that is, just because human senses are fallible, it does not mean that nothing can be known, as human senses may not always be fallible, and therefore certain things can be known.

Or to put it a bit more clearly, on those occasions where they are not wrong, things can be known.

This could be looked at another way, as it is not necessarily human senses that are fallible, rather, it is our interpretation/rationalisation of them that is. As is the case with tacit knowledge, we can know something but may not necessarily be able to express it accurately, as experience does not lend itself to expression all too easily.

As far as I can see, all you've said there is that when we're not wrong we can know things but that didn't really answer the question of how can we know we're not wrong? The only way to absolutely know that we are not wrong is to be infallible.

mangaroosh wrote: »

I would say no, that externally viable evidence does not add to the probability of sometihg being true.

Either something is true, or it isn't. Truth is therefore absolute, and no degree of probability can be assigned (unless it is 0% or 100%).

Probability is a measure of how much or how little we know, and our ability to predict an outcome, based on what is known.

Externally viable evidence therefore adds to the probability of our being able to predict an outcome, and is entirely dependent on what we actually know.

You've missed my point there. Of course something is either true or it's not, that goes without saying. My point was that when we are trying to determine if something is true or not externally verifiable evidence helps, which you have agreed with. Therefore science supersedes personal experience in trying to determine if something is true or not

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed, if I only thought that I had experienced something, but evidence suggested otherwise, then I would be more inclined to go with the evidence.

This is of course different to knowing that one has experienced something.

How is it different? I can guarantee you right now that everyone on this planet knows with absolute certainty at least a hundred things that are completely false. Just because someone thinks they know something doesn't mean they actually know it. How do you tell the difference between something you know and something you only think you know?

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As far as I can see, all you've said there is that when we're not wrong we can know things but that didn't really answer the question of how can we know we're not wrong? The only way to absolutely know that we are not wrong is to be infallible.

Just to be clear, the initial question was with regard to the ability to know something, and the reason for not being able to know something was due to the fallibility of the senses, however this is not strictly speaking through, as the senses are not always fallible, so we can know things on those occasions when the sense get it right.

It also assumes that all persons will not be able to distinguish between an occasion when their senses mislead them, and when they are not misleading. This also is strictly speaking, not true, as there may indeed be people who can distinguish. This negates the requirement for infallibility, in determining if something is true, although, not for all people.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You've missed my point there. Of course something is either true or it's not, that goes without saying. My point was that when we are trying to determine if something is true or not externally verifiable evidence helps, which you have agreed with. Therefore science supersedes personal experience in trying to determine if something is true or not

One question with regard to the above, what exactly is meant by "externally verifiable evidence" - external to what?

The issue may perhaps be fleshed out with the use of an analogy.

Person A claims that they experienced X while skydiving.
Person B wants to verify that claim.

The rationalisation of person A, is subjective, while the experience itself is objective. Person A will have experienced something while skydiving, that is to a huge extent, beyond words. They can of course rationally explain a lot of the experiene, however, not to the extent that Person B will know exactly what their experience was like.

Person A knows what it is like to go skydiving, or they know what skydiving is (or at least a specific type of skydiving)

Person B, by means of "externally verifiable evidence", can verify whether or not skydiving exists, and whether or not Person A actually went skydiving. However, they cannot possibly verify the claim about the experience of skydiving, without direct personal experience themselves.

It is for this reason, that personal experience is the only way in which the claim can be verified.

Actually, my apologies, it does to a large extent depend on what is claimed. This could be where the issue arises.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How is it different? I can guarantee you right now that everyone on this planet knows with absolute certainty at least a hundred things that are completely false. Just because someone thinks they know something doesn't mean they actually know it. How do you tell the difference between something you know and something you only think you know?

Indeed you are correct, a person cannot know something that is not true, they can only believe something that is not true.

The issue again is, what is it that the person believes, or thinks that they know. It must be remembered that a person can know a piece of information, but that does not mean that the piece of information that they know is true, or is a fact.

For example, I can read a piece of information, that says blood is blue. I can know this piece of information. It must be remembered that a piece of information about something, is not the thing itself - just as Newton's theory of Gravity, isn't the force of Gravity itself.

So I can know the piece of information, but at the same time, not know if it is true.

The only way that I can know if blood is blue or not, is by seeing blood first hand.

Otherwise, I either believe, or do not believe, the piece of information.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just to be clear, the initial question was with regard to the ability to know something, and the reason for not being able to know something was due to the fallibility of the senses, however this is not strictly speaking through, as the senses are not always fallible, so we can know things on those occasions when the sense get it right.

Our sense are always fallible. That does not mean they are always wrong, it just means that no matter how sure you are of something, there is still the possibility that you might be wrong.

mangaroosh wrote: »

It also assumes that all persons will not be able to distinguish between an occasion when their senses mislead them, and when they are not misleading. This also is strictly speaking, not true, as there may indeed be people who can distinguish. This negates the requirement for infallibility, in determining if something is true, although, not for all people.

Whereas as you assume that people are able to tell when their senses are misleading them and when they aren't. Thousands of years of human endeavour have shown that we're particularly bad at telling the difference.

mangaroosh wrote: »

One question with regard to the above, what exactly is meant by "externally verifiable evidence" - external to what?

To your senses. If you see a ghost, that's internal but if you also record the ghost on a video camera, that's externally verifiable.

mangaroosh wrote: »

The issue may perhaps be fleshed out with the use of an analogy.

Person A claims that they experienced X while skydiving.
Person B wants to verify that claim.

The rationalisation of person A, is subjective, while the experience itself is objective. Person A will have experienced something while skydiving, that is to a huge extent, beyond words. They can of course rationally explain a lot of the experiene, however, not to the extent that Person B will know exactly what their experience was like.

Person A knows what it is like to go skydiving, or they know what skydiving is (or at least a specific type of skydiving)

Person B, by means of "externally verifiable evidence", can verify whether or not skydiving exists, and whether or not Person A actually went skydiving. However, they cannot possibly verify the claim about the experience of skydiving, without direct personal experience themselves.

It is for this reason, that personal experience is the only way in which the claim can be verified.

Actually, my apologies, it does to a large extent depend on what is claimed. This could be where the issue arises.

Yes it does depend to a large extent on what is claimed. You keep using analogies that are about how people experience things, what it feels like to their senses, what emotions it elicits etc. These things are subjective and difficult to describe. However the existence of god is not subjective, it is objective, he either exists or he doesn't and how any particular person feels about it is irrelevant. Telling me that you felt God's presence is pointless because I can give you any number of scientific explanations for why you might have felt that way.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed you are correct, a person cannot know something that is not true, they can only believe something that is not true.

The issue again is, what is it that the person believes, or thinks that they know. It must be remembered that a person can know a piece of information, but that does not mean that the piece of information that they know is true, or is a fact.

For example, I can read a piece of information, that says blood is blue. I can know this piece of information. It must be remembered that a piece of information about something, is not the thing itself - just as Newton's theory of Gravity, isn't the force of Gravity itself.

So I can know the piece of information, but at the same time, not know if it is true.

The only way that I can know if blood is blue or not, is by seeing blood first hand.

Otherwise, I either believe, or do not believe, the piece of information.

I'm colour blind so I can look at red blood and see green. If the lighting is poor or there is a coloured light shining the blood could be made to appear to be a different colour. Someone could have put red food colouring in it before you arrived. Seeing one person's blood does not mean that all blood is red, the next guy's could be green. I could go on all day but the point is that if you personally see blood and see that it is red there are still many many explanations for why it appears red and possible exceptions. When you see it for yourself you're only very slightly better off than before.

Yes it is better to verify things for yourself and not just accept them at face value but you vastly overestimate the ability of the human mind if you think that just because you personally experienced something that you can say you "know" it and therefore can't be wrong about it. I'd take scientific data over personal experience any day.

Naz_st

mangaroosh wrote: »

The issue with that is, just because human senses are fallible, it does not mean that nothing can be known, as human senses may not always be fallible, and therefore certain things can be known.

Or to put it a bit more clearly, on those occasions where they are not wrong, things can be known.

You can't know when your senses are right or wrong, as they are your only way of perceiving the world.

Your brain could be hooked up to a matrix-style computer that makes you think you have senses, but you don't. So, either you assume your senses are accurate, but acknowledge their capacity for failure, and use that as an axiom for uncovering truth, or you say nothing can be known for sure as you can never trust that your senses are correct - you can't have it both ways and say that things are only true when your sense aren't wrong!

I would say no, that externally viable evidence does not add to the probability of sometihg being true.

Eh, what? Evidence is unimportant in working out the truth of something?

Ok, let's look at an example:

I have a bag with 100 marbles in it. Either I have put 50 red and 50 green marbles in OR I have put 100 red marbles in. Either/Or. Now I ask you to assess the truth of the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red"? Without any evidence to suggest anything, you have no idea which option I chose. Now I start to draw marbles out randomly one by one. I do this 50 times. Every time I do, the marble is red. When there are 50 left I ask the same question. Now, it's possible that the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red" is false and the remainder are all green and I just happened to always randomly choose a red marble - BUT ITS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

Ergo, the evidence you now have would lead to the conclusion that I orginally chose to put all red marbles in the bag.

One question with regard to the above, what exactly is meant by "externally verifiable evidence" - external to what?

Self. Assessable by other people. E.g. the difference between assessing the truth of the statements:
"I don't like the taste of apples"
"Apples grow on trees"

One can be verified by other people, one can only be truly verified by me.

It must be remembered that a person can know a piece of information, but that does not mean that the piece of information that they know is true, or is a fact.

The tri-partite theory of knowledge would suggest that in order for something to "known" it has to satisfy 3 things:

1) It has to be true
2) It has to be believed to be true
3) There has to be justified reason to believe it is true

This is also referred to as Justified True Belief. It has its issues, but it's not a bad place to start when thinking about what "knowledge" is. The scientific method is sort of a way of formalising part 3 (justification) in order to work out 1 (truth).

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Our sense are always fallible. That does not mean they are always wrong, it just means that no matter how sure you are of something, there is still the possibility that you might be wrong.

If we apply logic to the above statement about our senses always being fallible, then we can see that the scientific method falls down, as no experiement carried out to verify a hypothesis can be trusted. If none of the individual experiments can be trusted, then it makes no difference how many experiments are carried out, as none of them can be trusted.

It is illogical to suggest that because two or more untrustworthy assessments are in agreement, then the trustworthiness increases.

This would create an infinite chain of untrustworthy experiments, where we get nowhere near the truth. The only way to break the chain is if it is possible that some assessments are trustworthy.


Again however, the assumption is that it is our senses that are fallible, and not our interpretation of those senses.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Whereas as you assume that people are able to tell when their senses are misleading them and when they aren't. Thousands of years of human endeavour have shown that we're particularly bad at telling the difference.

No, what is suggested is that there are those who can tell and there are those who may not be as adept at discerning. Indeed, the method of scientific inquiry is just one example [not the only one] of where some people are more capable of discerning.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To your senses. If you see a ghost, that's internal but if you also record the ghost on a video camera, that's externally verifiable.

The issue of course, is that anyone who checks the video is reliant on their senses, so the concept of externality is nullified.

It may be helpful to imagine that you are everybody in the entire world, pr perhaps the mind of everyone in the entire world, but independent and individual from them.

Just to try and clarify, you are you, you are me, you are another person and so on.

Now, lets just say that you make a claim. As your senses are fallible, and your claim cannot be trusted, it must be verified by someone else. That person is you in my body. Now, the exact same problem arises again, as my (your) senses are fallible and cannot be trusted. So it must be verified by a third person (you in someone elses body). Again, the issue of fallible senses arises, and at no point can the claim be verified.

Unless of course, it is possible to discern whether or not something is correct.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes it does depend to a large extent on what is claimed. You keep using analogies that are about how people experience things, what it feels like to their senses, what emotions it elicits etc. These things are subjective and difficult to describe.

Emotions experienced have never been mentioned, as emotions are themselves, entirely subjective, as they are based on the mind for existence.

The use of analogies is to portray that experiences themselves, are not dependent on the mind for existence. Indeed, there is no experience that can be 100% accurately described or hypothesised. Any rationalisation of an experience is subjective, but the experience itself is objective.

Experience is only possible on an individual or personal level, and this is entirely objective.

It is the experience that is objective, and it is the experience that gives rise to knowledge.

However, it is the rationalisation of the experience, the interpretation of that experience, in either words or images in the mind, that is subjective.


Give me an example of an experience you have had, it can be absolutely anything, as said before, walking to the shops, meeting a friend, anything.

Then try and describe that experience to me.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

However the existence of god is not subjective, it is objective, he either exists or he doesn't and how any particular person feels about it is irrelevant. Telling me that you felt God's presence is pointless because I can give you any number of scientific explanations for why you might have felt that way.

You are very much correct, the existence of God is objective (either exists or not). However, any rationalisation of God, any attempt to describe God in words, and images of God are entirely subjective, as they are dependent on the mind for existence.

The issue of telling you that I "felt God's presence", is that it would be likely that you would interpret that according to your own subjective understanding of what God is, how God's presence would be felt.

Of course, that was never stated.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm colour blind so I can look at red blood and see green. If the lighting is poor or there is a coloured light shining the blood could be made to appear to be a different colour. Someone could have put red food colouring in it before you arrived. Seeing one person's blood does not mean that all blood is red, the next guy's could be green. I could go on all day but the point is that if you personally see blood and see that it is red there are still many many explanations for why it appears red and possible exceptions. When you see it for yourself you're only very slightly better off than before.

apologies, it was a poor example, but you've given a very good example to work with. If you are indeed colour blind, then it will hopefully be the basis for demonstration.

Can you describe your experience of being colour blind? Do you think that anyone who has always seen colour will understand what it is like? Do you feel that another colour blind person would intuitively know what it is like?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes it is better to verify things for yourself and not just accept them at face value but you vastly overestimate the ability of the human mind if you think that just because you personally experienced something that you can say you "know" it and therefore can't be wrong about it. I'd take scientific data over personal experience any day.

Again, the crux of the issue is the human mind, and indeed the nature of it. Experience does not take place in the mind, and is not dependent on the mind for existence. Any attempt to rationalise one's experience, and this includes thinking that one has experienced something, is entirely subjective and is of course what is not reliable, and what must be verified.


scientific data is used to give a more detailed and accurate description of certain experiences, but the only way that this data can be verified is through experience.

Again, just try and describe the experience of being colour blind. It will not be possible, because the experience is not just mental, it is objective. The attempt to rationalise it is what is subjective.

roosh

Naz_st wrote: »

You can't know when your senses are right or wrong, as they are your only way of perceiving the world.

Your brain could be hooked up to a matrix-style computer that makes you think you have senses, but you don't. So, either you assume your senses are accurate, but acknowledge their capacity for failure, and use that as an axiom for uncovering truth, or you say nothing can be known for sure as you can never trust that your senses are correct - you can't have it both ways and say that things are only true when your sense aren't wrong!

Again, this is just a variation on the "this could all be a dream" concept. If indeed we are all plugged into "the matrix", then, "the matrix" is the omniscient, omnipresent being that is referred to as God

Again, the issue of fallibility of the senses means that the scientific method of inquiry falls down - see above.

Naz_st wrote: »

Eh, what? Evidence is unimportant in working out the truth of something?

The above statement is correct, however it is a strawman, as that was not what was stated.

Evidence does not add to the probability of something being true, as truth is absolute, either something is true or it isn't.

Probability is relative, and is based on our ability to predict an outcome.

Naz_st wrote: »

Ok, let's look at an example:

I have a bag with 100 marbles in it. Either I have put 50 red and 50 green marbles in OR I have put 100 red marbles in. Either/Or. Now I ask you to assess the truth of the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red"? Without any evidence to suggest anything, you have no idea which option I chose. Now I start to draw marbles out randomly one by one. I do this 50 times. Every time I do, the marble is red. When there are 50 left I ask the same question. Now, it's possible that the statement "All the marbles in this bag are red" is false and the remainder are all green and I just happened to always randomly choose a red marble - BUT ITS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

Ergo, the evidence you now have would lead to the conclusion that I orginally chose to put all red marbles in the bag.

Good example, but it does not deal with what was actually stated. Here we can calculate the probability of my being able to answer correctly.

Of course it ignores the fact that, you would actually know 100% what the correct answer is, as you put the balls in the bag. Indeed, it would have been your experience of putting the balls in the bag, that would give you this 100% knowledge.

Naz_st wrote: »

Self. Assessable by other people.

As soon as someone assesses it, it is in violation of the concept of externality. It means that their assessment is no longer trustworthy, and that it must be assessed by soemone else, whose assessment is also untrustworthy, as their asessement of evidence makes the evidence no longer external. So on ad infinitum.

Of course, if any one of the senses of any one of those can be trusted, then the chain can be broken.

Naz_st wrote: »

E.g. the difference between assessing the truth of the statements:
"I don't like the taste of apples"
"Apples grow on trees"

One can be verified by other people, one can only be truly verified by me.

the concept of taste is subjective, however, the eating of the apple is objective, as is the digestion of it, as is the defacation of it.

To say that one knows what it is to have experienced all these things, one must experience them.


Experience preceded Newton's theory of Gravity (which is subjective), and experience will be required in order to verify whether or not string theory is correct.

Naz_st wrote: »

The tri-partite theory of knowledge would suggest that in order for something to "known" it has to satisfy 3 things:

1) It has to be true
2) It has to be believed to be true
3) There has to be justified reason to believe it is true

This is also referred to as Justified True Belief. It has its issues, but it's not a bad place to start when thinking about what "knowledge" is. The scientific method is sort of a way of formalising part 3 (justification) in order to work out 1 (truth).

And as has been discussed, the scientific method is entirely based on personal experience, and verification of personal experience, by means of further personal experience.


It may perhaps be easier to demonstrate how this is not accurate, and give an example of the scientific method in operation, and we can see whether or not personal experience is intrinsic to it.