Posted on 04/06/2005 11:36:46 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Freepers began a most engaging dialogue at the end of another thread! It is not only a fascinating subject - it also presents us with an opportunity to clarify ourselves and hopefully help us appreciate our differences and thus relieve some of the contention on various threads (most especially science and philosophy threads).
The subject is knowledge - which, as it turns out, means different things to different people. Moreover, we each have our own style of classifying “knowledge” – and valuing the certainty of that “knowledge”. Those differences account for much of the differences in our views on all kinds of topics – and the contentiousness which may derive from them.
Below are examples. First is PatrickHenry’s offering of his classification and valuation followed by mine – so that the correspondents here can see the difference. Below mine is js1138’s offering.
Please review these and let us know how you classify and value “knowledge”! We’d appreciate very much your following the same format so it’ll be easier for us to make comparisons and understand differences.
PatrickHenry’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
1. Revelation: Spiritual understanding divinely communicated.
Alamo-Girl’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
js1138’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties
2. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
3. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ...
4. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
5. Acceptance of another's opinion: I provisionally accept the opinion of X (an individual or group) as knowledge because (a) I haven't worked it out for myself; and (b) I have what I regard as good reason for confidence in X.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
Separate List for theological knowledge:
2. Faith: Belief in a revelation experienced by another.
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept this as fact because of a consensus or veto determination by others, i.e. I trust that these experts or fact finders know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
2. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet. I am aware that this has limitations, but what choices do I have? I learn the limitations and live with them.
3. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning. Same limitations apply, except that they are more frequent and serious.
4. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true. The trueness may be unassailable, but the conclusions of axiomatic reasoning are only as true as the axioms, which may be arbitrary. Outside of pure logic and pure mathematics, axiomatic reasoning drops quickly in my estimation of usefulness. People who argue politics and religion from a "rational" perspective are low on my list of useful sources.
5. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week. I am not aware of any scientific theory that I understand which has failed in a major way. Some theories, of course, make sharper predictions than others. Eclipses are pretty certain.
6. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ... Oddly enough, "facts" are less certain in my view than theories.
7. Acceptance of another's opinion: I provisionally accept the opinion of X (an individual or group) as knowledge because (a) I haven't worked it out for myself; and (b) I have what I regard as good reason for confidence in X.
Well, no, that a miscategorization. The GOP swings whatever way the winds blow. It's the Christian right specifically that is likely to fracture the coalition. Forcing unscientific ideas into biology class, interfering in matters where the federal courts do not traditionally get involved, pushing Christian icons into the public sphere - I think the great American public, broadly Christian though it may well be, have a limited tolerance for this sort of thing - particularly when it's been spin-doctored by the mainstream media. I've been surprised how effective the pro-filibuster campaign has been, for example; contrary to what I would have predicted a couple of months ago, I don;t think the GOP will be able to force through judicial confirmations.
Add this to the utter failure of the GOP to cut spending, and the expansion of federal powers by Bush in cahoots with the GOP (No Child Left Behind, prescription drugs), the betrayal by Bush of equal opportunity, the failure to enforce immigration laws; I can't find a single reason right now why a libertarian conservative would turn out right now to vote for the Pubbies.
One shouldn't underestimate the Dems' incompetence, of course. They could have taken the White House in 2004 had they nominated a centrist rather than John Kerry. They may well figure out some cockeyed way to alienate the electorate by 2006.
Don't worry; I'll put my money where my mouth is. I made a large chunk of cash in 2004, and I confidently expect to prosper in 2006.
(a) it doesn’t matter anyway, God is on our side and He trumps all goverments,
Of course, many of us find this an unpersuasive argument, and some of us take a look at the other people who claim God is on their side, and shudder.
(b) there are more believers in the U.S. than not – for every atheist who leaves in a huff, several Christians are apt to join in,
You have to wonder, though, if you haven't already gotten everyone you're likely to get, and may lose a few.
(c) it is more important to be right than powerful and
Now that we can agree on.
(d) the general election of 2004 was won by Republicans because of the party’s stand "for" values.
Well, I'll grant you that is the common wisdom. It wasn't nearly that simple though. It was better organization, a weak adversary, the Swifties, memogate, and George Bush's personality (while the left despises the man, hardly anyone finds him personally dislikable).
What you should really consider is that a hard-left Dem almost squeaked in. Had they nominated Joe Lieberman or even Dick Gephardt, we'd be singing a different song.
Regarding your threat of an opus prospering in cash, I ask, kindly, that you would take the lead and stay on topic, RWP. If you have something to say about epistemology, run with it.
Personally, I don't think the anti-evolution crowd makes much difference at all wrt politics since the educators are already mostly Democrat. The general voting public is pretty much divided on the ID controversy and unless it is made a political platform or something raised in political debates prior to an election, my sense is that it will be a non-issue despite all of the liberal MSM's attempts to make it so.
WRT to the Schiavo case - indeed, the pro-life crowd is overwrought and thinking with their collective heart instead of their head. As a result, they let the MSM frame the debate and didn't play it out beneficially. IMHO, a pro-life movement with judicial (rather than emotional) temperament would have pressed these three points:
(2) that once a judgment is made (with whatever standard of proof) that a life will be taken, then the same rules of compassion which are applied to companion animals, laboratory mice and convicted death row criminals needs to apply - a lethal injection (or gas) preceded by an anesthetic.
(3) that the rights of an estranged spouse to speak for the other spouse needs to be more clearly defined in state law.
These issues are all basically ideological and, as cornelis has pointed out, are far afield of the epistemological subject matter of this thread so I won’t go any further in my reply. But I do thank you for sharing your views on all of them.
Oh absolutely. But I was getting nowhere with the "Professor" so I've stopped wasting my time. He thought I'd be impressed with the fact that he just finished teaching a course in statistical thermodynamics, but the truth is, I just feel sorry for his students. I guess he couldn't explain to them why a black body in thermal equilibrium doesn't have infinite energy, or why the heat capacities of solids were baffling to classical physicists, couldn't discuss low temperature statistical ensembles at all, or metals, or most crystalline solids, or how lasers work, or ... you get the picture. I guess he's a world renowned expert on ideal gases. Or maybe he's Ward Churchill.
"Quantum physics doesn't have any consequences for macroscopic systems." Really. The coffee I just reheated in my microwave doesn't warm up without quantum rotational excitations in the water molecules. And without hot coffee, would life even be worth living?
"Quantum physics doesn't have any consequences for macroscopic systems."
Of course, I never said this. It's not a direct quote, as the quotation marks would indicate. It's not even a paraphrase. It's a just a fabrication by an obsessed and mendacious individual who's got some peculiar bee in his bonnet.
I'm out of town for several days, so I invite the obnoxious FredZarguna to post whatever further smears he wants, with no danger of being caught.
Thank you for your analysis of what needs to be done in light of the Schiavo case, A-G. All three of your points need to be carefully examined, and clarified. I expect that Congress will have to act in these matters.
Sorry. I'm dumping my ping list altogether.
My intent was to be shocking with the three points by using cold reasoning. For instance, facing up to #2 puts the politician in the mental role of executioner, which I imagine they would rather avoid.
LOLOL Heartlander!!!!! a/k/a/ the Church of Me-Me-Me (i.e., there are no other gods but ME!!!). Thank you for your astute observations!
I didn't intend to convey that conclusion, because it's not my opinion of the matter. I tried hard not to assign blame to any one person. No one was entirely blameless or entirely at fault, in my always humble opinion.
It was my intention only to say what must be said. And in this case what must be said is that those who rely only on their own minds to grasp an image of reality will be limited in their pursuit by the boundaries of their mind. And many people are quite satisfied with that.
I am not. Those of us who are indwelled by the Spirit have the mind of Christ – we can indeed go “beyond” the boundaries of our own minds. It is quite wonderful, illuminating, peaceful and of course, I want to share that Good News!
Yes, but even when someone else is clearly wrong, I often find it prudent to say nothing -- especially in internet conversations that have a way of getting out of hand. But that's just my method. Opinions vary.
Concerning the angst, please understand that betty boop and I are sisters in the truest sense – we share the same mind, are on the same wavelength. For instance, it is easy for me to completely disregard offenses to my person but I cannot and will not stand idly by when anyone is attacking betty boop. Evidently, she feels the same way about me.
Your devotion to one another is well-known, and altogether admirable. All I wanted to do was lay the situation out in one post, so the events of the dialogue could speak for themselves. As I think they do.
Let's get back to epistemology. I find it more enjoyable than sorting out squabbles. We're all grownups, and this will pass.
Cold reasoning indeed, A-G! I agree that proponents of a "culture of life" need to be a lot more "cold" in our reasoning in order to prevail in this critical public debate. The death-proponents just laugh at our emotional outbursts, and mock our despair...and then get back to business as usual fomenting the next outrage. Against this backdrop, we cannot allow manipulable judges to have the final say about what the rules for terminating innocent life are to be. Such matters must be placed in the hands of the political branches, and decided there with a specificity that is not easily susceptible to judicial "interpretation."
IMHO, to make inroads with these politicians and courts we must put ourselves in their shoes. The current judicial procedure of dispensing death by civil proceedings is made at quite a distance from the actual act which they envision as passive, i.e. withhold food and water.
By coldly putting the politician or judge at the point of a death procedure, they become involved. If the court decision is death by lethal injection, it is not passive, it gets personal.
The ban on partial birth abortions was most effective because it put the politicians at the point of the procedure itself - to vote for it, they were effectively taking the scissor in their own hands and inserting it into the baby's skull.
Excellent insights, Alamo-Girl! Thank you so very much!
From the first breath you take you literally live in the world of "experience." You know no other. You cannot conceive of what it would be like to live in a world of "no experience" or prior to "experience."
This is the whole flaw in this whole argument, whether it is Kantian "Synthetics" and "Analytics" or not. There is no way anyone can have any idea what life would be like without "experience." A person garners more experience before he or she develops enough consciousness and conceptual ability to understand what that experience is than can be measured or understood. All thoughts and concepts are inherently rooted in and dependent upon "experience." All theories about what lies outside "experience" are just that, unsupported theories. And, by definition, they are incapable of definition.
faith is an act of the will and the will, not reason, is "faith" has a meaning that is separate from "reason" means that the A is A relationship between the meaning of the word faith in contrast to the word reason means that "reason" is primary to faith for either word to have any "objective" meaning. And if they have no "objective" meaning, then they mean nothing.
Not that it's terribly relevant, but you have not demonstrated that an hypothesis is wrong, just because you find a flaw in it's proof.
faith is an act of the will and the will, not reason, is primary in human existence.
If "faith" has a meaning that is separate from "reason" means that the - A is A - relationship between the meaning of the word faith in contrast to the word reason means that "reason" is primary to faith for either word to have any "objective" meaning. And if they have no "objective" meaning, then they mean nothing.
perhaps that's because empericists don't give a rat's ass whether they are "supported" or not.
I still to don't your "if." Faith will mean trust in the agency of somebody else who knows more than yourself. That's reasonable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.