Don't think that compares favorably with the first cause argument. But show your work so we can see. :)
But what is observed is not necessarily how things really are.
There is still the Myth of the Given, but sense observation is the firmest knowledge we have. What would you propose we replace that with is a fair question.
However, just because it produces music doesn't really explain or establish what music truly is.
Relevant to a philosopher, not so much to a music lover. It has value depending on its use.
So, I don't really see anything man knows except as a working models, which, as Box's wise statement says "are all wrong, except some are useful."
Because models are models - never the thing itself. Still we know more about reality with them than without.
In a very similar way, concepts are not the thing itself, words are all metaphors, models, comparisons with something else - not the same as the experience of the thing itself.
Direct experience, without concepts or models, is another way of knowing. Mystic much, Kosta? :)
I think we're in agreement mostly here. I find it a bit of a role reversal for me advocating the virtues of observational facts and logic and you emphasizing their limitations is knowing reality.
But it's cool.
Good post, thanks for making it.
Models have limits, man
You sound like a whole line of our guys, D-f, from the Cappadocians through +Symeon the New Theologian to +Gregory Palamas. Very good.
Not a talking snake or donkey in the bunch, Kosta mou.
Sure. You said (with my emphasis): It's an argument, and a good one, for why anything exists - using observation and logic.
And I agreed because the volcano and sun gods are no different than the first cause god. They are all classical god-of-the-gaps examples. Observation reveals a mystery, "fancy" provides a suitable "god" to "explain" it (i.e. fill the "gap"). It's the easiest way to get past things we don't understand and make "sense" of them.
but sense observation is the firmest knowledge we have
Yes, if it is not mixed with expectations, or subject to explanations, but merely provides the most efficient solutions. But there are also other obstacles. Human memory and motivation distort what we observe, making them unreliable and leading to superstitious beliefs.
Take, for example, the "falling" and "dancing" sun in Fatima in 1917, or the 1972 David Tereshchuk's soldier's red beret. What we see or remember is heavily influenced by our emotions, expectations and desires.
[However, just because it produces music doesn't really explain or establish what music truly is.] Relevant to a philosopher, not so much to a music lover. It has value depending on its use.
My point was that music boxes don't widen our knowledge of music, or explain what it is. Music boxes don't explain the nature of music; they produce mood-altering vibrations.
[So, I don't really see anything man knows except as a working models, which, as Box's wise statement says "are all wrong, except some are useful."]Because models are models - never the thing itself. Still we know more about reality with them than without.
Correct. Models are not the thing itself and therefore cannot tell us what the thing truly is. Therefore they do not increase our knowledge or understanding of the world as it really is.
In a very similar way, concepts are not the thing itself, words are all metaphors, models, comparisons with something else - not the same as the experience of the thing itself.
Some concepts describe real things, and in that sense they are descriptions of the the thing and not the thing itself, the way a photograph is a picture of a thing (and image of it, i.e. icon, or eikona in Greek) and not the object it represent.
When we get into experience, rules change because there is no "thing" to observe. Sure, we all experience some things we use a common name for, but we really can't establish how these experiences are experienced in others.
Based on the fact that we can't agree on them (for instance there is no universal agreement on what love is), we must conclude that different people have different experiences but call them by the same name. That doesn't mean these differences, and our ultimate disposition towards them, are not related to, or influenced by our physical and chemical makeup.
There is a chemical test for taste, using one single substances placed on the tongue (placed on different parts of the tongue and recording the response). Some don't taste it at all, others taste it as salty, others yet as sweet, sour, bitter, etc. Now, depending on how you taste that substance, your tendency to use it again is determined by the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the taste is evokes base don the fact that positive experience tends to be repeated and negative doesn't.
I know this for a fact when it comes to dark chocolate, which I absolute detest. But I have yet to meet a woman who is not absolutely addicted to it! So, guess who is more likely to buy the 87% dark Godiva? Not me, unless I have ulterior motives. :)
Direct experience, without concepts or models, is another way of knowing. Mystic much, Kosta? :)
No. Direct experience has to do with our biology, and our disposition towards it is a conditioned (learned) response.
Models have limits, man.
The usefulness of man's models are limited by man's finite makeup. Otherwise it serves no human purpose.