Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 748 times in 563 posts
Gender: Country:
Limits of Science
Starhwe requested more information on knowledge and how it relates to science.
Types of Knowledge Philosophers typically divide knowledge into three categories: personal, procedural, and propositional. It is the last of these, propositional knowledge, that primarily concerns philosophers. However, understanding the connections between the three types of knowledge can be helpful in clearly understanding what is and what is not being analysed by the various theories of knowledge.
Personal Knowledge The first kind of knowledge is personal knowledge, or knowledge by acquaintance. This is the kind of knowledge that we are claiming to have when we say things like "I know Mozart's music."
Prodecural Knowledge The second kind of knowledge is procedural knowledge, or knowledge how to do something. People who claim to know how to juggle, or how to drive, are not simply claiming that they understand the theory involved in those activities. Rather, they are claiming that actually possess the skills involved, that they are able to do these things.
Propositional Knowledge The third kind of knowledge, the kind that philosophers care about most, is propositional knowledge, or knowledge of facts. When we say things like "I know that the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degress" or "I know that it was you that ate my sandwich", we are claiming to have propositional knowledge.
Notice that the first two types of knowledge are subjective, or partically subjective. Procedural knowledge is entirely subjective, where personal knowledge requires subjectivity, but also includes propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge can be said to be objective, or at least some categories of it. It is this type of knowledge that science is concerned with.
Stahrwe:
Quote:
Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge is it?
So, you're opposed to scientific knowledge since it is the only type of knowledge that is objective? As johnson said, you have nothing but subjective evidence. Which means, there is a strike against it even before we analyze it.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 748 times in 563 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Limits of Science
Quote:
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam known as the appeal to ignorance, an informal logical fallacy that asserts a proposition to be either true or false merely because it has not been proven or disproven. Carl Sagan criticized this practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity" and pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
I never heard back from you on this.
Apologists for religion, pseudo-science, UFOlogists, etc are all continuously guilty of the appeal to ignorance. For example "the existence of god has never been proven wrong, so he must exist." That statement commits the argumentum ad ignorantum fallacy.
Or this, from Demon Haunted World(by Carl Sagan) ""Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In this regard Irving Marmer Copi writes:
"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." (Introduction to Logic, Copi, 1953, Page 95)
Therefore, absence of evidence that it rained (i.e. water is the evidence) may be considered as positive evidence that it did not rain. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited (sometimes extremely high) degree of probability."
Which means that there are instances where absence of evidence does indeed equate to evidence of absence. For example, science has found no trace whatsoever of the god described by the bible. It is reasonable to assume such a god would leave traces of his influence upon the world, so in this case the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 748 times in 563 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Limits of Science
An entire lifetime of misinformation. It's amazing how much bad reasoning and false information people can accrue. In the end, all my efforts are in vain, since faith trumps logic in some people's minds.
Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 1453 Images: 0 Location: Hampton, Ga Highscores:14 Thanks: 188 Thanked: 245 times in 182 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Limits of Science
I apologize. I value what you're doing but it's a herculean labor. It isn't fair for you to be the one to tote such a heavy load but you do it anyway - and for the greater good of all. I should be thankful and to tell you the truth, I really am. I wouldn't have written this if I wasn't. It's just tragic to me that you don't make better progress. It's a task I don't burden myself with and I guess I feel guilty because of it. I'm sorry. You're a better person than I am and that's just the truth. I could never have the patience to do what you're trying to do. I really do wish you the absolute best of luck in saving these lost people.
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Limits of Science
Interbane wrote:
An entire lifetime of misinformation. It's amazing how much bad reasoning and false information people can accrue. In the end, all my efforts are in vain, since faith trumps logic in some people's minds.
I agree that Interbane should be getting some community service hours. Seriously, Interbane, you have enormous patience.
I think the bolded part is the point that you should be arguing. All the talk about how science works the kinds of knowledge, etc. But it all boils down to a preference: do you base your worldview on our empirical understanding of a physical world or one that is based on faith? This is an arguable point.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 748 times in 563 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Limits of Science
That is exactly what it is geo. In numerous past discussions, we came to a stalemate where even logical contradictions were apologized away. For example, god is 'outside' logic. But then, what do you support that claim with?!? My point in requesting claims for genesis is to show that there is no evidence. Maybe it will sink in then that his worldview is entirely based on faith. This is against the grain of what he believe, he previously claimed he doesn't have any faith.
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 467 times in 348 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Limits of Science
From Stahrwe's point of view, Genesis is its own evidence. He doesn't make a distinction between empirical evidence and Faith-based "evidence." We know that he denies that his position is faith-based and he says that Christianity is not a religion, etc. YECists--or at least, this YECist— lives in a reality different from ours. The two sides cannot even come to terms on basic word definitions. So again, I think the argument must be framed in terms of defending a worldview based on empiricism versus a worldview based on faith. It's possible one position is no more valid than the other. Perhaps this argument is like the Nekker cube in that each worldview simply offers a different way of looking at things. My personal opinion is that science is limited, but is our only way at getting to some semblance of the truth.
Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 2395 Images: 7 Location: Michigan
Thanks: 803 Thanked: 607 times in 438 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Limits of Science
I have said it before, and i will post it again.
The really sad part about all these superstitious beliefs is that they are a fundamentally selfish world view. Why can't people let go of a god, or that we are fundamentally different from animals, and thus not a part of evolution, or that there can't possibly be life on other planets, or that people can turn into ghosts after they die, or that we are capable of extra sensory psychic powers?
It all boils down to lies people tell themselves to make them feel superior. To make them feel special. That, since the only way to experience life as a human is through that node of sensory organs called a head, and we only perceive info in a radius from that node, then that means we are at the center. There is a basic lack of empatic reasoning that must be in place for these delusions to endure.
All these lies are there to fluff our egos and allow us to swell like a toad with our self-importance. It is the one underlying motive, that i have been able to see, that prevents people from aknowledging the truth.
People are small. Our impact is negligible. Our lives have no meaning beyond that which we give them. For there to be a reason, we have to forge it ourselves. If you have been given a short hand in this life, there is no justice waiting for you after death. All very sad. But to blame the universe for these things is beyond pointless.
_________________ Have you tried that? Looking for answers? Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. -James Williamson MD
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
In the absence of God, I found Man. -Guillermo Del Torro
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. -Derek Bok
You wouldn't like me when i'm angry... Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources. -The Credible Hulk
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Limits of Science
Interbane wrote:
Starhwe requested more information on knowledge and how it relates to science.
Types of Knowledge Philosophers typically divide knowledge into three categories: personal, procedural, and propositional. It is the last of these, propositional knowledge, that primarily concerns philosophers. However, understanding the connections between the three types of knowledge can be helpful in clearly understanding what is and what is not being analysed by the various theories of knowledge.
Personal Knowledge The first kind of knowledge is personal knowledge, or knowledge by acquaintance. This is the kind of knowledge that we are claiming to have when we say things like "I know Mozart's music."
Prodecural Knowledge The second kind of knowledge is procedural knowledge, or knowledge how to do something. People who claim to know how to juggle, or how to drive, are not simply claiming that they understand the theory involved in those activities. Rather, they are claiming that actually possess the skills involved, that they are able to do these things.
Propositional Knowledge The third kind of knowledge, the kind that philosophers care about most, is propositional knowledge, or knowledge of facts. When we say things like "I know that the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degress" or "I know that it was you that ate my sandwich", we are claiming to have propositional knowledge.
Notice that the first two types of knowledge are subjective, or partically subjective. Procedural knowledge is entirely subjective, where personal knowledge requires subjectivity, but also includes propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge can be said to be objective, or at least some categories of it. It is this type of knowledge that science is concerned with.
Stahrwe:
Quote:
Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge is it?
So, you're opposed to scientific knowledge since it is the only type of knowledge that is objective? As johnson said, you have nothing but subjective evidence. Which means, there is a strike against it even before we analyze it.
No fair, I didn't know you were breaking out into this thread. I wasn't even going to check it out since I need to leave some of the sandboxes undisturbed but now I am glad I did.
You are wrong again. First of all, I am not sure that there are only three types of knowledge. Even accepting your list, I think that there is a fourth which I will make a case for in good time. But given that, your statement, even with the hedge that 'procedural' knowledge is subjective is obviously false. If I know how to ride a bike or juggle that is not subjective knowledge is it.
Where did your definitions come from? Who wrote: "Notice that the first two types of knowledge are subjective, or partically subjective. Procedural knowledge is entirely subjective, where personal knowledge requires subjectivity, but also includes propositional knowledge."? Read it over, it seems to be all messed up.
subjectiveelementintroduction
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Limits of Science
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam known as the appeal to ignorance, an informal logical fallacy that asserts a proposition to be either true or false merely because it has not been proven or disproven. Carl Sagan criticized this practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity" and pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
I never heard back from you on this.
Apologists for religion, pseudo-science, UFOlogists, etc are all continuously guilty of the appeal to ignorance. For example "the existence of god has never been proven wrong, so he must exist." That statement commits the argumentum ad ignorantum fallacy.
Or this, from Demon Haunted World(by Carl Sagan) ""Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In this regard Irving Marmer Copi writes:
"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." (Introduction to Logic, Copi, 1953, Page 95)
Therefore, absence of evidence that it rained (i.e. water is the evidence) may be considered as positive evidence that it did not rain. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited (sometimes extremely high) degree of probability."
Which means that there are instances where absence of evidence does indeed equate to evidence of absence. For example, science has found no trace whatsoever of the god described by the bible. It is reasonable to assume such a god would leave traces of his influence upon the world, so in this case the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Could we have a bit more specificity in the discussions, please. First, if you are going to introduce a new thread as a supplement to the discussion please send me a PM or email or something so I know there is something being discussed. I didn't know this thread was here.
Next, who are you addressing this post to? There is a question directed at someone at the beginning and I am assuming it is me, but I don't know that. Also, I have asked before that if you are going to include a quote without the automated Stahrwe said tag, at least add a label yourself, please. It helps me to remember what I have said (CRS) and it helps my fans to keep track of the progress too.
I'll read the rest of this later.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Limits of Science
President Camacho wrote:
I hope you're marking down all the hours you spend on this community service.
Thank you, I am.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Limits of Science
President Camacho wrote:
I bet your friend is thinking the exact same thing. Good-luck.
You know as I was reading Interbane's comment I was thinking the exact same thing. Perhaps you are my missing twin. Do you like anchovies?
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 748 times in 563 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Limits of Science
You said science made certain assumptions. That's what this thread is related to. Could you be more specific in what those assumptions are?
Also, there is no "authority" on types of knowledge. It's a topic of much controversy and debate. You'll find as many variant classifications as you will websites if you google the term. However, most will converge around the theme of objective versus subjective. In other words, propositional versus personal. In even different words, "knowing that" versus "knowing how".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnt
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
Ebrimas house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnt
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
Sacred Are the Brave a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend Trippers is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on Teds diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
Seriously, Interbane, you have enormous patience.
