Interbane wrote:It's too late and I'm too tired to reply at the moment, but I just wanted to scowl at you across these forums for considering it possible I could think the spaghetti monster is a distant cousin to gravity. Hypotheses can be disproven, remember, so your reasoning here holds no value except to make me hungry. In the meantime, give me a synthetic statement that is absolutely true, and therefore absolutely unfalsifiable. I think this challenge will no doubt raise questions of the definitions of the words, so delve into that also, if you wish. I make the challenge with the phrase "absolutely true", where you make claims of "absolute knowledge" or "absolute certainty." It would be a tripping point better tackled earlier. I'll respond to points in your other post when I'm coherent.

Hi Interbane. Talking about the Spaghetti Monster is just a way to illustrate the absurdity of your contention that it is theoretically possible that we are an alien dream. If we reduce our certainty about the existence of the universe from 100% to 99.99~9% even this slight chink is more than enough for the noodly pastafarian appendage to insinuate its wicked way into our thought process and create a false doubt. If we say we have faith the universe exists we are claiming 100% certainty.

Re your question on a synthetic statement, I should explain for others that 'synthetic statement' is a philosophical term meaning a statement that combines two ideas which are not linked by definition. It is easy to find numerous synthetic statements which are absolutely true, such as the example I gave that both the USA and Australia border the Pacific Ocean. It is a simple matter of looking to see whether the statement is true.

Synthetic statements can be contrasted with 'analytical statements' which combine ideas which are linked by definition, such as that a square has four sides.

"All knowledge is true" is an analytical statement because it is true by definition. If there is a shade of doubt about a claim then by definition it cannot be classed as knowledge, although it may be a strongly held belief. Burton's critique is about beliefs that try to pass themselves off as knowledge, eg that the universe began in 4004BC.

What I suspect you are asking me to provide is a synthetic statement whose truth does not depend on sense perception, ie one that is true by definition, like an analytical statement. Unfortunately, this is much more difficult, and introduces the problem of faith.

An example of a synthetic statement which cannot be tested/falsified is Euclid's axiom that parallel lines never meet. This is a useful assumption for engineering, but it is not absolutely true unless we treat it as an analytic statement, true by definition. If we say a line is something real, such as the path of a light beam, then we observe that parallel lines do in fact meet in gravitational fields. This example illustrates the shift from the paradigm of Newton to that of Einstein.

Looking for necessary synthetic statements, the best place to start is with the most simple and obvious claims we can find. I think a good candidate is the claim 'the universe exists'. As our previous discussion indicates, the attribute of existence is not contained within the fact that something is observed, because it could theoretically be a deception. Hence this statement is synthetic and not analytic. I personally believe it is absolutely true, but as you argued earlier, my belief rests on faith in science.

Moving on from this basic level of claims about existence, I also think there are claims in ethics which are synthetic and necessary. The best examples I can see are that 'human flourishing is good' and that 'knowledge is good'. These are circular, in that they cannot be proven, but such ideas are necessary to build any practical ethical vision. Skepticism about such ideas is a main factor in modern nihilism.

Robert Tulip wrote: Another of the comments expresses scepticism about Al Gore's feeling of certainty about climate change. I happen to agree with Al Gore, and this actually underpins much of my disquiet about Burton's agenda.... It is fine to show that many feelings of certainty are delusional, but, and here is where others have disagreed, I have the impression Burton draws an invalid link between (A) 'delusional certainty' and (B) 'justified certainty'.

Robert, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think that Burton uses Al Gore as an example. As far as I know, Gore rests his views on climate change on evidence that he has found; he doesn't attempt to override contrary evidence by reverting to his gut feelings about the subject, but presents other evidence he thinks supports his thesis. He presents as quite certain that human-influenced climate change is real, I agree. But this certainty is not necessarily a problem, in this case. It is to no avail in itself, because scientists will continue to examine the evidence and will not be swayed by his certainty. His certainty is only a problem for him if it closes him off to considering evidence that doesn't conform to his views. Certainty can be the great enemy of mental flexibility, Burton says.

It helps to remember that Burton's argument is based on cognition. It is not that we need to brand anyone's certainty as delusional, unless it meets a clinical definition. We simply need to discern when the "feeling of knowing," a powerful sensation, is a controlling force in statements presented as rational. Then we can separate personal visions from statements that we can subject to verification. There is nothing wrong with having a personal vision. It is only essential for us to recognize when that term describes the contents of our minds. But we want so badly to see our deeply held beliefs as having a general truth, for all the world, that we have great difficulty in admitting that we cannot know that we are right.

Similarly, from a cognitive viewpoint, knowledge is what we test through experience. The other category of knowledge is what we receive, and we sometimes test this also, but in a less direct way. At any rate, reliability is the key to usefulness, and though we could argue about the percentage of certainty it takes to establish reliability, this is not a real-world problem.

A theory is a special category of knowledge. By scientific convention, a theory is never proven true. This convention is useful and essential to the continuance of science as we've known it. Saying that we can be 99.9% certain but not 100% does not in any way mean that we need to make a concession to young-earth creationists. As Stephen Jay Gould said, it is perverse not to accept a theory for which there is such massive evidence. But perversity is a choice we are free to make.
DWill

As I see it, Al Gore's certainty regarding Human impact on Climate Change is largely a scientific conclusion based upon substantial, overwhelming evidence.

Where it becomes a matter of Faith is when he identifies a moral responsibility to act differently, and then makes the effort to turn the tide of Climate Change: connecting the what ought to be to what is, and then mustering the courage to pursue what seems to be an impossible task.

Faith, in this case, means engaging a seemingly impossible mission to change the course of what will most likely, perhaps inevitably occur: what is surely possible (cataclysmic climate change catastrophe) is set aside for the seemingly impossible (fundamental change in human behavior).

And to think I waited until I had finished reading Burton's book to enter this string and read the whole string and then make a comment! What was I thinking? I guess if you can forgive Robert for not even reading the book and then having so much to say, you will forgive me for ressurrecting something ancient in the string to comment on. Robert Tulip wrote:

Unless we consider the mythic meaning against a scientific framework, we are going back to a pre-modern belief system, and this is a dangerous and unproductive approach

Hmm. This is ethnocentric, scientistic and unnecessarily fearful, too. (No offense, R.T., but good gosh.) Myths are not "pre-modern." They exist in the post-modern world, in every culture including the "Western" culture of Europe and its diaspora, including the symbolic thinking that underlies, underpins and informs many a "scientific" or "modern" notion or project.

Let me quickly say that I am not suggesting the scientific method is empirically invalid or a myth or should be considered to be the same as other processes for arriving at truth. (Although I absolutely adored Dissident Heart's analysis about the meaning of the moon in different cultures!) What is really great about Burton's book is that he acknowledges the difference between clearly stating our basis for believing something, acknowledging its necessarily limited contexts (biological, neurological, cultural and any others he knows) and being right. My father, who is a scientist, is fond of pointing out that all scientific findings are theories, that even "facts" are open to subsequent review and change if they cease to be demonstrable in further experiments. Yet people in the culture of the European diaspora at large assume a certain superiority and factuality in many of their beliefs, technological and cultural practices, even those that are harmful, less sustainable and not thoroughly understood and tested, as if those beliefs and practices were more "advanced" than simpler but safer and more sustainable methods in traditional cultures.

They also want to look at other cultures' "myths" as failed or primitive science at worst or at best poetry limited by an outdated understanding of the natural world, and see their own myths as deeply symbolic and philosophical truths. Yet they remain unconscious that, for example, seeing Christ as having to do with a vine metaphor in relation to the universe is wholly mythic or symbolic rather than scientific in its semiotic modality.

I really wish you could somehow get someone to send you a copy of the Burton book, Robert Tulip. It's well worth reading and it might not say what you think it says.

What is your response to the claim that it's entirely possible that you're a delusional person who misunderstands much of his environment and reality. This isn't an insult, it's an honest question at a hypothetical claim. Can you prove your incoming sense datum is always absolutely true?

Robert: "Talking about the Spaghetti Monster is just a way to illustrate the absurdity of your contention that it is theoretically possible that we are an alien dream."

Okay, explain to stupid old me why the alien dream scenario is impossible. This is the only question I've asked that I'm concerned with right now. If you can explain your Spaghetti Monster idea well enough, I'll think of a way to scientifically test it.

RT: "If we say we have faith the universe exists we are claiming 100% certainty."

I'm absolutely certain, but I don't think it can be proven absolutely true.

RT: "What I suspect you are asking me to provide is a synthetic statement whose truth does not depend on sense perception, ie one that is true by definition, like an analytical statement. Unfortunately, this is much more difficult, and introduces the problem of faith."

That's what I was asking, and what is the problem with introducing faith?

"I personally believe [the universe exists] is absolutely true, but as you argued earlier, my belief rests on faith in science."

Back to the alien dream, as it will all inevitably lead, or an approximation. Also, what does your belief resting on faith in science have to do with it?

The best examples I can see are that 'human flourishing is good[to overpopulate the planet, thus stripping it of resources and destroying all life]' and that 'knowledge is good[so that we may use it to build weapons powerful enough to destroy the world when we inevitably have WWIII]'.

Most of my replies are tangential, but I really only wanted to respond to one point. I had to play with your ethics statements too, couldn't resist.

GentleReader9 wrote:And to think I waited until I had finished reading Burton's book to enter this string and read the whole string and then make a comment! What was I thinking? I guess if you can forgive Robert for not even reading the book and then having so much to say, you will forgive me for resurrecting something ancient in the string to comment on.

Oh dear, I am found out. I am just fascinated by the relation between knowledge, certainty and belief. These are conceptual issues which, I hope, can be discussed on the basis of summary information about Burton. Philosophers like Plato and Kant have interesting insights into the scope of certainty which seem to me to contrast with Burton's neurological observations. Perhaps my theme has been that we can have certain knowledge but not certain belief. Burton, as I understand him through a glass darkly, provides very helpful insight into the limits of belief, but does not seem to discuss knowledge, which I would have thought is the correct province of certainty.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Unless we consider the mythic meaning against a scientific framework, we are going back to a pre-modern belief system, and this is a dangerous and unproductive approach

Hmm. This is ethnocentric, scientistic and unnecessarily fearful, too. (No offense, R.T., but good gosh.) Myths are not "pre-modern." They exist in the post-modern world, in every culture including the "Western" culture of Europe and its diaspora, including the symbolic thinking that underlies, underpins and informs many a "scientific" or "modern" notion or project.

Well, I did slightly recant on that statement in my subsequent post about the moon. However, I stand by it. I just think that our understanding of spirit, given modern discovery, should be based on an understanding of matter, and that any other approach is deluded. Sorry if that seems arrogant, I just think it is true. I am arguing we need to deconstruct our modern myths. Many myths have good effects, but some have bad effects. Understanding their material basis helps to assess if they are good or bad. In my opinion, the myth of the resurrection is good while the myth of the virgin birth is bad. I assess these on the basis of my perception of their social consequences. The fact of their historical actuality is secondary to their mythic potency, but I do think an understanding of scientific possibility is a helpful starting point to assess myths. I take your point about being scientistic, but rationality is not ethnocentric or fearful.

Burton...acknowledges the difference between clearly stating our basis for believing something, acknowledging its necessarily limited contexts (biological, neurological, cultural and any others he knows) and being right. My father, who is a scientist, is fond of pointing out that all scientific findings are theories, that even "facts" are open to subsequent review and change if they cease to be demonstrable in further experiments. Yet people in the culture of the European diaspora at large assume a certain superiority and factuality in many of their beliefs, technological and cultural practices, even those that are harmful, less sustainable and not thoroughly understood and tested, as if those beliefs and practices were more "advanced" than simpler but safer and more sustainable methods in traditional cultures.

Some scientific ideas are open to revision, some are not. It is possible for intelligent people to understand this distinction. Your point about settler arrogance is well made, but I don't see that the humility about science logically follows. Part of the tragedy of Africa is that whites see how racism was unjust and destructive in colonial times, and conclude, invalidly in my view, that therefore we should let Zimbabwe stew in the Mugabe pot, as that is better than the racist arrogance of intervention. Getting a balance between traditional and modern outlooks is one of the hardest things. I have spent many years working with Papua New Guinea, and have come to the mildly paradoxical conclusion that assimilation of modern values is essential to preserve traditional culture and language and land.

They also want to look at other cultures' "myths" as failed or primitive science at worst or at best poetry limited by an outdated understanding of the natural world, and see their own myths as deeply symbolic and philosophical truths. Yet they remain unconscious that, for example, seeing Christ as having to do with a vine metaphor in relation to the universe is wholly mythic or symbolic rather than scientific in its semiotic modality.

Good point! Yes, it is indeed a challenge to develop a scientific Christology

Dissident Heart wrote: Where it becomes a matter of Faith is when he identifies a moral responsibility to act differently, and then makes the effort to turn the tide of Climate Change: connecting the what ought to be to what is, and then mustering the courage to pursue what seems to be an impossible task.
Faith, in this case, means engaging a seemingly impossible mission to change the course of what will most likely, perhaps inevitably occur: what is surely possible (cataclysmic climate change catastrophe) is set aside for the seemingly impossible (fundamental change in human behavior).

I agree about the seeming impossibility of the task in our sprawling, individualistic country, but I'm not comfortable with the suggestion that the solution has to be faith-based--unless you are using a very broad, non-religious sense of the word (but the fact that you capitalize it makes me think that you're not).

Denmark, as one example, has been notable for environmental progress far in advance of ours. According to Wikipedia, the country has the third-highest rate of agnosticism and atheism in the world. Only 5 to 8 percent of the population attend church on a given Sunday. Yet the people have bought into the initiatives of their government. Most families own only one car (although a 300% tax on cars has somethng to do with it!), mass transit is excellent, and many citizens get around by bike.

I don't dispute your evidence of the contribution of faith groups, but I couldn't agree that religious faith is essential to reducing our impact on the earth.

DWill: I agree about the seeming impossibility of the task in our sprawling, individualistic country, but I'm not comfortable with the suggestion that the solution has to be faith-based--unless you are using a very broad, non-religious sense of the word (but the fact that you capitalize it makes me think that you're not).

I capitalize Faith to emphasize its importance, really, its imperative: no matter what direction you choose to travel, you must and will use Faith. In the context of Al Gore's Certainty: his choice to turn the tide and work against the seemingly inevitable by way of a hope and trust in the seemingly impossible is an act of Faith. It is a Faith informed by the very best of environmental studies, geological and climate data, and ecological sciences: but as a Faith it works to transform the data...not deny it or seek escape into delusion...but to face it head on and work towards something far different and perhaps impossible to attain. It is a Faith that says existence, reality, ought to be much different than it is: and then mobilizes behavior and pursues a hope that it will change....even if most of the evidence says otherwise.

So, in a sense, I do think "Faith-based" efforts are important...but I do not equate that to Federal govt. subsidies/grants that encourage religious organizations to clean up society's mess. I mean it as the core trust and hope that guides all of our ships.

DH: "It is a Faith that says existence, reality, ought to be much different than it is: and then mobilizes behavior and pursues a hope that it will change....even if most of the evidence says otherwise."

What you say seems to resemble more of a religious version of faith. The attempt to deny reality and instead have faith in what you've been taught to believe. Al Gore had a great deal of Evidence to go on as a foundation, and the minor amount of supplemental faith he used doesn't necessitate capitalizing it.

Interbane: What you say seems to resemble more of a religious version of faith. The attempt to deny reality and instead have faith in what you've been taught to believe.

It may be that we can never really escape the religious dimensions of life, especially where faith is involved...and when seemingly impossible choices are part of the equation (and they seem to be whenever anything really important is at stake) faith is always involved.

And, it may be that some degree of denial is required to make impossible changes, or to change what is seemingly impossible or impervious to change. Denial can be used to simply escape...and denial can be used to work for impossible goals...perhaps it is the denial of the impossible that makes fundamental change possible.