Epistemology: How Do I Know? | Episode 1807 | Closer To Truth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 бер 2020
- Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. How can we have confidence in what we know or believe? What is knowledge? What is belief? How is belief justified? And is justified belief knowledge? How can we not doubt everything? Featuring interviews with Robert Audi, Meghan Sullivan, Bas C. van Fraassen, Louis Caruana, and David Bentley Hart.
Season 18, Episode 7 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Epistemology #Consciousness
Did you learn anything new about epistemology? We'd like to hear about it in the comments!
If you enjoyed this episode of Closer To Truth, please consider subscribing. You can find more episodes from Season 18 in the Season 18 playlist on our channel: @t
Closer To Truth u seem lose an epistemological stance when u talk to religious people n not ask the right questions! Do u have an agenda of fueling their belief system?
The Globe earth is nothing but an idiotic belief. Like much of so called Science.
This i Know. Would like to ask, how you know where you are?
If you have no knowledge of where you are
then what are you doing in this place you do not know?
Yeah, I'd learn a lot and question even more. But this is the magic of learning
@@mikebell4649 what would you call the right question to you? You mean like asking the person " do you believe in god" or asking " give me the proof of god now "???
Robert, that guy, van Fraassen, is incredibly intelligent. I would love to be in one of his classes as a young person. I was as surprised as he when you didn't relent on your faith in photons when he pointed out that the whole enterprise of perceptual science was based on the fact that one could perceive a color, like brown. I guess we all have some hill that we are willing to die on.
Anyone else just stumble upon Epistemology and now you question everything around you? Maybe Im just super high right now but wow my mind is blown
Nah, I came looking, I think.
How would I know?
My reality since philosophy 101
I just found epistemology but I already questioned everything.
Eh, Max Stirner's ontology brought me here, lol.
Mind phux all the way down
I think of a question, Robert comes with a video. Love this channel.
This is such an amazing channel.
You are doing an amazing job Robert.
Never stop ♥️
I feel so blessed to have found this channel on UA-cam. This show is so thought provoking and informative.
You can download the podcast versions free on iTunes
Most especially since we are on a platform where everyone is giving arguments based on what they feel
agree
Thought provoking: Yes. Informative; not so much. There is never a conclusion to these videos or a sense of closure. Every one of these videos seems to end with questions and not answers.
@@blaster-zy7xx that's one of the things that's so great about it
Dear Sir Robert Kuhn,
i wish that the cosmos will give you a long and truthful life so that you can continue making videos like these.
i want you to know that i deeply appreciate all of its contents. you are my ultimate buddy on my personal quest for truth. this place we are currently in is kind of deppressing and full of uncertainty. im only 29 years old but i am already filled with disturbing questions about my existence and origin.
thank you so much for giving me some comfort and temporary answers.
Leo
You are not alone ,
Has this American chap really been given a knighthood?
I feel you. I'm 23 and on some level I feel lile humans did not evolve to ask such questions on a deep level. It's almost like a robot who deeply amd happily believes in god and looking at its source code and realizing that its just bits. I feel we probably didn't evolve for this and the healthy mind isn't meant to probe these things for too long.
My brain read that in Japanese and you are now flirting
Leo, keep searching - there is a place of certainty that can be known.
This is possibly the best channel on UA-cam. This is no easy feat.
Aka I really like this channel lol
I suddenly find myself excited to watch a video about epistemology
this channel is exceptional at creating an interest to learn more ... bravo
Today is the first I've heard the word epistemology.. Goggled it.. Got it.. I love how much this channel has opened my mind and how much of a learning process I've experienced here.. Big fan..
I love your quest, Robert. For some reason, I am fascinated by this kind of questions and find the exploration to be personally autotelic. Thanks for sharing!
Simply mind-blowing and mind-boggling!
"Epistemology, the knowledge of knowing, is part of ontology, the knowledge of being, for knowing is an event within the totality of events." - Paul Tilich
Robert you and this channel are amazing! Thank you so much! So, insightful, so fun.
Seriously, this is amazing channel. I love the interviews. About skepticism, I picked the idea that we don't have 'right' to cast doubt on some knowledge, for example, the brown, yet we are using more problematic words or language to cast our doubt. It becomes circular and we can't break out of it. Instead, as a young student of theology, i would take the last advice of spirituality that insists that there could objective truth that we can't even prove in words or any form of evidence. Epistemology is real frightening!
The fact that one can have favourite epistemologist is a new thought. I do admire too the person reply when he was asked the question. He said he himself is his favourite
This is the GREATEST series on the GREATEST topics known to man!
This is my favorite episode that I've watched. I need to watch it a couple more times. I'm not a philosopher or scholar. These just help me admit to myself I don't "know" what I thought I knew. I'm not going to abandon ship, I'm just gonna shut up a little more.
Sam, I'm right there with you. Socrates would embarrass people by publicly showing that they didn't actually know what they were so proud to proclaim as ultimate truth. I've come to believe that "I don't know" is the first step to wisdom.
Agree, Socratic method which led to the Scientific method. Are the only ways we can indirectly know and understand reality.
Wonderful! Thanks!
Stellar... simply stellar.
"I need to be fearless to get closer to the truth!" Amen sir!
I have enjoyed this channel since I discovered it (although I was surprised to learn Kuhn is not a philosopher by trade). This is arguably the best episode I have screened thus far, and I have screened quite a few.
Bottomline is we cannot "know" anything, and we will always be searching using the limited "tools" we have available to us, one being language itself which will always be nothing more than a never ending search to describe anything and everything.
Once a woman took me home from the dance club for a one night stand. She had a book titled "epistemology" on her book shelf. She ghosted me after that, but I've never forgotten her.
This is the best, most susinct summation of the problem I have seen here on UA-cam. I got my BA in philosophy and my experience was that people, professors and students alike, tended to sweep these questions under the carpet once they found an argument strong enough to support their intuitions. Epistemology is intelectual criptonite.
We can say that we "know" things, but how do we know we know? We don't. Being convinced of a belief does not make that belief true, it just makes it true that we are convinced. We could be wrong but we don't think we are. At the most basic level, if everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet, what we "know" is true only if everybody else would reach the same conclusion when presented with the same evidence. It might be called "functional truth". And that's the best we've got. Absolute truth might exist, but it is not accessible.
Amazing !
I love philosophy bcz it asks the biggest questions.
Unnecessary knowledge
@@user-fs9jn5kh7m you don’t know much about philosophy do you?
@@memduhturan5980 I don't need unnecessary knowledge, therefore I am.
@@user-fs9jn5kh7m if you think Islam opposes Philosophy you should do some research?
Knowing what lies behind the desire to know is ignored knowledge. Knowing about it is essential to try to satisfy our desire to know.
The foundations for answering the questions in the series are the main obstacle. It is like being a muscled athlete without better engineering for the feet, or at least more fat and muscle on the feet.
"How do I know what I say I know?"... Right now that is the leading question in my mind. Until I find an acceptable answer to that I shall have a headache.
I gotta say that I love when RLK gets questioned himself he falls apart. He is told why the idea of the "photon" is more intellectually believable to him. The assumptions he makes about the optic nerve, lateral geniculate and the visual cortex which is greater than the assumptions he has to make about the brown pew.
I’m always using this phrase... closer to truth... in research courses.
Exactly lol
The "knowing" in of itself is instinctive: A sole somatic capacity to just know.
This gentleman is quite eloquent...very clear as to his deep thoughts
I think the fundamental problem is in believing that we can understand everything.
amazing
To know things you have to first ask the right questions. That’s easier said than done.
Marshall Vian Summers writes incredibly well about Knowledge, our inner wisdom, our connection to the Source and the universe. A good book to start with, for example, is one called the Power of Knowledge. All of his texts are free online, just google it.
Justification for belief may be establishing a sound basis to know something sufficient for a person, whether scientific equations, theories of nature, philosophical principle or divine revelation.
When I make plans, I like to say for example, "if all goes well, I will go to Hawaii in June".
"God willing"
I SAY INCHALLAH "IN GOD'S WILL"
The color brown of the furniture is sufficient for the meeting of the two persons (aesthetic), but may not be sufficient for using the furniture in ways different than sitting for a meeting.
It is interesting to know God and toknow about God. Thank you very much. It is enlighting.
Love your channel Robert, and love to think about it to.
My thoughts go to asking, why do we not question the meaning of words, the meaning of meaning and why knowing more words seem to dominate the intelligence.
Is intelligence based on words?
why is "love" taught to be the same and in connection with God?
when we know in the arab world a man can have more than one wife, can his love be the same as the love of loving one woman? the love of a father to his son is other than the love to his wife,
do we fit words, as title, names, introductories, just to confirm we are right in what we say?
or is the logic depending on better words to continue its level? why can we be convinced or is it the influenced way to fit in the puzzle?
Clincher argument: "..but come on!"
God is all knowing. HE is the only ONE. We can do nothing or know anything without HIM.
Knowledge come from/through cognition...
Truth can be percieved thru Reason/intuition and thru experience..
There are two types of knowledge, internal knowledge( world of cause and reality)) and external(physical reality) knowledge
Like seeing the external person(eyes, head, face hand body feet== external outside form), but there is a internal inner person ( invisible Mind , inner character= the internal world of Cause/reality)..
As stated by apostle Paul in Romans 1: 20...
How can we know s person ? We can know him thru his works/actions and words..
We can know God thru his WORDS(recorded scriptures) and thtu his works of creation...
You can know everything, but while keeping it you don't know what it is! Only in the moment you got it or you loos it you know!
Once we reach the end of our understanding we create more concepts to expand on the already existing web of symbols in order to increase our understanding aka increase complexity aka create the possibility of understanding by implying there being something that's not understood. Because information is structured data. Structure implies rules, rules are forced restrictions.
So knowledge is the forced limiting of our perception of reality for the sole purpose of creating knowledge in the first place. Knowledge is really just limiting yourself. That's why unlearning is far more insightful than learning. Instead of adding onto the filters, let's get rid of them. Let's see what is, rather than what we think is based on the countless limits we put on our perception via means of buying into the idea of understanding. Complexity arises when one trys to explain reality with words. Because words are clunky.
Trying to explain the world is symptomatic of our belief that knowledge is better than no knowledge. Knowledge is no more than fiction.
Also language implies object and verb. That's why I am. But a language with only verbs would dictate that there is being. But no I that is. Just being. Now that would feel equally as true if we were brought up that way. Thinking is taught. You cannot argue for knowledge by using knowledge. That's like fixing a hammer with itself. If you value knowledge over belief it's because you believe in knowledge. It's an endless cycle. Best get off the bicycle from time to time
With skepticism if you see through everything you'll thus see nothing. If you doubt everything then you have no answers to anything not even if you are alive. But the truth is we are here and we do exist
Science is your answer to gaining knowledge. Forget about religion, there's no evidence, in fact belief without evidence seems to be a virtue.
Yeah, I have a hard time staying with "religion is a way of knowing" meanderings. It's just equivocation and gobbledygook to me.
Gee Pal, Thanks A lot!
This series is incredible
You're proof God exists!! Lol G(g)od(s)(esses) bless you!
Epistemology has allowed me to be a better human. I don't take things at face value like I did when I was very young. I was taught by my parents and other elders as to what was the truth, but when I learned epistemology I started to question what is true, what is knowledge and what is reality.
....and the winner of The Best Word Salad Award goes to ..........................................................................................................................................
21:58 DAAAAVID BENTLEY HAAAAAAAAAAAAAART! 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽✨🎉
I wonder if it's technically possible to reduce all concepts down to a single, fundamental idea in which all other concepts branch out of. It's likely the first sound we uttered with which we attached a set, transferable meaning. It would have to be a concept described by actions because no words would exist to describe it. This rabbit hole of thought gets interesting very quickly. I really do wonder what that word would be.
This is what the philosopher descarte did. Its called foundationalism
@@hamis490 I don't think Descartes actually did this. He only got down to three foundational principles: I think, therefore I am; God is necessarily good; and clear and distinct knowledge. Of course, these principles also require their own more fundamental concepts: God, goodness, I, thinking, necessity, etc.
I think better examples are philosophers like Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle. They all sought to ground reality in a single concept, like Being or the Good, which is either the ultimate source of all else or itself the totality of all that is.
I don't see why the fundamental concept would have to be described by actions. Even if it pre-dates other concepts used for verbal description, appropriate verbal description could arise later and then be applied to it.
Regarding the possibility of such a fundamental concept, Quine famously argued against it in quite a compelling way. Quine's argument is what the Dean of Philosophy at the Gregorian University is talking about when he discusses holism at 19:18.
Can somebody please recommend to me channels similar to this, I am yearning to find content that makes me question my ideas, opinions, and logic?
Go to Closer To Truth's channel page by clicking the channel name beneath the video title. Then click the "CHANNELS" tab and I think you will find some channels to explore and they too will have similar link lists on their pages. It seems to me this channel is quite unique, though, so I don't know how similar you will find them. Luckily, Closer To Truth have several hundred, if not thousands of videos to choose from.
If thats the case, you dont want shows like this! Nothing but Robert trying to square his religious fantasies with Science. If you really want to have your eyes opened with logic, I recommend the Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty.
I suggest Philosophy Overdose. It has a broad range of philosophy content, mostly interviews with prominent philosophers and full lectures recorded at universities. As a smaller channel, there is less bad philosophy to sort through in the comments. A lot of the commenters also participate in longer discussions, responding to those who respond to them.
americanphilosopher is another good one. It has lots of short videos with Richard Rorty and his critics. I'm not sure if it's still active in uploading videos, though.
It helps to become more generic to all aspects of life and generate more questions to all aspects. Never ending chain reaction.
Love this one! Yes question everything! God wants us to seek him with all our heart ,soul ,and mind.🤔💓🙏
Which imaginary sky daddy is it?🤣
Thanks! I'm looking for opinions on the following, quite unusual statement+question pair:
(T1) "The number of questions one can ask about the world is astronomical. How can {a piece of software} contain all those questions?"
Have I gotten epistemology, and ontology, I am confused.
Stopped clocks are right at least twice per day
Robert Lawrence Kuhn, are you there?
There is a true spirituality but it is not from the ancient calendar it is through scientific Consciousness that it lays before your eyes. One example of many Universal connectedness
The mind is not a thing, it is a process. It is a process of ordering things into some particular order which may suit some local utilitarian immediate needs, or some global all encompassing question such as the search for TOE. All of these things reduce to mere orderings, by the mind, of things considered factual. All of these tentative "facts" held in the mind are given weights, and they may be probabilistic or deterministic. The mind is an ongoing, fluid process of continual sortation and reordering of these things held as tentative "facts". The mind is a sortation device.
My favorite epistemologist is Dr Harry Binswanger, author of How We Know.
I’m holding an idea of a cup of coffee right now, but am sad that I will never fully hold an actual cup of coffee…..but the caffeine is real 😊
It is a sign of the apocalypse that this channel has only 164K subscribers.
i'm with you there. while i am totally accepting of the fact that not everyone is a deep philosophical thinker, it is more my concern about any given person believing something that is factually wrong for ANY reason.
and hell, while epistemology is often a strong case for atheism, you can JUST as easily reason through means of epistemology that "a creator may exist" (without using any potentially fake stories or prophecies, so NO ROOM FOR RELIGION!!!!), by just saying, well as far as the big bang goes, we don't know what caused that, so i'm inclined to believe there is a creator who caused it etc. etc.) {i don't personally believe there is a creator, but if you presuppose yourself to that idea that there is no creator in an argument with a theist, then good luck having them understand your point of your whatsoever :P}
i think this is why religious people are so afraid of epistemology, but like Anthony Magnabosco on youtube shows you, epistemology can be applied to literally ANY idea that you have a sided opinion on to determine if you came to your belief in a reasonable manner, most importantly, without any presupposed biases
How and why are all these videos exactly 26:48 min long?
Never even realized that
When he said he was going to venture beyond the physical world, for some reason I thought of The Great Space Coaster.
13:45 all knowledge beings with experience... how do you KNOW that? He has accepted Empiricism and so this is one of his dogmas. It's called the Peripatetic axiom and has formally been around since Aristotle. The problem is that Kant and others have shown it to be inadequate and nothing is less reliable than human senses which are easily and perhaps constantly deceived.
I’m not religious, but I always enjoy the clips of the last guy interviewed. He’s like an encyclopedia of ways to talking meaningfully about god.
I am not religious either but this man seems very humble and rational. Both are very useful and good qualities not only for one to strive for but also to be used in discussions about the scientific and spiritual perspective.
Perhaps that IS being religious. Maybe deeply
An important question... Why do educators overuse the word "So"? Can this be corrected?
It's part of the package that includes up talk, vocal fry and "like".
Unverifiable testament full of self contradiction should be epistemologically firmly beneath objective self verifiable observation.
"Take my word for it."
It would have been interesting to interview Dr. Zakir Naik who lectures God on Islam and other religions. we look forward to you booking an appointment with him. I think it will be a good conversation. Many of his lectures on God can be found on youtube.
If 'certain' means that we can't be wrong, then we aren't certain about anything, but the quest for certainty is not a good starting point. A better starting point is the realization that after making a decision that things could have been better, and then undertaking to do better in the future. In the most general sense, that's what philosophy is: the attempt to do better in the future. That activity comes with beliefs and values. The world is a certain way, and it could have been better. That is not an activity that is argued for. It arose out of the development of conscious life, and evolutionary processes produced consciousness, most likely, because being able to make such decisions had a general fitness advantage, which is the explanation generally given for why evolutionary processes produce any complicated system. Doubt is useful for making advances, but general doubt is not. It doesn't count in favor of one claim about the world over another, except for the claim that we can be certain. Applying universal doubt to other areas is just a category mistake. "Hey! That's my car!" "No it's not. You might be a brain in a vat. There might not be a car!" "In that case, the same thing applies to you!" Possibly being right is consistent with possibly being wrong. Certainty is unobtainable, but progress, systems of beliefs that allow great control over what happens, along with clarification as to what values are better, can be achieved. As Steven Pinker says, even the most ardent denier of truth and progress prefers her surgery with anesthesia.
Epistemology!
All we know is how we feel.
We are not aware of much that we feel. Repression is real.
You know what you know now. Tomorrow you may learn something new which may change what you thought you knew before. That is life. Dont make up stories to explain away living.
World is experienced? Might consciousness make known?
..what Younus take into account,is that the short , take, video, account,
visual, change of scenes etc,
..are to
skepticism is a virtue
I disagree, why should I believe that? I suppose definition might be a good start. Perhaps I have brought baggage to that word. But my first thought would be that, in and of itself, that is not true. It needs a qualifier. Change my mind?
I can think of many situations where skepticism would be foolish.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME defintion: a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something. By your very "disagreement" you are exercising skepticism so your comment is somewhat incoherent. you are using the very thing you are questioning.
levity aside how can not taking for granted the truth of a matter not be the more virtuous path.
I like how so many talk about a God is if it's a real thing....god does nothing because it doesn't exist it's an idea born from the imagination!! Period so what is the point trying to connect to a god that stays hidden ...this God makes no effort in letting us know that he it exists ...life is too short and life is not fair and not equal the best we can hope for is to enjoy this life you have!!!
Exactly. Just because humans can think up something, or create an imaginary thing does NOT make it real. Many gods and creatures, ghouls, goblins , ghosts assorted monsters winged horses etc, have been imagined,then told as stories. Passed on as lore and morphed into reality. However, it's still only a thought until empirical evidence, falsifiable evidence, can be explored. Therefore none of the above exists. Sorry, unicorn believers.
@@benandsylvia why can we perceive of god ?
and why can’t I imagine a new colour ?
If I can perceive of god then god exists .
Because what happened to a child believe or know at birth or was there a birth or just realization appearance rather than birth
Man asks so many questions.the less one asks the less one wants to know.
What about when something is known?
Why do we need it to be empirically true in order to accept it as a possible beneficial aspect to our lives? I have interwoven a type of aporia into my belief system. I'm aware of how there is no one person in this universe that truly knows everything and can undoubtedly prove it. Having accepted that (assuming it is "true"), it somewhat frees me to move about my life unaffected by the fact that some portions of my beliefs could very strongly be false which allows me to care less and appreciate things (events/phenomena) as best as I can perceive them. E.g. I grew up believing in Santa Claus, I become aware that it's all a fantasy, I accept he is not real but continue to indulge in the fantasy because it's fun and it makes me "happy", all the while never losing sight of the fact that it's not real. The deeper issue behind it all is that I would like for it to be real. This is where I've found myself in my quest for truth and I'm at a standstill. Deep down it troubles me that the bigger issue here is not whether something is true but that I need it to be to make sense of what I'm doing here to make bigger sense of why I am here. So, what has been keeping me afloat for now is the idea that as long as we aren't hurting others or ourselves by indulging in certain unproven beliefs, I think we can give ourselves the permission to indulge in certain beliefs that might never be empirically proven but could possibly give us some type of illusion of happiness. That's all I got so far. Anyway, as Captain Mulder says, #iwanttobelieve.
I'm in a similar boat. I've deconstructed every belief I've ever had(right down to existence itself) and am now allowing myself to indulge in some that I know are unlikely to be true because it feels nice and helps me feel like life is worth living.
@@jessewestlund5159 Beautiful to know we are here together :)
@@jessewestlund5159 So you don't care if your beliefs are true, you fill your head with stupid stuff because it makes you feeel good. Does the stupid stuff that makes you feel good influence your vote and inflict your stupid stuff on others?
@@corydorastube I’m curious what sort of beliefs you think I’m indulging in.
@@jessewestlund5159 By your own admission BS that you know is unlikely to be true. That sounds to me like you don't care. I care. I want to believe as many true things and a few false things as possible. Show me that a belief I have held is false and it will be in the garbage can like an old newspaper.
To defend "common sense" is circular though. CS does not support quantum mechanics after all.
Knowledge (belief) is not justified. Knowledge (belief) is only useful.
Some people believe in slavery and rape. Is that justified because they believe in it? Belief itself is not always useful if you have morals.
You should try talking to both the folks at Objective Personality, which uses Jungian cognition to type personalities, which leads to both self understanding and empathy. Also on Jung, you should talk to someone in the recovery community - preferably an old=timer (someone with over 20 years) to find out about that type of practical spirituality. I can put you in touch with someone about that.
Closer To Truth, I have long subscribed to your channel, and consider it one of the very few things that I find worth watching. I appreciate how unassuming you are, your doubts, and your curious disposition. However, I noticed that almost NONE of your panelists ever discuss non-White philosophers, scientists, etc. For example, it is my opinion that Al Ghazali makes Descartes look like a novice, if not a plagiarist, when it comes to describing knowledge. Yet, the latter is famous globally, while the former remains mostly obscured. I state this with admiration and affection for you.
We appreciate your point. Closer To Truth is striving to add more non-Western philosophy and philosophers. See below for our start. Much more is coming in CTT's partnership with the Global Philosophy of Religion Project at the University of Birmingham.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr (multiple interviews/topics) - closertotruth.com/contributor/seyyed-nasr/profile
Mahmoud Ayoub (multiple interviews/topics) - closertotruth.com/contributor/mahmoud-ayoub/profile
Hamza Yusuf - Islam in the Global Philosophy of Religion Project - ua-cam.com/video/8us98dDs5gI/v-deo.html
Robert is smarter, more reasonable and deeper than most everyone he speaks to. Thanks Robert for showing us how the experts are anything but that.
How about why do I not know?
The leading figure on Epistemology can't tell Bertrand Russel from Gettier.
The priest claims that religion can adjust it's perspectives just like science but in science nothing is sacred therefore if a claim is shown to be wrong it isn't adjusted to fudge the issue & make it seem right because it's acknowledged as wrong. Religion doesn't operate like that. It puts the cart before the horse by insisting that belief _must_ be maintained therefore any reassessment _has_ to conclude that there's a loving god. Science is certain of _nothing_ & demands evidence for _everything_ where as religion is certain of _everything_ & demands evidence for _nothing._
“Science is certain of nothing and demands evidence of everything”
“Religion is certain of everything and demands evidence for nothing”
“In science nothing is sacred”
It could be argued that for some “scientists” or “Philosophical Naturalists” nothing is sacred which is why we were forced to develop ethical committees to check the efficacy and safety of research methods in order to protect human rights and the general public from being seriously harmed by proponents of “scientism”. “Scientism” is the reason we’re stuck with the threat of Nuclear bombs.
“Scientism: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)”.
Nevertheless, I think that most theists like most scientists believe in the sacredness or sanctity of life (Putting the cart before the horse) by protecting human rights and moral standards and ethics etc even though these concepts are non empirical modes of knowledge that can’t be falsified by Karl Poppers principle of falsification. Equally, the fact that doctors and nurses have sacrificed their lives caring for peoples families during this pandemic is an amazing example of the reality of love and altruism and is a true symbol of the triumph of the human spirit over matter. This is clearly where the non empirical modes of knowledge contained in philosophy and theology comes into place and not the “scientific method” which can only infer and can not provide explanations and proofs as such. If the doctors and nurses principles of care and love towards the victims of the Corona virus and their bereaved relatives are just a subjective illusion that can be callously explained away by materialists or naturalists as just brain chemicals and sociobiological reductionism then logic, science, the “self” and even explanation itself is explained away which is clearly a self defeating and absurd hypothesis.
“You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see” (C.S. Lewis).
No offence intended but it also depends on what you mean by “science” as “science” is just a word an adjective to describe the methodological approach found in all subjects such as philosophy, mathematics, logic and linguistics etc. Equally, “science” is based on many presuppositions/faith which is why Aristotle stated that “No science ever proves it’s first principles”. Kurt Godel also proved with his incompleteness theorems that all knowledge even scientific knowledge is incomplete and so is ultimately based/founded on something you can’t empirically prove. I don’t personally have a problem with atheism, theism, deism or agnosticism. I don’t stand in judgement of what other people need to get by in life.
Nevertheless, according to the brilliant physicist and Nobel prize winner Werner Heisenburg...
“Quantum theory provides us with a striking illustration of the fact that we can fully understand a connection though we can only speak of it in images and parables”
All the best and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis.
Well said!
@@georgedoyle7971 _“Science is certain of nothing and demands evidence of everything” “Religion is certain of everything and demands evidence for nothing”_
Yep!
_“In science nothing is sacred”_
Nope!
*It could be argued that for some “scientists” or “Philosophical Naturalists” nothing is sacred which is why we were forced to develop ethical committees to check the efficacy and safety of research methods in order to protect human rights and the general public from being seriously harmed by proponents of “scientism”.*
All kinds of nonsense 'could be argued couldn't it but there's no such thing as 'scientism' because a claim is either scientifically supportable or it's not. There's nothing in between.
*“Scientism” is the reason we’re stuck with the threat of Nuclear bombs.*
No it's not. The reason we are stuck with nuclear bombs is paranoia therefore no one trust the other guy to disarm & therefore won't disarm themself.
*“Scientism: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)”.*
No it's not because science is certain of nothing. That's why science doesn't speak of Newton's Truth of Gravity or Darwin's Truth of Evolution but Newon's _Theory_ of Gravity & Darwin's _Theory_ of Evolution.
*Nevertheless, I think that most theists like most scientists believe in the sacredness or sanctity of life*
I wouldn't call it 'scared'. Was Osama Bin Laden's life considered _'sacred'_ by most theists or scientists for that matter so any attempt to disempower him meant it was unconscionable to spill his blood in order to stop him inspiring more act's of jihad? _Nope_ & for good reason.
*(Putting the cart before the horse) by protecting human rights and moral standards and ethics etc even though these concepts are non empirical modes of knowledge that can’t be falsified by Karl Poppers principle of falsification.*
But not all human's rights _are_ sacred. Bin Laden was widely accepted to have no right to life in light of what he did in the name of God & just what may or may not be moral is equally questionable according to the nature of the issue at hand & the circumstances surrounding it.
*Equally, the fact that doctors and nurses have sacrificed their lives caring for peoples families during this pandemic is an amazing example of the reality of love and altruism and is a true symbol of the triumph of the human spirit over matter.*
Over matter? I think you will find material means of fighting COVID19 have been overwhelmingly effective in fighting it off. All the love in the world on it's own doesn't make the slightest bit of difference without a scientific perspective in preventing & / or curing it.
*This is clearly where the non empirical modes of knowledge contained in philosophy and theology comes into place and not the “scientific method” which can only infer and can not provide explanations and proofs as such.*
But anything lacking empirical evidence cannot be called 'knowledge' at all because as Plato pointed out knowledge is only knowledge when it's a justified true belief. Religions can never justify their claims which is why there are so many wars & conflicts over what some holy book claims. If there was one which could be shown to be the real deal no faith would be required would it but no faith can manage it & that is not an insignificant short-coming of your claim here.
*If the doctors and nurses principles of care and love towards the victims of the Corona virus and their bereaved relatives are just a subjective illusion that can be callously explained away by materialists or naturalists as just brain chemicals and sociobiological reductionism then logic, science, the “self” and even explanation itself is explained away which is clearly a self defeating and absurd hypothesis.*
The self can be explained away because there's no good reason to believe it's anything other than an illusion (when I say _'illusion'_ I don't mean _'delusion'_ I mean _'misconstrual'_ i.e. It's something but not what it seems).
*“You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever.*
It rather depends on what those undefined 'things' might be doesn't it? The church imprisoned the scientist Gallieo because he contradicted the Bible by pointing out that the Earth goes around the sun & not visa-versa as various verses suggest. The church saw through the error of their ways long after Gallieo died. They also say that the scientist Darwin was right about us evolving from apes rather than a man being made from dust & a woman from his rib & had to eat humble pie over that as well once they could see through the smokescreen of faith in scriptural claims.
*The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it.*
Yes & science is all about seeing through errors by making sure nothing is above question & everything is supported by independently verifiable evidence. That's what makes those standards so breathtakingly successful & means science can fly you to the moon whereas religion can fly you into buildings.
*It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque.*
Science makes the invisible visible which is why it helps us detect threats like COVID19. Faith claims there are unseen threats from unseen things like demons possessing people _(if scripture is to be believed)_ but have we ever had to tackle an unseen threat like demons the way science has with detectable threats like COVID19? _I don't think so!_
*How if you saw through the garden too?*
_"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"_ (Douglas Adams)
*It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see” (C.S. Lewis).*
I agree but in no sense does that claim validate assertions that any deity is likely to exist.
*No offence intended but it also depends on what you mean by “science” as “science” is just a word an adjective to describe the methodological approach found in all subjects such as philosophy,*
No it's not because philosophy deals with opinions where as science deals with demonstrable evidence.
*mathematics, logic and linguistics etc.*
They aren't science because maths etc. is based on principles themselves not physical evidence as science is.
*Equally, “science” is based on many presuppositions/faith which is why Aristotle stated that “No science ever proves it’s first principles”.*
But science doesn't _pretend_ to which is why science is certain of nothing & demands evidence of everything whereas religion is certain of everything & demands evidence of nothing.
*Kurt Godel also proved with his incompleteness theorems that all knowledge even scientific knowledge is incomplete and so is ultimately based/founded on something you can’t empirically prove.*
That's why science never pretends to out & out prove anything which is why it doesn't speak of Newton's Truth Of Gravity but Newton's _Theory_ of Gravity (or Darwin's Theory of Evolution & Einstein's Theory of Relativity etc.) so that's a Straw Man Arguement.
*I don’t personally have a problem with atheism, theism, deism or agnosticism.*
It seems like you have a problem with science because you seem to believe there's such a thing as 'scientism' but nothing could be further from the truth.
*I don’t stand in judgement of what other people need to get by in life.*
Who uses atheism to get by in life? Does anyone use Santa Skepticism to get by in life too? I don't think so, so why scepticism of god claims either?
*Nevertheless, according to the brilliant physicist and Nobel prize winner Werner Heisenburg... “Quantum theory provides us with a striking illustration of the fact that we can fully understand a connection though we can only speak of it in images and parables”*
That opinion may be expressed by a scientist but not everything that comes out of a scientist's mouth is necessarily valid is it? - You claimed earlier that science requires _faith_ but that simply isn't true because faith is the excuse people use for believing something when they don't have a good reason to do so & science is _only_ science when it can show it _does_ have a good i.e. independently verifiable reason.
*All the best and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis.*
And to you. Please follow the _scientific_ advice because no amount of faith in supernatural claims can protect you from COVID19.
1:48 Where the hell did the airplane go?
How can a philosopher defend common sense?
I usually listen to these videos rather than watching them. I heard Prof Robert Audi speaking, and I thought he was a young man.
.....better than an old man
Is the nobility of suffering worth the logical
fallacy of its truth?
The truth often hurts because philosophers do not realize
that truth, by definition, isn't true . . .
The linguistic morpheme, "th" infers that
an analysis is in progress.
Truth infers an analysis of the probability that
it is true (100% factual just as 1 + 1 = 2),
an inference that a truth is never 100% true.
Ergo to seek truth insures that one suffers to the
exact degree that that truth was not true.
Are we reaching synthesis as what is true
from testing our truths OR are we killing
what is true, one truth at a time?
It might be useful to think of doubt and confidence as the opposite ends of a continuous spectrum. Because then they aren't mutually exclusive anymore. For example, you can have 90% confidence and 10% doubt about something at the same time. And if you don't know something, then it's the same as having evenly balanced confidence and doubt at 50% each.
If you look at confidence and doubt co-existing together, rather than being mutually exclusive, then you can have an open mind and be ready to change it, when new evidence either increases or decreases your confidence. But if you look at confidence and doubt in binary terms, then this is like being a fanatic, so totally sure about your knowledge or lack of it, that no facts and no evidence can change it.
It's true that people have both capabilities and failings, when it comes to knowing things. That's why having varying degrees of confidence and doubt at the same time makes the most sense.
The question for me is not how we know, but what is the right wedding for science, with business or philosophy? Some business seems to have a telos (transhumanism, staking out new territory etc) which directs science, might try to give it the identity science lacks and fill a void as it were. There is that useful side of business which is good.
I thought the wholeism discussion oversimplified the issue. Scientific theory is a body of evidence, groups of demonstrable facts. Religious belief systems by contrast appear more linear, e.g god loves me so a loving god would never do any horrible to me and is therefore far more prone to collapse when any foundational belief is disproved. Belief being as it is too often held without any testable evidence. Trying to include a very subjective field such as philosophy into the scientific method therefore undermines the one without strengthening the other. Philosophy, for example, has spent thousands of years trying to prove or disprove the concept of a god .
I think holism's virtue is actually that it shows just how complex the issue is. It does away with the oversimplification of foundationalism.
The linear structure you describe as characterizing religion is just that of inference. Science relies on exactly this same structure. You can't proceed with the scientific method if you don't accept, for example, the inference that the results you're measuring are caused by the experiment you performed. (It's hard to give an exact parallel to your example of _God loving me_ and _a loving god would never do anything horrible to me_ because these are not actually related "linearly." They are both axioms, and one could be true even if the other were false. I'm assuming that the linear structure you have in mind is actually something more like _God would never do anything horrible to me because God loves me_ .) This principle of inference is part of the scientist's web of beliefs.
The whole point of Quine's holism, which is what Caruana is talking about, is that anything can be considered demonstrable given the correct web of beliefs and that no single belief can exist outside of such a web. It's impossible to find an ultimately foundational belief which is not itself bound up in other beliefs no matter what system you're working in, including both religious and scientific ones. They all rely equally on coherence.
This will still be an undesirable conclusion if you don't want science to be undermined, but it doesn't happen because of any effort to include philosophy "in" the scientific method or any "very subjective" character you perceive philosophy to have, whatever exactly that means.
Regarding “knowledge”, philosophically it’s “justified true belief.” Only science can justify (or falsify) claims on objective reality.
It seems to me that your claim about objective reality that "only science can justify (or falsify) claims on objective reality" is itself not justified by science and is therefore self defeating.
Barrett Warren , of course science can justify itself: it works. How does philosophy and religion justify its claims? If they could, there would be agreement within those epistemologies like science forms consensuses as gains knowledge about the objective truth. Understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com
_"Only science can justify (or falsify) claims on objective reality."_
LOL! That is not a scientific statement it is a philosophical statement! Therefore your opinion is epistemically irrelevant (by your own rules) AND WORSE, it is self-defeating!
Don't you get it? Your statement cannot be assessed in a laboratory through the method! It is a philosophical statement. So funny!
@@prime_time_youtube , you have no idea what science is or how it functions. So, now, please tell me what is better than science in understanding objective reality. Philosophy and Theology have NO agreement on any subject other than the realities of "properly basic" abstractions like logic and math. Once science has achieved significant knowledge on any subject, there is a consensus. See the difference?
@@86645ut *you have no idea what science is or how it functions*
LOL! Says the man that gave a self defeating PHILOSOPHICAL argument that argued that science is the only method that gives justification to claims on objective reality.
*Philosophy and Theology have NO agreement*
Another philosophical argument to debunk Philosophy!! HAHAHAHA, you are awesome!
*Once science has achieved significant knowledge on any subject, there is a consensus*
This is ANOTHER philosophical argument! WOW, just wow.