Sagan and anyone who care toreply

by jw 111 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AuldSoul

  Sorry, peacefulpete, I wish I could comply but I can't admit that experiential knowledge does not constitute knowledge.

  If funkyderek and others mean "proven" and state that the words "known" and "proven" are interchangable in their mind (which they invariably do state), then why not use "proven" instead of "known" while preserving for "known" the connotation for which it is designed, one which included proven and subjective experiential knowledge?

  However, I will be willing to consider any words you suggest as alternatives. Except "believe" because "believe" lacks the certainty of experiential knowledge possessed by the individual.

  Consider that only one man ever was stung by a bee. It hurt. It stung...like fire. It produced pain, that was experienced, by an individual. That man now has knowledge of the pain of a bee sting. He knows for sure that bees can hurt you, he experienced it. But if he is the only one who is ever stung by a bee is he required to prove the fact to everyone by making sure they get stung as well?

  He doesn't believe bee stings hurt. In much the same way I don't believe God exists.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  Guys, I really do want to have this discussion. If you think I am being argumentative for the sake of arguing, you are wrong. I have been practically begging for this discussion for some time now. It is a complex topic that is being approached from as near an opposite direction as can be imagined by me, but that means I have to know that the deck will not be stacked against me before the argument begins.

  Therefore, I start by rejecting a notion Science is admittedly keen on, but is demonstrably a miserable failure at fulfilling for itself. "Known" does not equate to "proven" and I can prove that as a truth through simple thought exercises. I admit up front (and always have admitted) that I do not believe God will ever be discovered by science (not as God, anyway...chunks of God may be already labeled and its properties defined, i.e. "thingified") and I can never prove God exists by use of the Scientific Method.

  But I will not allow experiential knowledge (the initial basis for quite a lot of discovery, and a higher cognition "knowledge" according to Plato, and many other noted thinkers of more modern times) to be relegated to the concept of belief without being shown cause for the limitation on what is "known" to preclude all that is not yet "proven."

  If I am to be labeled as a quibbler over semantics because I insist that demonstrably false equations between terms be dropped from the discussion, so be it. I will bide my time until someone shows up to join the debate who is willing to accept that experiential knowledge is also knowledge (a concept I thought resolved beyond dispute quite some time ago).

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  peacefulpete

  
  
  
  
  

  To reconstruct your illustration, since we all are quite aware that bees sting either through experience that prompted investigation/inquiry or through reading the scientific examination of bee anatomy and behavior so lets not use bees in your illustration but an invisible purple unnamed unique in the universe creature. Now if LT claimed to know that the invisible, purple, unique to the universe creature stings but could not supply any evidence that his explanation of his experience was accurate should others accept as reality that an invisible purple unique to the universe creature not only existed but stung LT? Would you want to live in a world that applied its intelligence that way? It would not take long before volumes of new invisible, unique to the universe creatures were catalogued.
• 

  AuldSoul

  The thought exercise wasn't about bees, peacefulpete. The thought exercise was to use a commonly understood reality to demonstrate the point that whether only one man ever experienced a bee sting or not would not affect whether that one man knew what it felt like to be stung by a bee. He may not even have words to describe it completely, but his experience was real and his knowledge is more than conviction.

  Experience is a means by which we acquire knowledge—not convictions, not beliefs, knowledge. In fact, no matter how much I study on the subject of bees there is only one way for me to ever find out exactly what a bee sting feels like. Until then, I only know what people say it feels like. After I have been stung, I know what it feels like.

  Lopping off that segment as unknown until proven is absurd.

  Now if LT claimed to know that the invisible, purple, unique to the universe creature stings but could not supply any evidence that his explanation of his experience was accurate should others accept as reality that an invisible purple unique to the universe creature not only existed but stung LT?

  No. And I never suggested they should. I don't believe LittleToe has suggested that others should use his knowledge as any cause for their conviction, either. Only as cause for considering the possibility. If you rephrase that as "should others consider the possibility that an invisible purple unique to the universe creature not only existed but stung LT?" I would be able to happily accept a world in which intelligence worked that way.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  peacefulpete

  The thought exercise was flawed precisely because bee stings are "commonly understood reality". This reality is not established exclusively through experience but confirmation and analysis.

  You ignored my questions.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  oldsoul - so, until i can prove to you what sort of life form God is, i should allow for the possibility of his existence? isn't that like asking someone to allow for the possibility of any dream creature until you can show that it doesn't exist? isn't that a sort of waste of time? considering that us h saps have wicked imaginations? i don't understand why i should have to show what sort of life form God is, when i am not simultaneously also required to show what sort of life form Sisyphus is. it's not parsimonious, and it's not my burden. - TS
• 

  AuldSoul

  T.S.

  Hi. Nope. It's like allowing others their beliefs, and their experiences without challenging them for proof every time they mention them and scoffing when they aren't able to provide any. Whether or not they ever claimed to be able to provide any.

  peacefulpete: This reality is not established exclusively through experience but confirmation and analysis.

  Maybe no one ever told you about thought exercises and their value for comprehension beyond their narrow confines. I will assume that is the case. In the thought exercise I presented, I stipulated that only one man ever felt a bee sting. For that man to KNOW what a bee sting feels like and to KNOW that bees can sting only required that one singular event. It did not require confirmation or analysis. That hypothetical man's experience served to garner him knowledge no one else in that hypothetical world had. He didn't only "believe" bees sting and that it hurts, he wasn't merely "firmly convicted" that bees sting and it hurts, he "knew" that to be a fact, whether anyone ever independently confirmed it or not.

  Experience is a source of factual knowledge. Often, factual knowledge that can only be imperfectly communicated metaphorically to anyone outside the person who experienced it, but which is nonetheless real to the person who experienced it, not merely believed in.

  The point of ALL this is that while scientists insist someone has the burden of proof where God is concerned, in the case of experiential knowledge there is never a burden of proof on any side. For the person who experienced it the matter is settled, the only reason they would have to prove it is if they were trying to convince someone else. For the person who didn't experience it, they would likely only understand the experience as described in a metaphorical way in any case and, therefore, that party also has no burden of proof.

  I hope at the least that kid-A finally has been shown that believers are frequently reminded of their "burden of proof" however little time he believes scientific types have to spare. I don't have to prove anything to anyone in order to have personally experienced something I know to be true, or for my experience to have provided me knowledge (as a higher cognitive function than belief or conviction).

  There is one belief I think science has yet to prove true that almost every scientist and person of a scientific bent seems to share, every concept must be proved by someone. It isn't true...I can prove it.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  Do you feel that Pre-Newtonian "knowledge" was in this case of equal value as that developed by setting aside assumed reality by repeatable experimentation? Of course not.

  I apologize, peacefulpete, it was an oversight. This was the only question I found that I ignored...I assumed it was rhetorical in the context. You will find the answers to your other questions (unless I missed one) in my previous post.

  I agree, of course not. I do not disparage the role of science in our society. Scientists disparage the role of religion in our society. I cannot count the times when posters have spoken of how much farther along man would be without religion without a thought to the path through which writing arrived. The entire concept of representative ideation began as a religious concept. How far would man's civilization have gotten without it? Where would science be without it?

  Would you rather that religion never was? Of course not. That was rhetorical. It provided the developmental impetus for writing, through which the collective knowledge of humanity grows exponentially spanning generations and cultures.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  LittleToe

  Pete:

  The thought exercise was flawed precisely because bee stings are "commonly understood reality". This reality is not established exclusively through experience but confirmation and analysis.

  The concept of "God" is a "commonly understood reality", too (especially if you quantify it as subjective).

  If you had thousands of people, throughout the passage of thousands of years, all claiming something very similar; then it's hardly the same as a single crackpot running around scared of the colour purple, now, is it?

  LT, of the "smiles at hypocritical semantic gnat-strainers" class
• 

  press any key

  On the knowledge versus proof thing - (hopefully I can put this right - if you dont get it at least I "know" what I mean )

  I am on the side that to "know" something requires proof

  when someone has an experience this may be proof to him and therefore they feel they know something to be true, so they have their proof and this leads to the knowledge

  other people wisely do not accept other peoples experience as proof unless they already agree with the fact being established or they for some reason have great trust in the other person

  I say wisely because most people are delusional to at least some extent (what me, no I'm not overweight) and there are a lot of people in hospitals who have accepted experiental evidence that GOD exists and and is sitting in the corner wearing pink pyjamas

  so when you say to me you had pie for dinner last night I accept that without requiring any more proof, when you tell me about your experiental evidence for God and that I must change my life to please him then I set a much higher burden of proof on you

  when I left the witnesses I took a blank piece of paper and wrote on it everything important that I "KNEW" to be true, I could only come up with three things, and now I am not so sure about those

  cheers