Different ways of knowing?

[cleanhippie]

A bit dated, but I think it's time for a revisit of the topic.

In discussions with religious apologists we often hear the claim that “there are different ways of knowing!” This is often used as a counter to science. It amounts to claiming knowledge which is not based on evidence and not testable against reality.In many cases it’s a defensive argument, a retreat. It’s claiming a logic or justification for the theist belief without allowing the normal checking that should go with knowledge claims. That’s OK - if it is just personal justification. We all do that from time to time.

However, sometimes religious apologists will go on the offensive with this argument. They use it to justify a knowledge claim that conflicts with scientific knowledge. In fact, they will use it to claim they have access to knowledge which is more reliable than scientific knowledge.

--snip--

When religious apologists refer to philosophy and logic they almost invariably mean theology. It’s a deceptive way for them to try and give credibility to their theological arguments. And it can be a deceptive way of giving respectability to superstitious and mythological beliefs.

--snip--

I have come to expect apologists to use the “other ways of knowing” argument, and to attempt to the trump science with philosophy, theology and mythology in debate. But I find Matt’s use of the arguments to justify withholding of modern knowledge from children particularly repulsive.

http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/different-ways-of-knowing/

The appeal to other ways of knowing

Here is another fallacious argument skeptics will have heard:

There are ways of knowing other than the scientific one

or

The scientific method is not the only source of truth

..or similar wording. It is an appeal to other ways of knowing apart from science. The claim is that the tools of critical thinking and science are not sufficient to evaluate the believer’s claim; therefore the believer's claim has validity despite the lack of evidence for it.

The flaw in the argument

No one is claiming that science has all the answers or is always right. However, science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If the believer is claiming that there is a better method, it is up to him or her to justify that claim. To demonstrate this, believers need to explain their better method for evaluating claims, and provide evidence that it is indeed a better method. If they cannot do this their appeal to other ways of knowing is vacuous and fallacious.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_o.html

[Jim__]

1. Different ways of knowing.

I cite these two columns because I have read them recently and they are on this topic.

First column is by Timothy Williamson:

Timothy Williamson is the Wykeham Professor of Logic at Oxford University, a Fellow of the British Academy and a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has been a visiting professor at M.I.T. and Princeton. His books include “Vagueness” (1994), “Knowledge and its Limits” (2000) and “The Philosophy of Philosophy” (2007).

An excerpt from his column:

...

One challenge to naturalism is to find a place for mathematics. Natural sciences rely on it, but should we count it a science in its own right? If we do, then the description of scientific method just given is wrong, for it does not fit the science of mathematics, which proves its results by pure reasoning, rather than the hypothetico-deductive method. Although a few naturalists, such as W.V. Quine, argued that the real evidence in favor of mathematics comes from its applications in the natural sciences, so indirectly from observation and experiment, that view does not fit the way the subject actually develops. When mathematicians assess a proposed new axiom, they look at its consequences within mathematics, not outside. On the other hand, if we do not count pure mathematics a science, we thereby exclude mathematical proof by itself from the scientific method, and so discredit naturalism. For naturalism privileges the scientific method over all others, and mathematics is one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of human knowledge.

...

The scientific spirit is as relevant in mathematics, history, philosophy and elsewhere as in natural science. Where experimentation is the likeliest way to answer a question correctly, the scientific spirit calls for the experiments to be done; where other methods — mathematical proof, archival research, philosophical reasoning — are more relevant it calls for them instead. Although the methods of natural science could beneficially be applied more widely than they have been so far, the default assumption must be that the practitioners of a well-established discipline know what they are doing, and use the available methods most appropriate for answering its questions. Exceptions may result from a conservative tradition, or one that does not value the scientific spirit. Still, impatience with all methods except those of natural science is a poor basis on which to identify those exceptions.

more ...

Second column is by William Egginton:

William Egginton is Andrew. W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities and Chair of the Department of German and Romance Languages and Literatures at the Johns Hopkins University. His most recent book is “In Defense of Religious Moderation.”

An excerpt from his column:

...

As a literary theorist, I suppose I could take umbrage at the claim that my own discipline, while fun, doesn’t rise to the level of knowledge. But what I’d actually like to argue goes a little further. Not only can literary theory (along with art criticism, sociology, and yes, non-naturalistic philosophy) produce knowledge of an important and even fundamental nature, but fiction itself, so breezily dismissed in Professor Rosenberg’s assertions, has played a profound role in creating the very idea of reality that naturalism seeks to describe.

...

The point to stress is that the characters can argue about the nature of their perceptions only insofar as we, the readers, have a concept of reality that is independent of their various reports. In fact, the common notion of objective reality that most of us would recognize today and the one on which Professor Rosenberg’s defense of naturalism rests — as that which persists independent of our subjective perspectives — is mutually dependent on the multiple perspectives cultivated by the fictional worldview. It is not a coincidence that the English term “reality” and its cognates in the other European languages only entered into usage between the mid-16th and early-17th century, depending on the language. (In the case of Spain, the first recorded usage was two years after the first book of “Don Quixote” was published.) And it was not until Descartes wrote his “Meditations” at the end of the 1630s that a rigorous distinction between how things appear to me and how they are independent of my perspective entered the philosophical lexicon.

more ...

[trotsky]

2. *yawn*

Amazing what one can write when one fully engages the fallacy of equivocation.

[laconicsax]

3. C'mon, cleanhippie. We know from discussions right here in R/T that two of them are hearsay....

...and imagination. Between accepting 2nd and 3rd-hand accounts and simply making it up, what's left?

[MarkCharles]

4. Imagination and fantasy are powerful personal experiences, but they certainly cannot...

be called "another way of knowing". They are what they are and far from anything that is "real".

[rug]

5. There is no knowledge but science and cleanhippie is its prophet.

"Here is another fallacious argument skeptics will have heard:

There are ways of knowing other than the scientific one."

That's a bold statement.

[skepticscott]

8. Well, call it

an unsupported and undemonstrated claim, rather than a fallacious argument (it doesn't even qualify as an argument, so it can't really be fallacious), and it's not "bold" at all, but pretty much right on the money.

[rug]

9. Except the claim is science is the only means to knowledge.

[MarkCharles]

10. Anyone questioning that such is true probably has no concept of what science is...

What other "means to knowledge" could be sound, logical, commanding of facts, and easy for a rational mind to master?

A delusional mind might grasp other visions, fantasies, dreams, wishful thinking, whatever, as "knowledge".

Sadly, (for the believers) those are NOT anything to do with "knowledge", they are simply other experiences while living life as a human being. We ALL dream and have wishful thoughts, fantasies, imaginations. That's not "knowledge", that's just what goes on in someone's human brain as well as what goes on as logical thought. Confusing the two kinds of brain activity has led to lots of wars, crusades, witch burnings, gay bullying, etc.

[rug]

11. You have it backwards.

The claim that science is the only means to knowledge has two results:

1) the human mind (since science is the creation of the human mind) is capable of knowing all, including the universes(s) of which it is only a part), or

2) things, perhaps most things, will forever be unknowable. In this case the very concept of knowledge needs to be reconsidered.

Which result is yours?

[MarkCharles]

12. I'm sorry your post makes no sense

: those "two results" conclusions are such revealing posts of a person who hasn't grasped the infinite possibilities of the human mind. They so often narrow it down to their own two choices.

Very weak arguments against the concepts of science and math, just because humans use those concepts, you find them unacceptable?


"(since science is the creation of the human mind)"

More evidence (and bullshit) that you don't get it at all !! And such a desire not to "get it"! Science is the concept of knowing, combined with a strict discipline of logic and rejection of concepts that don't test against facts. That's all it is, not some enemy of human imagination and fantasy. Human imagination and fantasy are perfectly acceptable as human experiences, but never strong enough to be scrutinized with logic and scientific methods, they are simply accepted as what they are, less than real. Science would be happy to accept the sky guy as part of science, as fact, but so far, no proof has been offered, and the premise of a sky guy fails logically, given contradictory facts surrounding that imagined hypothesis.


But science, as a discipline is willing to entertain any theory, vision, dream, idea! ANY idea! Even the idea of a God!

Just offer proof for science, scientific proof. So far.... NONE!

Give us one example of "knowledge" derived from a realm other than the scientific. I see none, but await your examples.

Just one final point: your dreams, desires, wishful thinking, imagination, artistic images, coincidences, not "knowledge"....more in the realm of folklore, and religious thinking, which has existed in the human mind for thousands of years, none of it led to actual "knowledge" just power-play scams using fear, or fantasy on people gullible enough to fall for it.

Science and fantasy, do not mix.

[NMMNG]

15. " Science and fantasy, do not mix."

Sure they do. Haven't you seen SyFy?

[MarkCharles]

23. OOOPS, Pardon me, N2d2!!!!

I didn't know you were reading this!

LOL

[rug]

18. I stopped reading after "infinite possibilities of the human mind."

Inadvertently, you stumbled on the reason you don't get it.

Nothing is infinite. And usually people who attribute an infinite quality to something are called fools.

[MarkCharles]

24. Well of course you did, you had yourself limited possibilities to only 2!

So why answer my questions, since there are no answers?

You love to censor your brain from thinking, I noticed.

[rug]

27. You left out another possibilty.

Your point is irretrievably flawed due to a demonstrably false premise. Time to move on.

[MarkCharles]

34. Another totally insulting post for me to complain about. Meaningless, and

only intended to insult a non-believer.

Lay off, we don't appreciate insults, especially those that make no sense and are only intended to insult. We report.

By the way, I left out NOTHING! as you already acknowledged on a previous post, my "infinite" possibilities, where your brain froze into insulting as your major defensive strategy.

[rug]

36. Lay off?

Edit #10 if you eschew insults. You might start with the word delusional.

"We report." :rofl:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skepticscott]

17. When stated as I have done

the claim is that no other effective way of obtaining objective, verifiable knowledge (as opposed to simply convincing oneself of something, whether objectively true or not) has been demonstrated yet. If you have one in mind, do spell things out for us.

[rug]

19. Your qualifier of yet leaves open "other ways of knowing".

[skepticscott]

22. And this is a blinding revelation to you?

That something has not been show to be impossible does not mean that its existence has been demonstrated. As asked, if you have any actual examples of other ways of knowing, lay them out. If not, then simply admit that none have ever been shown to exist.

[rug]

25. Not to me.

But then, I didn't write this:

"Here is another fallacious argument skeptics will have heard:

There are ways of knowing other than the scientific one."

[skepticscott]

29. And you have been enlightened beyond that

Do you have any examples of "other ways of knowing"? Yes or no.

[rug]

30. Sure,

Since the question is posed in the context of religion, as opposed to say, embryology, the answer is revelation.

See if you cand disregard that without invoking the scientific method.

[skepticscott]

35. Revelation is a way

of convincing oneself of something, not of obtaining objective, verifiable knowledge. Such ways are trivially abundant (as abundant as there are individuals) and utterly meaningless in this context. Under the conditions already set out in post 17, they fail to qualify as a "way of knowing".

[MarkCharles]

26. Hope you're not holding your breath waiting, this is the challenge they never..

deliver upon.

You knew this, I'me sure. But I always love any other way of challenging these frauds to try critical thinking skills as an alternative to prosthelytizing.

[Odin2005]

6. IMO too many people mistake intuition for knowledge.

Hence this "other ways of knowing" nonsense. Intuitive insights can only inspire ideas, they are not facts themselves.

IMO genius is the ability to fuse intuitive inspirations and factual data together while at the same time understanding that one's own intuitions are not themselves facts. If you don't have the last part you are a kook or a nut, not a genius.

[kwassa]

16. Intuition is a type of knowledge

as you pointed out yourself the importance of fusing intuition with provable facts. If intuition weren't knowledge, why would it be used at all, and what would be the value of it?

Someone who believed strongly in the value of intuition was Steve Jobs, from the articles on his life that I've been reading lately. I would say his intuition paid off rather well.

Intuition is a summation of knowledge that points a direction. That intuition might be incorrect, or spot on, and that will be proven by result. It does have great value

in·tu·i·tion/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSHən/
Noun:

1) The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
2) A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

[skepticscott]

21. In other words

intuition is knowledge...except when it isn't. Not much of a recommendation. And ask yourself how we determine whether our "intuition" is ultimately correct. And also ask yourself why, in a case where we determine that it isn't, we don't call it intuition any more.

[kwassa]

38. Here is the definition of knowledge.

You will see that intuition fits under definition #1.

knowl·edge/ˈnälij/
Noun:

1) Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

2) What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.

[skepticscott]

41. Well, no it doesn't

Not as you've explained it, which has nothing to do with acquisition through education or experience. And in cases where intuition is verifiably dead wrong, what sense does it make to call what comes from it "knowledge"?

[kwassa]

42. Yes, it does. Acquistion through experience.

That is where intuition comes from, a synthesis of knowledge and experience.

[skepticscott]

44. Nice try, but fail

that's incomplete and you know it.

And answer the question instead of dodging it: In cases where intuition is verifiably dead wrong, what sense does it make to call what comes from it "knowledge"?

[kwassa]

46. Who declares fail? You?

Please.

Where intuition is wrong it is weak intuition, without much knowledge. As intuition comes from experience and evidence combined, anyone who relies on weak intuition is simply a fool.

Good intuition reflects wisdom, after all. Wisdom is gained from experience and observation and factual knowledge.

[skepticscott]

49. Meaningless babble

since you have no way of distinguishing "weak" from "strong" intuition except after the fact, when you have applied empirical methods of inquiry to verify the "knowledge" generated.

Second fail. Try again.

[kwassa]

50. not to a rational person.

Anyone who uses it on an ongoing basis knows the difference between a strong intuitive feeling and a weak one.

I am sorry your capacities in this area are apparently so limited.

[trotsky]

61. Does Jesus like it when you insult people...

instead of actually making an argument for your position?

[kwassa]

120. Jesus likes it when I insult you. He told me so.

[trotsky]

121. Aw, kwassa. I can always count on you to show me what a True Christian is like.

So full of peace and love!

[humblebum]

122. Hang in there kwassa, you are only telling the truth. Intuition is

a way of obtaining knowledge, even weak or failed intuition. Acting upon intuition can result in the acquisition of knowledge and a better understanding, or it can contribute to the process of elimination when it fails to produce any new knowledge or understanding.

Logical positivism, which is the epistemology credited with being the model of the modern scientific method, and also the epistemology used as the basis and justification of much atheistic thinking today, has been abandoned by much or most of the community of scholars for being too narrow in its focus. Logical Positivism automatically, by its own admission, eliminates intuition as a source of knowledge. This is the reason why several atheists here denounce intuition as a source of knowledge. But, as stated earlier, the epistemology they are using has been abandoned by much or most of the scholarly community. These atheists are using an outdated method. Your position is correct.

[MarkCharles]

126. " Intuition is a way of obtaining knowledge, even weak or failed intuition."

Posted by humblebum

Oh how I love these lapses into football rooting kinds of posts that show a lack of logic. Much like simple cheer leading at high school football games, silly adolescent displays of rivalry. Oh how I love adults to be so puerile!

"Hang in there, X team" Even a weak defense is better than none! You will beat Y team just by saying nonsense to them like these statements which Father Humblebum has used today! Doesn't matter if they don't make sense, just get the guys all hepped up because the sexiest fifteen year old cheer leaders are saying them in their bras and red sexy cheerleader outfits:



"Logical positivism, which is the epistemology credited with being the model of the modern scientific method, and also the epistemology used as the basis and justification of much atheistic thinking today, has been abandoned by much or most of the community of scholars for being too narrow in its focus." RAH RAH RAH, Three cheers for Google and this!

"These atheists are using an outdated method." RAH RAH RAH.........Three cheers for no non-fallacious logical methods to replace this, save more scientifically based SECULAR views of string theorists, probability centered rationalists, and just those silly Atheists who take it all in!!! We religious folks know expansion of the mind is the work of the Devil.. RAH RAH RAH.

Don't bother to discriminate between those high school kids who still are reading Julius Cesar from those reading Max Plank, it makes not difference in the game of cheer- leading

Just cheer the Christians, it wins every time!

[skepticscott]

102. And do you have any documentation

that what people call "strong intuition" is correct any more often than what they call "weak intuition"?

Of course you don't. All you ever have is the selective memory of people who recall the hits and forget the misses, a very common phenomenon.

[Odin2005]

37. Intuitions themselves have no information content.

They are imaginings, not facts. They inspire the finding or use of facts. The archetypal example is the German chemist who discovered the structure of Benzene because of a dream involving the Ouroboros.

It is empirical data that determines whether inspirations are ultimately correct or not. In questions of fact Empiricism is the only "way of knowing" all ideas must be ultimately backed up by empircal data.

[kwassa]

39. You are totally incorrect

Intuition is not imaginings, but summations of experience and knowledge. For anyone to trust their intuition, they must have empirical experience that their intuition is reliable. Intuitions can be stronger or weaker, but they are important, and everyone uses them. Of course they ultimately must be backed up by facts

You are using only a partial definition of knowledge.

[skepticscott]

45. If you're including

under the definition of "knowledge", information generated by intuition that ends up being completely wrong, then your definition of "knowledge" is deeply flawed.

And when intuition is correct, there is nothing special or different about it as a way of arriving at the truth.

[kwassa]

48. you are grasping at non-existent straws

Intuition doesn't have to be special or different, is simply has to be correct as a source of knowledge.

It often is.

[skepticscott]

56. And how often is it not?

You have absolutely no clue, do you? Nor does anyone else. And even when it is, if it is not "different" (as you admit freely that it need not be), then it does not qualify as a "different way of knowing", now does it?

Third fail. Try to put some thought in next time.

[Silent3]

59. Except when it came to how best to treat his cancer...

...then Steve's vaunted intuition failed him rather spectacularly.

There are, of course, always lame excuses readily available from those who want to prop up intuition as some sort of Magical Gateway to Truth. They're all basically variants on the "count the hits, ignore the misses" strategy. For example:

(1) When Jobs decided against immediate aggressive treatment of his cancer, that wasn't his intuition, it was "over-thinking the problem". There must have been some little voice in Jobs' head telling him he should get treated by conventional medicine right away, but he ignored it. It was that voice which was his intuition.

Of course, we all have many disparate little "voices" in our heads when ever we make any big decision, whether it's about medical treatment, starting a relationship, choosing a school, etc. For some people intuition benefits immensely from a form of revisionist history where whichever "voice" turned out to be correct is identified as "intuition", the rest are attributed to "over-thinking" or negative emotions.

(2a) Simply assert that Jobs actually would have died sooner if he'd immediately gotten aggressive conventional treatment, claim that his regret for not doing so was a mistake, because unknown to Jobs or anyone else wasting nine months on ineffective woo is what made him live as long as possible. (2b) Jobs early death was simply "the way things were meant to be", necessary "inspiration" for the things he accomplished in the last years of his life.

[humblebum]

60. Very low. No one is claiming that intuition or any method other than

logical empirical is totally or near to being totally objective. You completely misunderstand the points being made. When it is said there are other ways of knowing, it is meant that logical positivism or empiricism has limitations, and other more subjective ways do allow for the aquisition of knowledge, as was demonstrated in a very large way by Jobs. Your comment really is out of line and shows that you don't have a clue.

[cleanhippie]

65. Give examples of these "other ways of knowing" and what knowledge we have gotten. Can You?

You have been asked to provide just a single example of knowledge we have gotten from "another way of knowing", and you either cannot or will not.



Prove me wrong right now by giving an example. Just one.

[Silent3]

66. I never said anything about "objective".

Does that mean you're linking "objective" to "true" yourself?

When it is said there are other ways of knowing, it is meant that logical positivism or empiricism has limitations, and other more subjective ways do allow for the aquisition of knowledge, as was demonstrated in a very large way by Jobs.

Acquisition of an idea, one which may or may not turn out to be correct, is not knowledge. If the idea is the idea for a product, the knowledge of whether or not the idea is a successful idea only comes about by putting the idea into practice and seeing what happens in the real world.

When it comes to religion, the fact that there often isn't any way to test an idea (where, in fact, ideas often seem designed to carefully avoid being testable) how do you count anything that comes out of subjective "revelation" as knowledge? We're supposed to give religious ideas some sort of broad benefit of the doubt simply because they remain out of reach from objective verification? What about when religious revelations from different people aren't merely inconsistent and different, but mutually contradictory?

[skepticscott]

103. I suspect if you looked at all of Jobs'

business and life decisions, that would not be the only "intuitive" one that turned out less than well.

[NMMNG]

7. You're being unfair

Why do you discount the voices coming from my refrigerator?

[MarkCharles]

13. MY voices keep saying.. "clean me" .. "clean me"!!! I ignore them!

[NMMNG]

14. LOL

Is that an old sandwich in there or evidence of new life?

[MarkCharles]

28. Probably both..........actually, it's the spills and drips that have been there for

about 60 days........I'm asking for 80-90 days before I have to actually attack them!

[rug]

20. You should listen to them.

[MarkCharles]

31. I should listen to voices in my refrigerator? Voices that come from my own..

guilty conscience? I don't clean my refrigerator every two weeks, you think the voices in my mind because I don't is what I should be listening to?

ah huh!

You really think I should open my refrigerator door and listen?

I think I should open the door with some sponges and dishwater..........keep my ears and nose closed for five minutes.

Better results than just listening to my guilty conscience mind. A cleaner refrigerator!

[rug]

32. Whatever it takes to get you to clean it.

Listen more closely. It might be your neighbor.

[MarkCharles]

33. I don't need "whatever it takes", nor does my refrigerator.....

Both my refrigerator and me just need logic and science, no voices.

[humblebum]

40. As soon as an atheist admits that other ways of knowing do exist,

and have relevance, his position begins to crumble. It is obvious to many that they do exist and are used on a regular basis and have purpose and benefit. Science and the scientific philosophy are great for assessing empirical, objective, right-in-your-face observable, material facts. Beyond that it's only guesswork, and something else is needed.

Do things like intuition have value as ways of obtaining knowledge? Of course, but we do not fully under why or how. We do know that certain animals have physical senses that they use to assess their surroundings. Some types of sharks, for example. Perhaps humans have such senses that are under developed or cannot be controlled to the point of accuracy. As of yet, we simply do not know.

So to say that nothing exists besides science, as a way of obtaining knowledge, whether it be a method, epistemology, something like intuition, or any combination thereof, is ridiculous.

[kwassa]

43. Agreed.

[skepticscott]

47. If it is "obvious to many that they do exist

and are used on a regular basis and have purpose and benefit", then you should have no trouble providing three or four concrete examples of the "other ways of knowing", and of the objective and verifiable "knowledge" that they have generated. You could lie and say (as you often do) that you've provided that information many times, but it would be just that. So far, you've dodged every request for examples, and haven't even come close to providing proof of your claim that they exist

So have at it. And has been stated elsewhere, ways of simply convincing oneself of something do not qualify as sources of objective knowledge, so don't bother going there.

[humblebum]

51. Same old line, and same old accusations. And, you are fine example

of how it starts to crack. I think i've already listed a few examples in this thread. Pathetic. And who ever said that different ways of knowing always or necessarily "qualify as sources of objective knowledge." Not me. Objective knowledge is certainly NOT the only type of knowledge.

Sorry, my mistake. the list is in hippie's "Gospel Disproof..." thread.

[skepticscott]

55. Fine, then you'll have no trouble repeating them here

Along with examples of the objective, verifiable knowledge they've provided. Otherwise, your claim stands, as usual, undemonstrated.

And it was YOUR argument, not mine, that required those "different ways of knowing" to be sources of objective knowledge, and not simply ways for people to convince themselves of things. You stated "As soon as an atheist admits that other ways of knowing do exist, and have relevance, his position begins to crumble." Well, obviously a lot of people throughout history have convinced themselves that a god of some sort exists (or simply accept it because their parents or their Sunday School teacher said so). I admit that fact freely, as would any other atheist, but it clearly does not make my position (or that of any other atheist) "crumble". So, just as clearly, the ways that people have convinced themselves that a god exists (revelation, gut feeling or whatever) do not qualify as "other ways of knowing" under your own criterion.

[humblebum]

57. Now you are being totally dishonest about anything that I've said.

Never have i said "different ways of knowing" sources of objective knowledge." You are ignorant of the processes involve in obtaining knowledge and have proved that atheist argument is very insular. Truly if it cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched or felt, it doesn't exist - according to your methods. Pathetic.

[cleanhippie]

85. That is SOME squirm you have going there.

Looking for ANY way out, but it's not gonna happen.


:rofl:

[skepticscott]

106. In other words, you can't provide any examples

and you don't even understand the contradictory nature of your own feeble arguments.

Guess what? I don't give a hoot whether you ever admit that your claims are totally unfounded. But I have a pretty good idea where any rational, objective person following along will be by now, which is all that matters.

[kwassa]

52. I hope you are not writing this on your IPad.

from Walter Issacson, his biographer, as quoted from his article in the New York Times.

So was Mr. Jobs smart? Not conventionally. Instead, he was a genius. That may seem like a silly word game, but in fact his success dramatizes an interesting distinction between intelligence and genius. His imaginative leaps were instinctive, unexpected, and at times magical. They were sparked by intuition, not analytic rigor. Trained in Zen Buddhism, Mr. Jobs came to value experiential wisdom over empirical analysis. He didn’t study data or crunch numbers but like a pathfinder, he could sniff the winds and sense what lay ahead.

He told me he began to appreciate the power of intuition, in contrast to what he called “Western rational thought,” when he wandered around India after dropping out of college. “The people in the Indian countryside don’t use their intellect like we do,” he said. “They use their intuition instead ... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That’s had a big impact on my work.”

Mr. Jobs’s intuition was based not on conventional learning but on experiential wisdom. He also had a lot of imagination and knew how to apply it. As Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

[humblebum]

53. Great example. nt

[skepticscott]

54. If you go by the very quote you cite

from Einstein, imagination is NOT knowledge.

And, as has been explained previously, what you (and Jobs) refer to as intuition is not something fundamentally and magically different from rational thought processes and empirical analysis (despite the use of the vaguely woo-woo label "experiential wisdom"). When it is correct, it is simply a matter of rational thought processes operating so quickly that one is not even aware of them. When an art expert looks at a painting and has an "intuition" that it is a forgery, that's an impression (and not always even a correct one) based on the application of logical deduction and experience. And even if that were not the case, it's quite easy to cherry-pick someone who has been successful through what they or their biographer consider the application of "intuition", but that is a very far cry from showing that intuition itself is a useful way of acquiring objective and verifiable knowledge. To do that, you would have to demonstrate that business leaders and others who operate according to "intuition" are on the whole more successful. Your one example does not consider how many business leaders made decisions by what they called "intuition" at the time, but that ended up being dead wrong and sinking their companies. Do that, and you might actually be taking a step towards making a real case.

[humblebum]

58. You are just kinda "out there", aren't you? Not really being

able to grasp what we are talking about. There are methods, epistemologies, processes, - whatever you care to call them, that ARE NOT totally objective. They are used to reason and to obtain answers to questions that logical empiricism cannot answer. No one has claimed that intuition is totally objective. But intuition has been used along with scientific, objective methods to increase understanding.

BOTTOM LINE - Just because skepticscott says it ain't so does not mean, it ain't so.

[MarkCharles]

63. OK, I'll ask, (assuming I am as unable to "grasp", as you accuse atheists of being)...

Those "methods, epistemologies, processes, - whatever you care to call them", that are.."used to reason and to obtain answers to questions that logical empiricism cannot answer", what?

Can you give someone as unable to "grasp", (as I am), just ONE CONCRETE EXAMPLE of what gave any human being anywhere at any time any truthful, testable, verifiable "answers to questions that logical empiricism CANNOT answer"?

Can you find any? Can you point to it and say "there, you see?" You can use your Bible, if that has any in it. I have never found even one even in that supposedly great book! So it's up to believers to prove their thesis, not up to me to disprove it.

[humblebum]

67. Oh great. Now your infallible method has become circular reasoning.

You asked, "Can you give someone as unable to "grasp", (as I am), just ONE CONCRETE EXAMPLE of what gave any human being anywhere at any time any truthful, testable, verifiable 'answers to questions that logical empiricism CANNOT answer'"?

Now since we already established and admitted the logical empiricism IS the way to obtain "testable, verifiable answers" why would I claim anything else? The problem is that logical empiricism has severe limitations, and that requires other ways of obtaining knowledge. If you are so single-minded that you think that science can provide all answers, then I would characterize your attitude as "If it cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched/felt - then it cannot (or probably doesn't) exist. If you enjoy life in a box and reason that there is nothing outside of that box or can find no good reason to think there is, then be happy. However, not everyone content to live like that and figure the odds are pretty slim that there is nothing outside of the box (aka atheistic logic).

[MarkCharles]

68. A pretty good attempt to avoid answering the question, but

FAIL.

The problem is one of semantics. You are defining knowledge in a way which is different from the standard.

You're throwing any type of human thought, experience, fantasy, dream, idea, whatever in with the kitchen sink and calling any and all human experiences potential examples of a "different way of knowing", but then refusing to point to any single example of anything "knowing" from all those human processes.

[humblebum]

69. Actually it answered the question perfectly. nt

[cleanhippie]

70. You have it exactly right. Humblebum will NEVER provide a single example. EVER.

Because he cannot do it. Instead he will babble incoherently, tell you that YOU just don't understand, blah, blah, blah.


He has been asked over and over and over again, to provide just ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE, and guess what?



Nothing. Nada. Zip.


Just obfuscation and nothing more.

[humblebum]

71. Wrong. I just don't provide answers you can understand, like

so many other times.

[cleanhippie]

72. Just one example is all that being asked for, and you cannot do it.

Epic fail

:rofl:

[MarkCharles]

75. Cleanhippie, you just don't understand, you're not old enough, smart enough, or

bright enough to "grasp" a bite of Father Humble's most UN humble pie!

Now go sit in the corner and play with your toys, do not ask the Christian adults any adult questions.:sarcasm:

[humblebum]

79. Hippie, this is beginning to go from comical to hilarious. You asked me

to show you other ways of knowing. I rattled off "Experiential knowledge, Propositional knowledge, Presentational knowledge, Practical knowledge, etc." I have also cited examples in the past about how an historian, for instance, needs to discover the reason why something in the past happened, but there is not enough available empirical evidence to arrive at any conclusion with 100%, or close there to, objectivity. What does the historian do? He or she investigates and examines any piece of data, information, or antiquarian evidence available to arrive at the most objective answer possible. Whenever total objectivity isn't possible, the next best method to use is the one that provides the most objectively true answer. There a varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity applied in all disciplines that I can think of.

Logical positivism, or logical empiricism, or scientific philosophy - whatever you care to call it, was designed to render the most objective, empirical results possible. That was its intended purpose. And as such, it is the only method or epistemology capable of reaching anything close to total objectivity. So stop asking me or anyone else to provide any other WOK that arrives at a conclusion that is totally logical, empirical, or objective. I know of none that exist. Math and science are the only disciplines that approach 100 % objectivity, BUT the epistemology of science (logical empiricism) is limited to the human senses (and extensions thereof, such as a telescope). That's when methods like ontological inquiry, and teleological inquiry, and "educated guesswork" based on the best available data come into play. These are some of the other ways. How does the critique of a play determine whether it is good or bad? Yes, other ways of knowing do exist. They are used in the courtroom (I know that's been mentioned) whenever circumstantial evidence is introduced, and in business, psychology, sports, and on and on.

I don't know how to be any more clearer than that. Any time you need to make a decision about something and the details are not clear, you base your decision upon the best available information possible. In doing that you have utilized other ways of knowing. Whether or not you agree is not my concern, but other ways do exist and are used regularly to find answers. The greater the degree of subjectivity used means the chance that different parties will arrive at different conclusions. That's the way the world works.

[Jim__]

82. You're right. In the example of the historian that you give, he could do archival research.

That is cited as a way of gaining knowledge by Timothy Williamson, professor of logic at Oxford University (cited in post #1 of this thread).

[cleanhippie]

83. I asked you for any knowledge gained though some "other way of knowing", and you have provided ZIP!

Its simple, just one example of knowledge that has been obtained through some "other way of knowing".

Just one.

And. You. Can't. Do. It.





:rofl:

[humblebum]

86. Why is that I expected that answer? From this point on all

your arguments are meaningless.

[cleanhippie]

87. Just one, humblebum. Just one. And. You. Can't. Do. It.

Epic.












Fail.










:rofl:

[humblebum]

88. Don't look now. But I did it and have done. I can't be to blame if

it goes over your head. I can think of several answers to that question. But with you it doesn't matter. How about (I know i have mentioned this one) How can you empirically prove that Socrates existed? Answer: It cannot be done. He wrote nothing. We have no snapshots of him. He left no one in a will that we know of. What we have is that which was written about him. And it is on that subjective evidence that any conclusion of his existence is based.

Like I said. Your arguments are now hippie-non-grata.

[cleanhippie]

89. Just one example. And you can't do it.

Nothing but fail.



:rofl:

[Silent3]

91. You consider knowledge of the existence of Socrates...

...an example of "other ways of knowing"? Something that challenges the limits of science? Do you believe that the same reasoning by which someone accepts the likelihood that Socrates was a real historic person should open up the door to believing the reality of religious revelation?

Really?

[humblebum]

92. Facts are what they are. Science or to more precise logical empiricism

cannot tell you whether Socrates existed or not. I'm not saying it opens the door to anything. It merely demonstrates one of many ways to gain or assess knowledge.

[Silent3]

108. Historical documents are a form of empirical evidence

Not direct evidence, but definitely a good indirect evidence, especially when vetted by many historians and compared against multiple sources. Some history is even validated against archeological evidence.

The difference between ancient history and myth is not just the number of corroborating sources and their quality and consistency, but the ordinary or extraordinary nature of their claims. That Socrates lived and was responsible for most of what history attributes to him is simply a much more believable claim than, say, Zeus producing children from his forehead or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.

Obviously scientists accept indirect evidence in the form of preexisting documents all of the time -- if they didn't, each scientist would have to repeat each and every experiment for him or herself. Just like historians, at a certain point scientists simply have to rely on the consistency of their sources of information and the great unlikelihood that the documented record is the result of some crazy, improbable conspiracy. That's not any great leap of "faith", it's merely a necessary practical expedient for getting on with life.

[MarkCharles]

93. You seem to be confusing "CONCEPTS" with the request for "EXAMPLES"

"Experiential knowledge, Propositional knowledge, Presentational knowledge, Practical knowledge, etc."

Those are CONCEPTS, not EXAMPLES!

Here's EXAMPLES from scientific knowledge. Penicillin, Nuclear engergy, RADAR, Radio, Microwave cooking, DNA

Get where this is going?

I could have stated an example of knowledge gained from science is "curative medicine", "power", "non-sensory vision" "non audible long distance communication", "extra-object hyper stimulation", "internal codes of living things".

Those would be CONCEPTS, NOT EXAMPLES. They are ALL TRUE, ALL FACTUAL, but not specific.

You have given us even more vague CONCEPTS, and not one single example of "other ways of knowing".

Want to try just ONE MORE TIME? Specifics, please, not just concepts.

And, as my "concepts" were pretty general, they were NOT precise, they were more precise than your sacred list of "other ways of knowing"...

"Experiential knowledge, Propositional knowledge, Presentational knowledge, Practical knowledge, etc."

Those are categories, of types of human thought activity, they are not used for dogs! They are humans' own inventions, conceptual inventions, describing a certain type of thinking.

Dogs smell 100 or 2100 times more precisely and capably than humans. Do dogs have "other ways of knowing"...NO! They have better olfactory sensory organs than we do. Snakes sense with their tongues. We use ours to taste and chew food, produce speech, and kiss.

IF, as you have claimed, about 100 times so far in the last few days, humans have "other ways of knowing", what precisely do humans KNOW from these "other ways of knowing"? That's what we are asking for! You seem to duck the question every time.

[humblebum]

94. I have given examples of concepts, concepts, examples, and examples of examples.

I am done.

[MarkCharles]

112. Not even ONE example?? Just concepts, sorry... I listed my darn microwave oven!...

something that came about since WW II and I was alive to see it come into my life.

You: some broad concepts, nothing specific, other than your desire to repeat that you have this kind of "other way of knowing".

Let's just face it and be honest! You don't. You never had it. You never want to have it. You just want to believe you have something we don't have. And posting here until you cannot escape the demands for your concrete examples, so you are


"DONE"

Yup, got your message, thanks for the laughs.

Richard Dawkins being ignorant of philosophy, despite his many degrees, his awards, his 13-15 books wherein he uses philosophy and debunks religion on BOTH philosophical AND scientific grounds........very funny post. Obviously some people have never read one of his books. And yet they appear here, pretending to be experts and all-knowing on "epistemological" grounds

Very funny!

[skepticscott]

113. You should begin to discern another pattern here

our friend is fond of saying that he has already provided abundant evidence for his claims in some nebulous other place, but he is never, ever able to produce it in the here and now. You can expect that tactic to be employed frequently.

[MarkCharles]

116. Ah yes, it's in "heaven" where he puts his great ideas, and we should

ascend there and find them all filed away in some heavenly filing cabinet!

Got it!

Funny how these folk never know how to copy and paste on their computers... never able to give links to actual facts in any peer reviewed journals. Always able to claim that their proof has already been offered, but can't be repeated, copied, linked to, or otherwise referenced.

We had boys and girls run for office on these kinds of limp claims, thankfully, Americans saw through their bullS***

[humblebum]

118. Let's see.You have been here since October 31st and yet you claim

that I have never given examples. And you are telling me about being laughable. LOLOLOLOL! Just in this thread I have not only mentioned other methods, but specifically mentioned historians. How does a chef determine what constitutes a great recipe, or how does a playwrite determine whether or not a script is good or not. What determines a good business model? How does a jury arrive at a guilty verdict, when there are no witnesses and only vague circumstantial evidence? These are all examples using methods that rely on varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity. Logical empiricism is not always applicable to all situations.

And yes Dawkins is either ignorant of philosophy, or he ignores those methods that would definitely put a crack in his reasoning.

[MarkCharles]

73. Beginning to see a pattern here, (unable to "grasp" as I am), a pattern of

obfuscation and insults, (insults that would make Jesus cry when they are said in defense of Jesus).

That is followed by self-serving rationalizations bordering upon incoherent babbling about how "uneducated" and self-limiting we are to ever question or scrutinize his superior views of "another way of knowing".

I almost expect to read, sometime soon, "If I told you, I would have to kill you." as an almost sincere reply to our sincere questions.

How many strikes does this batter get? Isn't he at bat an awful long time and still no hits,(unless you count fouls)?

[cleanhippie]

74. He will keep swinging as long as you keep pitching...

No matter what the thread topic, the results will be the same as you have seen here. It really depends on what level of frustration you are willing to endure.

Welcome to DU.

[MarkCharles]

76. Thanks! How about a game of catch, between two guys who cannot "grasp"

anything but "real" balls?

Pitching softballs to him is kind of boring. (Swing and a miss, over and over!)

[humblebum]

80. Oh great. Tag team atheism again. nt

[cleanhippie]

84. Just. One. Example.

And you cant do it, so you resort to more obfuscation and deflection.

:rofl:

[MarkCharles]

114. Playing catch? American past-time, not exactly professional wrestling

two dudes and a couple of gloves and a ball, hundreds of thousands of guys and young women and adults do this every day!!!

Nothing "tag team" about a friendly game of catch!

You, yourself gave us the "grasp" image!

Paranoid?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

157. Humblebum is highly trained

in the dark arts of religious apologia. Admittedly, he is very, very good at it and is to the point where he can write hundreds of words without actually saying anything meaningful.

[skepticscott]

101. And again, you have no arguments

no facts, no evidence.

Saying that "intuition has been used along with scientific, objective methods to increase understanding" is no better than saying that praying has been used along with antibiotics to clear up staph infections. Do you grasp the fallacy (just your latest) in that failed attempt at reasoning?

Whether you do or not, I've wasted enough time on your drivel today.

[trotsky]

62. Why, are you using your Lisa? n/t

[MarkCharles]

64. Great point! Jobs' "intuition" had some amazing strike-outs in his career of

home runs!

Somewhere I found a video of Apple products that never made it to market, too!

Any "intuition" of Jobs looks more like dreams and fantasies and images which, when combined with a huge number of years of hard work on the part of thousands of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc., turned into usable products. Jobs didn't invent or create more than one computer in his garage, and it was a winner, but even he would later admit it took him and his buddy, Waz, thousands of hours and lots of "scientific" trial and error to get the thing to market.

[ZombieHorde]

107. What knowledge has been gained through these other methods? nt

[onager]

78. No Other-Wayers have trotted out Leo Szilard yet?

Szilard credited a "flash of intuition" with his idea of the nuclear chain reaction - which came to him suddenly while standing at a London traffic light in Sept. 1933.

Of course, turning that intuition into reality took years of hard work by hundreds of scientists and about $2 billion. Culminating in another kind of flash over Hiroshima.

Never mind, I think I just answered my own question - what respectable Other-Wayer wants that vaunted, mysterious, sacred attribute of intuition linked with the worse weapon ever imagined?

There's also the incovenient fact that Szilard, culturally a Hungarian Jew, was - WHOOPS! - apparently an atheist. He had a very close friendship with cancer researcher and militant atheist George Klein - author of "The Atheist and the Holy City: Encounters and Reflections."

I am, indeed, an atheist. My attitude is based on faith...the absence of a creator, the nonexistence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy. - George Klein

[humblebum]

81. And your point is? He was an intelligent man who understood

that other ways are beneficial and do exist. What does atheism have to do with it? You have just helped to destroy the common argument of many atheist here at DU.

[MarkCharles]

90. Ideas, imagination, dreams, fantasies, random juxtapositions of thoughts,

ghostly visions, auditory or visual hallucinations, obsessions, compulsions, incantations, defamatory declarations,

NONE of those are "knowledge", they are all human activities, some of which, (a very few) MAY someday lead to "knowledge", based upon the actual human work of discovery, exploration, testing of those human experiences against a thousand or ten thousand physical actions.

That guy who thought the Earth revolved around the sun, and not vice-versa had to PROVE his idea, with verifiable data and observations using some of the five senses, and a string of logic longer than the Pope's vestments. All those Popes' imaginings that the sun went around the Earth were proved false, and their religious intolerance of scientific proof only showed how misguided "intuition" and self-centered thinking, when aligned with a religious philosophy, can be.

The Popes probably claimed that they had "another way of knowing" that the Earth was the center of our galaxy, and they were dead WRONG about their "other way of knowing", but their religion enabled them to stifle the truth, and castigate the truth-sayer to house arrest for the rest of his days.

Again, one example of "another way of knowing", right there in history, staring us in the face.

[humblebum]

95. Looks like you got a little anti-christian thing goin' on there that

taints your ability to reason. BOTTOM LINE: There is more than one viable epistemology.

[MarkCharles]

96. More than one, but no concrete examples, just your own statements

which only you can assert, and repeat over and over, without any offers for anyone else but you to assert without question.

And when questioned, just re-assert them, hoping we will go away.

By the way, my previous post referenced nothing about epistemology, just historical fact which happened to involve some Christians who didn't like facts in contradiction to their "other ways of knowing".

[humblebum]

98. I never said you mentioned epistemology, but that is exactly what other ways of knowing involves.

And that is what we are debating.

"facts in contradiction to their "other ways of knowing" - and those facts are?

It makes no difference whether or not any atheist agrees that any of these "other ways of knowing" is viable or even exists. Fact is, they do exist and are used on an everyday basis.

[MarkCharles]

100. But, once again, you never mentioned, "epistemology"..

except that is a word I never use in my philosophical talks, nor my religious talks!

Where did I find that word? OH YES! In your own posts!!!!

"It makes no difference whether or not any atheist agrees that any of these "other ways of knowing" is viable or even exists. Fact is, they do exist and are used on an everyday basis."

"It makes no difference whether or not any atheist agrees that any of these "other ways of knowing" is viable or even exists.

"It makes no difference whether or not any atheist agrees that any of these "other ways of knowing" is viable or even exists. Fact is, they do exist and are used on an everyday basis.Fact is, they do exist and are used on an everyday basis."

Times ten thousand posts, you still CANNOT GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE of how or where or why or who or what precisely

"are used on an everyday basis."

"are used on an everyday basis."

"are used on an everyday basis."

Nothing but blanket assertions, not a single reference. I could say antibiotics "are used on an everyday basis." and never be as precise as to say penicillin...you can't even be THAT precise with your

"are used on an everyday basis."

Just more talk which sounds too much like Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich, come to think of it, assertions without any facts or data to back them up.

[humblebum]

119. Now that's a good one.

"Times ten thousand posts, you still CANNOT GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE of how or where or why or who or what precisely"

Well since I haven't even reached the 2000 post level yet, it would be interesting to see how you arrived at that number. Must have been one of those atheist ways of knowing.

And whether or not you use the term 'epistemology' or not, it is certainly receiving much attention in classrooms around the country. And your appeal to authority does nothing to elevate your standing here.

[ZombieHorde]

105. How should a person figure out which epistemologies are viable, and which ones are not viable?

Or do you think all epistemologies are viable?

[MarkCharles]

110. Well, the word actually means the STUDY of the concepts of Knowledge, not the

incorporation of all views of knowledge into one single set of ways of knowing.

It asks, what is knowing?, what are ways of knowing?, what are fallacious concepts in the field of knowledge?

In my example above, repeated here:


Whether someone's belief is true is not a prerequisite for its belief. On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, a person believes that a particular bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. It could be said that he believed that the bridge was safe, but that this belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight then he might say he “thought” that the bridge was safe, and now after proving it to himself, he knows.

This is what distinguishes knowledge from the concepts that many people labor under before crossing that bridge. Knowledge is a finite, measurable, testable, verifiable endeavor. All misappropriations, uses of the word "belief", without testable knowledge, are simply confusions of semantics. Knowledge, to be actual "knowledge", HAS to be testable. The rest of the claims of knowledge, are simply beliefs without any tests.

[MarkCharles]

97. Let me get this straight, Pope so-and-so condemned a scientist, and you claim this as

proof that what?

That popes and you can know more than scientists?

Nice try! BIG FAIL.

[humblebum]

99. Yeh, Uh huh. Whatever makes you happy.

Does a Pope know more than a scientist? He probably knows more about theology, philosophy, history, etc. and not as much about science. Scientists such as Dawkins have displayed an amazing ignorance of philosophy. Science is not the entirety of human existence inspite of what the atheist gurus proclaim. If that bothers you, consider your bothered.

[MarkCharles]

104. Nothing you say bothers me. I sometimes laugh out loud when I read what...

you post.

"Richard Dawkins displayed an amazing ignorance of philosophy"

That one was a great laugh from your latest post.

Let's talk "epistemology" (what I don't do often) for a second.

Whether someone's belief is true is not a prerequisite for its belief. On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, a person believes that a particular bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. It could be said that he believed that the bridge was safe, but that this belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight then he might say he “thought” that the bridge was safe, and now after proving it to himself, he knows.

Your Pope guy, and Galileo ....... same deal. The Pope thought one way, Galileo another. One was right, one collapsed when the bridge fell.

But the important thing here is that the Pope's "belief", the Pope's "other way of knowing" was totally fallacious, and yet he utilized his power to confine another human being, based solely upon his "beliefs". What a cruel ethic to live by, to treat others as inferior or worthy of confinement, or, (in your case) worthy of ridicule, for beliefs different from your own.

Atheists, like me, don't "condemn" you to a lifetime confinement or ridicule for your religious "beliefs", we simply ask you to walk out on that bridge, and see if your "beliefs" are true.

[skepticscott]

109. Welcome to DU!

I see you've made an early acquaintance with one of our resident glob flies. He's one of the best that the militant anti-atheists on this board have.

[MarkCharles]

111. Thank you for your welcome. I have been admiring many of your ...

challenges and forays into the world of the Christian occult that some seem to have married their on-line existence to here.

Folks that pretend to know what they are talking about are always a fascination for someone like me who freely admits I often don't have a much better perspective, nor superior ability to "know". Probably why I'm not a religious person, my honesty prevents it.

[humblebum]

115. First of all, I commend you for being so logical. You must also

note that I have not been a believer for my entire life by any means, and did not actually stop being an atheist until I left college, several years ago. I have stepped out onto that bridge, and my beliefs have held and are true to me. My story is certainly not unique, but I was part of a very early college atheist group before their were many, as there are today.

As far as Dawkins, I certainly am not the first to realize that he doesn't have a strong background in philosophy, but all of his ideas are constructed pretty much within the bounds of logical positivism, except that he has expanded the traditional bounds of the inductive side of the method, as have several atheist 'speakers' (for lack of a better word).

[MarkCharles]

117. So, what you're saying is that YOUR bridge didn't collapse so therefore

all people who believe will have bridges that don't collapse?

You had a traumatic experience in life, and chose to trust in some god, and you came out OKAY!

That's what you're saying?

As for Dawkins, which books have you read? I suspect you will say NONE! But humor me, give me some examples that "he doesn't have a strong background in philosophy".............one or two examples to prove your point, please.

Of course, you DO KNOW, that all candidates for the level of Ph.D. in any science in the UK have to study philosophy ( in the UK they call it "reading") for two years, right?

[onager]

134. Incredibly bizarre response, even from you.

I don't think Szilard was saying "other ways are beneficial and do exist."

More likely he was saying something like: "My subconscious worked on this problem for a long time. And I was really pissed off at Ernest Fucking Rutherford for saying chain reactions are impossible. So one day on a London street corner, the answer came to me suddenly. Lacking a better word, I called it 'intuition.'"

[Meshuga]

123. From the title (and this being the religion and theology forum)...

...I thought this thread was going to be about different sex positions.

[tama]

124. Nicomachean Ethics

"According to Aristotle, the intellectual virtues include: scientific knowledge (episteme), artistic or technical knowledge (techne), intuitive reason (nous), practical wisdom (phronesis), and philosophic wisdom (sophia). Scientific knowledge is a knowledge of what is necessary and universal. Artistic or technical knowledge is a knowledge of how to make things, or of how to develop a craft. Intuitive reason is the process that establishes the first principles of knowledge. Practical wisdom is the capacity to act in accordance with the good of humanity. Philosophic wisdom is the combination of intuitive reason and scientific knowledge.

Understanding (synesis) and good judgment (gnome) may also be combined with the other intellectual virtues. Moral virtues may be combined with intellectual virtues; for example, an individual or society may combine practical wisdom and justice, or may combine artistic knowledge and moral truthfulness."
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/ethics.html

[rug]

125. Using the scientific method only, demonstrate how you know you love someone.

Or hate someone.

[MarkCharles]

127. A first grader asks Einstein to prove the theory of relativity.

Nice try!

If I ask you if a door is better on a bicycle, perhaps you will understand how meaningless your question sounds to us.

The word "knowledge", in the English language even has a meaning relating to the act of love making.

Do you see what a slimy mud hole you are digging yourself into by attempting to expand "knowing" to include "carnal knowledge"?

Love and hate are not "knowledge", nor "another way of knowing": they have nothing to do with either. just as a door on a bicycle makes no sense.

When posters like you are willing to give up your sense that you "know it all" better than anyone else, and actually want your faith to be challenged by simple concepts of science, explained in context, come back and start your education.

Until then, telling us that your nonsensical questions have meaning to you is kind of futile.

Only people of faith do not understand what nonsense they believe has nothing to do with "knowledge".

[rug]

128. Love and hate are not knowledge? That's one of the critera for psychopathy.

[laconicsax]

129. It's anti-social disorder, not psychopathy.

[rug]

130. I prefer the older term. Still, if the shoe fits . . .

[laconicsax]

131. Maybe you could show the diagnostic criteria that talk about love and hate as knowledge.

Mental disorders fascinate me.

[onager]

133. Apparently, hate is more rational...

Not really a response to your post, I just thought it was interesting:

One major difference between love and hate appears to be in the fact that large parts of the cerebral cortex – associated with judgement and reasoning – become de-activated during love, whereas only a small area is deactivated in hate.

"This may seem surprising since hate can also be an all-consuming passion like love. But whereas in romantic love, the lover is often less critical and judgemental regarding the loved person, it is more likely that in the context of hate the hater may want to exercise judgement in calculating moves to harm, injure or otherwise exact revenge," Professor Zeki said.

"Interestingly, the activity of some of these structures in response to a hated face is proportional in strength to the declared intensity of hate, thus allowing the subjective state of hate to be objectively quantified. This finding may have implications in criminal cases."

"Scientists prove it really is a thin line between love and hate," The Independent, 29 Oct 2008

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-prove-it-really-is-a-thin-line-between-love-and-hate-976901.html

[rug]

135. In this case, it's the absence of that knowledge.

It's knowledge nonetheless.

Aka lack of empathy. How do you think the scientific method measures empathy, or lack thereof?

http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision/pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=19

[laconicsax]

141. So, based on your ad-hoc definitions, it's psychopathy.

Why didn't you just say that you're talking out of your ass?

Saying that neither love nor hate are knowledge is as much a symptom of "psychopathy" as saying that neither peas nor carrots are acceleration is a symptom of anemia.

[rug]

144. No it's not.

Maybe you should read with your eyes and not your ass.

[laconicsax]

145. Show me something that supports your thesis and I'll use my eyes. n/t

[rug]

147. I did. And you still haven't answered the question.

Unsurprisingly.

[laconicsax]

150. No, you showed me something which made no mention of love or hate as a type of knowledge...

and made no reference to belief that neither are knowledge as a symptom of psychopathy.

Unsurprisingly.

[rug]

151. The lack of empathy as a symptom and criterion for a mental disorder, are not knowledge.

Sure.

No wonder you can't answer the question.

[laconicsax]

152. Lack of empathy is not the same as not regarding love as knowledge.

Sorry, rug. Your claim that not believing love and hate to be knowledge is a sign of psychopathy is still as unsupported as when you first made it up.

[rug]

153. What do you think pathos means?

After you figure that out, apply to it the scientific method of your choice and tell me it is sufficient to undertand it. (Hint: understanding is knowledge.)

Perhaps after you starighten out that twisted sentence of yours you'll realize those are your words not mine.

[laconicsax]

154. So, based on your ad hoc definitions, it's psychopathy. n/t

Thanks for clearing that up.

[rug]

155. Wrong again.

You are now talking to yourself.

[laconicsax]

156. You're conflating and changing definitions to fit your argument.

To start, knowledge and understanding are different things. They overlap in places, but they are different concepts. Defining them as equivalent also requires conflating different meanings of "understanding" to make 'understanding empathy' equivalent to 'possessing knowledge of empathy.'

[NMMNG]

132. O'rlly?

A person with antisocial personality disorder may:

Be able to act witty and charming

Be good at flattery and manipulating other people's emotions

Break the law repeatedly

Disregard the safety of self and others

Have problems with substance abuse

Lie, steal, and fight often

Not show guilt or remorse

Often be angry or arrogant

No, nothing there about love and hate being knowledge.

[rug]

136. That is not the only personality disorder.

Axis II is full of them.

[NMMNG]

137. You're the one who specified "psychopathy"

Which is now designated Antisocial Personality Disorder. But if you're going to broaden it to the entirety of Axis II disorders then please enlighten me as to which one designates love and hate as "knowledge". I don't recall that in my studies as a psychology major.

[rug]

138. Actually, I was talking about proving love and hate through the scientific method.

Psycopathy is an aside.

If you want to talk psychology, look at 301.81, particularly criterion 7, in the current DSM and its proposed revision in DSM-5.

I'm more interested in an answer to the question I posed to the OP.

[NMMNG]

139. Brain scans, biochemical reactions

If you're talking hardcore science, that is.

[rug]

140. Love and hate can be explained through brain scans.

Ok.

[laconicsax]

142. So can aphasia. Is aphasia knowledge?

:shrug:

[NMMNG]

143. The physical manifestations can be observed, yes

Watching New Love as It Sears the Brain

"Hate Circuit" Discovered in Brain

[MarkCharles]

146. With all the dancing around the barnyard in some of the responses, I still ..

see people wanting to widen the definition of "knowing" and "knowledge" to include just about each and every human experience, mental process, from the human emotions love and hate to dreams and psychopathology. It has gotten to the point where anything imagined is "knowledge" for some here. Why such an intense desire?

One has to ask what would be motivating SOME people to try to shove everything but the kitchen sink into a broader definition of "knowing" or "knowledge".

Bottom line: The one common pattern here is the desire to shoe-horn in ANY "other way of knowing" to establish the existence of their own imagined god, so that they can say, (unscientifically), that they KNOW their god exists.

As was well stated in the OP's original link:

" it can be a deceptive way of giving respectability to superstitious and mythological beliefs." op.cit.

[skepticscott]

148. It's simply a tortured and roundabout way

For some here to be able to exempt their claims for the existence of their "god" from any of the usual standards for verifying such a thing. Or a deep seeded need to try to take rational inquiry and science down a peg, by trying to show that they don't know everything and can't answer every question (as if anyone ever claimed that they did).

[MarkCharles]

149. Familiar patterns we see, like the Creationist meme that keeps saying..

"but we can prove evolution isn't true, because there are missing links in the chain"

Their "perfect" religious views always trump anyone else's.

Science if fine, up to a point, for those folks, they are willing to submit to the "science" of modern dentistry when they have a toothache, or to modern medicine when they have a heart attack.

But they get off the science bus when it goes down a street too too close to their church. At THAT point, science no longer matters, because they believe in "other ways of knowing" about their god.