Can anyone provide even a single example of any knowledge gained by some "other way of knowing?"

[cleanhippie]

Just one. A single one.

[chaplainM]

1. I know this

When I encounter someone claiming to know something by "another way of knowing," I gain the knowledge that I'm listening to an imbecile or a fraud, maybe both. Does that count?

[cleanhippie]

32. You know, you just might win the thread with that one.

:applause:

[Deep13]

2. Yes, it's a story I told here before.

I was sitting in a gun shop a few years ago chatting with the owners and some of the customers, when a young man came in (same race as everyone else there). It seemed to me that room lights had suddenly gone dim and I became tense and uneasy. One of the owners looked at me and asked how things were going in the DA's office where I worked. The young man asked a question and the other owner (they are a married couple) put him off and the guy left. The gloom and tension lifted. Talking afterward, we all independently felt that there was something seriously wrong with the guy and that he had bad intentions. There was no objective sign of it, we just felt it. Maybe it was his demeanor or maybe fear or anger was causing a chemical change in his perspiration that we all subconsciously detected. I am NOT suggesting it was anything supernatural or paranormal. But it was a perception we felt from a means other than ordinary, verifiable perception.

[skepticscott]

5. And what was the "knowledge" that you gained

as distinct from simply a feeling of unease? How did you verify that this "knowledge" was correct?

[Deep13]

7. Well, now you're shifting the standards.

If the ONLY way to really know anything is to verify it objectively, then you have a priori excluded any other kind of senses by the nature of the question. It's as if the question implicitly begins with "assuming that only objective verification is valid...."

I learned the guy was likely up to no good. I can't tell you want exactly it was or even if we were right about it because the impression came from a subjective, instinctive, nonintellectual source.

If science is the only way to know anything, you might want to figure out how humanity survived for hundreds of 1000s of years without it. Or how animals with no appreciable intellect survive. Is it all dumb luck or did prehistoric humans and do other animals have some other way to appreciate their environment?

[skepticscott]

31. Well, do you think that anything

that any single individual, no matter how irrational or deluded, can convince themselves might possibly be true qualifies as "knowledge"? If so, then your definition of "knowledge" or "knowing" is so vague and all-encompassing as to be virtually useless. Not saying that you were irrational or deluded in this case, but where is the cutoff? And have you ever had an impression that someone was up to no good that turned out to be completely wrong? How do you know that you weren't also wrong in this case, and if you were, can your feeling really qualify as "knowledge".

And I never said that "science" is the only way to know anything. But I have yet to see an example of a way of obtaining objective knowledge that didn't involve rational thought, informed by input from the senses, or a convincing argument that wholly subjective feelings and impressions that may be wrong as often as right should be considered "knowledge". The evolutionary imprint of what you might call "instinct" or "intuition" in humans very often leads to incorrect conclusions. Survival depends on erring on the safe side, and making causal assumptions that are frequently wrong.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. I don't see how that is "another way of knowing"...

It seems to me that this is simply a social cue that you and others picked up, most likely from subconscious observations of his behavior. Human beings are good at reading other human beings, we underestimate this at our detriment, its what so called psychics thrive on, after all. What some call extraordinary is actually quite ordinary if we think about it. Being a social species, we have a selective advantage in determining the intentions of others without the need for direct communication, at the same time, we are mostly open books to others.

Of course, just like anything, practice makes perfect(or better is perhaps a better word), and that's why people are amazed by a psychic being able to read our moods, while at the same time those people can read the moods of, for example, close friends and family, all the time.

[Deep13]

10. Well, then I guess I don't know what the OP means...

...by "another way of knowing."

[Humanist_Activist]

11. I think the OP is talking about something outside of empirical evidence...

and whether there are other ways to gain knowledge. I would argue no myself, simply because people are woefully ignorant of how things such as intuition, insight, and instinct operate. These are tools, we still use empirical evidence when we use them, it just may be subconscious rather can conscious thought, indeed, studies suggest that our subconscious mind operates and influences us in ways we didn't previously imagine, sort of shoots free will in the kneecaps.

[Deep13]

14. Well, there was nothing empirical about this.

There is no evidence I can point to to verify our impressions. For all I know, he was just an anxiety-ridden person and we completely misread him. I have no way of knowing.

I am aware that instinct drives most of our behavior and that free will is an illusion. In fact, that is close to my point.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. "I have no way of knowing" that is precisely the point...

but that doesn't remove your impression as being less real, and even you pointed out it could have been wrong. However, you could have followed up by asking him questions, or in other ways, that could have allowed you to get to know his emotional state, and that would have been empirical and it would have gained you knowledge.

[cleanhippie]

34. "I have no way of knowing". I think you just answered your question.

:shrug:

[MarkCharles]

9. No you actually didn't KNOW anything, you acted upon clues that registered with..

your concepts of probability.

You also had been informed that other stores had been robbed within your lifetime. You had information, and ability to reason deductively, based upon all evidence you had at hand, none of this is "another way of knowing"


"There was no objective sign of it, we just felt it."



There was PLENTY of objective signs, and you used your rational mind and comparisons with information you had previously taken in during your life. Please stop making this look like magic, or luck, or some sort of "intuition"...

You had data, you had observational skills, you had logic, you just used it well for your own benefit. Please stop making this look like you were just a silly five-year-old taking a stab at being right.

[Deep13]

12. I did not think he was there to rob THAT store.

I don't know what he wanted. I only suspect from the fact that it was a gun shop that he wanted a gun, possibly for something bad.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I nowhere claimed it was luck and specifically disclaimed magic. I observed nothing, as least consciously. I only FELT something was wrong. I'm sorry to inform you that humans are animals and are mostly instinctive, not rational. We are not computers or robots and we do not perceive everything scientifically. The fact there are temples in the world ought to tell you that.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. "we do not perceive everything sceintifically", of course not...

Science is a discipline to try to weed out subjective impressions that may be accurate through the collection of objective evidence. However, this doesn't mean we don't use observation and even rudimentary logic all the time, it doesn't have to be conscious to be at least that.

[Deep13]

20. Logic has to be conscious. It is a rational process. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

24. Hence my use of "rudimentary"...

see, this is a big problem with both language and our brains, things get fuzzy and inexact.

[rrneck]

22. Here's a book you might find interesting.

The Gift of Fear

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0440508835/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1320805972&sr=8-1

[Manifestor_of_Light]

171. I'd call it gut feelings.

[humblebum]

15. There was also nothing totally objective about the process,

and that is what distinguishes it from empiricism or logical empiricism.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Hence the reason why it wasn't knowledge gained...

but rather an impression that could have been followed up in a more objective way to determine the man's intentions and emotional state.

[Deep13]

21. We're defining knowledge differently.

I'll refer you to my post 7 and leave it at that.

[Humanist_Activist]

26. Ehh, perhaps you should read my OP on this to get my perspective. n/t

[skepticscott]

54. Except that you haven't provided your definition

of "knowledge" in that post or anywhere else. And you haven't answered the question: Do you think that anything that any single individual, no matter how irrational or deluded, can convince themselves might possibly be true qualifies as "knowledge"?

[humblebum]

29. Totally different than the process of Logical Empiricism/ Scientific Method

which begins with collecting data (empirical), analysing the data, formulating a general hypothesis from the collected data (inductive), predicting certain results that will occur under certain circumstances (deductive), and finally testing the hypothesis by producing the circumstances that will yield predicted results. Totally empirical and totally different from trying to interpret a certain look in the eyes or body language, or "vibes" - all of which are subjective to the observer.

The experiment can be replicated over and over until the process produces an hypothesis which survives experimental testing. It has a built in self-correcting feature. However, the event in the gunshop cannot be replicated. It's a one time deal. Very little empirical data collected. Observations are subjective. Any knowledge gained is totally subjective to the observer. No hypothesis can be formed and tested by observing predicted results. Nonetheless, knowledge was gained, but was far less objective than that gained from an experiment. People learn from exposure to situtions, but what they learn is much more hard to define and quantify - experiential learning.

[Odin2005]

116. Get your understanding of science right.

Science is about making hypotheses and then testing those hypotheses. The notion that science starts with empirical data is something commonly promulgated in school textbooks, but that is backwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificationism

[rrneck]

129. Why would one make a hypothisis? nt

[cleanhippie]

33. So what knowledge did you gain?

Maybe I am missing it.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

43. Supposedly, humans react the same way to the presence of a psychopath

that other mammals react to the presence of predators. Though, since you never found out what was up with the guy, we don't know if that's at all applicable.

[PassingFair]

59. I've SEEN that guy...

Are you sure it wasn't something he SAID?

[Odin2005]

115. That sounds like instinctive, unconscious reactions we have to body language.

It's just our social instincts, nothing supernatural.

[humblebum]

3. Yes

[skepticscott]

4. In other words

No

[humblebum]

6. No

[cleanhippie]

36. Exactly.

[kwassa]

13. Define "other way of knowing".

We give examples of what seem to be other ways, the counter-response seems to be "that is not really other" when we voice what seems a valid alternative to us.

So, define other ways.

[laconicsax]

18. No one knows.

Skeptics are frequently told of these other ways of knowing, but those promoting them rarely expound on what they are (if ever).

[kwassa]

23. Intuition was one, and some claimed it not other.

So I still have no idea what this OP is about. It makes no sense.

[laconicsax]

25. There are posters who claim other ways of knowing.

You can think of this thread as a "put up or shut up" thread.

[kwassa]

27. I have other ways of knowing.

I doubt that you or any of the atheists here would accept it.

And, your acceptance means nothing to me, quite frankly.

There is no proof I could give that would be satisfactory to you. Such is life.

[laconicsax]

28. In other words, you have nothing. n/t

[kwassa]

30. oh no, I have everything.

The peace that passeth human understanding.

The prayer without ceasing.

[laconicsax]

37. The prayer without ceasing?

What does that mean?

BTW, if it "passeth human understanding" how can you know what it is?

[cleanhippie]

47. "where you see contradiction, I see confrmation."

Remember THAT?

[laconicsax]

51. Of course.

Is the sock on the other hand?

[cleanhippie]

35. If you have other ways of knowing, then surely you can provide us with the knowledge you gained?

What knowledge did you gain?

[Angry Dragon]

38. yes

[Jim__]

39. Sure. I've learned a lot about people and relationships from literature. - n/t

[LAGC]

40. Fiction or non-fiction?

;)

[Jim__]

44. I'm talking about fiction.

I learn a lot from non-fiction, but that's because most non-fiction books I read are actually trying to teach or explain something, e.g. pop science. But good fiction teaches us about various approaches to living life.

[bananas]

41. When the Moon Hits Your Eye Like a Big Pizza Pie, That's Amore'. nt

[bananas]

42. Other than what?

What the fuck are you talking about?
Is this a continuation of another thread?
Those are supposed to be locked.

[MarkCharles]

45. In the words of Carl Sagan:

Today is Carl Sagan's birthday. November 12th is International Carl Sagan Day.

Thanks Carl, for all you did.

Appropriate quotes for this thread, I thought.

"Carl Sagan's "Does Truth Matter""

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4wiKvkRZME

[Taverner]

110. +10000 for the Sagan link

[Nihil]

46. Out of interest, what would you accept?

I was going to post a reply with one of my own experiences
(don't know what mechanism was behind it but it was a real
"something") but would you simply write it off as "anecdotal"?

If so, what sort of thing would you accept?

:shrug:

[cleanhippie]

48. Post it and we will let general concensus decide.

[rrneck]

49. When you say to someone

or you hear someone someone say to you, "I understand you."

[bvar22]

50. Dolphins, Whales, and Bats KNOW a World...

...that is different from the World we KNOW.
They are equipped with a sensory organ that we Humans don't have.
We can only guess about the World they KNOW,
much as someone blind since birth can only guess what "color" means.
I wonder how many other possible Sense Organs, and Ways to Know that we Humans do NOT have.

The orphaned fawn we raised last Summer KNEW that she couldn't urinate or defecate
unless her mother told her it was OK and safe to do so.

Monarch Butterflies KNOW their entire 3000 mile Migration route,
though no single Monarch lives long enough to experience a complete migration cycle.

Infant Humans KNOW how to suckle.

Sometimes, you really do Just KNOW.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. You are just illustrating the imprecise nature of the English language...

The first example you used is about perception, not knowledge. Its not like humans can't percieve the world in that way, certain humans actually have, directly.

The other examples are instinct, not knowledge, which by definition has to be acquired.

[humblebum]

53. And you are attempting to change the meaning of the word "knowledge"

to fit your cozy paradigm. Knowledge is a much broader term than you are willing to admit, and has been treated as such for a very long time. Knowledge is considered to consist of varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity, and different values of significance: data, information, knowledge (knowing), understanding, and finally, wisdom. Data, of course, is simply random disorganization. In the information stage it assumes a meaningful form. Studying information leads to knowing the contents. Knowing becomes understanding once it is processed. And finally, wisdom - the ability to apply knowledge for a specific defined purpose. But all is knowledge.

Perception, then is knowledge - sensing the existence of some type of data or higher. Instinct - a priori knowledge. Not recognized by the scientific philosophy, simply because it cannot be falsified, but still a form of knowledge.

[skepticscott]

55. So answer the same question I posed above

Do you think that anything that any single individual, no matter how irrational, deluded or hallucinatory, can convince themselves might possibly be true, qualifies as "knowledge"? Yes or no? if no, what are your criteria for deciding whether something is "knowledge" or not, and what do you consider things that are perceived, but do not qualify as knowledge?

[humblebum]

57. After everything that has been presented in this thread and

on the subject of knowledge in general, I can't even believe you are posing such a question. Knowledge gained from utilizing logical positivism is only one type of knowledge.

It has even been demonstrated that animals obtain, possess, and use knowledge about their surroundings. Do you think they apply the Scientific Method to everything they do? Your question has already been answered.

[MarkCharles]

83. No you haven't answered the question from your perspective.

Please do so, if you can, or if you dare.

As for Dolphins, whales, dogs, etc, and their "knowledge" of course it is "knowledge" on a primitive scale.

Any animal "knows" what prey it desires, but is that real "knowledge"? Is your "knowledge" of your god any more sophisticated than the carnivore mammal chasing prey? Perhaps we are genetically programmed to "believe" in a god. We need it to feel whole, just as a carnivore must chase prey to feel whole.

Do you expect the process of perception, selection, action, and reaction to be different forms of "knowing" when all mammals engage in that activity?

[skepticscott]

105. Yes or no

it's a simple, absolute question, that can be answered simply. You either believe what I stated or you don't. But as usual, you dodge and duck and pretend the answer lies elsewhere. Same old schtick, but nobody other than you finds you credible.

And as I stated above (post 31), I have never claimed that the scientific method is the only way to know things. Just another BS straw man by you. But if you can show that animals can obtain reliable information about their surroundings without using their senses, by all means do so. Forgive us if we don't hold our breath waiting for a genuine answer.

[cleanhippie]

111. I think we both know that you will NEVER get an answer to that question.

[skepticscott]

125. Yes or no?

still waiting for an answer. But you can't provide one, can you? Because your so-called argument is nothing but BS.

[skepticscott]

134. Still pinned on this aren't you?

Yes or no? It's a simple question, and if your position were viable, you'd be able to give a straightforward answer.

[MarkCharles]

82. "Knowledge is a much broader term than you are willing to admit"

Q E D

I am simply using your own words to prove my point.

Semantics, and language, and the imprecision of language.

In English, snow is one word, we also have slush, sleet, frozen rain, that's all.

In Eskimo, they have at least sixteen words just for snow.

Semantics.

[rrneck]

61. Acquired from where? nt

[Humanist_Activist]

91. From interacting with the world around us. n/t

[rrneck]

130. Interaction assumes

intentionality. Certainly humans, and many other critters, are not simply stand alone hard drives that store data and respond to it in predictable ways.

[Jim__]

56. A TED Talk - Daniel Tammet: Different ways of knowing

Daniel Tammet is a savant. He sees the world differently than most of us. The video is about 10 minutes long. I think it's well worth the time.

[MarkCharles]

58. Very interesting, but... According to the description on the web site:...

"Daniel Tammet has linguistic, numerical and visual synesthesia -- meaning that his perception of words, numbers and colors are woven together into a new way of perceiving and understanding the world. The author of "Born on a Blue Day," Tammet shares his art and his passion for languages in this glimpse into his beautiful mind.

"This talk is about "perception", as Daniel, HIMSELF, states at the beginning of his talk.

Different kinds of "perception" of reality, he claims, create different kinds of "knowing", and understanding. as Daniel and Chekov both claim.

"Our personal perceptions are at the heart of how we acquire knowledge." He states.

I hope I've given you the desire to learn to see the world with new eyes", he concluded.

He is talking about PERCEPTION of the world, and how his brain arranges his perceptions. There is no other "knowledge" here, because we are learning about HIS perceptions, but not learning about anything we cannot already perceive ourselves, both in our customary way, and in his rather unique ways.

But again, the English language often has many broad imprecise uses of the word "knowing" and "knowledge" which confuse us all when we are discussing "knowing" and "knowledge". Perception of the same knowledge from a different "perspective" is not new knowledge. It might be another way of learning that same knowledge, but the knowledge, once learned is the same for both. 64 times 75 still multiplies to the same result.

Sometimes we say "other ways of knowing" when we mean "other ways of learning about the world" or "other ways of perceiving the world", as Daniel, himself says, "to learn to see the world with new eyes". It's the same world!

In the end, this is really a semantic dispute, not a real one. And believers in a faith would have us "believe" that there is a way of "knowing" their god, when in reality, when they say that they "know" that there is a god, what they mean is that they "know" they imagine there is one.

[rrneck]

60. True

Can what they imagine be measured, quantified, and replicated?

[MarkCharles]

63. So far, not really, but the effects of anyone's imagining CAN be!

Schizophrenics "imagine" hearing voices, which drives them to do bizarre and sometimes harmful things. We can measure their actions or reactions as a result of their imaginings.

Painters "imagine" scenes or "images" and paint them. We can quantify and verify the result in very measurable ways.

Religious people "imagine" a god that will strike them down for not following that god's commands, or they "imagine" a god that rewards them for certain activities, (e.g. daily prayers, church attendance, giving money to the church, etc.) We can observe, measure, and quantify many such actions (good or bad) resulting from imagining a god.

[rrneck]

64. Yes you can quantify the results.

But that's not what I asked.

Can those imaginings be measured, quantified, and replicated? Can a person's imagination be subjected to peer review?

[humblebum]

71. the results of Thomas Edison's imagination can quantified, etc. nt

[rrneck]

74. Yes, the results can be quantified.

Can his imagination itself be quantified and replicated using the scientific method?

[humblebum]

75. To my knowledge, no. But that does not negate the existence

of his imagination, which has already been demonstrated.

[rrneck]

76. Absolutely. nt

[MarkCharles]

81. Thomas Edison's imagination didn't have "other ways of knowing", Edison spent

thousands of hours finding "knowledge" after his visions and as a result of his prior exposure to "knowledge".

E.G. he knew flames produced light and heat. He knew fire behaves differently with different combustibles, he knew the amount of oxygen changes the characteristics of flames and thus of light from fire. Those are scientific principles upon which he conducted "experiments".

Here's a simple "experiment" you can do at home:
1) light a candle
2) Turn off all the lights at night while the candle is burning
3) put a glass tube, open at the bottom and at the top, over the candle, so that the flame is within the glass tube.
4) notice how the flame gets brighter with the glass over the candle...........

The "knowledge" available to Edison: before he started..

THIS had been done for hundreds of years, at least, when Edison came along. Edison "knew" flames change character under different conditions of exposure to oxygen, and that different types of candles, made from different waxes and wicks produce different flame types, and different light. That's where Edison started.




The light bulb is a product of hard work, not simply Edison's fantasies and juxtapositions of previously learned "knowledge".

He was creative, only after hard experimentation following "scientific" principles did his creativity light the world.

His fantasies lit nothing but his desire to continue his "experiments" in light and sound.

[humblebum]

85. I never said he did. the existence of other ways of knowing has been

clearly demonstrated here. Whether or not you accept same is not relevant to that existence.

[MarkCharles]

88. "the existence of other ways of knowing has been clearly demonstrated here."

How so?

Point out, for us dumb atheist closed minded people HOW:


"the existence of other ways of knowing has been clearly demonstrated"

Please?

You might want to review my previous post on Edison, since I did a paper on Edison's invention of the light bulb for a sophomore high school course in physics back in my days, 40 years or more ago, (more!)

I summarized my methods for you to look at.. or try at home tonight.

[MarkCharles]

94. Can anyone read your mind? Not yet! But don't think too much, it might..

be easier to read if you do.

We can predict that sex offenders will re-offend? Kind of, but not accurately!

We can predict high school seniors will do well in college? Only somewhat.

Do you want a world or a science that deals with predictions of what your mind is thinking?

Or do you want to understand how simply thinking about something or some idea is NOT "knowledge"?

[rrneck]

97. You still haven't answered the question.

Can the interior lives of human beings be accurately measured, quantified, and replicated by science?

And if they aren't knowledge, why do you know about them?

[MarkCharles]

100. You seem to equate any facet of the "interior lives of human beings" with the word..

"knowledge"

Now try to think clearly for a moment. When you fantasize about being rich and living on a beach and getting your servants to deliver you drinks before dinner, you DO KNOW that that fantasy is not "knowledge", right?

I think you might benefit from trying to keep your thoughts logical, rather than simply fantasy or dream orientted and undisciplined and calling that fantasy "logical" or a theory that such thinking is "knowing" something.

We all dream, daydream, fantasize, nothing about "knowing" something, just "interior lives of human beings" ! Your phrase!

[rrneck]

103. It's knowledge if you know about it.

What else do you call the information in your head?

On edit:

I think I'll watch Lion in Winter again...

Prince Geoffrey: "I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it."
(smiles)
Prince Geoffrey: "We're a knowledgeable family."

[MarkCharles]

131. By that definition of yours, astrology, phrenology, numerology are all

"knowledge"

I consider them all "nonsense".

So ANY nonsense is knowledge?

I think I prefer a more closely crafted definition of knowledge that leaves out nonsense.

I prefer measurable, testable, verifiable types of thoughts and human mental activity and acquaintances with real factual material to be within my definition of knowledge, versus the rest of stuff in the world we are acquainted with but turns out to be superstition or nonsense.

[rrneck]

132. Yes. I consider it knowledge.

I also consider it nonsense.

You just have to use the right tool for the job. The items listed above are useless in the way they are used (unless it's to part fools from their money). But to not consider flights of fancy, emotions, brain farts, myths, legends, beliefs and all the rest unnecessary makes no sense. If we know about something, it is knowledge. That doesn't mean we have to believe it or act on it, but it is knowledge nonetheless. To do otherwise is to discount the whole of literature, drama, art, music and every other art form that has ever been.

Every scientific discovery began with a hypothesis. What prompted the hypothesis? Why do scientists devote their entire lives to the investigation of the most excruciating minutia in existence. The legitimate "other ways of knowing" are half the human experience. If you didn't care you wouldn't be posting here. The fact that unscrupulous scoundrels use peoples need to know why to rob them doesn't mean that need is not important. Science can be used to further scurrilous ends as easily as faith. But we need them both.

Form and content.

Damn phone.

[humblebum]

67. Now that is one of the most illogical statements I have yet to see.

"We can observe, measure, and quantify MANY such actions (good or bad)." Many? How many? Surely it can be measured precisely. The fact is that only YOUR understanding of religious belief can be measured. To say that everything that exists is able to be validated by the epistemology of logical empiricism, is absolutely ridiculous and narrow-minded. Even the people who designed the method admitted that it could only be valid within the parameters of physical science.

You claimed that you didn't think that you could be taught anything that you hadn't already learned. And yet there are several upper level graduate courses that specifically address "other ways of knowing", e.g. (Just a sampling)

http://www.fhsu.edu/uploadedFiles/academic/college_of_arts_and_sciences/mls/IDS802_Spring03.pdf

http://www.rpdp.net/DOK_pdfs/DOK_ALL_LEVELS_Presentation.pdf

Your POV is very narrowly focused indeed, and out of necessity must remain so in order to maintain its credibility. To be certain, though, it is not the ONLY POV.

[MarkCharles]

80. I 'claimed that I didn't think that I could be taught anything that I hadn't already learned?

Please point to where I claimed that. If you think I ever said that, I'd like to know where I did. I never am less than amazed at what I learn that is new to me, but it's not new to the world of "knowledge" when I learn it.

So please quote me directly, Thank you! Where did I claim I could not be "taught" something new.

You do like to make up stuff, and I admire that creativity you come up with, but that's not really arguing with sincerity, is it, now, when you make stuff up or lie about what I said.

[humblebum]

84. Your words:

"I doubt you can tell me much I don't know. Let's stop there. Please"

[MarkCharles]

86. I am not talking there about "knowledge" that I am ignorant of, (of which there is a lot!)

I am talking about what YOU can teach me, in the field of philosophy of science, and other areas of "other ways of knowing" and what those concepts are in modern world.

I am talking more about you, than about me. Try to keep context in focus, OKAY?

Misinterpretation of data presented is a common fallacy non-scientists and lax thinkers fall into.

How do you think we got Bush thinking there were WMD's when there was no data for it?

Answer: he WANTED TO BELIEVE there were!

[humblebum]

87. Your words, not mine. And many of the things I have been saying

are not my ideas or opinions by any means. I am not alone. You do not claim to be an expert in the area of philosophy, especially scientific philosophy and not immediate understand the terms "epistemology" and "Logical Positivism", which IS the scientific philosophy.

[MarkCharles]

89. Very true....I agree with you for once about this:.......

Where you say: "You do not claim to be an expert in the area of philosophy, especially scientific philosophy and not immediate understand the terms "epistemology" and "Logical Positivism", which IS the scientific philosophy."

I do not claim that! Never did. And, by the way, I don't know WHY in the world "Logical Positivism" is your obsession, there are at least fifty or a hundred key phrases that characterize modern scientific disciplines, "Logical Positivism" is only one perspective, a somewhat old and self-limiting one, one that is somewhat precise for a pre-atomic day in scientific discovery, but one lacking in most concepts of mathematical and computer modelling that we use these days. I don't expect you to have advanced much beyond Immanuel Kant in your views of what is "knowledge" and what is "science" but you surprise me sometimes by picking up on a rather singular view from 20th century philosophy of science, decrying that that is the ONLY TRUE scientific perspective, when clearly it is not, certainly NOT in a Einsteinian nuclear and Hubble telescopic full spectrum view of reality.

[humblebum]

92. I use Logical Positivism because it is the basis of the Scientific Method

as it came out of the Vienna Circle. I have already stated that it is no longer favored by a majority of scholars. Nonetheless, there are a number of scientists and atheists who do indeed consider themselves to be positivists, i.e. Stephen Hawking. And actually, it is scientists that have demonstrated the most reluctance in abandoning LP.

[MarkCharles]

93. I'm sorry, but "Logical Positivism" is NOT the "basis", not even close

It is a clear, concise, reasonable description of the best practices and methods of scientific inquiry. But it is about 80-90 years out-of-date!

That, alone, does not make it less than reasonable, but it leaves out any concepts in mathematical modelling, something, I am almost sure you would object to, even though such methodologies reasonably "limit" but exponentially INCREASE our likelihood of finding new discoveries, saving countless years of futile research. Modern mathematical models send rockets to the moon, put useful geostationary satellites in orbit to deliver live pictures, text, and phone calls from Australia or the UK to people in Oklahoma, or save billions in costs of fuel component cells for the international space station. It enables people to live "off the grid" with solar power and advanced battery technology, or saves millions of humans from risks of flood, famine, or blizzard by predictions and warnings in statistically based probability weather forecasts. The basis for the modern "scientific method" goes well beyond what the philosophical thesis of "logical positivism" had to say.


" Logical Positivism" most accurately describes the scientific method of 18th, 19th and early 20th century science, but fails to take in everything that has been discovered from mathematical modelling and precision focused investigations ever since.

It's unfortunate when some people are so far behind in their reading and study of the philosophy of science and the pursuit of "knowledge".

[humblebum]

101. Escuse me but I think you are confusing positivism with Logical Positivism

which did not even exist as an epistemology until well into the 20th century, and remained popular until roughly the 1960's.

"During the late 1920s, '30s, and '40s, Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein's formalism was developed by a group of philosophers in Vienna and Berlin, who formed the Vienna Circle and Berlin Circle into a doctrine known as logical positivism (or logical empiricism). Logical positivism used formal logic to underpin an empiricist account of our knowledge of the world.<2> Philosophers such as Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach, along with other members of the Vienna Circle, claimed that the truths of logic and mathematics were tautologies, and those of science were verifiable empirical claims. These two constituted the entire universe of meaningful judgements; anything else was nonsense."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

"During much of this century "positivism" has dominated discussions of scientific method. The term was popularized by Comte, and generally refers to a strict empiricism which recognizes as valid only knowledge claims based on experience (Abbagnano, 1967; Brown 1977).

During the 1920s positivism emerged as a full-fledged philosophy of science in the form of logical positivism. Developed by the Vienna Circle, a group of scientists and philosophers, logical positivism accepted as its central doctrine Wittgenstein's verification theory of meaning (Brown, 1977; Passmore, 1967). The verification theory holds that statements or propositions are meaningful only if they can be empirically verified. This criterion was adopted in an attempt to differentiate scientific (meaningful) statements from purely metaphysical (meaningless) statements (Anderson, 1983)."

http://www.brint.com/papers/science.htm

If anything, your insistence that there is only one way way of knowing, is rooted in that epistemology of logical positivism, which has fallen out of favor with most scholars, who have certainly opted for more specific ways to address scientific and philosophical questions. They have recognized that there are indeed, other ways of knowing.

[humblebum]

62. clearly your knowledge of knowledge is very incomplete and no, it

isn't a matter of semantics. Different types of knowledge and ways of knowing do indeed utilize different levels of objectivity and subjectivity. Empiricism is but one way of knowing. In order for the skeptic or atheistic pov to be valid, epistemologies such as ontological and teleogical inquiries must be ignored. And yet, by those methods it possible to reason that indeed a diety(ies) do(es) exist.

That is why I think the atheistic claim that it is "freethinking" is bunk. In order for it to have any credibility, it must ignore any ideas that it considers as nonsense. To even suggest that if you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something then it doesn't exist, aka empiricism, IS an incredibly narrow perspective and anything but free thought. A few strong atheists here have stated exactly that opinion.

[cleanhippie]

65. You know, bum, I have recently come to really appreciate your posts.

I know that no matter what you post, it will always make me laugh.

Thanks.

:toast:

[MarkCharles]

68. I was wondering why you called him that name, but I guess it's his ..

last name!

I do call you "hippie", but that I mean as a compliment.

[MarkCharles]

66. Well, I see I've awoken a sleeping giant of philosophy of science once again!

I think you and I were schooled in quite different ways, and have arrived at our conclusions and personal opinions (which are NOT "knowledge"), through different means.


For me, evidence and logical thinking, not 18th or previous century written ramblings of theistic apologists, formed my views.

For me, existentialist and naturalist philosophers played a more major influential role.

For you, not so much on the evidence and logical thinking, at least from what I see so far. But I admit I could be wrong, something I have yet to see you do.

Perhaps a good place to start sorting out our differences is for you to define "knowledge" and the act of "knowing" more precisely than what I have seen from your posts so far.

Then you can move on to "different ways of knowing" and define the specific results of such other "knowing" activities, other than belief in a god.

Somehow, I doubt we will ever agree, I just hope you vote Democratic and we can agree to disagree on everything else.

[humblebum]

70. I respect your way and have tried your way, but found it to be far

too restrictive and "parochial" - to borrow a basically religious term.

[MarkCharles]

72. "MY" way, I don't own! It's really NOT MINE at all, it's the way in which most

21st century science, commerce, and healthy interpersonal interactions are conducted.

We tolerate any views other than our own, we welcome being challenged to see other people's perspective, we neither reject nor accept, we simply ac"knowledge" them as being valid differences from our own. We discuss. We first try first to understand those views, then we attempt to learn from each other. We never reject views different from ours, we ask questions and hope there are logical, clear, well-reasoned answers we can understand.

A scientist put it this way when discussing the "big bang" with a creationist religious skeptic who found it hard to "believe" in the concept of NOT anything existing before the "big bang". "If you find it hard to conceptualize of a universe without or before the bang, you have found the essence of what it was beforehand", the scientist told the creationist skeptical of science. The troubled skeptic replied, "ah, but that's not helping me", the scientist said, "I'm sorry, before the "big bang", no help to understand is currently available, please check the number or try calling back later".


It's a kind of abstruse joke about science, many here might not get it.

[humblebum]

77. "21st century science, COMMERCE, and healthy interpersonal interactions are conducted."

It is because "your way" has been applied to commerce, that the financial world is such a mess today. and as far as the way "healthy interpersonal interactions are conducted" - that is your opinion and certainly not demonstrated to be the only way.

[MarkCharles]

78. Oh dear, now you're off on the "accusation" for all the ills of our economy because

NOT communists, not Nazi's but unconscionable capitalists who were the atheists that took us down that road, (even tho most capitalists are god-fearing Christians and others who go to services on the weekend).

Now, MY way of approaching this: is how the phenomenon of OBSTRUCTION of "knowledge" played a con game on the American economy.


You really are funny, sometimes, and I do laugh, when I see your accusatory posts here and there.

If those greedy capitalists had been paying attention to real data and real numbers, instead of bowing down to their god and greed fantasies, if they had actually studied the nature of a regulated fair marketplace, instead of finding con-games to make them richer in a less regulated marketplace, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now in!

It wasn't an absence of data that put us in this mess. It was the lack of logical thinking about the data that put us here. It was a refusal to even look at the data, and a wishful thinking fantasy attitude that prosperity was somehow more "godly" and more justified under ancient religious concepts of what it means to "prosper". Unregulated capitalism is not a result of atheism, it is a result of worship, a worship of richness, a worship of getting higher and more financially successful instead of helping all boats rise. It was a DISREGARD for all the economic evidence, it was, a conspiracy of belief in the god of unregulated capitalism and the self-serving loveless "Christian" virtue of being rich, being powerful, despite all the data of real risk and reward abounding if only people had been looking.

Now, you propose that atheism has a lot to do with this recession? When there's another branch to walk on, you go way out on the limb, don't you!

Atheists would look more at the data, than the pressure to be prosperous while ignoring the reality that churches so often preach. But be sure you use whatever limb I seemed to have given you to walk out on.

The concept of an open mind, and a willingness to accept and do commerce with any person in the market place is hardly new to atheists. It's a recipe for successful sales of whatever product or service one offers, and has been since the invention of money, several thousand years ago. The most respected folks in the market of commerce accept all people as they are, and perform quality services or provide quality goods to all customers, without regard for differences. That's an ethical position, and a recipe for success in commerce. That would contrast to how unethical bankers and others in the financial markets pulled con-games and ponzi schemes on unsuspecting customers during the Clinton/Bush years when regulation and oversight was removed from their field of endeavor. These events had nothing at all to do with rational scientific pursuit of "knowledge", nor anything to do with people who simply do not find any evidence for the existence of a god.

Try to grasp that history, rather than make baseless accusations. Thanks

[skepticscott]

119. Just another made-up story by you

"To even suggest that if you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something then it doesn't exist, aka empiricism, IS an incredibly narrow perspective and anything but free thought. A few strong atheists here have stated exactly that opinion."

Point us to EXACTLY where these opinions were stated, or admit that you lied. Link or lie....which will it be?

[skepticscott]

137. Still no answer I see

And everyone here knows why. You just pulled that accusation out of your ass, and those opinions were NEVER stated anywhere here. We have a word for that, and it requires checking your trousers for combustion.

[skepticscott]

161. STILL waiting for you evidence

that this: "To even suggest that if you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something then it doesn't exist, aka empiricism, IS an incredibly narrow perspective and anything but free thought. A few strong atheists here have stated exactly that opinion."

Is not just a made-up lie. Astonish us and give us the links.

[Jim__]

69. I gained new knowledge watching the video.

He taught me another way to see numbers, and based on that new perception, a new way to multiply. Yes, that's real knowledge.

Years ago, reading Nabokov, I did not know he was a synesthetic, but I knew he used language differently than I did. I used that understanding to change the way I write.

What amazes me is the absolute narrowness of how some people perceive the world. I used to work with someone who was retired from the Coast Guard. He spent twenty years traveling around the US. I asked him what he had learned in various places he had visited. He told me he hadn't really learned anything. All of the places were exactly the way he expected them to be. He should have traveled with his eyes open. We cannot learn from the things we refuse to see.

[MarkCharles]

79. I'll grant you ONE POINT, you "learned" something about how..

other people perceive and think.

That's a tiny bit of "knowledge" you didn't have before you were exposed to it.

But as "knowledge" goes, it was there all along; you just hadn't been exposed to it before.

There's no NEW "knowledge" there, just someone like you who became a bit more "knowledgeable" about other people.

You "learned" something, something that had been there all along ready for you to "know".


Try to be precise in what you could have always known, but didn't.

[Odin2005]

117. I'm autistic, too, and I "see the world" differently than most people...

...but that doesn't mean it's "another way of knowing" as meant in the OP. Perception is not the same as knowledge.

[Jim__]

120. Tammet is a savant. He has recited pi to over 22,000 digits from memory.

Holding that many digits of pi in your memory is a different way of knowing.

[NMMNG]

121. Having a particularly good memory isn't a different way of knowing

[Jim__]

122. That's more than a "good" memory.

[NMMNG]

123. It's still not "another way of knowing"

He memorized it. He didn't get knowledge of it via secret messages from aliens or osmosis while he was sleeping. His memory is fantastic, but it's not supernatural.

[Jim__]

126. Did you watch the video? Did you see how he processes numbers?

Yes, it's different.

[AsahinaKimi]

73. An interesting thing happened to me once..

My Grandfather had a house in upstate New York. We were probably a few hours away from Cape Cod and my mother and father had always wanted to visit there. Since it was a Saturday and the family had no plans, they thought it would be great to just drive there. Grabbing a map, my mother would navigate, while my father drove, and I was in the back seat. I don't recall how old I was then, maybe 10 years old. I had never been to the Atlantic ocean before. I had grown up around the Pacific, so the idea of seeing a new ocean for the first time, was thrilling to me.

I had absolutely no expectations about how things would look, but it seemed that sort of an hour or so into it, I had this feeling that I had been here before. I told my mother about it and she waved it off as my imagination, until we were driving up a long hill, and I told here there would be a bridge coming up around the corner. Sure enough, as we came over the hill I saw it..

Now this wasn't one of those big huge things you see in New York City, but just a simple expansion over a gully. But I had seen it before we had come over the hill, and I had never been there before. It was also true that I had said there would be a red barn, with a haywagon out infront with a spotted pony tied to the wooden gate.. and sure enough there it was. It was almost as if I knew this place..

My mother waved it off, however, my father simply smiled and said that kami must have loved me, for they were whispering into my ear.


By the time, we reached the beaches, I felt totally at home..and even Providence town seemed like a place I had once been to, though I had never been in my entire life.

[MarkCharles]

90. It's "Provincetown" not Providence town, but here's the question

how many people have travelled to places they have never been and have imagined in their imaginations?

Probably hundreds of millions.

Some of them "subsume" knowledge of the place, from a picture they forgot they ever saw, from a description they forgot they ever heard at 4 or 5 years old, but remembered 5 or 20 years later in some way.

Cape Cod is hardly hilly, there are a few hills, and dozens of bridges. The fact that YOUR vision looked like a bridge that is one of dozens, on Cape Cod, not too hard to get right.


By the way, Provincetown is the final town on the Cape off the mainland, that Cape is 90 miles long....in order to get there, you have to drive for over an hour, and see and cross several bridges as you go all the way there. If you can tell me the town, I can find a picture of the bridge over a gully, there are a few.

[AsahinaKimi]

95. Except as I said...

I was ten at the time. I lived my entire life, up to that point in California. I never left the state, never even dreamed or heard of Cape Cod. It wasn't some place my parents were likely to discuss or talk about going to, until that time came. I didn't know how to read a map, and certainly didn't know the area at all. Its not exactly something a ten year old girl pays attention too.

At that age, I was looking out the window, looking at the scenery. The hill wasn't that large of a hill, but it was long in coming to it..The things I described to my parents, at that age.. were very clear to me..and I thought my father's response was a happy one.

The thing here is the timing of it.. You don't drive up a hill, and expect to see certain things in their certain places, being where you expect them to be. You don't expect to see a big red barn with a spotted pony tethered to a wooden fence when you are miles down the road, and yet as we were climbing that hill, I just knew they would be where I expected them to be. I had not been waitng for that to happen.. I didn't say "oops,not this one..maybe the next one.." It happened as I said.

Somethings can't be explained. Its why people went crazy trying to study ESP years ago.. IF they thought it was all horseshit, they wouldn't have bothered to have any tests.

What happened to me was real, and happened. I don't know why. It came unexpectantly.. and perhaps my father said what he said because he believed it would calm me..or settle me.

My father is a respected Doctor of Dentistry, and yet he is Shinto Buddhist. Shinto can always involve superstitions. My mother, who grew up in America, tends to be more realistic, yet she is Buddhist as well.

Oh and thanks for the spelling corrections on P-Town. On this computer, the spell check doesn't work. I can't wait to get my old one fixed, and maybe it will be able to use the spell check provided on DU. This one freezes up, once I try to use Spell check here.

edited to note, isn't it funny when you tell a story like this, there is always one person ready to jump in and explain things like .."oh you were delusional at the time" or.."You were a kid, what did you know? " or .. "all of this stuff is horseshit, its been proven that ESP doesn't exist.. so therefore you must be a liar, or your memory is not quite correct". Or "you must have seen that area in a magazine.. and totaly forgot about it.."

Yet people have these kinds of things happen every day. Most of the time they don't talk about it because they know someone will ridicule them on it.. or think it will invalidate them as a person. This was a real experience. I was not on drugs, nor delusional, I never saw it in a magazine, or on the Televion. (At Ten, I was not allowed to watch Television. My mother had been a school teacher, and felt that TV would be a bad influence on me.)She instead, prefered to read to me, and later have me read to her.


Up and until that point, the only place I had ever been to was Japan, and I don't rememember a thing. To me, thats the one place, I wish I could remember.. but I was too young at the time.

[MarkCharles]

96. Several logical fallacies in this last post.

If you want, I will point them out.

There is also the most recent research upon old and lost memories from childhood, how they become MORE distorted with age, who what we remembered 10 years ago is more accurate than what we remember from 30 years ago. In short, we add features to the older memories to add to the importance in our validation of those memories. I'm not saying any of us, ( or you) LIE about our childhood memories, but most research says that we remember images, or even smells, feelings, sounds, more than actual "films" and "scripts" of events from pre adolescent years, especially.

We THINK we remember a whole event, what we remember is what we WANT to remember; and we fill in what we WANT to remember and WANT to believe we remember not actual events. This changes as our minds mature, between 13-25 years of age, when our brains fully mature, as does the rest of our physical body. We remember sequential events, the walk down the aisle at our wedding, the vows, the dances at the reception. We still don't remember every word or every second, even of the most memorable events in our lives.........some are still there, and can be recalled by our spouse saying, "do you remember when you did this?"

Memory is a tricky reality, even for the best of us. We can remember lyrics to songs we used to sing as children or as teens or young adults, but we cannot remember what the first line is to other songs to which we know the tune. "THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR" to an instrumental version of something we have heard 1000 times, but we cannot recall the lyrics, or we hear the first line sung by the original artist, and we remember each and every word of the same song, once we hear that cue.

I'm glad you got to go to Provincetown, MA about 110 miles from Providence, RI, Providence, RI has lots of bridges and hills, Provincetown, not a single one, a couple hills, no gullies, a spit of land surrounded by sand and a small shallow harbor for fishing and lobster boats.
Providence, RI, not to be sneezed at, capital of RI, great restaurants, an premier university, (Brown) and a great school of design and art, (Rhode Island School of Design), and a premier cooking college, (Johnson and Wales). Both places, city and town, hidden gems of New England. Do come back!

[AsahinaKimi]

98. It was definately P town ..

We drove from Upstate NY across MA to the ocean. I don'r recall how many hours it was. My parents had planned for us to spend the night and explore the town the next day then drive back, to be at her fathers (my grandfathers) home by evening.

I have only been back east a few times.. mostly to visit my parents who now live on Long Island. I prefer California. I think my memories of somethings tend to be pretty clear. Things like that kind of experience stick with you most of your life. True some small details maybe gone, but its still there.

My parents loved to travel. As a family we have traveled all over the USA with only a few exceptions, I have been to most states. I have also traveled overseas.. back when it seemed easy to do so, without all the airport hassels.

Its been my dream to some day travel again, especially to Asia. I have already missed out on two opportunites in the past year to travel to Japan and South Korea. Someday, I have to get my passport renewed, though I don't look forward to the TSA procedures going and coming.

Still, it all intrigues me. Its one thing to look at images, and videos. Its quite another to actually stand someplace with a full view, and allowing your senses to soak it all in. I know that for a fact, because there will never be another trip, like there was, when we traveled to Tahiti.

[MarkCharles]

99. Provincetown many times, Tahiti, never! Consider yourself very lucky

to have done so much travel in your life.

If you remember the address or the street name of the place you visited in Provincetown, there's about 2 dozen streets in that small town, and hundreds of roads on Cape Cod available on Google maps street view......

Just pull the little guy down onto the street address, and if the street lights up as blue, you can see it street view by leaving the little man icon on the street address..the map turns into a 360 degree view of your location.. maybe you can find the bridge and the gully and relive the experience from your computer now.

[AsahinaKimi]

104. Thanks, doumo arigatou

yoroshiku ne! ^^

[kwassa]

114. You are so right about this.

edited to note, isn't it funny when you tell a story like this, there is always one person ready to jump in and explain things like .."oh you were delusional at the time" or.."You were a kid, what did you know? " or .. "all of this stuff is horseshit, its been proven that ESP doesn't exist.. so therefore you must be a liar, or your memory is not quite correct". Or "you must have seen that area in a magazine.. and totaly forgot about it.."

Anything that doesn't fit in their science-only view of the world can't possibly exist. That is the norm for many in this forum.

[bvar22]

102. I have a completely closed mind on a particular subject.

I refuse to accept or discuss any evidence that disproves my belief.
Since I am RIGHT, your evidence must be faulty by definition.


Go ahead.


Try to teach me something.



ANYTHING!



You lose.

[MarkCharles]

107. The contra-positive, seldom a logical argument,

as it fails here, too

I guess some posters don't bother to study the logic of convincing argumentation before they post their posts.

Put more simply

Invitations to challenge from an open mind hardly equate to any simplistically - described mental conviction that cannot be overturned.

But a nice attempt to do so, flawed, but bold.

I guess the art of logical argument is no longer taught is religious training

[Taverner]

106. Can anyone provide even a single example of any evidence by some "other way of knowing?"

I might have a dream that I am really a caterpillar, and it might be a very convincing dream, but when I to and test my DNA, turns out I am still Homo Sapiens.

[LARED]

108. How do you know the DNA test is not a dream? nt

[Taverner]

109. Because I cannot wake from the DNA test

I can wake from the caterpillar dream

[LARED]

112. But you can awake from a dream that you took a DNA test. nt

[Taverner]

113. You can. So take a moment, when dealing with reality, to ask yourself this question.

[onager]

118. Here, let DeeHack Chopra explain it...

:rofl:

DeeHack's relationship to knowledge is about the same as Jack The Ripper's relationship to microsurgery...

http://forthesakeofscience.com/2011/10/26/other-ways-of-knowing/

(I posted this already over at the A&A group, but thought everyone might enjoy DeeHack's Epic Fail here.)

[rrneck]

124. What in the fuck is he talking about? nt

[Jim__]

138. Consciousness and the need for a method to study it.

[rrneck]

139. Ah. I'll have amother look first chance I get. nt

[Meshuga]

140. I'm not sure that was it

The woman asked Deepak Chopra, "How do we distinguish something that is true from something that we want to be true."

If I heard the audio correctly (since it is not very good audio at least on my computer) Deepak Chopra answered by rambling (and I have the question marks in areas where I could not distinguish the audio):

I think science is based on object-subject split and the observer(???). And it does extremely well, based on the object-subject split. I am hoping that the truth will be found where we actually develop a science of consciousness that goes beyond the object-subject split. Because, after all, nature is one. Nature does not decide this is the object and that is the subject. Nature says that both the object and the subject are (???) activity. So my prayer is that science will evolve to include consciousness in its evolution.

Science is the study of the natural world looking for objective answers. Not subjectivity. This guy is saying that nature does not decide what is objective or subjective.

However, subjectivity should be left to his non-scientific teachings and for the the people who enjoy his teachings. But he insists in conflating two things that cannot naturally go together: what is objectively true versus what we want to be true.

The bottom line is that objectivity cheapens the price of the product he sells so he has to blur the lines between objectivity and subjectivity to keep it going.

The woman asked a question that he cannot obviously answer so he attempted to answer it and it naturally came out in a very incoherent way.

[Jim__]

141. You are repeating question, but not the very specific context that she put it in.

Her entire question was something like:

Deepak says there are deeper ways of knowing. I get the impression that thiis is based on intuition and the subjective. I'd like to know if we don't use the objective scientific method, how do we distinguish what is true from what we want to be true.

I did not find his answer rambling at all - at least not given the context that he is responding, off the cuff, to a question. His answer is something like:

Science is based on the subject object split. I'm the observer, that's the observed. And it does extremely well based on the subject object split. I'm hoping that the truth will be found when we actually develop a science of consciousness that goes beyond the subject object split because after all, nature is one, nature does not decide that this is the subject and that's the object. Nature says that both this object and <that> object are my activities. So my prayer is that science will evolve to include consciousness in its evolution.

I think his answer is both coherent and directly onto her question.

[skepticscott]

142. "Directly onto her question?"

She asked "I'd like to know if we don't use the objective scientific method, how do we distinguish what is true from what we want to be true?"

How does anything in his response directly (or even remotely) answer the "how do we?" question?

[MarkCharles]

It does NOT! It's a non-answer answer. It also flails around with some unique

definition of the perspective of science that is, well, original, to say the least.

Most scientists want their best science to be "objective", not subjective, although there is the inevitability that the biases and the perceptions and the mental categorizations of scientists all have "subjective" features. However, credible science withstands the strictest of standards of "peer review", the data must be able to be recreated, and observed to a rather high standard of identical detail and accuracy. Worthwhile praiseworthy observations and reporting in science always attempts to keep the subjective elements to the smallest amount humanly possible.

In the end, Chopra answered the woman's "how" question with bullshit and a fantasy.

[MarkCharles]

144. It does NOT! It's a non-answer answer. It also flails around with som

definition of the perspective of science that is, well, original, to say the least.

Most scientists want their best science to be "objective", not subjective, although there is the inevitability that the biases and the perceptions and the mental categorizations of scientists has "subjective" features. However, credible science withstands the strictest of standards of "peer review", the data must be able to be recreated, and observed to a rather high standard of identical detail and accuracy. Worthwhile praiseworthy observations and reporting in science always attempts to keep the subjective elements to the smallest amount humanly possible.

In the end, Chopra answered the woman's "how" question with bullshit and a fantasy.

[humblebum]

146. You do an excellent job of describing one way of knowing, but

by no means the only one.

[skepticscott]

147. Still waiting for you to provide evidence

for your made-up BS in post 62. But you can't, can you?

[skepticscott]

148. Still waiting for your answer to the question

Do you think that anything that any single individual, no matter how irrational, deluded or hallucinatory, can convince themselves might possibly be true, qualifies as "knowledge"? Yes or no? if no, what are your criteria for deciding whether something is "knowledge" or not, and what do you consider things that are perceived, but do not qualify as knowledge?

[humblebum]

153. "what do you consider things that are perceived, but do not qualify as knowledge?"

I really have little idea you are even babbling about with that question. I recognize some knowledge as being subjective. If there are 100 skeptic scotts standing outside, and they all see a purple hippo fly by and no one else does, then 100 skeptic scotts have perceived a purple hippo. The knowledge of that purple hippo is totally subjective to the skeptic scotts. No one else saw the hippo. Definitely not objective. Cannot be proven. No other evidence. But, nonetheless perceived and empirically proven ONLY to the skeptic scotts.

[skepticscott]

149. Oh, and STILL waiting

for you to provide EXAMPLES of those "other ways of knowing", and the things that have been derived from them that qualify as "knowledge", as opposed to just convincing yourself of something.

[humblebum]

150. You don't even have a leg to stand on, Bubba. The answer to

what are other ways of knowing has been clearly demonstrated over the last few days in these threads. My words in #62 stand.

[skepticscott]

154. Sorry, your old dodge of

"I answered that somewhere else" isn't convincing anybody.

NO ONE, including you, has provided examples of those "other ways of knowing", and the things that have been derived from them that qualify as "knowledge", as opposed to just convincing yourself of something. Prove me wrong. Right here. Right now. If you haven't mastered cut and paste, don't be afraid to ask for help.

[humblebum]

155. You don't have a clue of what you are talking about, and the concept

of knowledge is much broader than your consideration of it. That has been demonstrated and on more than one site referenced. Your problem is objectivity vs. subjectivity. Both can be applied to knowledge.

[cleanhippie]

156. You will notice when humblebum starts to use the condescending terms like "bubba", he has lost...

Yet he continues to dig the hole.

Its both funny and sad.

[humblebum]

157. Why would you call "bubba" a condescending term? it's not meant

as such. It's more of a term of familiarity like "bro".

[cleanhippie]

158. Yeah, sure it is.

[Meshuga]

145. The answer is...

By upgrading science with "science of consciousness" (whatever that means). That way, what we wish to be true will become fact. Propagandists and charlatans subscribe to these means so why shouldn't we all do it as well?

Can't you see that nature is one and that the science of consciousness goes beyond the object-subject split? Nature does not decide that this is the subject and that's the object. Therefore, nature allows my bullshit to suddenly become the truth. Objectivity is overrated so science needs to evolve and turn bullshit into knowledge.

[Jim__]

152. And your post #145 has nothing to do with his response to the question.

[Meshuga]

160. Oh yes it does

You just have to watch the actual debate to see it.

[Meshuga]

143. If not rambling then just a bunch of meaningless fluff

...that sounds like rambling.

In the context provided, the proposed "science of consciousness" may sound meaningful but it is just a bunch of bullshit when looking at it objectively.

Deepak Chopra tries to mix science and theology by attempting to "upgrade" science to include his new age bullshit as objective truth. He is much like the religious fundamentalist who try to push their beliefs as knowledge and their subjective world views as objective truths.

[Jim__]

151. No, it's not meaningless fluff at all.

She raises the issues of subjectivity and objectivity in her question. So, including subject and object in the answer is not fluff; it's a direct response to the way she put her question.

Your claim:

In the context provided, the proposed "science of consciousness" may sound meaningful but it is just a bunch of bullshit when looking at it objectively.

doesn't appear very objective. Your next paragraph about Chopra's theology and new age belief has nothing to do with his answer. His reference to a science of consciousness is directly on point with the question as posed. She asked about Chopra's concerns with a deeper truth. She also asked about the scientific method.

With reference to deeper truth, a consideration of consciousness when studying an event is clearly a more detailed - deeper - look at the event. With reference to her question about the objectively scientific method, an evolved science is how we would distinguish the truth with respect to consciousness.

Your claims about his beliefs are not pertinent to the answer he gave. You fail to see the coherence of his answer because you are confounding your beliefs about him with what he actually said.

[Meshuga]

159. Fluff galore

My claims to his beliefs are pertinent to the debate the clip was taken from. I watched a nice chunk of the debate (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/scientist-takes-deepaks-science-10175090 you have to click on the links listed under the "related links" area to see the different clips from the debate) before my post and what I said is in context.

In this same debate, Deepak Chopra claims that simple belief is an expression of insecurity (so we all know now that his mystical bullshit is not insecure belief but actual knowledge) and then he tries to mix science and theology by attempting to "upgrade" science to include his new age bullshit as objective truth. He pretty much attacked science throughout.

And I am sorry but his explanation of "consciousness" and "deeper truth" are nothing but meaningless babble. Again, perhaps what he says sounds coherent in his world of "consciousness" and "deeper meaning" but not to anyone who don't fall for the bullshit that he magically transforms into objective truths.

[Jim__]

162. Too late. You already documented your objections in your post #140.

You stated in that post the aspects of his answer that you considered rambling. All of your concerns were with his immediate answer. Now you try to claim reasons external to the answer itself as the basis of your criticism. That's changing your argument after it has been demonstrated incorrect. If you have a problem with his Chopra's answer, the problem is yours, not his.

[Meshuga]

163. Too late? His answer is still rambling bullshit no matter what you say

The only part of post #140 that I concede (because his answer makes sense in that ridiculous world view and to the idiots who buy it) is the last sentence and that is all.

Indeed, his answer makes sense to him and to the people who subscribe to his bullshit in the same way that the heaven and hell talk makes sense to believers who buy those concepts. But looking outside of his subjective world view (even when he tries to sell it as objective truth), it is nothing but meaningless bullshit with a bunch fluff to back it up. In other words, the rest of the post stands.

Perhaps Deepak Chopra believes (well, he actually claims to "know" and not believe) that his stuff is true because, if it isn't, the product he sells is worth shit.

[Jim__]

164. I don't subscribe to Chopra's worldview, yet I find his answer is both coherent and sensible.

So, all your name-calling only works to refute your claims. BTW, when you resort to name-calling, you are pretty much conceding the argument.

[Meshuga]

165. Oy vey!

I get the feeling that winning arguments must be really important to you since you have been hinting on this for the last couple of posts now. And you assume that I am trying to win an argument but I assure you that I'm not really concerned about winning arguments here. I'm not even trying to convince you that you should subscribe to my opinion. I'm merely stating my take which you obviously dislike so you seem to be trying really hard to disqualify my opinion. But if you are bothered by the fact that I don't respect Deepak Chopra's world view (and bothered with my reasons for it and try to disqualify my opinion by focusing on the instances when I show disrespect for the world view) then please try a convincing argument. So far you did not provide any convincing argument to change my opinion. And you will have even less success if you try to make me and my supposed intentions the focus of the discussion like you have been trying to do. In short, you are wasting my time and your own time.

I have participated in this forum for some time and the only times I really learned anything were when I lost arguments and had someone convince me that I should change my take on a topic. In other words, I prefer to have someone prove me wrong and I am not afraid to lose arguments.

I conceded to you earlier that I was wrong about Deepak Chopra's fumbled response. I was wrong because what sounded incoherent to me (and it still sounds incoherent to me for the many reasons I provided in my posts) may sound coherent to others who subscribe to the world view. But you can't stand the fact that I don't see any coherence in the response and that I have no respect for Deepak Chopra's world view. In short, this discussion is going nowhere.

[Jim__]

166. I haven't referred to people as idiots nor have I referred to any statements as rambling bullshit.

Please spare me your protestations of merely stating your take. Any dislike I have is not for your take; but for ignorance that masquerades as superior knowledge. My responses were about what Chopra said - no name calling involved. You were the one referring to people as idiots and statements as meaningless, rambling bullshit. And now you actually post a tribute to your own rationality! Yea, oy vey.

[Meshuga]

167. Ironically you are the one making this conversation about me

...To attack me and then complain about my use of name calling and ad hominem.

I backed up my name calling with the reason why I view these people as idiots in the similar way I view creationists as idiots. But from your logic if I point out that creationists are idiots I am losing my argument to them. Okay, now I see why people in this forum complain about apologists. I learned something from this subthread after all.

In any case, I'm done with this conversation. You win. :eyes:

[Jim__]

168. Apologists? Do you even have a clue as to what you're talking about?

To put it charitably, you couldn't understand Chopra's statement, so you claim it's meaningless. Now you're calling me an apologist?

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

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

[Meshuga]

170. Exactly

And if you see the video of the entire debate (and I posted a link of bits and pieces of it upthread) you will see that Chopra was beaten like a pinada yet again.

It's funny how Jim__ changed the topic to focus on me to insult me and pretty much say that I am too stupid to understand Chopra's statement instead of staying on topic. It's also funny that he vehemently set the rules about insults in this subthread but then he feels that his own rules don't apply to him. :crazy:

[Meshuga]

127. Knowledge is something you acquire through study

And to know something in any subject you have to look at it objectively. In other words, I can't think of any other way of knowing other than using a scientific approach.

If I wish to acquire knowledge about the natural world, I can't think of any example other than a scientific way. Well, not only the natural world because if you are looking for objective answers about anything you have to go about it in a scientific way like in the social sciences, social studies, etc.

You can look objectively at art, literature, and music (considering styles, methodologies, cultural aspects, etc.) and you gain knowledge from doing that but you can also look at these things subjectively and gain wisdom from whatever the artist, writer, composer is trying to "communicate." However, wisdom is not knowledge. Intuition is not knowledge either.

We do have values and we all give meaning to our lives and we derive our values from the society around us. The non-religious get their values from our secular society, some religious people get their values from our secular society and their religion, and other religious people get their values exclusively from their religion. But gaining "knowledge" that is taught in your source of values (i.e., religion) is not really knowledge. Perhaps the more appropriate word is "wisdom" (or perhaps a different word that I am failing to think of at the moment explains it better). But wisdom is pretty subjective and what is considered wisdom to some is not considered wisdom to others.

Science cannot be smeared as subjective in the same way that a person's religious principles and beliefs cannot be seen as objective truths.

[rrneck]

128. How would one gain knowledge of oneself?

Or are we just needlessly picking semantic nits?

[Meshuga]

135. Through self-observation and reason n/t

[rrneck]

136. That makes sense

but it does leave open the question what we would be observing.

For instance, at this moment I am furious with someone. I know why and yet there is the obvious emotional component that cannot be ignored. The examination of that is an introspective exercise and only I can access that information for analysis. That information cannot be measured with any of my five senses or any extensions of same. Yet I can say without any doubt that I am annoyed, and that emotion will have measureable consequences in the form of a fairly straightforward conversation.

That would indicate that awareness of one's feelings is another way of knowing something.

[westerebus]

133. Here you go.

The missionary position was not invented by a missionary. I just know it. :P