Not a single example of knowledge gained from some "other way of knowing" has been produced.

[cleanhippie]

Not a single one.


There HAS been lively discussion about these "other ways of knowing", but no one has produced even a single example of any knowledge that humans have gained from some "other way of knowing."


Pretty sad.



Or maybe I missed the example...if you feel you did, in fact produce an example, I ask that you repost it here for everyone to discuss.

[GodlessBiker]

1. "Other way of knowing" what? Can meditation lead to knowledge of self?

If yes, would meditation be another way of knowing?

Can discussions with a mental health professional lead to knowing why I might suffer and provide potential remedies for that? If so, can conversation be another way of knowing?

Can dreaming be seen as another way of knowing - or coming to understand - this or that?

[mike_c]

4. I'd say that all of those can lead to insights, but those insights must be tested...

...by other means before they can be confirmed and "known." For example, meditation might lead me to insights about myself, but only by testing those insights can I separate the really insightful from the useless and silly. Until they're tested, they're simply opinions, at best. I might have the "insight" that I have two heads, one we can see and another that I carry around in a metaphorical box.

[GodlessBiker]

6. Well, for that matter, what is ever "known"? All we can say is that evidence tends to support...

a particular hypothesis or it doesn't. There might always be future evidence which might alter our insights about this or that particular aspect of ourselves or the world.

Saying something is "known" is a leap of faith, and requires a person to pretty much say that no future evidence will ever contradict a conclusion. That's not a very scientific approach to take.

I've always thought that the scientific method never leads to knowledge, only to working hypotheses which make life work for us.

[GliderGuider]

11. +1 This is all just a semantic bunfight over the word "know" nt

[skepticscott]

17. Well, certain people here

would like to define "knowledge" or "knowing" as anything that any single individual, no matter how irrational, deluded or hallucinatory, can convince themselves might possibly be true. A definition so vague and all-encompassing as to be essentially useless.

[GliderGuider]

26. Language sucks, doesn't it?

The definition of the word in common usage is broad enough to allow it to be applied legitimately to a lot of subjectively acquired ideas.

Wikipedia on Knowledge:

Knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include information, facts, descriptions, and/or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); and it can be more or less formal or systematic. In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology, and the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief." There is however no single agreed upon definition of knowledge, and there are numerous theories to explain it.

According to a dictionary definition, "knowledge" can have at least the following acceptable meanings:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

[skepticscott]

46. So if a mentally ill person "knows"

that there are parasites burrowing under their skin because of a delusion, is that "knowing" or "knowledge" on the same level as knowing that someone has sickle-cell anemia (or any of a multitude of other organic diseases) based on clinical testing?

Do you make no distinction at all between objective and verifiable knowledge and an individual simply managing to convince themselves of something ?

[GliderGuider]

50. I didn't say anything about "levels" of knowledge...

..or the accuracy of the perceptions of the mentally ill. I just said that knowledge doesn't need to be objective to be called "knowledge".

I wouldn't call the somatic perceptions of an individual with schizophrenia "knowledge" at all - there are other ways to characterize that. However, to continue with that example, that person might have a particular ritual that they have discovered reliably reduces their sensation of burrowing bugs. I would call their awareness and use of the ritual's subjective effect "knowledge", under definition 3 above. It may not be objectively factual, or useful to you or me, but it's real and useful knowledge to that individual.

The notion you introduced about knowledge residing on various "levels" is evidence of a value system in which objective knowledge is accorded higher status than subjective knowledge. I've got no problem with that - it's a very useful sorting mechanism. I'm just beating the drum for the idea that we can't arbitrarily close the door on subjective knowledge. Our language embraces it for a reason.

[skepticscott]

55. So if you dismiss

the perceptions of a schizophrenic as not being knowledge in any way whatsoever (despite the fact that they are absolutely convinced of their truth), what exactly ARE your criteria? Humans are subject to a whole spectrum of delusions, biases and the like, and individual people convince themselves of all manner of things as a result. Where along that spectrum does something stop being "knowledge"? When is it no longer possible to say that someone "knows" something? If a teabagger says that they "know" that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, does that qualify as knowledge? Is it possible to "know" something that is false?

[GliderGuider]

58. OK, I think we can get somewhere with this.

Let's start off with the example of the teabagger.

If I say I "know" something that is objective (i.e. something that is outside of me and the realm of my personal experience) but I use subjective criteria to arrive at that position, then I'm committing a logical error. It's impossible to use subjective evidence to validate an objective fact. That's the situation the teabagger is in. He may believe Obama was born in Kenya, but he can't know it. "Obama was born in Kenya" is a statement of objective fact, and without objective support (like a birth certificate) he can't possible know it. The best he can say without committing that logical error is, "I believe Obama was born in Kenya."

On the other hand, "I am happy" is a subjective statement that doesn't require objective support - I can know I'm happy by experiencing my own happiness directly. The same goes for any emotional experience from obvious ones like anger to subtle ones like chagrin. It's legitimate to say I "know" I'm experiencing those emotions.

Now, let's take another look at our schizophrenic friend with the psychic infestation. If he were to say, "I know that I have bugs crawling under my skin," we can easily decide whether this claimed knowledge of his is valid or not - whether it is, in fact "knowledge". He's made a claim about his awareness of an objective situation, and we can usually determine by inspection if there are actually burrowing bugs present. If there aren't, what he has is not knowledge but delusion. If there are, of course, he has a serious problem. However, if he says, "What I know is that I have a feeling like bugs crawling under my skin," he's talking about an entirely subjective situation. His knowing, in that case, would be entirely valid, even if we couldn't find a physical cause for his discomfort.

His insanity enters the picture because it causes him to mistakenly project or objectify his subjective experience. He mistakes an internal sensation for evidence of something objective. On a less pathological scale this is what some religious believers do when they misinterpret their personal subjective experience of the numinous as evidence that an objective entity called "God" actually exists. However, if someone else (like me, for example) were to have that same experience and say, "I know that for me the universe is sacred," there is no projection of an external entity and thus no error. You might not share my feelings, or understand them - you might even reject them categorically - but that has no bearing on my knowledge. My knowledge is of my own inner experience, and that knowledge is quite legitimate, both philosophically and semantically.

Is that any clearer?

[skepticscott]

72. Well, it's never been in dispute

that there is a distinction between subjective feelings and objective knowledge. But since you may not have been following the roots of this discussion, I'll just tell you that the touting of "other ways of knowing" stems from attempts by the religionists here to argue that their objective claims (e.g. the actual existence of god) should be exempt from the usual strictures of evidence-based rational inquiry, because they have "other ways of knowing" that such things are objectively true. No one has ever argued that faith doesn't exist or that many individuals haven't convinced themselves of the tenets of their religion in spite of a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary, but none of that is really relevant to where this is coming from. Needless to say, examples of the "other ways of knowing" that meet the requirements that they claim for them have yet to be introduced.

[Demstud]

81. Well, yeah, but you're guilty of the same thing

Looking at your thread starting post, you give no definition of "other ways of knowing" and what "way of knowing" these other ways are supposed to be compared to.

[NBachers]

2. What is this "other way of knowing" of which you speak?

Is there some "big thing" going on of which I am, as usual, unaware?

[Speck Tater]

3. And the devil's advocate says...

How do you define "knowing"?

Have you defined it in such as way to exclude, a priori, any candidate for "knowing" that might be presented as a counterexample to your claim?

Consider:

1. Assert that there are two ways of "knowing"; way 1 and way 2.
2. To be considered "known" a fact must meet the standards of way 1.
3. Therefore way 2 is NOT a way of "knowing" by the standards of way 1, because if the thing "known" meets the standards of way 1 then it can be "known" by way 1, and way 2 is irrelevant.
4. Therefore there is only one way of "knowing"; way 1.

If, on the other hand, the things "known" by way 2 cannot meet the standards of being "known" set by way 1, then those who believe only in way 1 can reject everything "known" by way 2 as being not "known". Therefore, "No true Scotsman" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman ) becomes "no true knowledge". But whether applied to "Scotsmen" or "knowledge", it's still a fallacy.

This line of logic seems to give believers in way 1 the right to exclude way 2 for the simple reason that way 2 is not way 1.

[GliderGuider]

9. +1 Add this to the ambiguous semantics of "know" and the question devolves to pure flame bait. nt

[saras]

5. Language - all of it. You lose.

[valerief]

7. +1

[Jim__]

12. I agree.

[skepticscott]

15. Sorry, but those "other ways of knowing"

have to be things that don't involving using your senses or rational thought. That's what this is all about.

Nice try.

[humblebum]

20. Wrong.

Those other ways of can be things that involve using your senses(empirical) and rational thought. Or simply rational thought.

[skepticscott]

23. You're the one who has claimed over and over

that ways of knowing involving seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching and the rational processing of those inputs are NOT the only ways of knowing. We're still waiting for you to provide even a single example of knowledge produced by any "other way". And waiting. And waiting.

[cleanhippie]

28. Wrong yourself.

Why don't you just put this to bed once and for all by posting a single example of knowledge humans have gained from some "other way of knowing."


Why? Because you can't, that's why. Over many threads and postings, you have claimed over and over about these "other ways of knowing" but have yet to produce a single example of any knowledge we humans have gained from one of these "other ways of knowing."


Its all bullshit, and you know it. Otherwise, prove me wrong right here, right now and produce just ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of knowledge humans have gained from some "other way of knowing."


I dare you. I double dare you. I double DOG dare you.

[humblebum]

33. There have been some very good examples to your recent

public appeals of other ways of knowing and they all went right over your head. Classic. Like a blind man looking for the light switch.

[MarkCharles]

35. I don't think your Jesus likes people to be deceptive, or evasive.

You can do that over and over, claim something has been offered but refuse to re-state what it is, nor give a link.

I don't think Jesus or your god likes that. But I do not "know".

[humblebum]

39. Actually, you just displayed another way of knowing, whether you

knew it or not. Much more subjective than objective. Even though it was used as a logical fallacy.

[MarkCharles]

44. Silly me! Silly rabbit!! Something that cannot be proved is NOT..

"knowledge", it is fantasy or inspiration or idea, or hallucination, or just plain nonsense waiting for validation.

You failed to validate any claim, neither yours nor mine.

[humblebum]

45. "Something that cannot be proved is NOT..Knowledge." And therein

lies the difference of opinion. There are different levels of knowledge depending on the degree of subjectivity/objectivity to which they can be verified. Using your reasoning, then NO scientific could truly be considered "proven", because the scientific method utilizes a built-in self correcting mechanism should new evidence be submitted.

[MarkCharles]

47. WRONG! (and on so many levels, too, including theoological, philosophical,

logical, and a general morally honest consensus about what is the meaning of the words, "factual knowledge".)

Facts and truth are not a difference of "opinion". They never have been. They are always demonstrable, repeatable, verifiable, and measurable. Anything less is not "fact" nor truth, but opinion, and totally subjective, neither provable, nor un-provable.

The fact that science gains greater approximations of an ultimate precision in the description of factual truth seems to frighten and annoy those who run away when asked to show any evidence that their beliefs are anywhere near close to a truth; that tells us all a great deal about the integrity of those folks with purely religious beliefs, those people who either misunderstand the nature and discipline of "open-minded" science, those people who simply have chosen to forego any honest search for the truth, in favor of their own interpretation and defense of their own fairy tales.

[humblebum]

48. Don't look now, but

your narrow POV is classified by many scholars as being "in favor of their own interpretation and defense of their own fairy tales." I am not alone in my POV, by any means.

[MarkCharles]

49. I'm looking, and have been for all of my career in the teaching of the

sciences, for someone like you, who finds open-mindedness to be a "narrow" point of view, a weakness.

Then they are invited to substantiate such a self-contradictory claim. I notice no such acceptance of the invitation on your part. More fairy tales and claims of about being "not alone" in being self-contradictory. That, I admit, is probably true. You and millions of others cling to your fantasies.

[humblebum]

52. "open-mindedness to be a "narrow" point of view" -excuse me but

yours is anything but open-minded when you qualify what can be considered as knowledge. yours is scientific knowledge, which does not include all knowledge. Courses that come immediately to mind that teach about the various ways of knowing are:

http://www.tcnj.edu/~liberal/courses/worldviews.html

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

It only stands to reason that if you are teaching science, or in the sciences, that you are going to use only epistemologies related to the sciences. That does not mean that all disciplines use the same methods. Science is not history, or business, or philosophy. And even the "soft" sciences do not use the same method as "hard" sciences do.

[MarkCharles]

53. I have to hand it to you: trying to make sense of your posts is a major challenge to

a rational mind.

" if you are teaching science, or in the sciences, that you are going to use only epistemologies related to the sciences."

Well DUH!

" And even the "soft" sciences do not use the same method as "hard" sciences do."

HELLO? what methods do the "soft" sciences use? Logic, observation, formulation of theory, testing of theory against observations, revision of theories to conform more closely to observations. Sociology, (the "softest" of the social sciences), criminology, psychology, anthropology. Those all are hardly the most precise sciences, but they are hardly "soft". In criminology, we know sexual offenders most often than not re-offend. And there are a hundred other such truisms we can find as a result of honest research in the "soft" sciences, using similar logical methods of investigation as in the physical and biological sciences.

Which ones use "other ways of knowing"?

By the way, I have more than two advanced degrees, and have taught in the realm of the social sciences as well as the physical sciences. I never found any peer reviewed literature, nor any "other ways of knowing" respectably applied in the social sciences other than rampantly in racist neo-Nazi writings, which hardly can be labeled "other ways of knowing".

[humblebum]

56. Referring to them as "soft" sciences in no way demeans them, but

in disciplines such as criminology and sociology, much of the information assessed is more subjective in its nature than that found in the hard sciences. That's the difference. And, I have a couple advanced degrees of my own, and I am quite familiar with the concept of other ways of knowing. But, appeal to the authority of higher education does not matter here, and is considered a logical fallacy. In any case, I have pointed you to a couple academic websites that clearly approach the subject.

You ask which ones use other ways of knowing. Virtually, any of those disciplines considered to be soft sciences, along with any other disciplines use "other ways of knowing", which is really nothing more than depending on subjective evidence, whenever something more objective is not available. The method used is still the Scientific Method, but it has been tailored or restructured to be useful for a particular discipline.

[MarkCharles]

54. Then how do YOU know that your god exists OUTSIDE of the realm of

regular rational ways of measuring reality? What makes YOUR god ONLY "VISIBLE" ONLY to those who insist upon "other ways of knowing" other than the rational ones? Why would your gods or singular god be necessarily EXEMPT from any and all rational means of verification?


If your god wants to make himself known unto all of humanity so that they can be "saved" from eternal damnation, or other ills.......why not be apparent as a rational entity, much like the stars and the moons, the volcanoes and the sun? TRUE, we cannot physically touch the stars and the moons, the volcanoes and the sun. but we "know" that they are there!

Why would your god insist that the rational mind that led to all discovery and invention in the modern world, why would your god insist upon such rational thought patterns abandon those patterns in order to experience any knowledge of such an omnipotent and ever-present god?

[tama]

111. It has been proven

that certain statements are true because they cannot be proven. Get your logic up to date in this post-Gödelian era... :)

[cleanhippie]

37. THEN POST ONE OF THEM RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!

Funny how I ask you over and over to just post one, and all you ever post is how one has already been posted.

Just post one right now.

But you never will, because you can't.






Pathetic.

[humblebum]

38. Why? you'll just be using your same tired old schpiel on down the line again

and again. Been there. Done that. You have been given examples of the uses in court cases, by historians, in person to person encounters, etc. etc., and it went right over your head. "Other ways of knowing" are any way that doesn't use or apply the structured logical method beginning with - observation - inductive inquiry - deductive inquiry - observation to test results. That method, which is logical empiricism, also applies a limited form of rationalism to the inductive process that is limited to empirical explanations, thus automatically eliminating any consideration of a priori knowledge, metaphysical considerations, intuition, etc., which are themselves considered as other ways of knowing.

[cleanhippie]

42. You won't because you can't. It's obvious to anyone reading this.

Prove me wrong right here, right now, and post just one.



But you won't, because you can't. I know it, you know it, and everyone reading this knows it.

[humblebum]

43. I have. Others have. Right over your head. Just because you are not

perceptive enough to recognize the English language right before your eyes is of no consequence to me. Just more hippie blather. You have not only been shown examples, but been given links to access. BYE!BYE!

[cleanhippie]

51. More obfuscating. Just post it right here, right now, and prove me wrong.

But you ain't got it in ya.

[cleanhippie]

57. I guess he ran away. AGAIN!

:rofl:

[dtexdem]

8. It depends: is "other way of knowing" defined as a way other than one that has produced knowledge?

Yeah, I've run into plenty of nuts touting "other ways of knowing"; but a rational discussion needs to define what is "other" and, more importantly, what is not.

[GliderGuider]

10. Much depends on how you define the word "knowledge".

Yes?

[Rainbowreflect]

13. I knew my uncle was dead because he came to me in a dream

the night he died. I was 8 years old and he had not been ill.
I have had this type of thing happen a number of times since.
Can I prove it? No!
Can I explain it? No!
Does it happen? Yes!

[Speck Tater]

14. Exactly.

These things do happen, but they cannot be proven because they are personal, subjective experiences. Yet having had such experience certainly constitutes proof to the person who had the experience.

In the end there are only two ways of knowing something: 1) personal experience, or 2) anecdote.

If my geometry teacher tells me that the Pythagorean theorem can be proven, that's an anecdote. If I follow the proof and understand it myself, that's personal experience.

If my physics teacher tells me the Millikan Experiment measured the charge of an electron, that's an anecdote. If I repeat the experiment myself, that's personal experience.

If that same teacher tells me that the Millikan Experiment is "science" because it is repeatable, that's an anecdote. If I verify the repeatability myself, that's personal experience.

You can make any claims you want about how science works, but in the end EVERYTHING is either personal experience or anecdote. There are no other alternatives.

Subjective personal experiences like dream visitations from the recently deceased can be experienced, or they can be described (anecdote). But, like every other form of knowledge, they can only be verified by a person having the same experience for themselves.

[skepticscott]

16. Sorry, you're dead wrong

You are completely clueless about the role of reason.

What a shock.

[humblebum]

19. No. Your frame of mind and definition of knowledge are so narrow

and limited that they naturally only recognize one form of knowledge, and a single way of knowing. Subjective reasoning is quite real.

[skepticscott]

24. You're the one defending the statement that

"in the end EVERYTHING is either personal experience or anecdote. There are no other alternatives." I'm the one arguing against such a limited perspective. Which of us is being more narrow?

Do you agree with there statement "in the end EVERYTHING is either personal experience or anecdote. There are no other alternatives."? Yes or no?

You really love chasing your own tail, don't you?

[cleanhippie]

29. You will not get an answer from humblebum on that, you know. He will rum away, as usual.

[skepticscott]

63. What a surprise...no answer...again

[Speck Tater]

22. What A Shock. "You are wrong" without any supporting evidence.

Since you make the statement without backing it up a take it that it's simply an article of faith for you.

By the way, which part of what I said is wrong? You weren't very specific. But then people of faith seldom are.

[skepticscott]

25. No, I just figured that for any intelligent person

who had thought about it at all, the role of reason in taking things beyond the status of "anecdote" would be obvious. If you need help with that concept, don't be afraid to say so. I'll be happy to explain it.

[Speck Tater]

59. Okay. Here are the ground rules...

If you demonstrate some piece of knowledge that you have that is neither your personal experience, nor that you have been told by another (i.e., is an anecdote) then I will concede your point.

Or perhaps we should begin by defining "knowledge". I suggest you begin by Googling "epistemology". Are we discussing propositional knowledge; "knowledge that", or "knowledge how", or "knowledge by acquaintance"? And what about the Gettier problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem so you see the very nature of "knowledge" is pretty fuzzy. I think you are mistaking the working scientists pragmatic "rule of thumb" definition of "knowledge" for a truly logically rigorous definition. The scientist uses a definition of knowledge that really doesn't stand up under logical scrutiny. So instead of attempting the resolve the Gettier problem with any kind of solid reasoning, such as in Goldman's Causal Theory or Lehrer-Paxson's defeasibility condition, the scientist, being a pragmatist, normally adopts Pierce's view that (to quote wikipedia) "truth is nominally defined as a sign's correspondence to its object, and pragmatically defined as the ideal final opinion to which sufficient investigation would lead sooner or later." Which is another way of saying that if a sufficient number of anecdotes tell the same story then the story is probably true. Unless, of course, those anecdotes are about "ghostly visitations". So the double standard of science is "my anecdotes, which I call repeatability because they all agree, are valid and your anecdotes are crap, even though they often tell the same consistent story as well."

On edit: a good place for you to start would be with Kirkham's Theories of Truth" http://www.amazon.com/Theories-Truth-Introduction-Richard-Kirkham/dp/0262611082 To quote Amazon: "Theories of Truth provides a clear, critical introduction to one of the most difficult areas of philosophy. It surveys all of the major philosophical theories of truth, presenting the crux of the issues involved at a level accessible to nonexperts yet in a manner sufficiently detailed and original to be of value to professional scholars...."

And as an aside...

You mention reason but by "reason" I assume you mean the application of formal logic to a collection of assumptions or axioms. When the process of formal logic is thus applied either you can follow the proof and understand it (personal experience of its validity) or you do not understand the proof and take somebody's word for it (anecdote). I really don't see what other alternatives exist. Either you can see for yourself that the sky is blue (personal experience) or, because you are blind, or trapped somewhere where you cannot see the sky, you need someone to tell you that the sky is blue (anecdote). Either you performed the Michaleson-Morley experiment yourself (personal experience) or you took someone's (or some textbook's) word for the outcome (anecdote). Either you experienced Euclid's proof yourself (personal experience) or you took a teacher's word for them (anecdote). What else is there?

As another aside, before I retired I was an engineer, and before I was an engineer I taught both symbolic logic, and the philosophy of science at the university level, so I understand the problems of "knowledge" addressed by the field of epistemology, even though those problems tend to be unknown to working scientists (and science groupies) who adopt a rather simplistic view of "knowledge". Those who worship at the altar of science often don't understand that science is, before anything else, an abstract simplification of the real world. And then they try to use their over-simplification to "school" those who actually do understand the treacherously complex nature of "knowledge".

[GliderGuider]

64. Wow. Just ... wow!

Very nice, thank you.

I have some reading ahead of me, apparently.

[Silent3]

65. No, science is not a matter of a "sufficient number of anecdotes"

Anecdotes have no controls. Anecdotes are subject to biased reporting, such as "counting the hits, ignoring the misses". While scientist don't have to totally disregard anecdotes -- anecdotes can inspire new avenues of research, spur reexamination of old research -- reliable results require data. Obtaining data requires following protocols to reduce (hopefully eliminate) experimenter bias. Obtaining data means counting the misses as well as the hits.

The quantity and quality of data needed to verify a claim with sufficient confidence depends on the nature of the claim. Occam's Razor is important here -- often stated as "the simplest explanation is usually the best", but more accurately, "entities should not be needlessly multiplied".

When it comes to "anecdotes are about 'ghostly visitations'", the problem is not some terribly prejudiced "double standard" in science. First, anecdotes aren't data, and, very consistently, attempts to produce ghostly data under controlled conditions yield negative results. Second, the already known and accepted "entities" of human psychology, particularly the many ways we fool ourselves, misinterpret sensory data, have a bias toward "agency", the way we are prejudiced by existing cultural memes about things like ghosts, etc., are sufficient to explain "ghostly visitations" without invoking new "entities", which would be the supposed ghosts themselves and whatever new physics would be required to explain them.

[Speck Tater]

66. "Anecdotes are subject to biased reporting, such as "counting the hits, ignoring the misses".

Is this research you have conducted yourself (personal experience) or something you've been told about (anecdote)?

The fact is, there is a great deal about reality that science simply chooses to sweep under the rug rather than confront. Science is the best tool there is for investigating the things that science is the best tool for. The mistake is in claiming that the things that science is best equipped to study are the ONLY things that exist.

Start with this work at Princeton Univ.: http://www.amazon.com/Margins-Reality-Consciousness-Physical-World/dp/1936033003

[GliderGuider]

67. Here's an NYT article on the closing of the PEAR Lab

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html">A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors

“For 28 years, we’ve done what we wanted to do, and there’s no reason to stay and generate more of the same data,” said the laboratory’s founder, Robert G. Jahn, 76, former dean of Princeton’s engineering school and an emeritus professor. “If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.”

In one of PEAR’s standard experiments, the study participant would sit in front of an electronic box the size of a toaster oven, which flashed a random series of numbers just above and just below 100. Staff members instructed the person to simply “think high” or “think low” and watch the display. After thousands of repetitions — the equivalent of coin flips — the researchers looked for differences between the machine’s output and random chance. Analyzing data from such trials, the PEAR team concluded that people could alter the behavior of these machines very slightly, changing about 2 or 3 flips out of 10,000.

Several expert panels examined PEAR’s methods over the years, looking for irregularities, but did not find sufficient reasons to interrupt the work. In the 1980s and 1990s, PEAR published more than 60 research reports, most appearing in the journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration, a group devoted to the study of topics outside the scientific mainstream. Prominent research journals declined to accept papers from PEAR. One editor famously told Dr. Jahn that he would consider a paper “if you can telepathically communicate it to me.”

The fate of PEAR's research sounds to me like a typical example of self-protective orthodoxy in action. Jahn and Dunne apparently followed the protocols of science, and were completely transparent about their methods and results. The problem wasn't their science, it was the same problem Galileo had - nobody was willing to look through the telescope.

[Speck Tater]

69. "it was the same problem Galileo had - nobody was willing to look through the telescope"

And that's really a shame. There's some really interesting potential science there, but there are too many closed minds in science, like those that wouldn't listen when the peasants brought meteorites to the French Academy because "rocks can't fall from the sky", or the doctors who laughed at Semmelweis when he told them to wash their hands after doing autopsies right before surgery.

Yes, there are a lot crackpots who are laughed at who should be laughed at. But there are a lot of very closed minds in the scientific community who refuse to look at anything that doesn't fit their preconceptions. They lump the crackpots with the sound but unconventional and paint them all with the same broad brush.

[cleanhippie]

75. Like who? Who exactly SHOULD be looked at but isn't because they don't fit preconceptions?

Please, be specific.

[Nihil]

74. Thanks for that reminder. (N/T)

:toast:

[Silent3]

71. The difference between being doing something yourself...

...and being told about it (or reading about it, viewing a TV show about it, etc.) does not make the latter category "anecdote".

Are you of the opinion that scientists have to do every single experiment themselves, or else it's "anecdote" that they're relying on? That's just so fucking ridiculous that I'll leave it at saying it's fucking ridiculous for now.

Yes, I could go into a long-worded explanation about why that's ridiculous if I really, really have to, but come on now. Try getting serious on your own first without my help.

[MarkCharles]

73. All scientists must go to the moon to prove Newton's laws of gravity and

mass...Didn't you know?

:sarcasm:

[skepticscott]

18. It happens to a lot of people

but people typically don't remember the times they have dreams or premonitions about things and they DON'T come true.

[MarkCharles]

21. Many people have many dreams every night with people they know in those dreams...so

Coincidentally you had a dream about someone who died that night.

What are the odds?

You experienced an event in the realm of probability. You probably also dreamed about other people on other nights, none of whom died. What are the odds? Much greater, yes, but the odds of a few people dreaming about the very person in their life who dies that night, much slimmer but not out of the realm of possibilities.

Likewise, many people dream of another person whom they know, and that person calls them on the phone the next day.

Same concept here.

[qazplm]

68. sure you can explain it

it's called probability.

People dream about someone they know dying every day somehwere on this planet.
People die every day somewhere on this planet.
Those things both happen relatively frequently; therefore, on occasion, someone will dream about someone they know dying, and that person will then die relatively soon after.

Nothing mystical, no magical information transfer, just statistical probability of two non-zero events occuring near to each other.

[Speck Tater]

70. And since almost all claims based on casual observation are false...

The "skeptic" can deny all such claims and have probability on his side. The skeptic is right almost all the time. It's the "almost" part that bothers me, however.

"At the core of all well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded." – Wittgenstein

[qazplm]

94. what does skepticism

have to do with my response? No skepticism is involved, the person said he couldn't explain it, I said, yes you actually can explain it, no skepticism required.

[rrneck]

27. What exactly are we supposed to have knowledge of? nt

[Angry Dragon]

30. Instinct

[tiny elvis]

31. what is justice, what things are unjust, and why?

rationally refute the statements:
killing people is good
stealing from weaker people is correct

[Humanist_Activist]

61. For the first, it can't be done...

For example, killing people can be justified for self defense and to reduce suffering(assisted suicide). The word "killing" is too general. Now, if you are talking about murder(unlawful taking of life), the reason why its bad is because society would become unstable if we cannot be secure in our persons, and on a personal level, for most people, its abhorrent due to ingrained empathy.

for the second example, I'm going to ignore the "weaker" adjective as frivolous, because honestly, its a subjective judgement. As for why its wrong, again, social stability, but also economic, if stealing from people is correct(and expanding that to include fraud), then our economic system wouldn't work, indeed we are seeing an example of this now, with the financial system being a mess due to unethical lending and outright fraud(theft by another name).

And again, this isn't an absolute, stealing bread to feed your kids may be the correct action at that time, you may still pay for it, for its still against the law, but similarly to killing others, it depends on the situation.

[tiny elvis]

62. authority and concensus are hopeful indicators of truth

authority also reserves the right to kill and can kill innumerable persons for the sake of stability
abhorrence is not rational
the first statement is not rationally refuted, as you said

your financial mess is the thieves' hog heaven
general agreement does not make theft the wrong thing to do
authority, as we see, will arbitrarily make theft correct or not
the second statement is not refuted

if these ridiculous statements are not easily cut down with reason, then how do you know what is just?

rationally refute the statements:
killing people is good
stealing from weaker people is correct

[G3ND3R_B3ND3R]

32. Science is the ultimate way of knowing.

Science is objective.

If you are well-versed in science, then no priest, imam, pastor, or evangelist will be able to deceive you.

[GliderGuider]

34. You'll still be able to deceive yourself. No amount of science seems to cure that. /nt

[Meshuga]

36. I agree

Science is the way to learn about the natural world. However self-deception is handy and we all use it in one way or another. For example, we all have a way to cope when a loved one dies. The religious find their comfort in their religion and others have their non-religious ways to cope.

[humblebum]

40. "Science is the ultimate way of knowing" -that is a subjective opinion, indeed.

However, the only disciplines that can be considered 100% objective are math and science. And even math can be considered not totally 100%objective for the simple reason that with the introduction of new information changes need to be in a theory. But, because it is based upon empirical verification, it is as close as possible to 100%.

All other disciplines use varying degrees of objective and subjective "ways of knowing" - from business, to theater, to dog grooming.

[rrneck]

41. And with the last one

you even have to consider how the dog feels about it. :)

[deacon_sephiroth]

60. oh science, you naughty strumpet

I don't know why I just had to say that...

[bananas]

76. A number of examples have been produced

You're either lying or blind.

[MarkCharles]

77. Would you like to simply state ONE, instead of using the passive voice? ...

"have been produced?"

Name ONE example!

I assure you that I am not blind and have been anxiously awaiting a concrete example for what seems like a week or more now.

Just, please, to satisfy us all with your brilliant eye sight, having spotted some "a number of examples"...share an "example" what has "been produced" with us lowly lying blind folks here, OKAY?

Examples are NOT "produced" they either exist or they do not.

Oh, and personal insults and threats of insults get your posts no further in the area of credibility factors, either.

[humblebum]

78. I certainly have seen the examples. Could it be that you don't know

what to look for? To look for an "other", you need to understand your own way of knowing. Tell me, is there a difference between physically sensing something, and therefore, immediately establishing its objective, empirical existence, and "educated guessing" based inductions made from evaluating certain occurrences, or witnessing certain subjective evidences that point to or indicate the existence of something? If you can distinguish the difference between the two processes, then you have just been shown two different "ways of knowing." There have been many demonstrated by several people here lately, and to claim anything else is a display of ignorance.

[MarkCharles]

82. Do you really have that weak a grasp upon the basics concepts in

the philosophy and discipline of science? Or are you just trying to beat your dead horse to get one more kick out if him?


You have just described two sides of the same coin and tried to convince the reader by your rather awkward attempts at a logical language that you are looking at a quite different entire chest of gold coins. Fail.

Let's parse that wonderfully linguistically fruity question you asked.

"Tell me, is there a difference between physically sensing something, and therefore, immediately establishing its objective, empirical existence, and "educated guessing" based deductions made from evaluating certain occurrences, or witnessing certain subjective evidences that point to or indicate the existence of something?"


Awkward use of language, imprecise, confused and intending to confuse (in no particular order):



"subjective evidences that point to or indicate the existence of something"



"witnessing certain subjective evidences"

""educated guessing" based deductions" (as opposed to UNeducated guessing used in the Bible and by followers of the Bible? Or "witnessing" the sun revolve around the Earth?)

By the term "educated guessing", I presume you are referring to the logical processes of both inductive and deductive reasoning, which, I'm afraid to have to tell you, are part of the scientific discipline and process.

"If you can distinguish the difference between the two processes, then you have just been shown two different "ways of knowing."

Um, no, it's all part of what a rational mind does. And no other "subjective evidences" have been presented. None.

Evidence(s) is/are NOT "subjective". (Basic Philosophy, definition of "subjective" and/or "subjectivism")

"Subjective: relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience; characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind; phenomenal; arising out of or identified by means of one’s awareness.

Objective: existing independent of mind; belonging to the sensible world and being observable or verifiable especially by scientific methods; expressing or involving the use of facts; derived from sense perception."

"One of the differentiating factors of objective evaluation seems to be its basis in scientific method. Although relatively recent in its definition, the methods used to investigate and evaluate "scientific" data have been agreed on as a means of determining what is real from what is just thought to be—the objective as contrasted to the subjective. Scientific method relies heavily on observation (sensory input), reproducibility (observing the same output from the same input repeatedly) and consensus (agreement by others on what is a correct observation). Even within the scientific method, there is heavy reliance on interpretation of sensory data, a function of the mind, to prove that a phenomenon (subjective) actually exists (objective) separately from the individual’s perception of it. It would appear that at its most essential level, all objective facts are recognized through repeated subjective experience by enough concurring individuals for them to be accepted as facts. There are many examples throughout history of accepted "facts" that changed dramatically when enough persons experienced a conflicting phenomenon or perceived the old phenomenon in a different context. Copernicus changed what we know of science forever with his introspective insights into celestial observations, which had been interpreted differently and accepted as facts and laws for many years."........

http://www.lightouch.com/subjobj.htm

I had a dream last night, I was on a desert island. My subjective "experience".

I woke up and it was cold. My objective reality.

We can all dream or fantasize or wish for something to be "reality" coming to us as "another way of knowing", but in the end, "another way of knowing" is just something (like my desert island) that we just make up.

[humblebum]

84. I guess I was right about the ignorance part. Tell me,

you claim that there is no such thing as subjective evidence, and yet circumstantial evidence is used regularly in the legal system, by historians, in the medical field, etc. Circumstantial evidence is a form of subjective evidence. And, if one throws in ontological or teleological methods of inquiry, even more "ways of knowing" are applied. It doesn't matter in the least what atheists think of these methods. The fact is that they are used on a regular basis in order to gain some some level of understanding. These are most definitely subjective to the individuals utilizing them.

[MarkCharles]

86. "Circumstantial evidence is a form of subjective evidence." Um NO! WRONG

Circumstantial evidence is as valid and objective as evidence gets! One cannot mis-perceive "circumstantial evidence". It is either there, or it is not. Fingerprints, DNA, photos, video, all very tangible, testable, measurable. All "circumstantial".

I'm afraid your grasp of the topic of "objective" versus "subjective" is rather confused, particularly here with the terms "direct" and "circumstantial". Circumstantial evidence is that which requires deductive reasoning to arrive at a truth, and as such is NOT, by any means, a "subjective" piece of evidence. Evidence is evidence.

Again, you seem very confused and lacking in education in the rules and procedures of evidence.

Permit me to enlighten you, as far as rules and procedures of admissible evidence in courts.

" In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 <1954>).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

No different!

From another source:

"Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof,”
according to the standards California lays out for instructions to juries.
“Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.”

The easiest way to define “circumstantial evidence” is by what it is not —
it is not evidence that comes directly from an eyewitness or a participant.
With direct evidence, jurors don’t have to draw any “if-then” inferences.

Everything else is circumstantial evidence, which is simply anything that
allows a jury to reach a conclusion by reasoning, as long as it is relevant. "

http://www.findlaci2003.us/circumstantial-definition.html


Now, let's get back to what EVIDENCE of "other ways of knowing" have been forthcoming here. I see none.

[cleanhippie]

102. Oh, SNAP!

Damn, MC, it appears you took bum to school, gave him a test, then sent him back two whole grades.

Well done.

[tama]

113. Objective

I just read Lee Smolin's 'Quantum Gravity', and he among many others discards the classical boundary between observer and observed, based on quantum theory. Observation acts are parts of this universe we participate in, without ability to jump outside and look this universe "objectively". That kind of external omniscient God's point of view is supernatural if anything is.

Smolin gives IMO more interesting definition or philosophical hypothesis of what is "objective" in scientific terms in post quantum era: asking the same questions and getting same results is objective. Smolin's universe is unitary (superposition), but with local different "realities" or decohering actualities of asking different questions.

The problems of subject-object division have been endlessly discussed also in continental philosophy, that you might also be aware of, and of course among the many religions of the world.

[darkstar3]

98. Link to one.

Links are often a cure for blindness or over-fast reading. Link to one, or know that your failure to do so will be seen as admission of a falsehood.

[cleanhippie]

101. Prove me a liar then and link to one.

Otherwise, it is you who are lying.

[Taverner]

79. I agree - to a point

However the devil is in the definition...

If someone proved x happens if you do y, but you cannot recreate this experiment - but this person has a good amount of authority within the Scientific community, and the journal they posted the results was peer reviewed - is that using the scientific method, or is that using argument from authority.

--------------------------------

My answer would be scientific method by proxy

[Deep13]

80. Yeah, but you're defining knowledge in a way that excludes everything but scientific certainty.

If the point is that only scientific testing will produce scientific certainty, then one cannot have a safer bet than that. But while admitting the impossibility of supernatural claims, I do think there are ways of understanding that are not rationally discursive. I also admit that these "ways" are extremely limited in their application having mostly to do with interpersonal relationships and other common occurrences from our prelinguistic evolutionary past.

[MarkCharles]

83. "Not rationally discursive"??

"these "ways" are extremely limited in their application having mostly to do with interpersonal relationships and other common occurrences from our prelinguistic evolutionary past."

Instincts? Imprinting? As a baby will take to the nipple? As a duckling follows her mother to the water?

Are there great philosophical revelations we gain at our mother's nipple? Do we become all knowing from suckling on her milk?

Dogs and other animals feel earthquakes several seconds to a few minutes before we feel them. Birds and insects fly routes of thousands of miles where they have never been before, only their grandparents or parents flew there before.

I believe each and every one of these phenomena are questions in search of logical, rational answers, and, even if all put together into a big barrel of unanswered questions are nothing more than puzzles yet to be solved.

The Greeks and other cultures thought the gods were mad at them when they got thunderstorms or floods or locusts, etc. Now we have more rational scientific explanations of what we still affectionately call "mother nature".

[humblebum]

85. Did you happen to feel the soft brushing of something going right over your head?nt

[MarkCharles]

88. No, but I did feel your deliberate slap in my atheist face!

Nothing gets past me, nor did it when I saw any of those smirks from all those sophomoric adolescents who thought they "knew more" than me when I was their teacher.

I knew they were just dealing with their own feelings of intellectual insecurity, and most of them failed to master the material I presented, and chose to act up in class instead. Several of them today are probably praying to Jesus from a jail cell someplace, not that I put them there, their own actions and "know-it-all" attitude did that.

The pattern is a familiar one.

[humblebum]

90. Teachers never stop learning, Sir. And when teachers begin to show contempt for their students

it's time to get out or be put out. They have ceased to be teachers and have become ideologues.

[MarkCharles]

91. Your technique might work for your fellow students, but I know what

teaching is all about, and it's not about what you fantasize it to be.

No one here said teachers stop learning, being a great teacher means one is an excellent life-long learner,

I see you have no talent in that area.

As for "contempt" for students, your use of that word seems to more aptly apply to your own attitude toward atheist posters here who are attempting to show you how to become a respected and respectful student, so far, seemingly all such attempts have been in vain, as your current torrent of arrogant, self-serving posts continues to put into "evidence".

[humblebum]

92. Sir, if you will take a look at the list of threads in the R/T forum, you

will notice that the vast majority of them are anti-religious in nature. I have nothing against atheists being who they are. There are many well-respected atheists. However, I think it is quite necessary to respond to radical or militant atheism, as is quite common here. And that I will continue to do.

You have been given examples and been shown scholastic websites specifically dealing with different ways of knowing and types of knowledge, and yet you still maintain your narrow construct of knowledge. Even your hero, Kant, referred to a priori knowledge as another type of knowledge.

[MarkCharles]

93. "the vast majority of them are anti-religious in nature" WRONG AGAIN! You win ..

the prize for misinterpreting those of us who enjoy our free speech and freedom to question authority and challenge believers about their beliefs, in other, simpler words, you are confusing THAT kind of activity with being "anti-religious".

"You have been given examples and been shown scholastic websites specifically dealing with different ways of knowing and types of knowledge"

I have been given no such "scholastic" websites, I have been given websites of largely Christian apologists who make it up as they go along.

"Even your hero, Kant, referred to a priori knowledge as another type of knowledge."

Two falsehoods in one statement: truly getting close to a record.

Kant is not my "hero", I don't have "heroes", I have my fellow man and woman kind to read and learn from, whatever sense they can make of the world.

The claim is more formally known as "Kant's transcendental deduction" and it is the central argument of his major work, the Critique of Pure Reason.

I see that you stopped learning the history and principles of philosophy way back in a freshman philosophy course somewhere.

Try reading some critiques of the Critique of Pure Reason, and some 20th and 21st century responses in the major philosophical journals.

You, sir, are the star pupil in the less-informed and dim and bulb of the week competition. You got to first base! Now try to steal your way home.

In short,sir, being more informed and better educated in both the philosophy, history, and the sciences in general does not make my posts and my questions, nor anyone else's posts "anti-religious". We are not "anti" truth, whatever we need to ask or explore to get to it. You, sir, seem offended by that technique of learning, so much so that you call it "anti-religious". What does THAT say about your "religion" and your search for "knowledge"?

[humblebum]

95. Where to begin?

I am familiar with Kant, and he does, in fact, differentiate apriori knowledge from other forms.

And as far as there not being a large amount of anti-religious sentiment expressed here, what planet do you live on?

As far as websites to which you were recently directed, there was nothing religious about them. One was a state university and the other I don't recall right off, but both dealt with upper level liberal studies courses on the topic "Other Ways of Knowing in Comparative Perspective." Totally secular. Other ways of knowing does not imply religious, by any means.

I think you have been advised before that your constant reference to being "... better educated in both the philosophy, history, and the sciences..." does nothing to improve your image here. You are certainly not alone and you display a stubborn ignorance. But, then again, I have already been informed by you that you cannot be taught anything new, so I'll just have to be content in my own simple existence.

[MarkCharles]

96. Oh your posts certainly bring some smiles to those of us better endowed with

more logical brains and more robust education, for sure, we do have our chuckles here, and you provide most of them!

Thanks for those chuckles!

Now, what did Kant have to say about the search for truth? Did he leave it up to minds without experience, without evidence, without vision and/or without ability to grasp and categorize what they saw or experienced with their other senses? Answer me that, wise and well-read in Kant's writings. Tell me where Kant said the mind could know things without ever experiencing or evaluating the data at-hand.

What you're cursory view of Kant, (out of context) has revealed, dear sir, is that you have scant knowledge of the development of the philosophy and discipline of modern scientific technigues, techniques which, I will agree, use both inductive and deductive reasoning capacities of the modern human brain, coupled with what exposure that brain has to facts presented before it.

Try again, "a priori" knowledge has more to do with the scientific strategies of deductive reasoning, than with anything coming from "other ways of knowledge". Deductive reasoning, based upon logical, rational practices, has nothing at ALL to do with inspiration nor instincts from a "divine" source or "other ways of knowing". You seem to have completely missed out upon late 19th and 20th century refinements into the process of scientific inquiry You have, instead, "cherry picked" from Kant, whatever paragraphs fit your model of belief in divine inspiration, belief that knowledge can be something other than vision and witness, but you leave out about 5000 years of recorded history when science and engineering and other disciplines of knowledge, (well acknowledged by Kant in his writings) have produced workable knowledge based upon the addition of the human brain's power to observe and deduce.

Claiming the factors of "a priori" knowledge are somehow divine, NOT the result of human brain power and deductions upon observed phenomena, well that's sort of like saying all knowledge of the child comes from his mother's milk, and not from actually living a life and using his brain.

[humblebum]

97. Sir, your arrogance gets in the way of understanding what us here underlings

are talking about. Where did I ever mention anything about any criticism of Kant or anything that came after. I merely stated that he did, in fact, recognize another form of knowledge. And that he did.

"You seem to have completely missed out upon late 19th and 20th century refinements into the process of scientific inquiry." - Um? as i recall, you were the one that had a problem with different epistemologies or Logical Positivism. You are definitely weak in several areas.

[MarkCharles]

99. Nothing wrong with my questioning you, except you never answer my questions, instead

dancing on the heads of your pins, and never bothered to deal with the fact that Kant has something but not EVERY thing to do with modern scientific methodologies, which I gather, you fail to understand, and attribute to some cherry picked comments of Kant to substantiate your puerile thesis that you are, somehow, still a believer in a god.

Well, I knew you were to begin with, but you haven't offered anything in the line of proof from ANY "other way of knowing" nor even proof that Kant's "a priori" view of a certain way of knowing is not just part and parcel of the method we educated folks call "scientific" proofs.

[humblebum]

100. Tell me. What did the participants in the Vienna Circle have to say about

a priori knowledge?

[cleanhippie]

103. "You, sir, are the star pupil in the less-informed and dim and bulb of the week competition."

Fucking CLASSIC!!!!

[humblebum]

104. What is really classic is how others around here can understand and identify

"other ways of knowing" and you continue along in the dark. LOL

[cleanhippie]

105. Then link to a single one and prove me wrong.

A simple link, no comment necessary. Do it and prove me wrong,. I dare you.









Dim-bulb club. :rofl:

[cleanhippie]

106. Come on, tough guy. Link to a single one and prove me wrong.

Stop bloviating and produce the evidence. A simple link, thats all you need to do.

[humblebum]

107. You've been given links, examples, definitions, others' opinions -

You are a broken record. OUT!

[cleanhippie]

108. You have given NOTHING but lip service. Provide ONE LINK RIGHT NOW and prove me wrong.

Just one. A single link. I dare you.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[cleanhippie]

110. Oh look, ANOTHER post by humblebum that does NOT include a link to an example.

Just provide the link instead of the personal attack. I dare you.

[MarkCharles]

112. Personal attacks are the mark of a frightened person, I believe.

My "instincts" tell me that when I look at the "evidence".

[Deep13]

87. That's not what "rational" means.

"In more technical terms, it is a method or a theory 'in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive'"

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

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

Rational means that one arrives at a conclusion by thinking about it. That means analyzing it with language. Instinctive perceptions are sensory and reactionary and require no logical thought. Your examples involve instinctive knowledge where the duck just knows to follow the mother as a result of behavior created by natural selection. (Ducks that don't follow the mother die.) Feeling threatened or offended because some other guy has designs on your wife is an instinctive reaction to a threat to you evolutionary future. Those feelings and the behaviors they cause are not the result of rational though, but are instinctive. The process that created that behavior is entirely naturalistic (as I conceded) and we know about it by rationally examining the evidence having failed to find a single example of the theory of evolution by natural selection being counter-indicated by the evidence. Likewise, by examining the evidence (phases of Venus, moons of Jupiter, apparent movement of stars) and thinking about them rationally (are these things consistent with geocentrism?) we can arrive at a rational conclusion (nope). But to ascertain how someone is feeling one usually just needs to look at him or her. Sensory: the tree is real. Rational: given that it is a big tree and that it is the middle of a suburban yard, someone must have planted it here years ago.

[MarkCharles]

89. Your point being? I was quoting and questioning, (with a question mark)

what the writer above meant by "not rationally discursive".

You are claiming that we cannot find "rational" reasons for non-conscious responses within nature?

Or"

Just what is your point?

[tama]

114. Postponing interpretation

not giving an experience any linguistic interpretation, or at least not sticking with any as thoughts come and go... and no, not sticking with interpreting this experience as knowledge either - does of course not mean it could not be knowledge if one would want to give it such linguistic interpretation. :)

PS: what kind of knowledge is active disbelief in anything and everything beyond linguistic definitions?