Scientific Realism or Antirealism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2017, 06:57 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 06:37 AM)Naielis Wrote:  ...
That's exactly what I thought. Enter with a fallacious argument for theism no one cares what you do from then on. At least I have some confirmation that there's nothing wrong with this thread. I was so surprised by the responses. It was just utterly mind-boggling. As of right now, I've been ignored by someone here because of this thread, a thread where I simply ask for input on an issue... astounding.

Really? You're astounded that some will respond to the content alone yet others will respond using different tools of evaluation?

Does your school run a course on human nature and social skills?

There's a lesson to be learned, methinks.

Sleepy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
21-04-2017, 07:57 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 06:57 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-04-2017 06:37 AM)Naielis Wrote:  ...
That's exactly what I thought. Enter with a fallacious argument for theism no one cares what you do from then on. At least I have some confirmation that there's nothing wrong with this thread. I was so surprised by the responses. It was just utterly mind-boggling. As of right now, I've been ignored by someone here because of this thread, a thread where I simply ask for input on an issue... astounding.

Really? You're astounded that some will respond to the content alone yet others will respond using different tools of evaluation?

Does your school run a course on human nature and social skills?

There's a lesson to be learned, methinks.

Sleepy

I've been informed by many that my social skills are basically nonexistent.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2017, 08:30 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(20-04-2017 04:23 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(20-04-2017 03:43 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Do you recognize the fallacious nature of questioning the reliability of the senses?

Not really. Care to explain?
Sure. It's called the fallacy of the stolen concept. It occurs when one makes use of a concept while denying, ignoring or doubting a concept which is logically antecedent to it. An example: Who created the universe? This question essentially is asking what caused existence. But a cause presupposes existence. Therefore the questioner is making use of the concept "cause" in the absence of existence. Another example: God, a conscious being, created everything by speaking it into existence. This statement uses the concept consciousness while denying existence, since this consciousness would exist before it had created anything distinct from itself.

So how does asking one to prove that his senses are reliable commit this fallacy? That's essentially what the question of the reliability of the senses is asking one to do. The validity of the senses is logically antecedent to any proof.

Sye Ten Bruggencate, Matt Slick, Dustin Seegers and other apologists are constantly asking people this question of unbelievers. How do you know your senses and reason are valid? This question commits the fallacy of the stolen concept because the validity of the senses is logically antecedent to the concept of knowledge. Since the senses are our only means of awareness, their validity is axiomatic. Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. It identifies a fact which is implicit in all knowledge. You can't logically make use of the concept consciousness while at the same time denying or doubting the validity of it's only means. Doubting and questioning are a type of conscious activity and could not occur if the senses were not reliable. The very question assumes their reliability since the one asking is counting on the one questioned to be able to perceive and understand the question.

Unfortunately most people are not aware of this very pernicious error in reasoning and the result is a lot of confusion over problems that are not problems at all if one recognizes the logical structure of knowledge. And the validity of the senses is not a trivial side issue, it is foundational to all knowledge. You must accept the validity of the senses before you can even enter the field of epistemology.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
21-04-2017, 08:39 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 08:30 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(20-04-2017 04:23 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Not really. Care to explain?
Sure. It's called the fallacy of the stolen concept. It occurs when one makes use of a concept while denying, ignoring or doubting a concept which is logically antecedent to it. An example: Who created the universe? This question essentially is asking what caused existence. But a cause presupposes existence. Therefore the questioner is making use of the concept "cause" in the absence of existence. Another example: God, a conscious being, created everything by speaking it into existence. This statement uses the concept consciousness while denying existence, since this consciousness would exist before it had created anything distinct from itself.

So how does asking one to prove that his senses are reliable commit this fallacy? That's essentially what the question of the reliability of the senses is asking one to do. The validity of the senses is logically antecedent to any proof.

Sye Ten Bruggencate, Matt Slick, Dustin Seegers and other apologists are constantly asking people this question of unbelievers. How do you know your senses and reason are valid? This question commits the fallacy of the stolen concept because the validity of the senses is logically antecedent to the concept of knowledge. Since the senses are our only means of awareness, their validity is axiomatic. Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. It identifies a fact which is implicit in all knowledge. You can't logically make use of the concept consciousness while at the same time denying or doubting the validity of it's only means. Doubting and questioning are a type of conscious activity and could not occur if the senses were not reliable. The very question assumes their reliability since the one asking is counting on the one questioned to be able to perceive and understand the question.

Unfortunately most people are not aware of this very pernicious error in reasoning and the result is a lot of confusion over problems that are not problems at all if one recognizes the logical structure of knowledge. And the validity of the senses is not a trivial side issue, it is foundational to all knowledge. You must accept the validity of the senses before you can even enter the field of epistemology.

While I wasn't aware of this error, I've always held the axiomatic view of the acceptance of the senses. But thanks for the explanation. I'll mention it to Matt Slick and Sye Ten when next I speak to them. I'm sure Sye Ten will ignore it (or not understand it) and Matt will just get angry at me. But at least it will be amusing to watch.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2017, 09:01 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 08:39 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-04-2017 08:30 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Sure. It's called the fallacy of the stolen concept. It occurs when one makes use of a concept while denying, ignoring or doubting a concept which is logically antecedent to it. An example: Who created the universe? This question essentially is asking what caused existence. But a cause presupposes existence. Therefore the questioner is making use of the concept "cause" in the absence of existence. Another example: God, a conscious being, created everything by speaking it into existence. This statement uses the concept consciousness while denying existence, since this consciousness would exist before it had created anything distinct from itself.

So how does asking one to prove that his senses are reliable commit this fallacy? That's essentially what the question of the reliability of the senses is asking one to do. The validity of the senses is logically antecedent to any proof.

Sye Ten Bruggencate, Matt Slick, Dustin Seegers and other apologists are constantly asking people this question of unbelievers. How do you know your senses and reason are valid? This question commits the fallacy of the stolen concept because the validity of the senses is logically antecedent to the concept of knowledge. Since the senses are our only means of awareness, their validity is axiomatic. Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. It identifies a fact which is implicit in all knowledge. You can't logically make use of the concept consciousness while at the same time denying or doubting the validity of it's only means. Doubting and questioning are a type of conscious activity and could not occur if the senses were not reliable. The very question assumes their reliability since the one asking is counting on the one questioned to be able to perceive and understand the question.

Unfortunately most people are not aware of this very pernicious error in reasoning and the result is a lot of confusion over problems that are not problems at all if one recognizes the logical structure of knowledge. And the validity of the senses is not a trivial side issue, it is foundational to all knowledge. You must accept the validity of the senses before you can even enter the field of epistemology.

While I wasn't aware of this error, I've always held the axiomatic view of the acceptance of the senses. But thanks for the explanation. I'll mention it to Matt Slick and Sye Ten when next I speak to them. I'm sure Sye Ten will ignore it (or not understand it) and Matt will just get angry at me. But at least it will be amusing to watch.

Yes he will. He's had it pointed out to him before but he continues using his fallacious question. He's really not interested in knowledge but in undermining his opponents confidence in his own mind. He's completely dishonest. Matt slick has had it pointed out to him as well. There entire apologetic method is refuted but they don't care. They know that the vast, vast majority of their marks, I mean opponents, are ignorant of these issues. They are counting on that ignorance. Since they mostly go up against skeptics, their method works to some degree.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
21-04-2017, 09:02 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 08:30 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(20-04-2017 04:23 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Not really. Care to explain?
Sure. It's called the fallacy of the stolen concept. It occurs when one makes use of a concept while denying, ignoring or doubting a concept which is logically antecedent to it. An example: Who created the universe? This question essentially is asking what caused existence. But a cause presupposes existence. Therefore the questioner is making use of the concept "cause" in the absence of existence. Another example: God, a conscious being, created everything by speaking it into existence. This statement uses the concept consciousness while denying existence, since this consciousness would exist before it had created anything distinct from itself.

So how does asking one to prove that his senses are reliable commit this fallacy? That's essentially what the question of the reliability of the senses is asking one to do. The validity of the senses is logically antecedent to any proof.

Sye Ten Bruggencate, Matt Slick, Dustin Seegers and other apologists are constantly asking people this question of unbelievers. How do you know your senses and reason are valid? This question commits the fallacy of the stolen concept because the validity of the senses is logically antecedent to the concept of knowledge. Since the senses are our only means of awareness, their validity is axiomatic. Consciousness is an axiomatic concept. It identifies a fact which is implicit in all knowledge. You can't logically make use of the concept consciousness while at the same time denying or doubting the validity of it's only means. Doubting and questioning are a type of conscious activity and could not occur if the senses were not reliable. The very question assumes their reliability since the one asking is counting on the one questioned to be able to perceive and understand the question.

Unfortunately most people are not aware of this very pernicious error in reasoning and the result is a lot of confusion over problems that are not problems at all if one recognizes the logical structure of knowledge. And the validity of the senses is not a trivial side issue, it is foundational to all knowledge. You must accept the validity of the senses before you can even enter the field of epistemology.

Yet we all know that our senses can, and often do, deceive us (especially if we're under the influence of drugs and/or not fully awake). So, while they may be reliable in a general sense, they are not 100% reliable, and it's not a bad thing to be a bit skeptical of what they tell us. I find no fallacy at all in admitting this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
21-04-2017, 09:07 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
Everything we have to work with is the result of our senses. There is nothing else. You either accept that we're studying these results, or there is no discussion to be had at all. We cannot magically bypass them and "see" reality directly. Everything has always gone through at least one filter by the time it's available to us.

By comparing the results of our senses with each other, we can try and piece together what kind of common overlap we have, and call that "reality" (or whatever). This approach has been wildly successful, and no other approaches have even got out of the starting blocks as far as I'm aware.

Standing back and throwing toilet paper at our senses and at science, calling them worthless because they don't grant certainty, doesn't achieve anything. Even if someone managed to somehow tear science down to the ground, they'd then have to make the case for why their system is better (if they even have one). Good luck doing that without referring to the results of our senses.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
21-04-2017, 09:23 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 09:07 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Everything we have to work with is the result of our senses. There is nothing else. You either accept that we're studying these results, or there is no discussion to be had at all. We cannot magically bypass them and "see" reality directly. Everything has always gone through at least one filter by the time it's available to us.

By comparing the results of our senses with each other, we can try and piece together what kind of common overlap we have, and call that "reality" (or whatever). This approach has been wildly successful, and no other approaches have even got out of the starting blocks as far as I'm aware.

Standing back and throwing toilet paper at our senses and at science, calling them worthless because they don't grant certainty, doesn't achieve anything. Even if someone managed to somehow tear science down to the ground, they'd then have to make the case for why their system is better (if they even have one). Good luck doing that without referring to the results of our senses.

Well I'm not sure Sye Ten and Slick call science worthless. I think they're trying to sneak Christianity in through the back door. They claim, in the tradition of Van Til, that the unbeliever has no basis for using science. They then use this to push their worldview. The only problem is that they have never once in their entire existence come close to demonstrating that the unbeliever can't use scientific reasoning. They dismiss axiomatic beliefs from the unbeliever as "unjustified assertions" and then they turn around and argue that God must be "presupposed" as the foundation of epistemology. Presuppositional apologetics represents the most simplistic pseudophilosophical drivel that humanity has to offer.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
21-04-2017, 09:23 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 09:07 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Everything we have to work with is the result of our senses. There is nothing else. You either accept that we're studying these results, or there is no discussion to be had at all. We cannot magically bypass them and "see" reality directly. Everything has always gone through at least one filter by the time it's available to us.

By comparing the results of our senses with each other, we can try and piece together what kind of common overlap we have, and call that "reality" (or whatever). This approach has been wildly successful, and no other approaches have even got out of the starting blocks as far as I'm aware.

Standing back and throwing toilet paper at our senses and at science, calling them worthless because they don't grant certainty, doesn't achieve anything. Even if someone managed to somehow tear science down to the ground, they'd then have to make the case for why their system is better (if they even have one). Good luck doing that without referring to the results of our senses.

I'm not sure whether this is aimed at me or Naielis, but I can explain my position at least.

I would never say that our senses are "worthless". They are indeed, as you say, our only source of information about the external world. I merely point out that they are fallible, and thus we can never have "knowledge" (in the strict sense) about the external world.

However, as I said in a post yesterday, I'm perfectly OK with that. I can live my life as if I have knowledge, and I can use the results of science as if they are "truth", and this is exactly what I do, and it works. And this is good enough for me. But I can also admit that, in the strict philosophical sense, "knowledge" and "truth" are both unobtainable. I can and do scoff at anyone who claims certainty about anything beyond analytic statements and logical tautologies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
21-04-2017, 10:39 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 06:37 AM)Naielis Wrote:  That's exactly what I thought. Enter with a fallacious argument for theism no one cares what you do from then on. At least I have some confirmation that there's nothing wrong with this thread. I was so surprised by the responses. It was just utterly mind-boggling. As of right now, I've been ignored by someone here because of this thread, a thread where I simply ask for input on an issue... astounding.

It seems to me that you started the thread with the purpose of throwing around big words and having "deep" discussions. Bro, do that shit with your philosopher buddies. The rest of us couldn't give a shit what you call our position on X random concept like "realism" or "anti-realism" in science. We're not philosophers, we don't play by your rules. We're mostly professionals, a lot of us have a science background. You guys dick around and try to make up non-contradictory schemes for how we should do science, the rest of us grab a spade and actually shovel shit - IOW do the actual science. It has to be admitted that once or twice some of you guys came up with some nifty shit, but mainly all this worry about what exactly truth and beauty is strikes most of us as a waste of time. We know enough to trust the scientific method, it produces results, that's all we care about.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: