Epistemology: How Do I Know? | ENCORE Episode 1807 | Closer To Truth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ค. 2024
- Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. How can we have confidence in what we know or believe? What is knowledge? What is belief? How is belief justified? And is justified belief knowledge? How can we not doubt everything? Featuring interviews with Robert Audi, Meghan Sullivan, Bas C. van Fraassen, Louis Caruana, and David Bentley Hart.
An encore screening of Season 18, Episode 7 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Epistemology #Knowledge
I like these full, cleanly-edited episodes, because you also get to see Robert walk around these beautiful places and think about the stuff he learned.
My favorite episode ever! Thank Dr. Kuhn.
As Dean Radin opines,
"To avoid robotically tossing the more intriguing aspects of human experience into the paranormal wilderness, I recommend that all fledgling scientists be required to take courses in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Without gaining a full appreciation of science and the origins of its worldview, it is easy to imagine that we understand more than we actually do. Using the cudgel of 'established principles of science' to proclaim that an experience is impossible is not a sign of superior intellect, but a failure of imagination.
"I often think of something Terrence McKenna once said: 'As the bonfires of knowledge grow brighter, the more the darkness is revealed to our startled eyes.' The fact is that we have just begun to explore the exquisitely beautiful, complicated nature of reality and our role in it. The urge to constrain what we are allowed to imagine during this journey, when the 'darkness' abounds all around us, should, I propose, be earnestly avoided."
Radin, D. (July/August 2022). Reconsidering academic beliefs about belief in the paranormal. Explore, 18(4)
I might offer the suggestion of Fritjof Capra´s work from the point of view of Dean Radin..... His Uncommon Wisdom is a good bunch of interviews, and his Hidden Dimension is a bit abstract, but a good exercise for somebody with a bunch of empirical and interdisciplinary background.
Since I actually studied biological anthropology, having switched from sociology, and then went on to work interesting jobs in public interest activism, teaching in Africa, then social services casework, for starters. Mere philosophy is rather indulgent and self-deluding, as they overintellectualize. Karl Marx was very stirring in key ways, and I identified some approaches in bio anthro and casework and its use of therapeutic and sociological angles, for example. UN human rights issues and sustainability issues became clear standards as I got a masters in International Relations. Besides that I studied all kinds of situations based on my knowledge of therapeutic psychological issues and social movement sociology stuff.
Fritjof Capra makes a full range of important connections. Then theologian JB Cobb has been a transdisciplinary thinker interested in ecological civilization, also for starters. It´s important to identify those key issues that really matter. Human rights and sustainability. Spirituality? Oh yeah. I like to refer to Karen Armstrong, too. Any how, I had to formulate Multidisciplinary Philosophy with empiricism to sustain the full range of the liberal arts and sciences disciplines. Then there´s that little issue of spiritual-religious phenomena, and its knowledge. The term "faith" seems to me in fact to represent the fudged term for s-r knowledge, which relates to phenomena. These are formulations I haven´t seen made by anyone specifically.
The Jesuit guy started getting more interesting, in my view.
Dean Radin is a pseudoscientist. His work is deeply pseudoscientific in nature. None of radins work survives scientific scrutiny.
@@stauffap "Pseudo-science" is only a category for conventional scientific activity, that many people have deluded themselves into thinking is destined to rule the world. However, you stepped out of your little science department/lab world, traveled on a bus got off at a different stop at this video that begins to show why scientific materialists are so deluded.
In the quote offered here, Radin is expressing more than just a personal view. He is referring to how "science" has become misrepresented as more than a system of philosophical knowledge constructed by human beings with their symbolic capabilities. Craig Keener has done a great job presenting the presumption fallacy that is the assertion that miracles are impossible. It is simple enough, in fact. Scientific "laws" are descriptions of the behavior of physical objects and processes that itself is full of systems that need to be differentiated, with emergentism a necessary process to observe, not least of all to complement the overemphasis on reductionist analysis.
The basic distinction and disqualification of metaphysical naturalism is just plain ignored when it comes to scientific psychosocial studies disciplines. Therapeutic psychology is incredibly holistic, cogntive-emotionally, not least of all. Anthropology doesn´t merely show primitive cultures, but how human symbolic systems can be generated. Now that FD Roosevelt envisioned UN human rights after the devastation of WWII, academic inclinations to achieve impartial knowledge have been given a global community standard, in Jesus´ direct legacy in which it was first proposed to the multicultural world after WWII.
I´ve seen deprecatory use of the term "interpretivism." However, that is also a philosophical fallacy called "ad hom," and the truth is all around the term here "epistemology," "Science" can develop nuclear power that profit-seeking businesspeople want to keep using. However, the fact that businesspeople, like scientists, are only human, is revealed by the psychosocial empirical philosophical views of people who actually pay attention to dangers and costs, especially ones that have been externalized. "Interpretivism" deconstructs scientific pretension, and in fact identifies the very nature of scientific natural philosophy as a human activity.
So, surprise. You´re not in a Kansas lab anymore, dear soul.
@@robinhoodstfrancis
"Craig Keener has done a great job presenting the presumption fallacy that is the assertion that miracles are impossible."
That's not the assertion at all. The problem is that so far no miracle has been shown to have happened.
Of course we first had to define what a miracle is. You're free to give me your definition and then show me a case of a miracle happening and how it was demonstrated that this miracle actually happend.
The problem with most miracle claims is that you often have several possible explanation. Explanations that require us to assume extraordinary things and explantions that do not require anything extraordinary and in fact are perfectly in line with what's objectively demonstrable. Of course for those who want to believe in miracles the serious problem arises of how it can be reasonable to go with the explantion that assumes extraordinary things, when there's an explanation that doesn't require extraordinary assumptions.
What we'd need and what i'd accept are repeatable caes of miracles that have no other explanation. You'd need cases where there isn't a normal explanation. I'm not aware of any such cases.
So it's not that science rules out miracles. The problem is that miracles haven't been demonstrated to exist.
You're of course free to bring forward a convincing case of a miracle happening.
@@stauffap No miracle has been shown to have occurred? Actually, your making assertions that are a truth claim based on no demonstration of literacy in the relevant subject demonstrate that your presumption of representing "science," is actually ideological "scientific materialism."
Making unfounded assertions, and redoubling your efforts to insist on unfounded assertions, doesn´t establish truth, it exposes your ideological position.
You don´t appear to have a clue about what "epistemology" is about. I´m going to sleep, but I´ll have fun answering a little more completely before long.
But here´s a fun caricature to ridicule your presumptuous fallacy. "Ey, nobody speaks Malaysian where I live, so nobody has ever been demonstrated to speak Malaysian. What? No, I don´t read about Malaysian speaking people, but I do make assertions about there not being any Malaysian speakers, ever. But really, I mean it. There has never been anybody demonstrated to speak Malaysian in anything I´ve ever read or heard. Hey, it´s the burden of proof of people asserting that people speak Malaysian to prove that people speak Malaysian....." Bwa, ha, ha. Gee, I guess it must be true because you say so. Yeah, sounds good in your non-Malaysian lab-centered world. Hey, but who can blame you? You´re just a cog in a wheel. More about that later.
Go for it Robert! Your questions are many times more intriguing than the attempted answers. You are indeed, a great philosopher P.S. please take on the subject of UAPs. Just having our government release some of the evidence and make their statements, added to the back room with the US Senate Subcommittee demands this inquiry. Your numbers will skyrocket because you have credibility to lead what is now, a very credible subject.
Wow...hearing his investigation and analysis on that subject would be amazing.
@@DanBrandenburg with the exception of Michio Kaku, I know of no other credentialed theoretical or cosmologists broach the subject. How can SETI not acknowledge this evidence (albeit not proof)? Think about it, F-16 fighter pilots who witnessed this event, 100s of other first hand accounts from very credible people in Government, in the military and it’s not like they are trying to sell their books. To the contrary. Just the Gimbal video alone, with tracking from our most sophisticated military tracking technology, not just iPhone cameras. Why did the DOD have to address the Senate Investigative committee behind closed doors? Robert, ask the questions, please. Ask Max Tagmark, Sir Roger Penrose, Lawrence Krauss, Andre Linde, Alan Guth, Sean Carrol, Lennard Susskind. If you want to get Closer to the Truth, you must include this subject. Why would you not? This isn’t hearsay, this is real evidence! PERIOD!
Mick West has debunked all these recent UFO stories. Look him up.
@@Alex-bl6oi excuse me Alex, but it was actually West who's counter was debunked specially as it pertains the the Gimbal video released by the DOD. A very experienced F-16 fighter pilot who is also an eye witness, will detail the rebuttal as does Lt Fravor. Perhaps you should rethink your position after you complete.your due diligence because West had no retort whatsoever. BTW, why do you think the DOD and the Senate subcommittee went behind closed doors after nationally televised hearings on UAPs? Take your time. The truth often surfaces after a cost has been paid or the intentional misdirections have themselves been "debunked"
Great video
For anyone who thinks definitions of knowledge, reality, truth are pretty obvious and clear: read Pascal Engel's "Truth". The state of the matter is, we cannot even agree on a definition of truth, thus also knowledge. There are realists, anti-realists, deflationists... Wildly different views. Without a definition of "truth", definition of "knowledge" unfortunately does not have a leg to stand on.
I had to not believe what I thought was true… even if it was true. That’s how I became sane again. There is this thing called conscience and it is more significant than what you believe.
Since the universal soundhelix is rediscovered such talks are everywhere.
The difference between beliefs and knowledge often comes in the form of reality testing and future prediction. If a belief is not subject to reality testing nor future prediction, it begins (or completely arrives) at a type of belief that is based upon a faith that it is true. Meaning, that rather than facts and evidence, a person decides at some level to believe despite no basis in reality, despite the absence of reality testing, despite the lack of future prediction. In the end, I don't tend to evaluate beliefs based upon whether it is real or not. Rather, a belief is good if it has positive effects for the person and those around them, and/or similarly decreases suffering. This can be true for a belief in a God or believing the world is flat.
I would add that my philosophy at this time in my life (I'm a great grandmother, retired), is based upon my professional career as a Doctoral-level Therapist, spanning nearly half-a-century. I helped people live more successfully by changing their behavior, thinking/feeling and beliefs. People that have engaged in chronic criminality, have multiple profound social challenges and who are plagued with mental health issues, their lives are ones of constant crisis where they take one step forward and two steps back. In effect, they have developed maladaptive beliefs, behavior patterns including reactive ones that don't work well. Their real problem is that they have broken brains which is just the subject discussed above where skepticism can arise ie what if my brain is broke and I am not perceiving accurately (or in a helpful manner).
Using medical imaging, we are just beginning to see that the brains of such individuals are not the same as individuals without these problems. For example..... our brains are wired to like sugar. So, when shown imagines of pie or cake while their brains are being medically imaged, areas of pleasure light up in the brain. However, if you take a food addict and do the same thing, not only do their brains light up FAR brighter, but areas of the brain light up that don't for the non-food-addict. These same experiments have been done for those with other addictions such as gambling, sex, drugs, etc. Additionally, experiments have been done for people with other serious mental health issues, the kinds I specialized in (personality disorders, psychosis, bipolar, etc.), with similar results.
Thankfully, it has also been shown that "talk therapy" can result in physical changes to the brain. Back to reality testing and future prediction, for those that were willing, I (and my team I was clinically supervising) were able to profoundly help these people learn to live differently, make different choices, live without constant crisis in their lives. Thus, the models we used and applied as treatments, interventions, were correctly believed to produce positive changes in these people's lives. And for many, these positive changes were lasting as they came back to visit us to tell us of their successes after leaving the program (a program they were often court ordered to attend less they be sent to jail, or frequently back to jail).
.
the level of knowing and understanding, is usually the most common form of evaluating one's IQ and is usually related with age and experience that gradually consolidate our confidence in natural phenomenas... maybe it is also related to brain size, or at least a particular area in the brain that increaaes ones competitiveness in a particular field when practiced regularly...
Thx
Great source of information, knowledge, always enjoy these episodes 🧐👌👀
It seems to me that whenever we want to claim that some epistemological strategy is valid/justified, we need another epistemology to justify that claim-- a chain that never ends. *Why* are testimony, common sense, logic, empiricism valid? I don't see an answer to that; I can just say that I believe them to be. (Well, some of them, I don't agree with every philosopher here.)
I was thinking about the meaning of "argument from authority" recently, and discovered that, sometimes, only arguments from invalid authorities are considered invalid; other times, any argument from authority is considered invalid. I realized I believe the latter, and on reflection, I realized that part of the reason I believe that is because when I was a child, I read a lot of Carl Sagan, and that's what he taught me. (It also resonated with me personally.) But how funny that I accepted an argument from authority against argument from authority! Yet, even realizing that, I can't stop accepting that original argument from authority.
I notice, throughout this, a deep fear of skepticism-- a fear that can only be justified when we're not genuinely skeptical, a fear that exists only because we think we know how the world works. When we accept skepticism, it's not so scary that it might lead to behavior incompatible with how we once thought the world works, because we no longer think the world necessarily works that way. But can we ever make the transition from intellectual skepticism to heartfelt skepticism? I suspect we can't, no more than I can reject that original argument from authority.
What if knowledge of a particular kind is what helps us to evolve mentally/spiritually in preparation for God's kingdom?
Nagarjuna gave us the answers to these questions hundreds of years ago.
Good thing I know everything!
-Twitter
It is easy to doubt, but difficult to find connections between humanity and the Anthropic principle (AP). Consciousness is the first connection and epistemology (how do I know) is the next step. Cosmic consciousness (AP) and if need be, the divine takes care of the connections, as humans are able to comprehend the incomprehensible (EINSTEIN).
how do i know is milky way vision and the sight towards equator being sound during correct eye imagery of dream while moving or ''repulse''
oh I loved that part when there was an argument between that wise guy (let's not overthink the brown wood color 🪵) and Dr. Kuhn (but how come we live with our illusions 🤔)...
Even man-made symbols we agree upon and call math has to be defended by common sense but still many put belief in them being woven into the universe with some esoteric theory of everything.
How does Bertrand Russell's assertion that we can have a justified true belief that's wrong such as seeing a clock saying it's 12 o'clock & thinking that's enough when it can't be when any clock could have stopped meaning that's not a justified true belief which really _isn't_ (well) justified at all?
There are 2 students who are preparing for a final exam tomorrow. One is believed he studied enough and started to relax for having some fun. Other one was believing he need to study more and more. The result is a good score for the one was having fun. They are both having consciousness and belief. What are different from their belief and consciousness?
Yeah, that all depends.... lol
@@robinhoodstfrancis You are absolutely right. There are many possibilities with different circumstances and conditions for the outcome. I just use one possibility from those, but the outcome sometimes almost expected to same goals with different approaches and side effects.
@@vitr1916 In fact, your point is to indicate that relaxation after adequate study can be empowering. In terms of epistemology, then, the benefits of combining relaxation with adequate study combine mere cognitive perspective with the broader attitudinal-emotional. Since psychology has various sub-disciplines, overcompartmentalization occurs there like most disciplines, academically and in popular mindsets.
It is impossible to verify if the external world is real or even to calculate the probability that it is real. However what you do know is that your memories (data) do exist. The memories (data) may have been manipulated or be an actual record of the external world. An analysis of the memories/data cannot tell you whether the external world exists or not. However the analysis can point to whether the memories/data or the perceived world is manipulated or not. As an example the fine tuning of the universe or highly improbable synchronicities can imply a probability that the memories or the perceived world is manipulated. Thus you can estimate a probability (high or low) of there being manipulation of the data/external world, whereas you cannot estimate a probability of the external world existing. Based on evidence of any level of possible manipulation, a belief in a manipulator of the perceived world is more concrete or objective than a belief in the external world.
“My mommy” 😄 (Our mommy) 😂
It's really hard to know about non-existent things. Language gives us the ability to name products of our imaginations. Doesn't mean they exist or you'll find them.
Denial of reality always has consequences in one form or another now or sometime in the future. And also believing an unreality to be reality has consequences - an empty dreamer, empty talker and an imprectical person. One can judge true knowledge and empty scepticism by that.
the only argument against skepticism is practicality, meaning there is no way to live one's life in complete skepticism. yet, there is no way to prove Hume wrong, or even prove theories even more skeptical than Hume wrong. there is no way to know we know anything, including our own material existence. it's just we can't practically operate in this manner. it's like freewill. there is no way to prove we have freewill. we just can't operate as if we don't. therefore i take a paradoxical view of "reality."
Love this series, but I'm curious: why is it I can watch this commercial free on PBS, but on GooTube be bombarded with multiple commercials? My epistemological answer: Mammon demands to be satiated.
"The Epistemology of Happiness," at Shabda Blog, provides a different perspective.
You are perceiving reality. It’s your perception and interpretation that is right or wrong… probably it’s wrong.. 👀😀
We have *POWER* to lift up our hand. 🙄
I wonder if you understand that wwhen you use tthe word or term "we" it means the employer or user of that term - that is *you* sunshine,, And your immediate interlocutor and since you have no immediate interlocutor that just leaves you.
Why are you creatures so terrified of the perpendicular pronoun "I" why do you seek to hide bbehind some imaginary fantasy "we"? Self evidently you can experience nothing of what another experiences from which it ffollows that "we (Absent an immediate interlocutoor) is fantasy
The wood is actually brown. See "Why Sāńkhya Doesn’t Have Objects of Action" at Shabda Blog for explanation.
How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation by Harry Binswanger
Too bad Robert Anton Wilson isn't around any more to interview. His books Quantum Psychology and Prometheus Rising spoke to this subject with as much clarity as I've seen anywhere.
I will believe this professor if he predicts something that is not based on prior knowledge or predictable by others that comes true. Raising your hand can be predicted by anyone.
If you listen to just the audio that first guy he interviews is most definitely a robot.
1:02
Rober ought to have asked Meghan Sullivan that if people really did care less about what would happpen in the distant future, how is it that they put the money they earn in the present into saving for the distant future (pensions)? Why not spend today or in the near future which is what concerns them more according to her and Parfit's claim...
When there was light we found food and reproduced that's how we know we know.
Gravity or wave function is no different than love you can directly objectively prove it in science but through secondary effects we can test them. These are all idealisms on par with spiritual or even my soul.
Everything can be traced back down into what is waves and fields this classification isn't physicalism its idealism. One step away from the individuals parental creates. And the objects one step from the universes creater. By this we have a best line of evidence.
How is love no different that the wave function or gravity? As a physics teacher and someone, who studied physics i'm confused.
@@stauffap both are philosophically catergprislzed under idealism because we can't physically observe them directly.
Love can't be put in your hands to observe but you can observe and measure the secondary effects of my love and through them conclude it exists .
Gravity, waves ,fields and forces are all like this
@@stauffap physics breaks down in the quantum. We are able to see where it begin to blur and at plank lengths its literally nothing remotely physical about it at all
@@stauffap its consistent with many lines of evidence that we witness.
Our physical body begins in the idea of our parents. Or how we turn an idea into a computer that we program to then run its own simulations.
Its the best line of evidence and always has been.
I get how in 1900 the evidence of atoms would fool some but they have now made a religion out of materialism a cult belief system built on faith that they one day will prove their world view is correct
@@stauffap classifying everything on the universe we know only a small % is physical.
What? 😄 I worry……., a lot! 😂 Yeah bois!
Oh this should be a good one! I love magnificent libraries, hidden gardens and revered sanctuaries. Not too sure about the cutting-edge labs...
Then stop using all the great technology you use every second of every day of your life and stop using it immediately.
@@jamesbentonticer4706 You do realize there is difference between science and technology don't you? Why would I stop using technology? Humanity has been using it from since time immemorial...
@@divertissementmonas exactly.. nature has all the medicines and ways already to be healthy, science is just a way to reverse man’s disease from other science.. example u can eat corn and it’s good. But high fructose corn syrup is not good for the body.. opiuom is good to smoke for pain but herion is not good to use..
cocoa leaves r medicine when chewy but make it into a. Powder u have issues.. once man starts processing nature and changing it it always has been bad for the mind and body…
There is no medicine that fixes the brain as best as marijuana and mushrooms and good food exercise and good people.. all from nature..
Perhaps the question is "how does brain sense" what is actually happening. Are we giving too much credence to the subjective 'I' and intellectualised knowledge and forget 'what' we are, an aware body like other animals.
Maybe sense data (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, emotive neurotransmitter charges and cognitive awareness) is the only ground we can depend on - for facts. Same for lions birds, plants, cells. Maybe even wave particle fields sense/signal/code with electrical touch and sound.
When a species senses are confirmed by their combined sense organs and their collective species they are in contact with tangible experiential sensate facts - that keeps a heart pumping and a plane in the air. Beliefs can't do that. Even when brain holds to a momentary neural prediction/expectation prior to sense data update, ultimately there must be a sensate corroboration to experience the dependable order of facts.
Mind seems to be a mental lab, a conceptual playground where imaginings, plans, theories and beliefs can be contemplated experimented with. And whenever they relate to sensately experiential substance they drop out of the subjective belief realm, they are now discovered/uncovered experiential facts. To then continue laying beliefs over them would be like painting a red rose red. Beliefs arent facts theyre mental fabrications that can become indoctrinated psychological overlays that can detrimentally blind sensate cognition endangering body's well being ...and the planet's.
In the in-mortal words of famed epistemologist - Sergeant Schultz......."I hear nothing"........"I see nothing"........"I know nothing".........
Well if ultimate insight is based on knowledge,then you can never have ultimate insight,as you can never know everything,as the amount of knowledge is infinite....and your mind is finite...and besides that,to accumulate infinite knowledge,you need infinite time,which you do not have,as you are mortal...Now I invite anybody to get past this statement as a challenge...😜😃😁😎
All western philosophy is built on precepts in Indian philosophy, including the different theories of justification
The guy says here you are, here I am, here are the pews. But maybe I should remind him that according to Quantum Mechanics none of these 3 may be there lol 🤣
If you want to know about knowledge you should look up Tai Lopez
We know nothing. We do "know" something because renunciations in thinking. So to say with Heisenberg: We "buy" our knowledge through renunciations in thinking! 🍎 Knowledge only becomes real knowledge through the full negative knowledge! (Hegel) And since Socrates we can use these renunciations in thinking in a controlled way!
God or skepticism..........there are no other alternatives.
You only know what a photon is from what little man can comprehend or is blessed. If knowledge is infinite in complexity then you will always have more to learn developing new concepts of understanding.
Everything can always be cut in half and expanded infinitely.
Funny to hear how intelligent people try to twist god into common sense logic 🤣
We cannot verify the sensory data from our senses to be real or not manipulated.
Thus we cannot know if the external world exists or if any minds other than ourselves exits.
We cannot even objectively compute a probability for the external world or other minds existing.
We do have sensory data and we do have memories of sensory data.
That data could be real or manipulated.
Our memories can be real or planted.
However, we can analyze our memories.
Analysis of our memories and sensory data can tell us if there is design or manipulation in the perceived/remembered world
However that analysis cannot tell us if the world really exits.
Thus the only objective knowledge we can have about the external world is about design and manipulation.
All other knowledge is unverifiable.
Thus epistemologically the only objective branch of knowledge is about design or manipulation of the external world.
Thus the most objective knowledge we can have about the external world if there is a manipulator
My dear friends maybe if you read David Hume, you understand the problem of cepticism, in reality is the sacred principle of the cience. and if the cepticism ofend you, maybe you have to study theology.
Everyone is going to die. Now let’s see if you have grace.
The reason you cannot fully comprehend God is bescue He has not given you the required tools to do so. For example can you make a square circle?
I know the absolute truth that no physical thing is able to order me to be a human instead of a chinchilla. 👀😳😄
"Worship your lord until the certainty comes to you"
In others words, you will get the ultimate truth when you visit the grave.
Here I thought you would cure my insomnia not exacerbate it 😖
You can't know. You can only assume or believe
How do you know that you cannot know and that you can only assume or believe?
What would be an example of knowing?
What would be an example of believing?
@@vhawk1951kl any science is based on axioms/postulates. If those are true then… what they mean by knowledge - objective truth, which is not accessible to us. Instead we have our neuron network connections in our heads - our subjective beliefs.
@@matterasmachine if for "postulates" I simply read dreams, I will have arrrived aat the truth of the matter, will I not? what is the exact difference between a "postulate" and a dream?
Yeah, right.
@@vhawk1951kl I’m not sure what you are asking, but predictions following from those postulates that can be checked in experiment - that’s what is different
@@matterasmachine exactly how many experiments have you conducted to check whatever it is you imagine?
Yeah, right.
Because we know that our mind exist...!
....and that we can create other minds (babies)..!
...therefore, other minds exist...
...therefore reality exists...
....because reality is made up of the “same material” as our mind...!
What is that matter made of and so forth
@@ishikawa1338
???
Ultimately matter is made of congealed energy...
... but that’s irreverent...
...since we can not fundamentally change it...
... what is important is that “we exists “...
Love for wife argument is flawed bescue the term love is not defined by those that use it. If there can define love for me I will show them how it is explained scientifically.
i do not understand why go to a priest to learn about skepticism? They pretend to know things no one knows.
I think, he committed the mistake of trying to be balance. Present several views of a topic and instead of doing your homework and telling people what is actually the most reliable way of knowing your just act like those views are all equal.
He probably didn't have to courage to be honest here. After all in the US, if you spread science, reason and skepticism (scientific skepticism) then you'll offend more than half the nation, since it's such a religious and superstitious country.
A lot of people hate people like James Randi for exposing the truth and our cherished delusions. A lot of people hate scientists as soon as they don't say what they want to hear.
I guess, he took the easy route and decided to pretend that there are several, equally reasonable views.
Reality = That which is.
Knowledge = That portion of Reality that is experientially known.
Understanding = Knowing how to apply knowledge well enough to learn more.
Wisdom = Competence in application of Understanding.
God = Creative Intelligence.
Creative Intelligence is omnipresent. We are all It, to an unknowable/inexhaustible extent.
Since the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven, whether God exists or not is an opinion. An opinion is held by a Creative Intelligence, which is prior to any and every conception.
In my model of the world, wisdom is more than competence in application of understanding in that it includes the intent to which competence is applied and that intent involves an understanding of the whole system and its needs ... above and beyond "selfish" or part-system aims.
Further, I would agree with proponents of e-prime in their desire to eliminate all forms of the word "is" since it begets distortions. So the definition of reality lacks substance since what"is" also includes what "is not" if we are discussing matters of wholeness since the yet to be collapsed quantum wave contains both. The inability of language to adequately express matters of unity explains the inability of the last sentence to fully reach where I was aiming.
I could go on...just offering a respectful counterpoint.
@@execwebtech3396 Come, let us reason together:
Since only That which is can either affirm or deny that there either is or is not That which is, there is That which is.
Since there is That which is, there is not that which is that is other than That which is, because if there was something other, it would still be That which is, that we merely Call 'other'. Therefore, That which is, is all-inclusive.
Since That which is, is all-inclusive, there is no other. It is therefore, Absolute Reality. Therefore, whatever appears as other is in Reality the nature of the Absolute,
which is to 'Serve' as the Eternal, Infinite Continuum of Being, that functions as a diversified unity of potential (Creative Intelligence), actualizing as a unified diversity or Uni-verse, and is thus, the one Absolute Being in which all relative beings live, move and have their Being, the Whole that is ever greater than the sum of it's constituents, the center of which is everywhere and the circumference of which is nowhere, the All in One in All. We are all It, to an unknowable/inexhaustible extent, as the facets of a Diamond are 'both' distinct from each other 'and' the Diamond itself.
Love is the recognition of our shared Being.
Someone said "I know that I know nothing" ;).
All claims are some combination of wrong or enigmatic (especially claiming truth like in religions, philosophers, politicians, academics, etc do).
However some claims are extraordinarily less wrong/enigmatic than others like in empiric measurement or math (aka physics).
Epistemology was also encrypted in in the bible specifically in Genesis. I always get some new insight everytime I read it without the idea of God and authority.
This could have been a great episode, but i doubt that anyone has really come away any smarter. Probably because you mainly talked to religious people, who unsurprisingly made excuses for their naive believes.
Solipsism obviously goes to far, since it's completely impractical and make everything one does contradictory. Scientific skepticism strikes a good balance though. We make minimal assumptions like that other people are actually other minds like ours and we continue from there. If something is objective i.e. can be confirmed to also be seen by other people, then it's real. But given that we have so many ways of fooling ourselves and being fooled we should use the most reliable methods we know to figure out what's real. Those methods would obviously be the scientific methods.
Every epistemology that doesn't recognize and deals with the many scientifically studied biases, with our flawed memory, with our slective perception, the many sensory illusions and of course our tendency to commit logical fallacy is not even doing the bare minimum in my humble opinion.
You've not given people a solution here. I assume, you went the easy way and tried not to offend anyone. Because of course we live in a world where talking about reason and science is something that's offensive for the enemies of reason (religious people, science deniers, conspiracy believers, alternative medicine users etc.).
Well, really you can't "know" . Kant's transcendental idealism is essentially correct. Our mental apparatus actively organizes our phenomenal experience but can tell us nothing of the so called noumenal world, i.e. things as they are independent of our existence.
Your comment that science can narrow the scope of knowledge is inaccurate. Thanks to science we have realized knowledge is far vast than we thought before. Wether at micro or macro level the further you dig in the deeper the rabbit hole of knowledge.
I analyze each statement one by one.
No, ultimately we can't know anything. We only can know something within a certain reference frame.
I know through the bible what I need to know. Jesus paid for our sins and god created the world
This is perpetuation of the obsolete Kantian paradigm the idea of a priori and a posterior I Bifurcation are the bane of western epistemology since Aristotle. This paradigm is no longer applicable since this bifurcation has merely legitimized Doxa, or prejudiced opinion as truth . This is a paradigm to promote the default morality , default sociology and default conditions of e instance , where the A priori beliefs are unmediated and unquestioned This Aristotelian fallacy permeates through philosophy
All here a big BS.
Immanence is not discussed. Rather funny that non western epistemology is never discussed . The nyaya theory affirms four parameters , analogy, testimony, experience and empirical practicality.Th west is involved in restricting epistemology to Aristotelian cage where all modes of veridicality are restricted to apodeictic certainty the narcissism of the west is quite evident most.y affirmed in Husserl, who acknowledges the necessity of a universal. Subject but thinks that going down the road too discuss Advaita or sunyata cannot be accepted . The epistemology sets have sidelined the real philosophers of the west, namely Parmenides and Plato who were on the right track but were pushed off by Aristotle and we still airship Aristotle long debunked by science .
The only absolutely true knowledge is that you can never fully know absolute true knowledge you can only know bits and even that is by the mercy of Allah for giving you the faculties and the thoughts to do so
Long endless journey from limited human views to complete infinite views, deep inside learn to knows much more and more we dont know yet, existing and unexisting are existed, since I believed god existed, Ihave obligation to prove god existing on my behaviuor eventhough begin with limited behave.
You can know about all of the powers that come from God. This is elementary. …🙄