Star-signs!

[tlclark]

Well I can "Amen" to most of this post. :wink:

The problem is that no one, and I mean no one, teaches epistemology anymore.

When I read through Plato and Aristotle the first time I wondered why these guys were so highly prized. Afterall, most of what they suggested was just flat out wrong. It took me a while to 'get' it. They believe in this thing called "Truth" and that this truth isn't dependent on the perspective of the viewer, than truth ought to be more or less stable. They are in many ways the anti-derridas and Foucaults.

Now I love postmodernism, it allows us to explore so much more of ourselves and our culture, but if you ask me if I would rather live in the world of derrida or Plato, I'd pick Plato everytime.

There seems to be no clear demarcation between what is rational and what is ultimately irrational. It is a fascinating problem. I feel that if a person calls himself out from this fascinating and possibly eternal problem, then he is, unfortunately, resorting to a form of solipsism, even if he does it in "good" company (from within a group of believers).

I totally agree here.

I say "unfortunately" because I firmly think the only way to break out of the quick-sand of subjectivity is to keep in focus the problem of convincing someone else, especially those doesn't share the same preconceptions. It is not healthy for one to use only evidence that supports his favorite idea. It causes all kinds of trouble. "Believe me". More generally it is not healthy for those that share beliefs to interact exclusively with one another. In particular, at the extreme, soliloquy is not healthy and ultimately it is sterile (although the rigorous a-social solipist, the real loner, can make some challenging points).

Ditto that too! This is why I think God is basically a comedian. Christianity is almost always concieved as a comity, hence the whole Body of Christ metaphor. Which means you've got to go out, interact and convince others to believe, participate in the comity, on the basis of things that are almost entirely personal, subjective, ephemeral and non -transferable. Maddening!! We have to be crazy together! It would be impossible were it not for the Spirit, that's why paul emphasizes the "foolishness" of the endeavor, but again, that's non-transferable and I could explain it further, but I don't want to lapse into proselytizing here.

That's why I think that in public schools, religion can only be taught in an encyclopedic or anthropological way. It really can't be tackled any other way, just like listing that the major exports of Bolivia are tin and alpaca wool. We can describe its characteristics, but it really can't be brought into the realm of science and I think does violence to it if you try. That doesn't, in my opinion, make it unreasonable however. It places it in a category of highly individualized reason, accessible only to the individual and perhaps the comity.

Could we all be delusional together? Sure! Intellectual honesty would have to force us to admit it, but we don't think so. Science is a form of reason that by contrast, has far less meaning, but has far more utility, because the methods of reasoning are transferable, and capable of being repeated.

Consider how many people do not appreciate the importance of NOT selecting/rejecting favorable/unfavorable data to support a pet idea or theory. You then shouldn't be surprised then that even less value augmentations and confrontations. Just think how "experimentation" in the modern sense of the word became a respectable form of argumentation only recently in Western history. And still today too few people value experimentation, and indeed most educated people actually consider it a mere technical detail rather than a philosophically deep moment, as a true confrontation with "reality". There is more good philosophy in performing and interpreting a simple inclined plane experiment in an introductory physics course than in reading tonnes of philosophical books.

Have to give an Amen and hallelujah to that too!!

Obseration, experimentation, repitition, the transferable nature of the knowledge, have benefited mankind in ways that no other philosophical movement could. This doesn't mean I except this as the sole means of accessing knowledge or even reason, but it's success is inarguable.

To me, what it means to frame a convincing argument with another person is the issue. I do not feel that arguing with oneself is a solid enough ground to get anywhere significant without some check with the external world, be it another person or an apparatus.

Well it depends on the evidence doesn't it? I have what you might call a 'supernatural' experience that leads me to believe in God. Could that supernatural experience be false? Could I be mistaken? Dreaming? Delusional? Hallucinating? Certainly. So my one man dialogue is certainly suspect, you are right, but then I also have to reason things out with myself.

When I have such an experience, should I first go get a catscan to make sure I am not suffering from some neurological disorder? What if I perform such due diligence, I'm perfectly healthy, have no other signs of madness/delusion and I still have this experience? What then? Then it becomes madness and unreasonable to myself to deny it.

But this works in the reverse as well. For example, if you actually presented Sagan with an angelic visitation, I doubt he would put up too much of a fight. He would give due diligence to the possibility that he was insane, hallucinating or what not, but given the evidence of his own experience, he would know himself well enough to know that the experience was "real". Now basic decency and reason would inform him that it would be rude and unreasonable to insist that everyone agree with his new vision, but he would also be unreasonable if he denied it as well. The only thing left to him is persistant polite persuasion, which is the place I find myself in.

Now, I also know that there are some doubters, that are not honest doubters like Sagan, and if an angel showed up to say Richard Dawkins, my guess is that he would badger the doctors endlessly to find a way to explain why this couldn't possibly be real. Some people are atheist because of reason, but just as many are simply religionists and NOTHING would persuade them.

Basically I suggest pragmatism.

As long as we admit that no one has all the data and we call speculation by its proper name, and we maintain personal civility, we can procede.

In matters of education then, evolution should be taught since it is the only communal set of knowledge that can be equally affirmed by observation, but we shouldn't sneer at the creationists either.

No methodologies are excluded from the conversation, but we admit the limits of non-transferable evidence. We allow those with personal experiences (like mine) to continue to quietly persuade people, but we build together on those things that can be more concretely affirmed by transferable experience.

Goffredo, this has been a delight!!

Take a laudes!

Travis