How do we know what is true?

[Delightful Life]

Kimmio

Right, before you knew aboot tying shoelaces (which included your learning how to tie them) you couldn't even conceive or talk aboot tying shoelaces.

When you were learning how to tie your shoelaces, you were learning various things, like how bendable shoelaces are, what their texture is, how your fingers interact with shoelaces, what shoes are, what shoelaces are, how they interact and behave etc

You even learned what ways of tying shoelaces work better than other ways.

And now, you probably don't even have to think aboot tying your shoelaces. Its an unconscious act.

Now that you have learned how to tie your shoelaces, you can hold forth, with some authority, on the tying of shoelaces.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Kimmio

Right, before you knew aboot tying shoelaces (which included your learning how to tie them) you couldn't even conceive or talk aboot tying shoelaces.

When you were learning how to tie your shoelaces, you were learning various things, like how bendable shoelaces are, what their texture is, how your fingers interact with shoelaces, what shoes are, what shoelaces are, how they interact and behave etc

You even learned what ways of tying shoelaces work better than other ways.

And now, you probably don't even have to think aboot tying your shoelaces. Its an unconscious act.

Now that you have learned how to tie your shoelaces, you can hold forth, with some authority, on the tying of shoelaces.

But it didn't have to be an exact methodology...and there was not one authority on the right way to do it (although they thought they were).

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

When I am tying my shoelaces, or learning how - I have already come to the conclusion that my shoes need to stay on my feet, and that tripping and falling hurts and is to be avoided - I may not be able to give you a step by step as to how I came to that conclusion. Twist ties or duct tape may be no 'worse' a way of achieving this - it just looks less aesthetically pleasing. So 'tying' my shoes is an aesthetic not a necessary decision, afterall. And the shoelace people want to stay in business. It is not even true that I need shoelaces or any other fastening material - because some heretic took a leap of faith and came up with slip-ons - totally bipassing the steps involved in tying shoes.

And back to shoe laces - what if I didn't learn through trial and error, different ways - what if I only learned about the consistency of string - and I was able to look at the shoelaces and envision 5 different but equally effective ways they could look after being tied, and just did it? What if I tied each shoe differently everyday just because I felt like it? (I implore you ). That's not scientific methodology.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

...if it were scientific methodology I could show you how I did it, and do it again. What if I can't? What if each event is a unique experience - but all lead to the same goal of keeping my shoes on?

 

[Delightful Life]

But it didn't have to be an exact methodology...and there was not one authority on the right way to do it (although they thought they were).

My analogy was in regards to Paul Feyerabend learning aboot science first before critiquing science

Do you know that he 'had to' learn to colour within the lines first to be able to grok anything outside the lines...or is that you being scientifically methodological in your thought process? If he did so - did he 'have to'?

In order for you to actually have known (and to speak with any authority -- I mean not as an opinion, but as someone who has empirical facts on tying shoes) aboot tying your shoes you had to learn first how to tie your shoes.

Or you learning how to write English. You had to first learn how to write English before you could even attempt something like written poetry or written jokes in English.

You also found out things like: is what I am doing only apply to myself? Can I generalize what I am doing to other things? Can other people do this? Are there some ways that are better than others? Is anything that I am figuring out change if I try it again? Does tying my shoe depend on how I'm feeling or what I'm thinking? And so forth.

You may even have adopted someone else's methodology in tying your shoe and/or even believe something like 'this is how my parents taught me'.

And so forth.

 

[Delightful Life]

...if it were scientific methodology I could show you how I did it, and do it again. What if I can't? What if each event is a unique experience - but all lead to the same goal of keeping my shoes on?

I've had similar thoughts before

It sounds like a total theoretical.

Unique means 'happening once and never again'

So if an event repeats, that means that its not unique.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Because each time I do it I am not doing it exactly the same way and I am not monitoring how. With science...you meticulously and carefully pay attention to each step. So- tying my shoes intuitively is not scientific. But it still works.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I didn't have to learn science to know that I don't need scientific methodology to keep my shoes on...is my point. So it is not the only way to know how to keep my shoes on. Of course, I could, if I were really uptight, apply scientific methodology everytime I fastened my shoes. What a horrible way to live, though (IMO).

 

[Delightful Life]

Because each time I do it I am not doing it exactly the same way and I am not monitoring how. With science...you meticulously and carefully pay attention to each step. So- tying my shoes intuitively is not scientific. But it still works.

If you can do it more than once, it isn't unique.


'You', when you were learning how to tie your shoe, are aware of a lot more than your conscious mind is.

I think what you're getting snagged on here is that no, you weren't in a lab. No, you weren't checking out a textbook. No, you didn't have a gas spectrometer and a gravimeter. You were learning, yourself, maybe guided by others past experiences, teaching yourself how to tie your shoe. You didn't even have to be completely conscious of it.

And if it could be repeated (and it was--I've seen you walking around in shoes), then that means what you learned is repeatable and, in some respects, universal.

All of our lives are like this --based on humanity's long history of being curious and finding things out.

 

[Delightful Life]

With science...you meticulously and carefully pay attention to each step. So- tying my shoes intuitively is not scientific. But it still works.

Again, my analogy wasn't aboot science.

It was an attempt to explain how Paul Feyerabend had to know aboot science first before being able to criticize it.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Again, my analogy wasn't aboot science.

It was an attempt to explain how Paul Feyerabend had to know aboot science first before being able to criticize it.

But I came to the same essential conclusion without having to know about science.

"Scientific methodology does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results." - Paul Feyerband.

 

[Delightful Life]

But I came to the same essential conclusion without having to know about science.

"Scientific methodology does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results." - Paul Feyerband.

You also can't start using Paul Feyerabend to base your beliefs around because what he writes aboot is very complex and nuanced.
*giggle* notice the quote you gave said 'scientific methodology' -- that's a different thing than science

That's the problem right there. You read a wikipedia article or whatnot and..

How long have you been studying him?

Just an opinion of yours, Kimmio

To be able for you to speak aboot what he was talking aboot usefully and importantly, you'd have to actually spend more than 4 hours on him?

Otherwise, its just another example of 'ooo, I like this information because it fits with what I like'

And that's normal.

(after all, how can you be uncomfortable with science if you've never learned it or even tried it out? trying out an idea won't actually hurt you, and i mean actually try out something and not just theoretically...you could learn something)

But that's not what this thread is aboot.

Its aboot how do we know what is true.

Not aboot our personal opinions (well, we can examine how opinions work and such...)

You have so much that you already know, and to be able to figure out some things, you have to want to be able to empty yourself...like the wise zen masters wrote

Your preexisting beliefs are blocking ya imho

 

[Delightful Life]

So anyhew folks,

here are the real creatures who grok with fullness the truth

in Christian terms: the real Children of g_d, the true Chosen ones, living in harmony

oh, may we tiny human beings, such a fallen race, hope to achieve a smidgen of their Holyness

I hail the Overladies of the Earth

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You also can't start using Paul Feyerabend to base your beliefs around because what he writes aboot is very complex and nuanced.
*giggle* notice the quote you gave said 'scientific methodology' -- that's a different thing than science

[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]That's the problem.[/FONT]
How long have you been studying him?

Just an opinion of yours, Kimmio

To be able for you to speak aboot what he was talking aboot usefully and importantly, you'd have to actually spend more than 4 hours on him.

Otherwise, its just another example of 'ooo, I like this information because it fits with what I like'

And that's ok.

But that's not what this thread is aboot.

Its aboot how do we know what is true.

Not aboot our personal opinions.

You have so much that you already know, and to be able to figure out some things, you have to want to be able to empty yourself...like the wise zen masters wrote

Your preexisting beliefs are blocking ya imho

Anyhew...

This is on topic! Chansen argues that science is not an ideology or belief system...it's a methodology. You say that 'science' is the hard won knowledge of humanity. You both have different definitions. So what if I can read Feyerband for a few hours and catch his drift - at least that particular aspect? It's not that complex. He argues that knowledge was never - at least not always - gained through an unchanging methodology, nor was 'science' an unchanging methodology (nor was it always gained by reason), and therefore it cannot be said that what is considered scientific (Chansen's definition) is the only way to learn if something is true. Scientific methodology does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. I don't know why that should take me an inordinate amount of time to understand when that's basically the same point I make and argue with chansen about everytime we debate about science and faith. You see...I can recognize that science has claimed a monopoly in the minds of many as to how one must discover the truth or useful results - it has assumed control over what can be considered valid...and that is what I often rail against. And so did Feyerband.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Not offering my own opinion on this article - but since this discussion is in R&F, I came across this and it looked like something I should post here:
http://www.ukapologetics.net/11/feyerabend.htm

 

[Delightful Life]

Tell us what is Truth

Oh yes. Thank you. You already knew. I'll look into whose policy

waaaaaaaa so many to choose from...objectivism, constructivism, positivism, empiricism, idealism ligers tions and rares OH MY!

 

[Delightful Life]

Oh Bruce, the great Cascadian, who discovered The Truth, after long and hard living

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Oh Bruce, the great Cascadian, who discovered The Truth, after long and hard living

Did you find that after a jaunt through philosophy links starting with Feyerabend? (that's how I found it)

I didn't watch a vid, though, just read it. How theatrical and intense Lee was.


Coincidentally, Jesus had a few things to say about water...

 

[Hermann]

Goethes Dr. Faustus searched for truth, and didn't find it in science or philosophy, so he sold his soul to magic.


Although I am smarter than all of these
Writers, doctors, magisters, and priests,
I'm not yet wise, and this is why
I gave to magic my immortal I.

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


As we know, Dr. Faustus came to a bad end, because he sold his soul to the wrong kind of magic: black magic.

Therefore, friends, seek white magic!

 

[Seeler]

I think it has been proven. What are the most stable, economically and social societies? The ones that have internal peace. Western democracies, Japan, to some extent China (though they have a couple conflicts within their borders). Extend that to the world. If the whole world was as relatively peaceful as Western Europe or Canada and the US, the world would almost certainly be a more stable, balanced, functional place. Alas, too much of the world still looks more like Iraq or Syria.

I notice that you include the US as one of the countries with internal peace. Heavily armed civilians? Worry about personal security? Highest percentage of population in prisons? Murders, including mass murders? Racial tensions? Threats to impeach the president? claims for State's rights as opposed to national policies? I may not be civil war, but it sure doesn't look like peace to me.