From: matus [matus@snet.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 9:34 PM To: matus@snet.net Subject: MFD List - POST Practical Skepticism and Knowledge (All, this is a short thread on the nature of science, knowledge, and philosophical skepticism. The first section is the post I am responding to, the second is my response. - Mike) I take it you have not read or appreciated the problem of epistemology. Epistemology is foundational to all discussions. Unless we can justify knowledge(how do we know) then the "proofs" you demand for might not be "proofs" at all but just "poofs"! We can learn a lot from these ancient philosophers about thinking. Your use of terms like "more useful, functional and handy" are an expression of the skepticism you deride. In other words knowledge or truth is not the issue, but pragmatism. The "believers" probably would also argue that they find their beliefs "more useful, functional and handy" and this forum's "skeptic's" "prove it to me" useless? In which case there is a stale mate? If truth or knowledge (which is what the ancients sought to establish) is not the issue then why bother? If I find what I believe "practical and useful" according to my definition, then one has no obligation to "prove" anything to anybody! Why should it bother you or anybody? Mind your own business! However I think "your heart knows better than your head" to use a popular expression. In other words you seek for "the truth" not just "the useful or practical". The ancients arrived at skepticism because they could not justify knowledge! That is the first challenge before we can talk about "evidence and proof"! MALUZO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- "I take it you have not read or appreciated the problem of epistemology." Most skeptics have an understanding of epistemology, but that assertation that no knowledge is true knowledge is useless in the everyday world, just as useless as solipsism, thinking that everything is a figment of your imagination. The everyday world follows specific rules and patterns which can be used to predict the outcomes of future events. If the fact that these rules can be used to predict the future, can they really be considered 'useless'?. It is a fundamental tenant of science that you can never absolutely know something, but science works by applying probabilities to claims. E.g. the last 5,000 times I shot this electron through this magnetic field its trajectory curved by this amount, therefore the next time I do it it is likely that it will curve again. How do I *know* it will curve the next time? I dont know, for sure, because that would require omniscience. But we can be pretty sure that it will curve the next time. Empiricism is the ultimate purveyor of truth, and science builds its worldview by continuously testing against reality. "Epistemology is foundational to all discussions. Unless we can justify knowledge(how do we know) then the "proofs" you demand for might not be "proofs" at all but just "poofs"!" Indeed, they may not be proof, but since knowledge cannot be absolutely justified, do we abandon any hopes to understand the world at all? Do we assert that nothing can ever be truly known and therefore never try to learn anything? Or that there are no 'absolute' truths and, as the relativists assert, each and everyone one of our worldviews, however contradictory, are just as valid? Or, does the useful world of science lie in the middle, with an objective truth 'out there', 'somewhere' that we will never know. Most practicing scientists are realists and believe there to be an ultimate reality that we are striving toward, however, we, by definition, can not know where we reach that ultimate truth. So most scientists feel that we are approaching that absolute truth asymptotically, getting closer and closer but never quite reaching it. This is a reasonable assertion because more and more of our rules that describe the universe are getting better and better are predicting outcomes of future events and making usefull, functional devices. "We can learn a lot from these ancient philosophers about thinking. " Many of these ancient philosophers (Aristotle's school I believe) thought that testing reality was foolish and the worldview could be discerned by simply thinking about it. "Your use of terms like "more useful, functional and handy" are an expression of the skepticism you deride. In other words knowledge or truth is not the issue, but pragmatism." Not true, both knowledge and truth are the issue, but 'skeptics' feel that the 'truth' should be how nature tells us she works, not how we tell nature she works. Thus empirical edification is the ultimate guide to the way the world works, and not merely how we think it to work. " The "believers" probably would also argue that they find their beliefs "more useful, functional and handy"" They very well may say this, but ask an alternative engineer to build a 6 lane highway overpass out of paper mache because they 'believe it' to be a useful kiloton load bearing material and so if you can get it through the civil engineering boards. "If I find what I believe "practical and useful" according to my definition, then one has no obligation to "prove" anything to anybody! Why should it bother you or anybody? Mind your own business! " Because certain things can be objectively proven to be useful, that is, he element of belief can be removed from the element all together. Does dropping a car onto an arm cause a compound fracture? Sure does, regardless of whether you believe it will. Does treating bacterial infections with antibiotics cure the ailment? Sure does, regardless of whether or not you believe antibiotics do that. Does stinging yourself with a bee cure arthritis? The evidence says no, but it makes people feel better, so, 'Mind your own business' you say. Impotency cured by eating shark fin soup? Think AIDS can be cured by raping a young female virgin? When these 'beliefs' delve into the range of negatively affecting others, that is where skeptics stop minding there own business. Matus For comments about articles or other topics please visit the MFDList forum at www.delphi.com\MFDList www.matus1976.com