Empiricism and percieved arrogance
-1
As a philosophical materialist/empiricist, I hold one of the most important things about reality to be that there is an objective reality, that can be empirically measured, and tested, and anything that is proclaimed to be in this reality that isn’t able to be measured, or tested, is indistinguishable from the non existent.
Some people my also hold this view, and for much of what I’m going to say, it addresses something I feel those people should bare in mind at all times. It’s also good that people who DON’T share this world view read what I say, because my philosophy is regularly come under attack as being an arrogant assault on others beliefs, and even their very lives. Especially as most things someone like me would say DOES come off as extremely arrogant. How dare I claim to know something that others don’t? What exactly do I know?
The first thing to bare in mind is that despite my empirical worldview, I am quite open minded. And being open minded is very important. Yes I know, that seems rather pander-ish, and most people would say, “Well of course you should, that’s a given.” But what some people might view as an open mind, I would view as a gullible one, and what I would view as an open mind, others might view as a close minded one.
When I speak of having an open mind, what I mean is simply being open to new ideas. This doesn’t mean ACCEPTING new ideas necessarily, and it doesn’t mean granting the validity of new ideas for reasons akin to “I just feel like it’s true.” I’m open to the idea of aliens. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to accept someone who comes up to me and says, “I was abducted!” Though of course, I wouldn’t call this person a liar, and calling them deluded would be insulting to them. Instead, I simply say, “Your personal experience of aliens is not justification of my belief in them.”
This might seem arrogant, but it is true. How many of us could say that everything we remember is completely 100% right. Have you never had an extremely vivid dream? I know I have. I know that many times my senses can be fooled by a great number of things. The value in empirical evidence is that it’s not something that can only be justified subjectively…it’s something that can objectively be demonstrated, and verified. Always bare in mind that a person who claims to have met God isn’t necessarily lieing to you…but that doesn’t mean they’ve really met god.
What about claims of knowledge? If I were to say I know something, how exactly can I claim to do that at all? It’s my personal opinion, which I feel is shared by more than just myself, that if I cannot show something, I cannot claim to know it. Recently, I was engaged in conversation with a friend, and I mentioned Zen Buddhism’s role in WWII kamikaze pilots. He frowned and said, “That’s not true.” Two claims of knowledge clashed. The difference was, he could demonstrate his claim, and I could not. I have since accepted that I was wrong in my assessment of the facts, as it had been demonstrated, and since I can demonstrate what I have learned now, I can claim to know that it was in fact the Bushido philosophy that influenced WWII kamikaze pilots.
For something more…blunt…say I were to wake up and see Godzilla walking through town during the middle of the night. Say I followed Godzilla around, and marveled at the immense detail in its giant body. I wanted to take a picture, so I went home to grab my camera, and when I came back, Godzilla was nowhere to be seen. The next day, I tried to tell people I saw Godzilla, but there were no footprints, no damage, and the only other person who claimed to have seen something said he saw a different dinosaur (say a triceratops). In this instance, can I claim to KNOW that Godzilla had walked through hthe town? No. I cannot. I can try and evaluate my state of mind all I’d like, but if I have no way of demonstrating to other people that Godzilla was there, the fact remains, I could have imagined the whole thing.
Next, subjective reality. I cringe when I talk about this, because some people have a view that reality is subjective, on a different level than what I view it. Solipsists, for instance, feel that the only thing they can know, is that they exist, and therefore the only thing they’re justified in knowing is that they exist, as everything else could be an illusion. I don’t mean that kind of subjective reality. What I mean is, everyone has their own perception on what is real, and even though there is a universe that is objective, everyone’s subjective experience as to what is real matters to them. So, when I speak to someone who, for instance, in their subjective experience, feels that creationism is valid, and evolution and the field of abiogenisis are not, and they were to ask me, “Well, how do you think life began?” I am unjustified in saying “Based on the evidence, it is more than likely that life formed naturally, and diverged.” What I AM justified in saying, however, is “Through my observation of the evidence, abiogenesis and evolution are more than likely true.” This is an important difference. The observations and experiences I’ve had, while empirical and verifiable, are not the creationist’s experiences. All the evidence in the world will not make something more than likely true, for someone who hasn’t seen it.
The last thing to bare in mind, but certainly not least, in fact, possibly the most important thing, is that we, as humans, are not hard wired to seek truth. We’re hard wired to win arguments. Many times I have to stop myself and ask, “…Am I really looking for the truth here, or am I just arguing for the sake of being right?” It’s very important that EVERYONE remember that this is a fundamental fact of how we live. Before you look at a dissenting opinion and get angry, and say, “You’re wrong!” stop, and ask yourself calmly, are you looking for the truth? Or just arguing for the sake of it?
Carl Sagan was on a radio show once, and a creationist called in to ask him if he had faith in evolution. Carl made the note that instead of wanting to learn about evolution, the caller appeared more interested in †˜doing battle’ with him, which was disappointing, as the truth is so much more pleasant than trying to prove yourself right.
Alright, time for the TL:DR version. I’m a philosophical materialist/empiricist, I trust empirical evidence and philosophical materialist methodology(science) to determine what is true from what is false. Those who agree should bare in mind that when they argue, search for truth, don’t try to win. Keep an open mind, but don’t be gullible. And remember, if you can’t show it, you can’t say you know it.
And as a side note for the entire post, I personally disregard the entire notion of absolute knowledge of anything, so when I say “know” I mean “practically know” or “To the best of my knowledge”.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Let me know.
Some people my also hold this view, and for much of what I’m going to say, it addresses something I feel those people should bare in mind at all times. It’s also good that people who DON’T share this world view read what I say, because my philosophy is regularly come under attack as being an arrogant assault on others beliefs, and even their very lives. Especially as most things someone like me would say DOES come off as extremely arrogant. How dare I claim to know something that others don’t? What exactly do I know?
The first thing to bare in mind is that despite my empirical worldview, I am quite open minded. And being open minded is very important. Yes I know, that seems rather pander-ish, and most people would say, “Well of course you should, that’s a given.” But what some people might view as an open mind, I would view as a gullible one, and what I would view as an open mind, others might view as a close minded one.
When I speak of having an open mind, what I mean is simply being open to new ideas. This doesn’t mean ACCEPTING new ideas necessarily, and it doesn’t mean granting the validity of new ideas for reasons akin to “I just feel like it’s true.” I’m open to the idea of aliens. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to accept someone who comes up to me and says, “I was abducted!” Though of course, I wouldn’t call this person a liar, and calling them deluded would be insulting to them. Instead, I simply say, “Your personal experience of aliens is not justification of my belief in them.”
This might seem arrogant, but it is true. How many of us could say that everything we remember is completely 100% right. Have you never had an extremely vivid dream? I know I have. I know that many times my senses can be fooled by a great number of things. The value in empirical evidence is that it’s not something that can only be justified subjectively…it’s something that can objectively be demonstrated, and verified. Always bare in mind that a person who claims to have met God isn’t necessarily lieing to you…but that doesn’t mean they’ve really met god.
What about claims of knowledge? If I were to say I know something, how exactly can I claim to do that at all? It’s my personal opinion, which I feel is shared by more than just myself, that if I cannot show something, I cannot claim to know it. Recently, I was engaged in conversation with a friend, and I mentioned Zen Buddhism’s role in WWII kamikaze pilots. He frowned and said, “That’s not true.” Two claims of knowledge clashed. The difference was, he could demonstrate his claim, and I could not. I have since accepted that I was wrong in my assessment of the facts, as it had been demonstrated, and since I can demonstrate what I have learned now, I can claim to know that it was in fact the Bushido philosophy that influenced WWII kamikaze pilots.
For something more…blunt…say I were to wake up and see Godzilla walking through town during the middle of the night. Say I followed Godzilla around, and marveled at the immense detail in its giant body. I wanted to take a picture, so I went home to grab my camera, and when I came back, Godzilla was nowhere to be seen. The next day, I tried to tell people I saw Godzilla, but there were no footprints, no damage, and the only other person who claimed to have seen something said he saw a different dinosaur (say a triceratops). In this instance, can I claim to KNOW that Godzilla had walked through hthe town? No. I cannot. I can try and evaluate my state of mind all I’d like, but if I have no way of demonstrating to other people that Godzilla was there, the fact remains, I could have imagined the whole thing.
Next, subjective reality. I cringe when I talk about this, because some people have a view that reality is subjective, on a different level than what I view it. Solipsists, for instance, feel that the only thing they can know, is that they exist, and therefore the only thing they’re justified in knowing is that they exist, as everything else could be an illusion. I don’t mean that kind of subjective reality. What I mean is, everyone has their own perception on what is real, and even though there is a universe that is objective, everyone’s subjective experience as to what is real matters to them. So, when I speak to someone who, for instance, in their subjective experience, feels that creationism is valid, and evolution and the field of abiogenisis are not, and they were to ask me, “Well, how do you think life began?” I am unjustified in saying “Based on the evidence, it is more than likely that life formed naturally, and diverged.” What I AM justified in saying, however, is “Through my observation of the evidence, abiogenesis and evolution are more than likely true.” This is an important difference. The observations and experiences I’ve had, while empirical and verifiable, are not the creationist’s experiences. All the evidence in the world will not make something more than likely true, for someone who hasn’t seen it.
The last thing to bare in mind, but certainly not least, in fact, possibly the most important thing, is that we, as humans, are not hard wired to seek truth. We’re hard wired to win arguments. Many times I have to stop myself and ask, “…Am I really looking for the truth here, or am I just arguing for the sake of being right?” It’s very important that EVERYONE remember that this is a fundamental fact of how we live. Before you look at a dissenting opinion and get angry, and say, “You’re wrong!” stop, and ask yourself calmly, are you looking for the truth? Or just arguing for the sake of it?
Carl Sagan was on a radio show once, and a creationist called in to ask him if he had faith in evolution. Carl made the note that instead of wanting to learn about evolution, the caller appeared more interested in †˜doing battle’ with him, which was disappointing, as the truth is so much more pleasant than trying to prove yourself right.
Alright, time for the TL:DR version. I’m a philosophical materialist/empiricist, I trust empirical evidence and philosophical materialist methodology(science) to determine what is true from what is false. Those who agree should bare in mind that when they argue, search for truth, don’t try to win. Keep an open mind, but don’t be gullible. And remember, if you can’t show it, you can’t say you know it.
And as a side note for the entire post, I personally disregard the entire notion of absolute knowledge of anything, so when I say “know” I mean “practically know” or “To the best of my knowledge”.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Let me know.
0
Cool story, bro.
But seriously, what is your point? I can understand feeling the need to describe your beliefs and why you believe them, but is there any room for discussion here? Are people supposed to say, "You're wrong" and thus begin an argument? Wouldn't that go against what you've said about how people shouldn't simply do battle?
If people agree with you, there's no discussion. If people disagree with you, it's probably on a matter that cannot be reconciled; you two will simply have to agree to disagree, and thus, there is no discussion. So, does this thread have merit, or are you simply explaining your philosophy so you can point someone to this thread whenever they disagree with your philosophy in other threads?
But seriously, what is your point? I can understand feeling the need to describe your beliefs and why you believe them, but is there any room for discussion here? Are people supposed to say, "You're wrong" and thus begin an argument? Wouldn't that go against what you've said about how people shouldn't simply do battle?
If people agree with you, there's no discussion. If people disagree with you, it's probably on a matter that cannot be reconciled; you two will simply have to agree to disagree, and thus, there is no discussion. So, does this thread have merit, or are you simply explaining your philosophy so you can point someone to this thread whenever they disagree with your philosophy in other threads?
0
What are you trying to say?
Cause honestly, what is there to argue about here.
For me I just see a long list of things you want to point out. But where are getting here? Whats to discuss, its like you just posted a slab of information but its not really leading to anything that would want to be talked about or elaborated on because you actually elaborated all of it.
Cause honestly, what is there to argue about here.
For me I just see a long list of things you want to point out. But where are getting here? Whats to discuss, its like you just posted a slab of information but its not really leading to anything that would want to be talked about or elaborated on because you actually elaborated all of it.
0
I think you guys are forgetting that this is a BigLundi thread.
They never make sense.
Also, irony lol.
They never make sense.
Also, irony lol.
0
K-1 wrote...
Cool story, bro.But seriously, what is your point? I can understand feeling the need to describe your beliefs and why you believe them, but is there any room for discussion here? Are people supposed to say, "You're wrong" and thus begin an argument? Wouldn't that go against what you've said about how people shouldn't simply do battle?
If people agree with you, there's no discussion. If people disagree with you, it's probably on a matter that cannot be reconciled; you two will simply have to agree to disagree, and thus, there is no discussion. So, does this thread have merit, or are you simply explaining your philosophy so you can point someone to this thread whenever they disagree with your philosophy in other threads?
In part, it's a stock answer if someone doesn't understand where I'm coming from, in another part it's a bit of a guide of things to bare in mind when discussing things with other people.
While it's sometimes true that two epople that disagree on something sometimes can't reconcile their differences, I encourage people to be a bit more open minded, and I've addressed all the things that are involved with why this might happen. One, people don't understand eachother's perspectives and personal experiences, and two, people tend not to understand that their natural reactions to arguments are not to look for what is true, but to be right.