Nothing can empirically justify anything if even all the senses are in doubt. Any belief or “knowledge” must stem from a priori.
Nothing comes from nothing and certainly not certainty.
Interesting how atheists keep getting into that “something from nothing” problem in their attempt to deny precepts.
You claim to believe things because you associate belief with irrational religious nuts and you don’t want to think of yourself in those terms.
Everyone is telling you that “irrational belief without evidence” is a tiny fragment of the meaning of the word ‘belief’ but you won’t listen. You have a phobia of the word. You’re not the only one. It’s common among atheists.
You are on a pointless quest to alter epistemology. You are wasting your time over nothing.
How do you know what I think? You don’t really, your entire argument is based on belief, as opposed to mine. I know why I don’t believe and provided reasons why whatever instance of belief you thought you caught me at wasn’t. You assume you know how I think. Only I can know how I think, unless some crazy scientific advances occur that I’m not aware of currently.
I did not claim “I believe things because I associate belief with irrational religious nuts”
Sorry. If you want to be unreasonable, go ahead, but that doesn’t help you at all for your argument.
Justifying our senses with empiricism is like justifying mathematics with an equation.
Yeah, I lost a ‘NOT’ while editing my post.
It should have been : "You claim NOT to believe things because you associate belief with irrational religious nuts and you don’t want to think of yourself in those terms. "
He’s come to the same conclusion about you that I and Moreno did. In fact I think phyllo came to it first. Seems reasonable enough to me- it’s the most justified conclusion based on reading what you write.
Empiricism utilizes logic and reason - through testing and experimentation. I’m not referring to scientific empiricism - in that a 3 year old utilizes empiricism. 3 year olds test and produce logical reasons of why things are the way they sense them.
That is all we can have knowledge from, our senses, essentially. If we had no senses, how could we have logic? Reason? Math? I don’t know the answer to that question. Maybe we would understand logic and reason and math tabula rasa.
So you can claim knowledge is not justified and that we really don’t know anything because its all based on senses, ultimately. Maybe you belong to the questionable “quote” of Socrates in that you think along the lines of “I only know I know nothing.”? I don’t know what you think on the matter. Empiricism allows us to recognize consistency, patterns, for justification, logically and reasonably.
How could you test or verify anything if your senses don’t work? Even Helen Keller needed the sense of touch.
That fallacy plays against your argument. Logic does not depend upon senses. But logic requires axioms. Until a high degree of mental understanding is reached, those axioms come from the probability that the senses are reasonably accurate (a belief in the senses).
Ok I didn’t claim "not to believe things because I associate belief with irrational religious nuts.
I claimed not to believe things because I have developed a discipline of weeding out belief in my life, becoming agnostic about more things than would be considered normal and by obtaining knowledge.
That was my claim. You misinterpreted the claim because you and Uccisore seem to have a preconceived notion that you cannot shake from your mentality no matter what is stated. I suspect it may be due to your mental faculties operating from belief based frameworks.
Empiricism is knowledge dervied from sense experience. Justifying the general reliability of sense experience through knowledge derived from sense experience is circular.
If by ‘empiricism’ you meant ‘rationalism’, that isn’t my problem. Maybe don’t use words you don’t know the meanings of.
Who the fuck knows? If somebody tries to answer that, you’ll just say “By logic I didn’t mean philosophical logic, I meant musical logic. By Math I didn’t mean mathematical math, I meant counting on my fingers. By reason I didn’t mean rational reason, I meant dried grapes”. You give the exact same response every time somebody corrects you on anything.
James, How would a human who is tabula rasa, with no senses, understand what logic is?
Hellen Keller had the sense of touch, so I don’t know why you are bringing her up.
Jesus Christ. If a person can’t understand logic without their senses, then justifying the reliability of your senses in terms of logic is back to being a circular argument again. You’re arguing with me that you justify the senses through logic, and arguing with James that logic is justified through the senses.
Again, it’s like justifying math with a math equation.
"Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.”
Which means logic and reason is developed through experience. So as stated previously, why cannot one be agnostic of sensory experience until logic and reason are conceived? Or would you say we have logic and reason from birth, and tabula rasa, without sensory experience?
You claim not to believe things and I am giving my reasons for why you are making the claim.
I think that is a rationalization which is used to satisfy your ego.
You seem to be off to a poor start. The first time that I did that, I refused to say anything at all until I knew without doubt that whatever I said had to be 100% accurate (aka “knowledge”). For two weeks, I couldn’t say anything at all. Yet here you are blabbing all kinds of beliefs while claiming that you have none.
If you want to go that route, you can actually do it. But not like you have been. Try not saying anything at all until you cannot possibly doubt the absolute certainty of what you are going to say.
A cat doesn’t know what logic is, yet uses it every second of its life. So do plants for that matter. But if you remove all senses from any creature before its birth, it dies without artificial help.
You’re trying to answer a question that isn’t possible to know. There is nobody with tabula rasa that we can confirm has logic. You don’t understand the hypothetical here
Why should I care how you acted, based on what you are telling me how you thought, considering your tone? What do I believe James? if you don’t want to have a philosophical discussion and denigrate, go ahead. But we can end it now. Me and you have already been down this path as well. But if you’re going to argue with assumptions, there’s no reason to discuss.
What I am going to “mean” is not a matter of belief, its a matter of knowledge. Please see the thread on language. Perhaps you need to brush up on what it is to mean something, as opposed to “say” something. Take a gander…
Yes. That is one of the main themes he does not understand. Unfortunately.
I disagree. But it depends on what justify is, justify as knowledge? Keep in mind that knowledge is only true until it is not true, but can be justified. As all knowledge is justified subjectively, ultimately. I already explained this previously. Thus, why I don’t agree or accept how knowledge is necessarily truth.
Sure, no problem there
I am not sure what you’re referring to. Having doubt of precepts is not denying them. Deny is a harsh word.