"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 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…
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.
At the end of the day, when ANGRY says “belief” he means “unjustified certainty”. He claims not to have any unjustified certainties, he claims knowledge is not an unjustified certainty. I told him a month ago that using the term in that way to say things like “I don’t have any beliefs” would lead to endless confusion and people thinking he’s out of his mind. It has been explained to him all the various reasons why his obtuse way of using the word isn’t going to catch on outside the anti-theist circles where he picked it up.
He jumps from non-knowing to knowing without an in-between state. That’s how I would describe it.
He would probably say that there are only the two states of knowing or non-knowing.
Yet he manages to act in that non-knowing state as though he has reasonable knowledge or belief of what to do. How does he manage that? Will.
What’s will in that situation? And how does will act without selecting between options?
You’re getting closer, you are now reasonable - but not fully accurate. Somewhat of a half truth. Keep in mind my definition 1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept something as true, genuine, or real - in that acceptance is also a state of certainty, but not so much in that it is related to knowledge as one of the central points of this thesis, in that knowledge is understood, not “accepted” through justification. In that a state of knowing becomes, not a state of “belief” as defined in the OP and here.
Jumping from Non knowing to knowing without an in between state? Isn’t uncertainty and doubt an inbetween state? As opposed to your in between state, of belief, apparently?
I don’t have an idea of what your second sentence means though.
Yeah, that’s one of the problems I pointed out a month ago. If ‘belief’ means ‘unjustified certainty’, it leaves us with a word vacuum for all those things we used to call beliefs that are neither unjustified, nor certain, nor knowledge.
Putting ‘belief’ on special reserve as a term to bash religious people with simply isn’t sufficient motivation to overhaul epistemological vernacular, and he has no non-vernacular argument.
Lets revisit what it is to understand. Knowing that 1+1=2 is a matter of understanding what 1+1=2 represents, how numbers and math function conceptually and what it represents. Perhaps I’m not clear enough here…
I suppose you can say I’m substituting uncertainty and doubt for belief, not exactly what you said.
Now, I am also separating the acceptance of belief to the understanding and state of knowing in knowledge, which would lead us that knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
The atomic level of things is also called microphysics. So there is macrophysics too. And Newton’s physics is not true in both microphysics and macrophysics, but it is true in mesophysics.
That is a rhetorical question with a rehetorical answer, because James already said: "If you are greatly confident, you say that you ‘know’. If not so confident, you say that you ‘believe’. The problem is where to draw the line. James is right. There is nothing to add, and there is especially nothing to change by using rhetorical questions and answers.
Where?
Sources?
Links?
Rhetoric! Otherwise he would have given evidence, sources or at least links to that post.
I guess that you mean the laws of mseophysics, thus not those of microphysics and macrophysics. But even then, if you mean the mesophysical laws, it is not possible to be 100% sure. Knowledge about mesophysical laws has a likelihood of about 98-99% truth. The primary task of our senses and brains is not to know complicated laws but to support our surviving.
Yes, that is true, but one should also not completely mistrust a perception.
