Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?) (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 01, 2011, 20:05 (4851 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT (on the ROBOTS thread): From Nietzsche on, philosophy has been faced with the problem of the order of rank; how to rank ideas without resort to a supreme being, or in the absence of objective truth. [...] The only way to rank ideas, concepts, morals ... whatever the philosophical subject is ... is to test them. Those ideas that cannot be tested, have no practical use for philosophy or for man at large.-This is an interesting post. In twenty-four-one-eleven I wrote: "Any hierarchy entails a subjective value judgement, and this in itself constitutes a BELIEF, i.e. that one source of information is more valuable than another. For example, many people will argue that science is our most reliable source of information, but not everyone will agree." This is a very inadequate summary, and your post shines the spotlight on the gaps in it. However, there's still no escape from the subjectivity of a hierarchy, and your post already emphasizes this ("I accept explanations that are 'most likely' to be true" [most likely in whose eyes?]; "I make certain assumptions"; "knowledge is king"). And yet, rather strangely, in the last section you've misunderstood what I wrote, and you talk about the subjective part of your nature as if it were separate from the other issues. I didn't ask how you valued it. I asked if it might not reflect phenomena beyond the reach of scientific materialism. I'll return to this in a moment.-My subjective view of "rank" is that it all depends on the topic under discussion and on the purpose of the discussion. If we're studying how the material world works ... the cosmos, the Earth, the body ... I think it would be foolish not to acknowledge the absolute supremacy of science. For all its inadequacies, it has the tools for examining and testing, and our technological and medical triumphs alone prove that it's possible to gain knowledge, which in these fields is indeed the priority.-However, if the topic is whether the mechanisms of life are too complex to have arisen by chance, whether our mental faculties and emotions are solely the product of chemicals, whether there's a life after death, whether there's some kind of universal intelligence at work, scientific materialism is not equipped to answer. Knowledge is not attainable in such contexts. In my subjective view, our experiences of consciousness, love, artistic inspiration, empathy etc. MIGHT be a reflection of a reality beyond that of the material world as we know it. There is no "order of rank" here, because there is no reliable guide. The fact that David's belief in a UI "cannot be tested" means, according to you, that it has "no practical use for philosophy or for man at large". I've stressed the fact that all beliefs are individual, and your statement already reveals the individuality of your own. Why must ideas be of practical use to philosophy, what do you mean by "practical use" anyway, and how many men do you need to call them "man at large"? Belief in a god or gods is of practical philosophical use to billions of people: it orientates their lives, brings them purpose, comfort, hope. Are their beliefs (as opposed to knowledge) irrelevant, valueless, not worth discussing? Of course not. But you say "an inference that does not lead to knowledge should be abandoned". You can never have knowledge of the above subjects, so in effect you're saying that every related belief (and disbelief) should be abandoned, i.e. everyone on Earth should be an agnostic. You are no more and no less entitled to such a subjective judgement than David, who reckons his scientific inferences plus his faith offer him a more reliable framework than your rejection of anything that is not knowledge. But if you're looking for a universally recognized "order of rank", you'll never get one. You say that you consider this part of a framework. "We've got the skeleton, but no meat..." A framework is just that ... a skeleton. And my skeleton says boo to your rank meat.
 
Although you misunderstood my reference to the subjective part of your nature, what you've written is also revealing. You "concentrate on the oneness in all things; the only truth is that there is only one reality, only now ... yesterday gone ... tomorrow a whisper!" For some reason you've narrowed your focus to time, but oneness is not confined to time. The oneness in all things as a concept is untestable and unknowable, but in your Buddhist moments perhaps you sense that you're related to invisible galaxies, the sun, the forest, the earthworm. This illustrates the very point I was trying to make, which is that as a guide to whatever "the truth" may be, an intuitive or spiritual experience (e.g. of oneness) may be just as reliable as inferences drawn from views through a telescope, microscope or agenda-tinted spectacles.
 
And so to your "deeper" question: "Does a whisper compare to a rose in your hand?" It's a great question, and I fear my answer is nothing like as poetic. In terms of day-to-day living, of course the present moment has the priority. But in terms of philosophy, I don't need to make such comparisons. I can whisper and believe what I like about the future, the past, God, design, chance, consciousness, ethics etc., and still have the rose in my hand.