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

by dhw, Saturday, March 05, 2011, 13:59 (5011 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: No, the problem of rank is central ... my goal is to get us to assign some ranks and priorities so we can discuss ... directly ... the ACTUAL problem (rank) instead of falling into tertiary issues. Is it reasonable for me to lean materialist? When do other priorities override direct evidence or experience?-I'm not sure if your questions are rhetorical or if you're asking me to search for answers, but I think you're trying to solve an insoluble problem. This is even clear from the way you've formulated it: you want to assign ranks so that we can discuss the problem of rank. For you this is the ACTUAL problem, and you don't want to fall into tertiary issues, but who decides what is the ACTUAL problem, and who decides what is primary, secondary, tertiary? Is it "reasonable"...Who decides what is and isn't reasonable? In your previous post, you quite rightly slammed the door when you said: "No discussion of epistemology can be without a subjective order of rank." I can sense mounting frustration here, despite our generally shared scepticism ... but how can your questions be answered other than by subjective ranking?-In my still so sadly neglected twenty-four-one, I tried to set out the various factors underlying the subjectivity of belief, and in the discussion generally, I've tried to differentiate between fields. To give a subjective answer to your two final questions, from my seat on the fence I would say ... for what it's worth ... that in the context of our discussions on religion, origins, consciousness etc., it is reasonable for you to "lean materialist" so long as you don't topple over. Direct evidence and experience have to be first-hand, and whatever conclusions you draw from them will be subjective. If they are convincing, you will be convinced, so other priorities won't enter the equation. A far greater problem for me is indirect evidence and experience (i.e. reported by other people), which includes the findings and conclusions of scientists: how much can we take on trust, particularly in fields of which we ourselves have no knowledge? Personally, I tend to take on trust information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it. (Ring a bell?) If there is no consensus (e.g. the origin of life, innovation in evolution, the nature of consciousness, OBEs/NDEs) I remain open-minded. There are no priorities, but a convincing material discovery or a direct spiritual experience might change that. Who knows?-My apologies if I'm not getting to what you consider to be the "the very root", but you will gather from the above that I'm still not sure what it is.