say what? (Epistemology) (The atheist delusion)

by dhw, Friday, February 03, 2012, 17:14 (4678 days ago) @ xeno6696

DAVID (regarding Scoobypoo): Matt, I don't think his mind is open enough to properly debate. Don't waste your time. If we get rational discussion, then we can.-Matt: My posts are rarely meant solely for the person I'm responding too. It helps sometimes to show you and dhw for example, where I may have changed on past issues.-I was delighted to read your post, Matt, as it's an important step forward in our long-lost discussion on epistemology. I've deliberately waited a few days to see whether Scoobypoo would reply to my own post or yours, but it seems that David is right. His idea of rational discussion appears to be a matter of ignoring the interlocutor and dismissing as "silly" anything he doesn't believe, because no-one knows or has proved what is unknowable and unprovable. (But if you are still there, Scoobypoo, I hope you will "prove" me wrong by replying to the arguments set out in these posts.)-Matt, your recognition of the subjective arbitrariness of hierarchies is indeed a welcome change of direction, and the only section of your post I'd like to comment on ... not as a criticism but as an extension of the argument ... is the following:-"The other part is the order of rank over epistemology. What is "The Order of Rank?" It is that subjective piece that we all have in our own mental frameworks, that informs us as to what types of information we place the most reliance upon. Where I diverge from David, for example, is that for me, an explanation must be predictable and reliable, where reliability is essentially dictated by the scientific method. (I only make claims upon those things that I can study.)"-I don't actually understand your first sentence, but any hierarchy has to suit the subject under consideration. I'm sure there would be a consensus that the scientific method is best for unravelling the complexities of the purely material world. But every subject one can think of will entail different "types of information" and, as you've indicated, the scientific method will be of little assistance in many of those that matter most to us (e.g. love, human relations, ethics, aesthetics). As I see it, there simply cannot be a clear epistemological hierarchy when it comes to questions concerning the source of the universe or of life, or the nature of consciousness in all its manifestations. This is a category all on its own. To give the scientific method priority is tantamount to saying that there is nothing beyond the material world as we know it, which is already a decision. That is not meant as a devaluation of science, but David Attenborough's recognition of Darwin's claim that evolution (which we can extend to science generally) is not incompatible with religion is acknowledgement of the need for a balanced perspective as opposed to a hierarchy. And so for me (I can only speak for myself), any belief should remain compatible with those scientific findings on which there is a general consensus, but at the same time it must take into account all those phenomena that science is not able to cover. Among these I would include the long history of psychic experiences, with special emphasis on those that have resulted in the acquisition of information corroborated by independent witnesses (NDEs being only one form). There is no hierarchy, because a hierarchy is itself a judgement. "Taking into account" does not, of course, mean jumping to conclusions, but by now it should be pretty clear that I am not one for jumping to conclusions!