tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post2595068833409323494..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Natural MindsMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53458037527548925302009-10-10T10:39:52.497-07:002009-10-10T10:39:52.497-07:00Agnostics are puzzled: Where is God? Why this co...Agnostics are puzzled: Where is God? Why this confusion? But also: Why belief in the occult? How do the possessed levitate? Why are there provable 'Miracles'? Abbott, writing 'Flatland' explained contiguous geometric worlds to solve the difficulties. Now 'Techie Worlds' examines impossible concepts like trinity, resurrection, judgment, souls and more, showing they are logical and reasonable in the context of contiguous geometrical worlds. That is the way of science: to examine phenomena in the light of theory.<br /> Neither approach can be proved or dis-proved, but the advantages of life and nature weigh towards the Christian view. 'Techie Worlds' (available from amazon.com) will bring Moslems and Jews to the teachings of Jesus.<br /><br />GeorgeRicGeorgeRichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617472632756484543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-9304741352501558172009-09-17T07:26:44.410-07:002009-09-17T07:26:44.410-07:00Curse this blog for getting me interested in all s...Curse this blog for getting me interested in all sorts of problems I really don't have time for.<br /><br />I've been tinkering with the idea that a principled account of a priori knowledge might be defended along the lines that what we count as a priori knowledge is an artifact of certain kinds of inferential procedure. The way one goes about concluding that the Pythagorean Theorem holds for every right triangle differs significantly from the way one goes about deciding whether or not all ducks have feathers. Nevertheless, it will be through experience that one ultimately discovers in which situations which type of procedure is appropriate. Perhaps this will do justice both to my Quinean and Kantian sympathies, but I have to confess to having thought much less hard about this than would be ideal.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-82514901930366801932009-09-15T20:44:37.326-07:002009-09-15T20:44:37.326-07:00I think you're confusing instances of a priori...I think you're confusing instances of a priori knowledge in action with proving that they are true. Let me switch to the Pythagorean theorem to make the point. It's true that for every right triangle you examine, you'll find that a square plus b square will equal c squared. But that's not why we know that the Pyth. Theorem is true, those are just a few instances of it. With Euclidean geometry we can prove that for ALL right triangles including the ones we've never looked at that a square plus b squared MUST equal c squared. The hallmark of a priori knowledge in contrast to a posteriori knowledge is that it informs you of truths beyond the immediate ones of observation. Same for pi. You may see iterations of it or be able to get an approximation of it from real circles, but that's not the proof that for every circle it will have pi as a necessary part of its mathematical relationships. If we measured up a real world circle and came up with another number for pi, we could be certain that it was our real world circle (which are never very precise) that was screwed up, not pi. <br /><br />I'm not sure what to say about disagreements, dissenting opinions, and respectful arguments. I can divide the comments on my posts into some categories, usually:<br />a) commenter doesn't get it and it completely out in left field.<br />b) commenter isn't really interested in discussing the issue reasonably, they'd rather bicker, show off, or be nasty.<br />c) commenter is unhinged and dangerous, and finds the existence of non-believers deeply troubling.<br />d) commenter takes the time to read and think about the post, and tries to make a constructive contribution. <br />e) commenter's consciousness has been completely co-opted by religious theo-babble from an early age and seems to think that quoting the Bible and preaching at me will change my mind. <br /><br />Once in a while I will try to discuss things with people in a). I try not to rise to the bait with people in b) although I respond to them more than is useful, probably. <br />I try to ignore the c) people and hope that they don't find my home address. And I always try to interact with the d) people. I always hold out hope for the e) people, but they can be very hard to get through to. Many of them need a thorough deprogramming. <br /><br />But you never know how much good a little seed of thoughtful reasoning might do with someone you talk to, even the people who you have the least optimism about. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-25754223428099820362009-09-15T20:24:30.946-07:002009-09-15T20:24:30.946-07:00Thanks Matt,
My lack of acceptance of a priori kn...Thanks Matt,<br /><br />My lack of acceptance of a priori knowledge may well be (read as; is probably) based in my not having a well developed philosophical background. I would still contend that it doesn't exist (pi, by the way, is derived from a polygonic algorithm that was accepted because of empirically measured values, if I couldn't cut the predicted length of strength and get reasonably close to the circumference, pi would be something else or not exist at all if it wasn't consistently wrong) but as always, I could be wrong.<br /><br />But the real reason for my tirade is having a lack of data to decide where reasonable accommodation of dissenting opinion (or unintentional ignorance) deserves respectful education and where willful ignorance and/or intentional deception should be called to the carpet.<br /><br />I'm not sure where that line should be drawn. You draw it where I suspect a professional academic probably should. I draw it probably a bit to the right of where a practical consumer of knowledge probably should.<br /><br />So, where are the damned educational psychologists with the data I need?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32163462879680313442009-09-14T21:38:21.030-07:002009-09-14T21:38:21.030-07:00Thanks for all of the input lately, Tully. I agre...Thanks for all of the input lately, Tully. I agree with you on several points here. Our brains evolved to fit into the universe, and they are kludged together contraptions that do several things pretty well, but none of them perfectly. They do make mistakes, obviously. It doesn't follow that there is no such thing as a priori knowledge as far as I can tell. Pi is still 3.14159265. . . And that's something that can be proven a priori as much as anything can be proven. What has happened with the naturalism revolution in philosophy is that we've scaled back what we mean by a priori knowledge. It's knowledge that we can demonstrate within the confines of a conceptual/theoretical system that we have a very high degree of confidence about. But the confidence that we have in a model of the world that we've constructed is derived ultimately from observation and empirical testing. So that makes it seem like, in a very round about way, that there's no such thing as a priori knowledge. <br /><br />I'm actually not averse to just denying it altogether as you are doing, but it remains useful to have the category and just be clear about what we mean by it. I've made several earlier posts about this issue. Thanks again. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74444492938406952192009-09-14T21:06:28.539-07:002009-09-14T21:06:28.539-07:00Matt,
Is it a philosopher thing that philosophers...Matt,<br /><br />Is it a philosopher thing that philosophers never want to state the obvious? I actually think, it's a teacher's thing. Good teacher's always try to impart critical thinking. Well, alright you being a professional are probably obligated to do so. Me, being an amateur, will just say it straight out.<br /><br />Can anyone demonstrate knowledge, a priori or otherwise, without a material brain?<br /><br />No...good, then we don't have any liars hanging out here.<br /><br />We learn how the universe works by using our material brains. We have have found after tens of thousands of years that our first impressions can be right or wrong and the only way to have confidence in them is by testing them against controlled observations.<br /><br />The fact that we must use controlled observations to confirm our intuitions or else there is high probability of erroneous predictions proves that our brains can and do make mistakes.<br /><br />That fact that our material brains can and do make mistakes when compared to accurate predictions proves that there is absolutely NO SUCH THING AS A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE!<br /><br />2+2=4? Well, what if every single time I took two rocks and put them on the ground and then put two more rocks on the ground within a one meter radius of the first two, there were all of sudden FIVE rocks on the ground?<br /><br />I'll tell you what it means. It means 2+2= flipping 5! You cannot deny the empirical data. It may be uncomfortable, you may hate the implication (I know I would), but yes then 2+2=5. And then you must readjust your other predictions based on this new data.<br /><br />The fact that we all agree that 2+2=4 is not due to some a priori magical knowledge. It is, like any other theory with predictive power, based on observed facts.<br /><br />The universe wasn't created for the human brain, the human brain evolved in it. If the universe had been designed for our brains, quantum mechanics and tensor calculus would be as obvious to us as finding food to survive.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-37101646744074598662009-09-12T03:01:40.372-07:002009-09-12T03:01:40.372-07:00Prof. Matt McCormick,
The laws of the universe ar...Prof. Matt McCormick,<br /><br />The laws of the universe are formulated in Mathematics. Mathematic maps Logic. The following proof uses formal logic.<br /><br />See: bloganders.blogspot.com (see the left menu)<br />It proofs the existence of a Creator and His purpose of humankind.<br /><br />Anders BranderudAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08418091459248577266noreply@blogger.com