Faith, Reason, and Self-evident truths

[Jester]

This is currently being discussed in the Holy Huddle room, but for those non-Christians who wish to participate, I'm adding the topic here.

Is there proof, reasonable evidence, some evidence, etc for the existence of reality?

Or:

Must we accept some things on a non-rational basis?

Or:

Do you have some response not mentioned above?

[Sjoerd]

TC, if you define "reality" as "what our senses tell us", then you are completely right. However, many philosophers and religious persons alike prefer to have a broader scope and ask metaphysical questions like "Is what our senses tell us actually real?" and "Is there a part of reality outside our what our senses can tell?". You can claim that parsimony and the scientific method tell us to reject the existence of anything beyond our senses. On the other hand, the only area where parsimony and the scientific method have proven their worth, is: explaining what our senses tell us. Therefore, you can argue that the scientific method is not applicable to metaphysics.

[Goat]

TC, if you define "reality" as "what our senses tell us", then you are completely right. However, many philosophers and religious persons alike prefer to have a broader scope and ask metaphysical questions like "Is what our senses tell us actually real?" and "Is there a part of reality outside our what our senses can tell?". You can claim that parsimony and the scientific method tell us to reject the existence of anything beyond our senses. On the other hand, the only area where parsimony and the scientific method have proven their worth, is: explaining what our senses tell us. Therefore, you can argue that the scientific method is not applicable to metaphysics.

I can argue that trying to apply metaphysics to that question is playing meaningless word games that merely stroke the egos of the participants, but have no practicality other than that.

[Sjoerd]

I can argue that trying to apply metaphysics to that question is playing meaningless word games that merely stroke the egos of the participants, but have no practicality other than that.

I am sorry, I have read that five times and I still cannot see what you mean. Could you rephrase, please?

[Goat]

I can argue that trying to apply metaphysics to that question is playing meaningless word games that merely stroke the egos of the participants, but have no practicality other than that.

I am sorry, I have read that five times and I still cannot see what you mean. Could you rephrase, please?

Hum.. In other words.. it's nonsense. It is worthless. It doesn't accomplish anything at all.

[Sjoerd]

You mean that applying metaphysics to a metaphysical question is useless? I am not criticising you, I just have no clue of what you mean.

[Thought Criminal]

TC, if you define "reality" as "what our senses tell us", then you are completely right. However, many philosophers and religious persons alike prefer to have a broader scope and ask metaphysical questions like "Is what our senses tell us actually real?" and "Is there a part of reality outside our what our senses can tell?". [...]

There is a cottage industry in metaphysics dedicated to asking meaningless questions only to agonize over the equally meaningless answers. The only way to resolve such artificial controversies is to refuse to answer the question as if it were valid, and instead to question the question itself.

The false problems we generate can only be dissolved, not resolved. So when someone asks, sagely, "Is what our senses tell us actually real?", neither an affirmative nor negative answer is adequate. Instead, we must illustrate the fallacies implicit in the question, as by pointedly asking, "Real compared to what?"

Reality is defined as whatever exists, and any account of it is going to need to include ourselves and whatever it is that our senses are telling us about. Anything that fails to account for these things or posits supposed entities that cannot interact with them, is a non-starter. What goat correctly identified as mere word games falls into this category.

It is literally meaningless to speak of ontology that is divorced from epistemology. If, even in principle, something cannot be known, then it does not exist. After all, existence is itself defined recursively and procedurally in terms of the ability of a thing to interact with other existing things, and therefore to be at least potentially known. This problem of interaction is what relegated dualism to the trash bin.

[...]
You can claim that parsimony and the scientific method tell us to reject the existence of anything beyond our senses. On the other hand, the only area where parsimony and the scientific method have proven their worth, is: explaining what our senses tell us. Therefore, you can argue that the scientific method is not applicable to metaphysics.

So you're saying epistemology is "limited" to telling us about the things that actually exist? How terrible! I'll have to run out and form a new discipline, in which we argue pointlessly about the status of nonexistent things. I think I'll call it "theology". Oh, wait, someone beat me to it.

Look, as I pointed out elsewhere, parsimony is not merely a part of the scientific method, it is an epistemological principle that the method necessarily includes. Parsimony therefore applies directly to metaphysics, which is precisely why the burden of proof rests with positive claims of existence. When this burden has not been met, there is nothing for us to do but reject the claim and move on. And when the claim is defined specifically so that the burden cannot be met, it has failed even before it began.

TC

[Sjoerd]

TC, if you define "reality" as "what our senses tell us", then you are completely right. However, many philosophers and religious persons alike prefer to have a broader scope and ask metaphysical questions like "Is what our senses tell us actually real?" and "Is there a part of reality outside our what our senses can tell?". [...]

There is a cottage industry in metaphysics dedicated to asking meaningless questions only to agonize over the equally meaningless answers. The only way to resolve such artificial controversies is to refuse to answer the question as if it were valid, and instead to question the question itself.

The false problems we generate can only be dissolved, not resolved. So when someone asks, sagely, "Is what our senses tell us actually real?", neither an affirmative nor negative answer is adequate. Instead, we must illustrate the fallacies implicit in the question, as by pointedly asking, "Real compared to what?"

Reality is defined as whatever exists, and any account of it is going to need to include ourselves and whatever it is that our senses are telling us about. Anything that fails to account for these things or posits supposed entities that cannot interact with them, is a non-starter. What goat correctly identified as mere word games falls into this category.

It is literally meaningless to speak of ontology that is divorced from epistemology. If, even in principle, something cannot be known, then it does not exist. After all, existence is itself defined recursively and procedurally in terms of the ability of a thing to interact with other existing things, and therefore to be at least potentially known. This problem of interaction is what relegated dualism to the trash bin.

[...]
You can claim that parsimony and the scientific method tell us to reject the existence of anything beyond our senses. On the other hand, the only area where parsimony and the scientific method have proven their worth, is: explaining what our senses tell us. Therefore, you can argue that the scientific method is not applicable to metaphysics.

So you're saying epistemology is "limited" to telling us about the things that actually exist? How terrible! I'll have to run out and form a new discipline, in which we argue pointlessly about the status of nonexistent things. I think I'll call it "theology". Oh, wait, someone beat me to it.

Look, as I pointed out elsewhere, parsimony is not merely a part of the scientific method, it is an epistemological principle that the method necessarily includes. Parsimony therefore applies directly to metaphysics, which is precisely why the burden of proof rests with positive claims of existence. When this burden has not been met, there is nothing for us to do but reject the claim and move on. And when the claim is defined specifically so that the burden cannot be met, it has failed even before it began.

TC

I vehemently deny that science is based on any pursuit of absolute knowledge whatsoever. Any facts and theories provided by science are provisional, and should hence be named "belief" rather than "knowledge". Justified belief, but but belief nevertheless. Science gives us the power to predict and manipulate our surroundings, and it is the most powerful method to do so. It makes no claims about the fundamental nature or reality of anything. If you want to apply scientific techniques such as parsimony to metaphysics, do as you will, but do not claim that metaphysics falls within the realm of science.

[Beto]

I vehemently deny that science is based on any pursuit of absolute knowledge whatsoever. Any facts and theories provided by science are provisional, and should hence be named "belief" rather than "knowledge".

There's a difference between believing in science and doing science. While doing science one has objective empirical knowledge. One does not need to believe in what one experiences first-hand.

It makes no claims about the fundamental nature or reality of anything.

What? Studying fundamental particles isn't studying the fundamental nature or reality of things?

[Sjoerd]

I vehemently deny that science is based on any pursuit of absolute knowledge whatsoever. Any facts and theories provided by science are provisional, and should hence be named "belief" rather than "knowledge".

There's a difference between believing in science and doing science. While doing science one has objective empirical knowledge. One does need to believe in what one experiences first-hand.

Well... not really. If my measurements do not give the result I expect, either my measurements are wrong or my expectations are wrong.
Stubborn as scientists are, they will initially doubt their measurements and repeat the experiment until they feel sure, with the emphasis on feel. If the result is sufficiently novel, they will try to publish it. If fellow scientists feel the same way, they get it published, else not. Publications give rise to new expectations. And the cycle repeats.

It makes no claims about the fundamental nature or reality of anything.

What? Studying fundamental particles isn't studying the fundamental nature or reality of things?

And how do we know they are fundamental? According to string theory, bosons and fermions are indeed fundamental, but any experiment to test string theory requires more energy than we will ever be able to generate. So we seem to have hit a barrier, and we can't prove or disprove if these particles are fundamental or not.

[Zzyzx]

.

I vehemently deny that science is based on any pursuit of absolute knowledge whatsoever.

Are you a scientist? Have you studied science beyond introductory level? What is your area of expertise?