How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #720]

Do you believe you are a Metaphysician, or do you believe you are a hobbyist that accepts what Metaphysicians say?

And, when you think about causality, and you've decided on your preferred answer, how do you determine if you are right? Or does it even matter?

After all, if you can't test your musings, you can claim you are right and smart and claim everyone else is wrong, right?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #721]

I believe we are all philosophers (and metaphysicians). Some of us are formally trained, as I am. Views on causality (and everything else) are tested through logic, complying with other scientific and historical knowledge, etc.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #721]

I believe we are all philosophers (and metaphysicians). Some of us are formally trained, as I am. Views on causality (and everything else) are tested through logic, complying with other scientific and historical knowledge, etc.

"other scientific and historical knowledge" is pretty broad, no? How do you decide which is logical or not if you accept, say, Xenu or Yahweh?

Plus, when you say formally trained, what does that mean? You took a course in college? You talk to your priest weekly? You've googled it?

Then, how do you determine who is more correct on a matter? Clearly you have debates and disagreements - what metrics do you use? How do you determine which science is appropriate to consider, especially if the science contradicts your preferred view?


I can't help the paucity of your answers with regard to this. If not for my sake, maybe for the sake of others, please provide robust insight!

[The Tanager]

"other scientific and historical knowledge" is pretty broad, no? How do you decide which is logical or not if you accept, say, Xenu or Yahweh?

Yes, it is broad because it was a general statement. The scientific and historical evidences are different for different issues. You decide whether claims based on any particular set of data are logical or not by applying logical principles.

Plus, when you say formally trained, what does that mean? You took a course in college? You talk to your priest weekly? You've googled it?

I mean that I have a doctorate in philosophy, where I was required to read, research, and write all sorts of sides to all sorts of philosophical discussions.

Then, how do you determine who is more correct on a matter? Clearly you have debates and disagreements - what metrics do you use? How do you determine which science is appropriate to consider, especially if the science contradicts your preferred view?

Contradicting one’s own view is not a measure of it not being true. You use logic.

[boatsnguitars]

I mean that I have a doctorate in philosophy, where I was required to read, research, and write all sorts of sides to all sorts of philosophical discussions.

Respectfully, I don't believe you. However, if you could post your dissertation, perhaps we could discuss it and I could see if you seem to have "the chops"?

My problem is that you haven't seem to have understood the full breadth and depth of the issues, and only seem to argue the Christian Apologetics, which you can pick up anywhere. Perhaps you can go into more detail? You don't have to - as this is the internet, anyone can claim anything, but perhaps to prove the claim you've made here - as this is a debate site and providing evidence for claims is customary.

[boatsnguitars]

Contradicting one’s own view is not a measure of it not being true. You use logic.

You don't see an inherent problem in that? So, you can't tell if something is true if it does contradict your view, or if it doesn't. You can't tell.

And, when you put science as secondary, what reason do you have to question anything, or not question everything? Seems you have a completely postmodern system of belief: as long as you feel good about your "logic", you can sleep well.

[The Tanager]

Respectfully, I don't believe you. However, if you could post your dissertation, perhaps we could discuss it and I could see if you seem to have "the chops"?

My problem is that you haven't seem to have understood the full breadth and depth of the issues, and only seem to argue the Christian Apologetics, which you can pick up anywhere. Perhaps you can go into more detail? You don't have to - as this is the internet, anyone can claim anything, but perhaps to prove the claim you've made here - as this is a debate site and providing evidence for claims is customary.

Okay, you don’t believe me. I’m not going to post my dissertation here. If I have the chops or not would be evident in our discussions, anyway. I know you will claim I don’t have the chops. I’ll leave it up to any and all readers to decide for themselves. If you want to discuss the topic of my dissertation, I’d be glad to. It was about the 11th century Hindu philosopher Ramanuja’s response to the problem of evil.

Contradicting one’s own view is not a measure of it not being true. You use logic.

You don't see an inherent problem in that? So, you can't tell if something is true if it does contradict your view, or if it doesn't. You can't tell.

Let me rephrase it, hopefully more clearly (is not even this complex phrasing I chose evidence of me being a trained philosopher ). I was saying that rejecting anything (including which science is appropriate to consider) because it simply doesn’t align with one’s preferred view is not a good test of truth. I was saying the metric of debates and disagreements is logic applied to knowledge of all kinds.

And, when you put science as secondary, what reason do you have to question anything, or not question everything? Seems you have a completely postmodern system of belief: as long as you feel good about your "logic", you can sleep well.

No, my logic is very much pre-modern, as the philosophical classifications go. One logically cannot put science as primary because it rests on philosophical beliefs. No matter what one believes about science, they make philosophical moves prior to actually using/rejecting that science.

Now, if you mean that I’m putting science as secondary in the sense of I’m just choosing religion over science because it is religion (or something like that), then I don’t think science is secondary; it’s very important. I put science, history, other non-foundational philosophical claims, all forms of knowledge on the same level in that sense, but philosophical reasoning and certain foundational philosophical claims help sort that out.

[boatsnguitars]

Respectfully, I don't believe you. However, if you could post your dissertation, perhaps we could discuss it and I could see if you seem to have "the chops"?

My problem is that you haven't seem to have understood the full breadth and depth of the issues, and only seem to argue the Christian Apologetics, which you can pick up anywhere. Perhaps you can go into more detail? You don't have to - as this is the internet, anyone can claim anything, but perhaps to prove the claim you've made here - as this is a debate site and providing evidence for claims is customary.

Okay, you don’t believe me. I’m not going to post my dissertation here. If I have the chops or not would be evident in our discussions, anyway. I know you will claim I don’t have the chops. I’ll leave it up to any and all readers to decide for themselves. If you want to discuss the topic of my dissertation, I’d be glad to. It was about the 11th century Hindu philosopher Ramanuja’s response to the problem of evil.

Contradicting one’s own view is not a measure of it not being true. You use logic.

You don't see an inherent problem in that? So, you can't tell if something is true if it does contradict your view, or if it doesn't. You can't tell.

Let me rephrase it, hopefully more clearly (is not even this complex phrasing I chose evidence of me being a trained philosopher ). I was saying that rejecting anything (including which science is appropriate to consider) because it simply doesn’t align with one’s preferred view is not a good test of truth. I was saying the metric of debates and disagreements is logic applied to knowledge of all kinds.

And, when you put science as secondary, what reason do you have to question anything, or not question everything? Seems you have a completely postmodern system of belief: as long as you feel good about your "logic", you can sleep well.

No, my logic is very much pre-modern, as the philosophical classifications go. One logically cannot put science as primary because it rests on philosophical beliefs. No matter what one believes about science, they make philosophical moves prior to actually using/rejecting that science.

Now, if you mean that I’m putting science as secondary in the sense of I’m just choosing religion over science because it is religion (or something like that), then I don’t think science is secondary; it’s very important. I put science, history, other non-foundational philosophical claims, all forms of knowledge on the same level in that sense, but philosophical reasoning and certain foundational philosophical claims help sort that out.

I suspect the disagreement continues to be that I see science and philosophy being inseparable, and support each other in determining facts. I can't get past why someone would - when putting data into their Logic Gonkulator - would think that science wouldn't play a vastly more important role in determining facts than historical stories, tales, myths, etc. I'm sure you argue that you use logic to weed out bad data, but you have not shown a method to do that - other than appeal to your logic.

And, I have to question that logic when you propose that a very obvious mythical tale of a Dying and Rising God, or the existence of a Supernatural Realm, etc, are to be taken seriously because your belief in those tales makes those tales more believable. Your belief - you might say - is because of your logic - but that doesn't track, as you'd have to apply logic before the belief (and ignore the scientific fact that no supernatural 'energy' has every been proven to exist).

It seems an obvious case of motivated reasoning - which is fallacious.


For example, let's use logic:

1. I have an experience of Matter, to the degree that my experience of, say, the atomic weight of a material will be reported by anyone who uses the same measurement - it objectively exists.
2. Therefore, I am led to believe Matter exists
3. Therefore, I am justified to believe in a basic Materialism

So are you, BTW. You are justified to believe in Materialism, and I suspect (unless you are an Idealist) you do.

Your logic appears to be:
1. I was told a story of Supernatural events
2. I believe them
3. Therefore, I am justified in believing in Supernatural things, which - in turn - makes the Bible more believable, which - in turn - makes me justified in believing in Supernaturalism.

That is, you don't have direct experience of the Supernatural, yet, you let stories of it infect your reasoning. That doesn't sound logical - nor is it prudent, given that you don't seem to appreciate the weight of Material evidence.

[The Tanager]

I suspect the disagreement continues to be that I see science and philosophy being inseparable, and support each other in determining facts.

I explicitly just said (non-foundational) philosophy and science are equal, in that sense, and work together (with all other forms of knowledge).

I can't get past why someone would - when putting data into their Logic Gonkulator - would think that science wouldn't play a vastly more important role in determining facts than historical stories, tales, myths, etc. I'm sure you argue that you use logic to weed out bad data, but you have not shown a method to do that - other than appeal to your logic.

Why would science play a more important role when the hinge factor isn’t scientific? Sometimes it is, and science plays it role; sometimes it isn’t and to put science above whatever that hinge is, would be irrational. This isn’t “my logic,” as the method but just logic, the logic we all share.

And, I have to question that logic when you propose that a very obvious mythical tale of a Dying and Rising God, or the existence of a Supernatural Realm, etc, are to be taken seriously because your belief in those tales makes those tales more believable.

I made no such argument. It’s not to be taken seriously because it is my belief, but because of the rational case for it.

(and ignore the scientific fact that no supernatural 'energy' has every been proven to exist).

How is that a scientific fact? Science is the study of the natural. How can it say anything for or against supernatural ‘energy’? We apply logic, the logic everybody has at their disposal, and clearly see that such a thing is illogical.

Your logic appears to be:
1. I was told a story of Supernatural events
2. I believe them
3. Therefore, I am justified in believing in Supernatural things, which - in turn - makes the Bible more believable, which - in turn - makes me justified in believing in Supernaturalism.

I have never used that “logic” in any post to you.

That is, you don't have direct experience of the Supernatural, yet, you let stories of it infect your reasoning. That doesn't sound logical - nor is it prudent, given that you don't seem to appreciate the weight of Material evidence.

How do you know if I’ve had direct experience of the supernatural or not? That couldn’t be proven one way or the other, even to someone who believes in the supernatural. Thus, my supernatural experiences, if they actually are such, have no weight in a discussion like that, whereas history, science, philosophy, etc. do as we try to make sense of reality.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #729]

How do you know if I’ve had direct experience of the supernatural or not?

How do you or anyone know if they've had direct experience of the supposed supernatural or not or even if such a thing as "supernatural" exists?

How does one come to find out/know if it is correct or incorrect to assume there is anything "super" to nature?

Supernatural experiences, if they actually are such, have no weight in a discussion like that, whereas history, science, philosophy, etc. do as we try to make sense of reality.

Supernaturalist philosophy has no weight in any discussion attempting to make sense of reality, not just in this one.