I would run like hell. It could be nothing, but I’m not brave enough to find out. Monsters under my bed were rather terrifying at one point in my life, regardless of wherther they were “actually” there or not.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. Just pointing out an example.
I’m sure Muslims think Hindus are rather silly, too.
How can you hope to validate that notion?
Why would you run?
Let me preface this by saying I in no way mean violence on you, just a hypothetical. But if thousands of years of taking the combined knowledge of people’s mistakes, and this new thing we call the scientific method I am almost absolutely sure, if I aim this shotgun, right in your face, and pull the trigger.. assuming the gun fires properly, that you will cease to exist in my reality.
Through this same method I know that if I put a lot of very powerful fuel in a large object that will push energy downward and ignite it, it can go into space. The difference between this knowledge and faith is that I can show you that it can always be repeated.
I, as a subjective creature, can have faith in things that I have scant evidence of. Or I can have knowledge of things that are shown to be independent of whether I percieve them or not.
One quick note on that comment: Technically, those two are not really different in a general sense: Empirical observations also rely on faith; you have to rely on the fact that your senses are working properly and/or that you are able to “translate” reality correctly into terms that your brain can interpret. And then the interpretation of the information that your senses bring into your brain, i.e. the logic, could be faulty as well. So I would say that a priori statements should be considered first grade knowledge, empirical observations second and other people’s empirical observations third (if only those three are considered; I’m sure you could also make different categories). The reason being that human logic is required in all those 3 types (for empirical knowledge to be relevant, you have to have “faith” in causality and other logical notions), the second and the third require additionally intact that no mistakes in observation is being made and the third also requires that no mistakes in judging the honesty of those other people are being made.
This is a personal judgement, but I would trust more in empirical observation, especially ones that have been shown to be repeatable by anyone anywhere (under the limits of the observation), than subjective judgements no matter how valid the logic.
Evidence > Theory
If I don’t understand it, the problem is with my logic, not with the phenomena.
But Theory is required for any kind of Evidence. Evidence, as explained by Mises in human action, does NOT explain itself, but needs to be analyzed before reaching ANY kind of conclusion, even the most basic ones. Therefore, theory is the first step in any kind of assertion, regardless of whether it is empirical or not. And if you can reach a conclusion on PURE theory, it is as close to final truth as humans can get. For example, 2 lines that are parallel to each other can never meet each other. This is a truism and I have more trust in it than in any kind of conclusion that is reached by empirical means, simply because it can never be invalidated.
PS: If you have not already read Mises’ Human Action or it’s been too long to remember, I would advise reading the first part about praxeology (again), it’s really intriguing.
For example, 2 lines that are parallel to each other can never meet each other. This is a truism and I have more trust in it than in any kind of conclusion that is reached by empirical means
That is an empirical observation. The reason you accept it as true is because it can be shown to be true, anytime, anywhere. I could say “two lines that run perpindicular can never meet each other.” Which is the same statement if you dont know the definition of parellel, perpindicular. One is true, one isn’t. Don’t believe your answer is true? =======================
Proof > pudding
I agree that we can make no judgements without reason. But there is a large difference between knowledge and reason. Heat to skin is first an observation, then you make a judgement call that ow, fire burns.
Sorry, but you’re entirely off on this one, it is not an empirical observation. If you want to prove it empirically, you would have to draw two lines parallel to each other and draw them to infinity, which is of course impossible. The reason that I know that 2 parallel lines can never meet each other is because the very definition of parallel is that they will always have the same distance to each other at a given point. Therefore, if at any given point those lines somehow met, they are not parallel anymore. Even if I had never seen a line in my life, I’m sure that I would be capable of grasping this truism even without one ever showing a line to me.
If you really believe that this is an empirical issue, let me ask you this: For how long did you draw lines parallel to each other to check whether they ever meet each other or not? Oh, you didn’t? Well, are you even sure then that parallel lines never meet?
PS: On your last statements: Those truism I’m talking about are of such nature that you cannot use reason against them without contradicting yourself. I have shown that on my example above that stating “2 parallel lines CAN meet each other” is a contradiction.
I have a feeling there is a lot of agreement in this thread (this page, not the part about morality) but the words are getting in the way.
"And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"
- Matthew 14:25-31, NIV Bible
“Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, ‘Why could we not cast it out?’ He said to them, 'Because of your little faith. For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.”
- Matthew 17:19-20, NIV Bible
My lack of conviction. I don’t claim the bear isn’t real, I claim it may not be real. It’s like the difference between being an atheist and an agnostic. I don’t “know” if the bear is there, but frankly, I am too afraid to find out.
Even if I had never seen a line in my life, I’m sure that I would be capable of grasping this truism even without one ever showing a line to me.
I really don’t think you would. How would you have any idea what “line” meant if you were had no sensory perception? You couldn’t see shapes to determine lines. You couldnt feel things to determine boundaries. The whole concept of line and direction would be utterly meaningless.
The reason that I know that 2 parallel lines can never meet each other is because the very definition of parallel is that they will always have the same distance to each other at a given point.
Again, how do you know the definition of parallel without some form of observation of direction and boundaries? To a rock, the idea of shapes is utterly meaningless.
If you want to prove it empirically, you would have to draw two lines parallel to each other and draw them to infinity
I don’t neccesarily have to draw it into infinity, unless you want to be that stubborn and not accept solid evidence. Perception is all subjective, I agree. But as far as you deem it necessary to go, I can keep drawing two parellel lines into infinity, and they will never meet. Or I can just teach you what lines mean, and then we can create an a priori truth. We could do a priori, then observation, but that leads to all kinds of silly things like geocentric theory.
Those truism I’m talking about are of such nature that you cannot use reason against them without contradicting yourself.
I posit that you cannot reason without sensory observation, human reason is just a very advanced form of sensory perception.
EIK, the scientific method, liek a gun, is a tool. it is nothing without your application of it. Your senses are still the sandy foundation on which the citadel of science rests precariously upon.
Well put. If you define the limitations into the term, it is possible to state results in absolutes. The problem when applying this mindset to perceived phenomena is our inability to make a perfect observation, which makes it impossible to know the limitations and boundaries of the theoretical observer-independent reality. Therefore, it is a faulty analogy.
“Run like hell” looks pretty convincing, IMO. If your actions are consistently indistinguishable from someone who does claim that the bear is real, what are the consequences of your convictions (or lack thereof) to the world outside your head? Or, why should I care why you run like hell when you do it just like everyone else EVERY TIME you see a bear? Btw, why even bother running when you may actually not be running at all? May I also propose that the ones who did decide to stick with their “No such thing as a real bear, or real running” philosophy by not running, may not be around long enough to procreate and spread their wisdom? Good for you that you’re at least smarter than them.
Z.
And as far as you were concerned, non-existent. But for some reason, you would still believe in its existence, right?
It would be the theoretical parallel, perhaps. the human mind is capable of constructing pretty wild and vivid worlds which we do not percieve.
Inter-subjective consensus is a satisfactory proof for some, not for all. Simply because he won’t subscribe to your belief system, doesn’t necessarily mean he is being stubborn (or contrarian, I get that one a lot).
z1235,
The old “well, descriptively they’re the same, so there is no real difference” crowd. You and Angurse are a real PITA. The difference is that I consider righteous action a threat. In fact, I consider it the most dangerous force on the planet. It is the cause of the state. Therefore, I’d like to check it’s spread.
Jackson,
Sorry, I have no idea what you just said. How is saying that bears (and your consistent escapes from them) are real, “righteous” in any sense of the word?
That parallel lines never meet is contained in the definition of parallel so it is not subject to refutation by evidence. Just like “All bachelors are unmarried.” You may say that you have to know what a bachelor is and what marriage is, but you don’t: all you have to do know is something like "B’s are defined as an M’s with characteristic U*." Then we can say “All B’s are U.” It’s just a tautology.*
However, Epicurus is right in that human reason all takes place through sensations, such as pictures. Imagine we have a bunch of starting premises.
Premise 1: The British Islands and Ireland are in the British Isles.
Premise 2: The United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands are in the British Islands.
Premise 3: Great Britain and Northern Ireland are in the United Kingdom.
Premise 4: Scotland, England, and Wales are in Great Britain.
Premise 5: No part of Great Britain is in Northern Ireland, and no part of Northern Ireland is in Great Britain.
etc.
And then someone says, “All right, I’ve come up with a proof that England is in the United Kingdom. By Premise 4, England is in Great Britain. By Premise 3, Great Britain is in the United Kingdom. Since if X is in Y and Y is in Z, X must be in Z, England must be in the United Kingdom, even though none of the premises explicitly say so.”
But instead, imagine our starting premises are visual, that is, you have this diagram in your mind as your belief about the structure of the British Isles:
Now the fact that England is in the United Kingdom need not be deduced or proven, it can be observed in one’s own mind.
In that odd sense it is empirical, but not at all in the sense that it is about observing something in the “real world.” To see this, just envision a new set of imaginary islands and countries with a different structure; that would be entirely in your mind. If you say we have to have experience with islands and countries, or at least with objects contained within outer objects, you may be right; however that experience should not be confused with our reasons for believing that “England is in the United Kingdom” given we believe the above diagram.
I think Jackson means lack of absolute conviction. But you’re right, one’s beliefs are just what what one deems useful to act as if.