Do you believe that knowledge comes:
Empirically, that is,
1) exclusively from the sense experience (and therefore a posteriori)
2) primarily from the sense experience (a posteriori) to allow for the disciplines of mathematics or logic (a priori)
a. as a Positivist
b. as a Positivist and Verificationist
c. as a Verificationist
Or rationally, that is
1) chiefly from reason (a priori).
In either case, do you accept metaphysics and ethics or reject one or both of them?
Without putting too much emphasis on what I believe, I want to hear what you have to say. If you are a skeptic or get your knowledge through esoteric methods (mystical, intuitive, emotional, subconscious and/or unconscious, and the like), state why below.
It's a fascinating area of inquiry and I've been contemplating these questions for years. My personal sense of it is that there may or may not be such a thing as knowledge, I have all these sense impressions and logical thoughts but I can't really be sure that any of them are accurate or true. Knowledge, if it exists, seems unverifiable to me.
I think knowledge is a fluid ever changing concept.what is true today may not be true tomorrow.there are many forms of knowledge and they are not mutually exclusive.
@Dukedog but like... what school do you belong to?
I don't know which school in the OP I belong to. I would guess that I must have a strong emphasis on 1) chiefly from reason (a priori; I accept that there are mathematical facts that are true and not observable by sensory experience. For instance that zero/zero is not legal [but has important implications] , that asymptotes exist, that infinitesimals exist as in the derivatives in calculus.
But If I ask myself which epistemological debate has occupied the most of my time and efforts, it has been what I call [rightly or maybe wrongly] reductionist materialism. Put simply, a materialist reductionist thinks that everything that happens can be explained by physical material and physical material causes. Why does that matter? Because I have come to the conclusion that such a view point is not adequate.
I don't use terms like supernatural or paranormal or other Hollywoodistic jargon. But I have for real seen what many people would call a "ghost". Again, I don't use that term. The reductionist materialist, at least from my experience with them, will try to retro fit anything, however arbitrary, to try to explain my experience. It was the "mind playing tricks". It was "adolescent brain development". It was :adult declining brain development" Yes, they try to have it both ways! Slippery customers aren't they, these reductionist materialists.
The UK Society for Psychical Research is the worst for doing this. They don't even ask someone who makes a formal submission any questions, Not even when as in my submission I told them that I was happy to be asked critical or skeptical questions. How from that point onward they are doing "research" I don't know.
I am skipping this topic. Require lots of typing 🤣🤣🤣
The sea the rivers, the drops of water, the mist.
@Vegemite_Fighter "But I have for real seen what many people would call a "ghost". Again, I don't use that term. The reductionist materialist, at least from my experience with them, will try to retro fit anything, however arbitrary, to try to explain my experience. It was the "mind playing tricks"."
This is just a case of "Which explanation is the most likely one?". Do we know of any mechanism or natural law allowing ghosts to exist? No, not at all. But we know for certain that the mind is very much able to play tricks on us. And it doesn't need much to change the sensory state of the brain, only a teeny-tiny amount of hormones or other drugs which to certain parts our own body is able to produce. Put 0.3 milligram of LSD into someone and he will have his cognition completely altered.
By coincidence I had such an experience a few days ago when I had to work one day and one night through without getting a single ounce of sleep. When I got back home I saw something like half-transparent spiders a few meters away from me under the table where the light was dim. When I got closer they disappeared. Of course there were no spiders but only a phenomenon caused by my extreme tiredness.
Yes, I am a materialist and reductionist.
@Katzenschinken then if the human brain is so unreliable and prone to error that's chemically organic, then why isn't such false perception occurring on a daily basis? Shouldn't we all be seeing ghosts down every street? Doesn't this show the very arbitrariness of reductionist materialism that I was talking about? Even your attempt to link tiredness to false perceptions is not sound; shouldn't tiredness be resulting in skewed and false perception far more? Even on a daily basis?
#9 because if we would see things that are not there on a daily basis, evolution would have eliminated us as a specie.
