Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reformed epistemology.

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 6:23:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Could someone... explain this to me? Wat."

Those who might answer do not know what you are asking. What do you want to know that you haven't already ascertained from the Wikipedia site as well as the Philosophy of Religion site. It all seems fairly self-explanatory.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 6:54:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.

Beyond sites like this?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Do you want to discuss specific aspects or what?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 7:02:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 6:54:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.

Beyond sites like this?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Do you want to discuss specific aspects or what?

It doesn't make even a minimal amount of sense. Arguing that you can't verify perceptual experiences in addition to mystical ones isn't a argument. We infer the reality of our perceptions, not take them as axioms.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 12:45:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 5:04:11 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Could someone... explain this to me? Wat.

In simple terms, Reformed Epistemology states that belief in God does not need to be justified with evidence as other beliefs do, because it is "properly basic", a self-evident axiom upon which other beliefs are based, so long as it can be defended against objections without respect to how well it is defended against those objections.

Although the particulars seem to vary slightly from proponent to proponent.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 1:09:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 12:45:25 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/9/2013 5:04:11 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Could someone... explain this to me? Wat.

In simple terms, Reformed Epistemology states that belief in God does not need to be justified with evidence as other beliefs do, because it is "properly basic", a self-evident axiom upon which other beliefs are based, so long as it can be defended against objections without respect to how well it is defended against those objections.

Although the particulars seem to vary slightly from proponent to proponent.

I don't think that "self-evident axioms" are at all the same thing as properly basic beliefs. Self-evident things may be properly basic, but not the other way around.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 1:11:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 12:48:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
It's essentially fideism, with the facade of being rationally-based.

No it isn't. Smh. Fideism doesn't have the constraint that one should (as an epistemic norm) reply to potential known defeaters.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 1:17:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 7:02:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/11/2013 6:54:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.

Beyond sites like this?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Do you want to discuss specific aspects or what?

It doesn't make even a minimal amount of sense. Arguing that you can't verify perceptual experiences in addition to mystical ones isn't a argument. We infer the reality of our perceptions, not take them as axioms.

Probably because you're misconstruing it. Reforned epistemologists don't argue that - they argue that religious experiences are relevantly similiar to other beliefs that we take to be properly basic (such as sense perceptions and the belief that there is an external world and that) in that they are formed non-inferentially and are rational to believe absent known defeaters.

Ps. how do you verify sense perceptions without resorting to sense perception? It's essentially begging the question.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 1:24:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:17:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/11/2013 7:02:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/11/2013 6:54:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.

Beyond sites like this?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Do you want to discuss specific aspects or what?

It doesn't make even a minimal amount of sense. Arguing that you can't verify perceptual experiences in addition to mystical ones isn't a argument. We infer the reality of our perceptions, not take them as axioms.

Probably because you're misconstruing it. Reforned epistemologists don't argue that - they argue that religious experiences are relevantly similiar to other beliefs that we take to be properly basic (such as sense perceptions and the belief that there is an external world and that) in that they are formed non-inferentially and are rational to believe absent known defeaters.

Ps. how do you verify sense perceptions without resorting to sense perception? It's essentially begging the question.

I still don't understand. It's entirely possible that our sense perception is wrong. We infer that the likelihood of us being BIAVs or whatnot is low enough to be entirely irrelevant.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 2:27:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:11:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/12/2013 12:48:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
It's essentially fideism, with the facade of being rationally-based.

No it isn't. Smh. Fideism doesn't have the constraint that one should (as an epistemic norm) reply to potential known defeaters.

Thus the before-mentioned facade. That being said, the reply needn't be justified, ergo why it's not actually rationally-based.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 2:31:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:09:20 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 12:45:25 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/9/2013 5:04:11 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Could someone... explain this to me? Wat.

In simple terms, Reformed Epistemology states that belief in God does not need to be justified with evidence as other beliefs do, because it is "properly basic", a self-evident axiom upon which other beliefs are based, so long as it can be defended against objections without respect to how well it is defended against those objections.

Although the particulars seem to vary slightly from proponent to proponent.

I don't think that "self-evident axioms" are at all the same thing as properly basic beliefs. Self-evident things may be properly basic, but not the other way around.

I only explain the position, I do not endorse it.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 2:32:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:24:53 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:17:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/11/2013 7:02:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/11/2013 6:54:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.

Beyond sites like this?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Do you want to discuss specific aspects or what?

It doesn't make even a minimal amount of sense. Arguing that you can't verify perceptual experiences in addition to mystical ones isn't a argument. We infer the reality of our perceptions, not take them as axioms.

Probably because you're misconstruing it. Reforned epistemologists don't argue that - they argue that religious experiences are relevantly similiar to other beliefs that we take to be properly basic (such as sense perceptions and the belief that there is an external world and that) in that they are formed non-inferentially and are rational to believe absent known defeaters.

Ps. how do you verify sense perceptions without resorting to sense perception? It's essentially begging the question.

I still don't understand. It's entirely possible that our sense perception is wrong. We infer that the likelihood of us being BIAVs or whatnot is low enough to be entirely irrelevant.

What do you infer that from?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 2:33:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 2:32:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:24:53 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:17:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/11/2013 7:02:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/11/2013 6:54:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.

Beyond sites like this?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Do you want to discuss specific aspects or what?

It doesn't make even a minimal amount of sense. Arguing that you can't verify perceptual experiences in addition to mystical ones isn't a argument. We infer the reality of our perceptions, not take them as axioms.

Probably because you're misconstruing it. Reforned epistemologists don't argue that - they argue that religious experiences are relevantly similiar to other beliefs that we take to be properly basic (such as sense perceptions and the belief that there is an external world and that) in that they are formed non-inferentially and are rational to believe absent known defeaters.

Ps. how do you verify sense perceptions without resorting to sense perception? It's essentially begging the question.

I still don't understand. It's entirely possible that our sense perception is wrong. We infer that the likelihood of us being BIAVs or whatnot is low enough to be entirely irrelevant.

What do you infer that from?

Sense perception plus logic.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 2:39:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 2:33:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 2:32:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:24:53 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:17:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/11/2013 7:02:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/11/2013 6:54:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.

Beyond sites like this?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Do you want to discuss specific aspects or what?

It doesn't make even a minimal amount of sense. Arguing that you can't verify perceptual experiences in addition to mystical ones isn't a argument. We infer the reality of our perceptions, not take them as axioms.

Probably because you're misconstruing it. Reforned epistemologists don't argue that - they argue that religious experiences are relevantly similiar to other beliefs that we take to be properly basic (such as sense perceptions and the belief that there is an external world and that) in that they are formed non-inferentially and are rational to believe absent known defeaters.

Ps. how do you verify sense perceptions without resorting to sense perception? It's essentially begging the question.

I still don't understand. It's entirely possible that our sense perception is wrong. We infer that the likelihood of us being BIAVs or whatnot is low enough to be entirely irrelevant.

What do you infer that from?

Sense perception plus logic.

What logic allows you to infer that there is an external world from you sense perception? I mean what's the missing premise in this argument:

1. I perceive what appears to be an external world.
2.
3. Therefore, there is an external world.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 3:03:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There seem to be quite a few debates about solipsism lately. But can we stick to the topic of Reformed Epistemology.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 3:19:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 3:03:48 PM, Polaris wrote:
There seem to be quite a few debates about solipsism lately. But can we stick to the topic of Reformed Epistemology.

But isn't solipsism relevant to reformed epistemology? The reason we're talking about solipsism is because reformed epistemologists think our knowledge of God is analogous to our knowledge of the external world.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 3:31:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 3:19:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 9/12/2013 3:03:48 PM, Polaris wrote:
There seem to be quite a few debates about solipsism lately. But can we stick to the topic of Reformed Epistemology.

But isn't solipsism relevant to reformed epistemology? The reason we're talking about solipsism is because reformed epistemologists think our knowledge of God is analogous to our knowledge of the external world.

At least until it trails off into an entirely different topic.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 3:32:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 2:39:31 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 9/12/2013 2:33:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 2:32:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:24:53 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:17:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/11/2013 7:02:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/11/2013 6:54:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.

Beyond sites like this?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Do you want to discuss specific aspects or what?

It doesn't make even a minimal amount of sense. Arguing that you can't verify perceptual experiences in addition to mystical ones isn't a argument. We infer the reality of our perceptions, not take them as axioms.

Probably because you're misconstruing it. Reforned epistemologists don't argue that - they argue that religious experiences are relevantly similiar to other beliefs that we take to be properly basic (such as sense perceptions and the belief that there is an external world and that) in that they are formed non-inferentially and are rational to believe absent known defeaters.

Ps. how do you verify sense perceptions without resorting to sense perception? It's essentially begging the question.

I still don't understand. It's entirely possible that our sense perception is wrong. We infer that the likelihood of us being BIAVs or whatnot is low enough to be entirely irrelevant.

What do you infer that from?

Sense perception plus logic.

What logic allows you to infer that there is an external world from you sense perception? I mean what's the missing premise in this argument:

1. I perceive what appears to be an external world.
2.
3. Therefore, there is an external world.

What's the point here?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 3:48:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 3:32:38 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 2:39:31 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 9/12/2013 2:33:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 2:32:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:24:53 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:17:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/11/2013 7:02:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/11/2013 6:54:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/10/2013 1:01:37 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Thanks for all the help! I've been so educated by this forum.

Beyond sites like this?

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Do you want to discuss specific aspects or what?

It doesn't make even a minimal amount of sense. Arguing that you can't verify perceptual experiences in addition to mystical ones isn't a argument. We infer the reality of our perceptions, not take them as axioms.

Probably because you're misconstruing it. Reforned epistemologists don't argue that - they argue that religious experiences are relevantly similiar to other beliefs that we take to be properly basic (such as sense perceptions and the belief that there is an external world and that) in that they are formed non-inferentially and are rational to believe absent known defeaters.

Ps. how do you verify sense perceptions without resorting to sense perception? It's essentially begging the question.

I still don't understand. It's entirely possible that our sense perception is wrong. We infer that the likelihood of us being BIAVs or whatnot is low enough to be entirely irrelevant.

What do you infer that from?

Sense perception plus logic.

What logic allows you to infer that there is an external world from you sense perception? I mean what's the missing premise in this argument:

1. I perceive what appears to be an external world.
2.
3. Therefore, there is an external world.

What's the point here?

You said that you infer that it's more likely we're perceiving a real external world rather than being brains in vats, and I want to know what your line of reasoning is. After all, that seems to be the difference between you and reformed epistemologists--whether our knowledge of the external world (or our knowledge that our senses are giving us true information about the external world) is a priori or inferred. Since you think it's inferred, I want to know what you infer it from. You said, "sense perception and logic," but I want to know what your reasoning is. What premises are you inferring it from, and what line of reasoning do you use? I'm asking you this because I'm skeptical.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 3:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 3:32:38 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
What's the point here?

It sounds as if he is implying that you take it as "properly basic" that there is an external world despite claiming to have evidence of an external world.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 4:38:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 2:27:44 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:11:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/12/2013 12:48:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
It's essentially fideism, with the facade of being rationally-based.

No it isn't. Smh. Fideism doesn't have the constraint that one should (as an epistemic norm) reply to potential known defeaters.

Thus the before-mentioned facade. That being said, the reply needn't be justified, ergo why it's not actually rationally-based.

Why is it a facade, again? Please explain. Plantinga certainly takes potential defeaters like the PoE very seriously and he's a paradigm reformed epistemologist. Who said the reply needn't be justified? He also takes the great pumpkin objection RE very seriously and provides a substantive replies. Whether or not they work is a different matter but he's clearly has epistemic justificatiin in view Where in the world are you getting your information on reformed epistemology from?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 4:48:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a reason why reformed epistemologists liken belief in God to things like belief in an external world. Because they either think a) all the arguments for the external world are utter failures or b) they are somewhat successful but are not strong enough to completely establish their conclusion. Same with God, analoguosly. Yet they still believe they are justified in believing in an external world (absent defeaters) because it's a non-inferential properly basic belief.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 7:51:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 4:48:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There's a reason why reformed epistemologists liken belief in God to things like belief in an external world. Because they either think a) all the arguments for the external world are utter failures or b) they are somewhat successful but are not strong enough to completely establish their conclusion. Same with God, analoguosly. Yet they still believe they are justified in believing in an external world (absent defeaters) because it's a non-inferential properly basic belief.

So... they're skeptics concerning the external world, but say "f*ck it, let's just take it for granted and do the same thing for God, too!"
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 9:14:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 4:38:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/12/2013 2:27:44 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/12/2013 1:11:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/12/2013 12:48:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
It's essentially fideism, with the facade of being rationally-based.

No it isn't. Smh. Fideism doesn't have the constraint that one should (as an epistemic norm) reply to potential known defeaters.

Thus the before-mentioned facade. That being said, the reply needn't be justified, ergo why it's not actually rationally-based.

Why is it a facade, again? Please explain.

Because the responses to objections needn't be based on evidence. Reformed epistemology only requires them to "grounded", which is so loosely defined that it neglects to exclude obviously false and even contradictory propositions.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 9:17:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 4:48:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There's a reason why reformed epistemologists liken belief in God to things like belief in an external world. Because they either think a) all the arguments for the external world are utter failures or b) they are somewhat successful but are not strong enough to completely establish their conclusion. Same with God , analoguosly. Yet they still believe they are justified in believing in an external world (absent defeaters) because it's a non-inferential properly basic belief.

So you knowingly accept a conclusion for which supporting arguments cannot establish it's veracity? This is why I say reformed epistemology is not rationally-based.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 9:26:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And as far as it relates to solipsism. Solipsism is an unlikely ad hoc arrangement of circumstances for which I can provide no evidence against. Fortunately I am not rationally compelled to believe everything for which there is no opposing evidence lest I also acquiesce to Bertrand's astral teapot and the invisible pink unicorn.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 11:15:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 7:51:57 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/12/2013 4:48:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There's a reason why reformed epistemologists liken belief in God to things like belief in an external world. Because they either think a) all the arguments for the external world are utter failures or b) they are somewhat successful but are not strong enough to completely establish their conclusion. Same with God, analoguosly. Yet they still believe they are justified in believing in an external world (absent defeaters) because it's a non-inferential properly basic belief.

So... they're skeptics concerning the external world, but say "f*ck it, let's just take it for granted and do the same thing for God, too!"

No, they're NOT skeptics concerning the external world. That's the whole point.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!