Someone made a comment in the combox of my post on Bethrick.
They said that a blog entry by Edward T. Babinski had "pertinent" material regarding my post.
Boy, it sure did. It was pertinent in showing how ridiculous some of the claims made by amateur atheologians are. Indeed, they're self-refuting.
Babinksi states,
"My plea is for science, the sole medium for the acquisition of knowledge."
The problem is when we apply this standard to this claim itself. Is it known by "science?" No, it's a philosophical claim.
But, here's what Babinski said about "philosophy."
"In conclusion: Don't be browbeaten by philosophy. Don't take empty, unintelligible verbalism for knowledge. In a word, ditch the philosophers."
But yet this is another philosophical claim. Indeed, it seeks to apply norms to epistemology. Science provides descriptions.
So, not only can Babinski not know what he said regarding knowledge, he must "ditch" himself. Any position which requires you to "ditch yourself" is just not a rational position to hold.
Great work!
ReplyDeleteI've been EDIFIED!!!
Paul, don't let those morons get you down. I value your work, and I also look fondly upon your strong, football player body. You definitely "inspire" me, if you know what I mean!
ReplyDeleteXOXO
"My plea is for science, the sole medium for the acquisition of knowledge."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is when we apply this standard to this claim itself. Is it known by "science?" No, it's a philosophical claim.
True. Perhaps he should've stated: "My plea is for science, the sole medium for the acquisition of reliable natural knowledge..." or something along those lines. You wouldn't disagree with that, would you?
Science is self-limiting, and doesn't attempt to prescribe moral norms or tell you which flavor of ice cream is best. In that sense, we all know that there are certain areas that science doesn't even weigh in on.
But the one area that it does -- the workings of the natural universe -- is there any other way to acquire reliable knowledge?
"In conclusion: Don't be browbeaten by philosophy. Don't take empty, unintelligible verbalism for knowledge. In a word, ditch the philosophers."
But yet this is another philosophical claim. Indeed, it seeks to apply norms to epistemology. Science provides descriptions.
So, not only can Babinski not know what he said regarding knowledge, he must "ditch" himself. Any position which requires you to "ditch yourself" is just not a rational position to hold.
Let's look at it this way -- which will do more to establish the workings of the brain, and correlate those workings to human behavior?
a) folk psychology
b) neuroscience and psychiatry
c) theology and philosophy
I can do this same multiple choice question for a million other topics.
Contrariwise:
Which will always have numerous theories of universals, people who argue incessantly about class nominalism versus trope realism, etc.?
Why is philosophy self-limited in the sense that it is not subject to falsification in the same way that science is? There are certain scientific claims that we can regard as true.
There are certain philosophical claims that we can regard as true.
But how many scientific claims, vs philosophical claims, fall into the category of "it is possible to see it this way, or that way..."?
One prime example is your constant referral to a TAG. A TAG that isn't even developed, by your own admission in the other blog's comments section, when people like Kant can argue transcendentals one way, and you another, and Quine another, &c.
Orthogonally, scientific dissent does indeed exist, but not about the "frameworks" by which all data are accounted for. Eg, the germ theory of disease is not in dispute, although the question of particulars within viral infections may be. Similarly, evolutionary theory is not in scientific dispute, although the question of the specifics in phylogeny and evo-devo may be.
Why is it that in philosophy, you have the huge framework issues that are still undecided? Realism and anti-realism? Dualism and materialism? And on and on and on...
I think it has to do with falsification criteria -- it is too difficult to rule out so many speculative possibilities in philosophy.
The same isn't really true in science, because of naturalistic bias. You can speculate "poof" for life, but that speculation doesn't even enter "the cruncher" for the scientific method, because it cannot be tested or falsified.
Philosophy is too broad and general to not have serious divergences in the very beginning of the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Intelligent philosophers bifurcate along universals, transcendental arguments, realism/anti-realism, morality, etc.
Philosophy does indeed have its purposes, and making claims about scientific knowledge can be analyzed philosophically. But, in the end, those analyses are not themselves subject to true falsification. And so the endless bickering of the philosophers will not die out anytime soon.
And so most people turn their attention to a place where more certitude is possible, and less worry.