Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Verifying epistemology
    #13420577 -

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge. It addresses questions of what knowledge is, how it can be acquired, what can be known, and how we can know what we know. We might think of epistemology is the starting point of philosophy, though some might put metaphysics first. I personally would say that epistemology and metaphysics tend to assume one another. In any case, my question is this: Is it possible to verify an epistemology? It seems as though it's impossible to look at epistemology from behind, because you'd have to do it using another epistemology. One might try to test an epistemology for internal consistency, but the test of consistency itself assumes an epistemology in which consistency is a measure of truth. How would one go about verifying or determining the adequacy of an epistemology? Is such a thing possible?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Silversoul]
    #13420671 -

When I want to verify that my computer works, I turn it on.

Or I could think and agonize about it for decades.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology *DELETED* [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #13420688 -

Post deleted by TieACable2aTree

Reason for deletion: g


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #13421197 -

Quote:
When I want to verify that my computer works, I turn it on.


:levitate:


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Rahz]
    #13422567 -

Epistemology is for wankers as we can never truly know anything IMO.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: deCypher]
    #13422681 -

Not so. I know that pickles are disgusting. :razz:

But seriously:

We might think of epistemology is the starting point of philosophy, though some might put metaphysics first.

Logic is the starting point as nothing metaphisical or epistomological can even be framed without logic.

Is it possible to verify an epistemology?

It's not. Kurt Godel proved this in 1931 when he startled the world with the proof of his Incompleteness Theorem.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Diploid]
    #13422821 -

Quote:
Kurt Godel proved this in 1931 when he startled the world with the proof of his Incompleteness Theorem.


Too bad he didn't finish it. :tongue:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: ButtFace]
    #13422849 -

Im takin an Intro to Philosophy class and we're starting to cover this as well


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Silversoul]
    #13422871 -

I think you just like using big words. :monkeydance:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #13422872 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Kurt Godel proved this in 1931 when he startled the world with the proof of his Incompleteness Theorem.


Too bad he didn't finish it. :tongue:


:lol:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Icelander] * 1
    #13422888 -

Icelander said:
I think you just like using big words. :monkeydance:


This sort of pedantic contrarianism is teleologically nihilistic and warrants intellectual floccinaucinihilipilification.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Silversoul]
    #13422926 -

I floccinate daily for health reasons.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Silversoul]
    #13423017 -

floccinaucinihilipilification.

I asked my gf to do this for me but she said it was disgusting and immoral.:sad:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Icelander]
    #13423326 -

I masticate at least three times a day. Sometimes I even do it in public. :whoa:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Diploid]
    #13423340 -

Sometimes I even do it in PUBIC.
:whoa:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Icelander]
    #13423479 -

:awewtf:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Silversoul]
    #13423554 -

Silversoul said:
Icelander said:
I think you just like using big words. :monkeydance:


This sort of pedantic contrarianism is teleologically nihilistic and warrants intellectual floccinaucinihilipilification.


:lol:


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology *DELETED* [Re: Diploid]
    #13427381 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: Lakefingers]
    #13427728 -

If you study the history of thought you'll find that logic departs from the starting points of metaphysical and epistemological claims.

I know that's what the philosophy books teach, but I've never quite agreed with it. I think it's backwards.

In order to make those claims, one necessarily uses language. The formation rules that define that language (its syntax, grammar, symbolics, and so on) are logical constructs.

An adjective precedes a noun (in English). That is a rule of construction defined by logic. Once those rules are established by logic, THEN you can start using the language to make metaphysical and epistemological claims.

Even thinking abstractly in your head without language, you'll still form constructions that follow the general form of IF <something> THEN <something>. Conditional ideas like that are again the application of logic in the formulation of metaphysical or epistemological concepts.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Verifying epistemology [Re: deCypher]
    #13433772 -

Lakefingers said:
I take it you're having a bad day since you begin the post with a strawman. :smile:


How so?  He didn't represent the books thoughts' as your own, and I personally don't see that which you and he referred to as signifigantly different.  Maybe I misunderstand your point, but seems similar enough to me to ignore the difference.
Quote:
Although language does contain logical constructs it is not all logical
constructs. Natural language is full of illogical constructs.


What is the difference?  How is an 'illogical construct' not a logical construct?

Further, please demonstrate these illogical constructs exist as apart from logical constructs.  I doubt this is the case, and think this argument fails on this point.



Quote:
In other words superficial rules of grammar are not really what I think
we're talking about regarding logic in epistemology and metaphysics like in
the OP. I think what we're talking about are formal logical systems.


What's the difference?  I think its a useful reduction as grammer is a subset of logical systems and is a smaller and more defined class to investigate than the entirety of human thought and logic.


Quote:
Even if I do this without language and would do this without the influence of
language or language structures in my brain, there is nothing inherently
logical about this. A syntactical construction, yes, a logical
construction no.


Again, what's the difference?  Please demonstrate this difference exists.
Quote:
Modus ponens and similar reasoning, whether inherent or not, can often be
wrong. E.g. If I win this game, God is great. I win the game. God is great.


But that isn't modus ponens as the premise is false or unknown.  That being so, it is not possible to claim the falsity of the conclusion is a demonstration of the falsity of the logical system.

Were the premise correct then it follows the conclusion would be correct- there is no fault in this logical system.


deCypher said:
Epistemology is for wankers as we can never truly know anything IMO.



Agreed.  I've not expended much time and effort trying to understand the field, but what little I have leads me to this conclusion.

The whole thing seems a bunch of useless bullshit suitable only for occupying the simple.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* epistemology and logic Axiom420 3,308 17 01/16/03 11:23 AM
by Axiom420
* Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence
( 1 2 3 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 3,486 48 01/30/06 07:55 PM
by blaze2
* More Epistemology (for the hardcore)
( 1 2 3 all )		 Sclorch 4,568 43 05/16/03 02:26 PM
by Anonymous
* Solipsism and the limits of epistemology Silversoul 1,405 7 10/23/09 10:57 AM
by OrgoneConclusion
* epistemology and entity contact
( 1 2 all )		 machineelf368 3,808 32 10/11/25 09:55 AM
by mescalopiate
* Verifiable Truth and Proof Vs Post-Modern Nonsense
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 RationalEgo 4,745 106 12/12/09 01:43 PM
by Icelander
* Metaphysical and Epistemological Positions
( 1 2 all )		 mushiemountain 2,041 33 02/16/07 08:43 PM
by cellardoor
* Epistemology of strange fucking people
( 1 2 all )		 thedudenj 3,629 26 04/12/08 04:51 PM
by psyka

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,154 topic views. 0 members, 200 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.