One thought on “Deep Depravity

  1. and ask, via scientific iniogtisatven, how did you come to the conclusion that a viewpoint must offer testable predictions? I recall we have talked about this somewhat before, and I am not questioning the reliability of the scientific method, but rather I am questioning whether or not the scientific method can prove itself to the exclusion of other methods of acquiring knowledge, and whether or not it is the scientific method that dictates that a viewpoint must offer testable predictions, or whether that is reliant on a philosophical argument. Another way to ask this is to say, what tangible evidence did you discover via your 5 senses that led you to the conclusion that the scientific method was the only valid way to discover truth? Is your reliance on the scientific method based on tangible evidence, or is based on philosophical proofs? You have never come right out and said you were an empiricist, so forgive me if this is misguided, but I just wonder how you deal with the self-defeating nature of empiricism as an approach to reality. In other words, how do you justify empiricism, empirically? Forgive me as well if I am equivocating on empiricism and scientific method, but most individuals who are empiricists will rely almost exclusively on the scientific method as the means of acquiring knowledge, and will say things like I prefer to look at tangible evidence rather than philosophical proofs, not realizing that any argument at all is an attempt at philosophical proofs.In a sense, continuing to comment illustrates trying to rationalize your point of view, or we could say trying to philosophically prove your point. We could argue further, philosophically, that you cannot present tangible evidence in an internet comment thread. You can present interpretations of evidence, which are then included in a philosophical proof, but you can’t actually present tangible evidence. If I buy your argument, I would not be convinced by the evidence, but by your argument, thus relying on philosophical proofs to come to a different understanding of the truth of the matter. This is rather inconsistent, given what you are arguing for.So, you are welcome to keep arguing for your position, but from my point of view, it only undermines what you are trying to prove. By continuing to comment and arguing (nicely of course) for your point, it makes it seem less dependent on evidence and more dependent on rationalizing and personal preference in the matter. I am already familiar with the hard evidence you tried to direct me to, if that is not convincing on its own, then you’ll have to resort to further philosophical proofs, which unfortunately are not favorable to your position.We can keep going back and forth, but I think at the end of the day, you’re still going to believe what you believe, and I’ll still believe what I believe. Evidence always tends to get absorbed into whatever paradigm you are currently using, and contrary evidence gets interpreted to fit. If too many pieces do not fit, and enough cognitive dissonance occurs, then a person might abandon a world-view they previously held strongly.In closing, I could just ask this, what ethical reason can you offer for why I should follow your argument? It seems very much that if what you are saying is true, I’m absolved of any ethical reason to believe its truthfulness. It just is, and the option is open for me to agree or disagree, but there is no ethical consequence for either decision, so its just a personal preference. In that case, I prefer to not be a materialist, and rather chose Christianity. Can you offer an ethical reason why I shouldn’t?Nate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s