How much evidence does it take to believe or to know?

[NameRemoved]

The logic now in use serves rather to fix and give stability to the errors which have their foundation in commonly received notions than to help the search after truth. So it does more harm than good.

Sir Francis Bacon

www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm -

[Santini]

The logic now in use serves rather to fix and give stability to the errors which have their foundation in commonly received notions than to help the search after truth. So it does more harm than good.

Sir Francis Bacon

www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm -

Is it your opinion that Sir Francis Bacon was talking about "the logic" now in use in science or "the logic" in use in 1620?

lol

[NameRemoved]

Is it your opinion that Sir Francis Bacon was talking about "the logic" now in use in science or "the logic" in use in 1620?

both some wisdoms are timeless some are time changed [evolved] but evolution fails on one count for me. Some things never change because their wisdom trancends time as we know it

[Santini]

Is it your opinion that Sir Francis Bacon was talking about "the logic" now in use in science or "the logic" in use in 1620?

both

Buzzzzzz. That would be false!

Bacon was talking about "the logic" in use in his time (early 17th century and prior). Back then, evidence for arguments consisted of showing how close the argument agreed with the received wisdom of the day (mainly, Aristotle and the Christian bible).

Bacon was making the case that experience, rather than authority, should be used to support arguments.

[NameRemoved]

*Izzy* wrote:
Quote:
Is it your opinion that Sir Francis Bacon was talking about "the logic" now in use in science or "the logic" in use in 1620?


both wisdom can evolve [ie change] adn wisdom can transcend time..ie be timeless

Santini wrote:
Buzzzzzz. That would be false!

Bacon was talking about "the logic" in use in his time (early 17th century and prior). Back then, evidence for arguments consisted of showing how close the argument agreed with the received wisdom of the day (mainly, Aristotle and the Christian bible).

Bacon was making the case that experience, rather than authority, should be used to support arguments.

What is false is you asserting that you know what Bacon means better than I do, [ btw you sought my opinion on it] what is false is you are now speaking for Bacon, wow! Santini can now speak for Francis Bacon from the 17th century ..who made Santini God?

[Santini]

It's not me, Iz. It's pretty much everyone in the academic community that knows what Bacon's statement that you quoted refers to.

I'm surprised that you didn't know about it. Maybe you should read a bit about Bacon and what he was up to.

[NameRemoved]

Santini now you think you can read my mind ..wow..you are a wonder to behold Santini [ahem] yes it may come as a revelation to your good self monsieur Santini, but I too know what Bacon means academically speaking, in any academy [and your appeal to authority there I spot] you asked for my thoughts on Bacons quote I gave them. Both is still my answer.

Have a nice day

[Meleagar]

Regardless of what Bacon may have meant, his words are as applicable today as they were then; even if he meant that logic was used to coerce interpretations according to scripture, today logic is still used by segments of the scientific community to coerce interpretations according to assumed ideological or political "truths".

Some of the things that pass for and are passed on as and are cited as scientific evidence these days have no more basis in fact than someone claiming scientific evidence based on interpretations of the Bible or Koran.

It is interesting that today we are facing a virtual secular Inquisition when it comes to certain topics, like the afterlife, psi, alien visitation, anthropogenic global warming skepticism and intelligent design.

[NameRemoved]

Regardless of what Bacon may have meant, his words are as applicable today as they were then; even if he meant that logic was used to coerce interpretations according to scripture, today logic is still used by segments of the scientific community to coerce interpretations according to assumed ideological or political "truths".

exactly Meleagar AND Santini knew I was using Bacons quote in context and applicable to this threads apparent lack and apathy and to opening her and others minds in the search of "truths".

Some of the things that pass for and are passed on as and are cited as scientific evidence these days have no more basis in fact than someone claiming scientific evidence based on interpretations of the Bible or Koran.

It is interesting that today we are facing a virtual secular Inquisition when it comes to certain topics, like the afterlife, psi, alien visitation, anthropogenic global warming skepticism and intelligent design

Secular Inquisition yes indeed it is

[Santini]

Regardless of what Bacon may have meant, his words are as applicable today as they were then; even if he meant that logic was used to coerce interpretations according to scripture, today logic is still used by segments of the scientific community to coerce interpretations according to assumed ideological or political "truths".

Some of the things that pass for and are passed on as and are cited as scientific evidence these days have no more basis in fact than someone claiming scientific evidence based on interpretations of the Bible or Koran.

It is interesting that today we are facing a virtual secular Inquisition when it comes to certain topics, like the afterlife, psi, alien visitation, anthropogenic global warming skepticism and intelligent design.

Aren't you the same guy who says, "Evidence? I don't care about evidence! I believe what I want to believe regardless of evidence."

Using your epistemology I can safely say without fear of contradiction, "You're mistaken!"

exactly Meleagar AND Santini knew I was using Bacons quote in context and applicable to this threads apparent lack and apathy and to opening her and others minds in the search of "truths".

False. Bacon was not trying to open any minds in the search for "truths" in the way that you, I suppose, believe that you are trying to do so.

Bacon believed, and rightly so as it turns out, that a new method for discovering truth had been invented that was markedly better than the one then (1620) in use.

You and Meleagar have no new method for determining truth. In fact, you and Meleagar believe that truth about the world cannot be known except within a very tiny range. You believe that all is mere opinion except for that which is directly experienced and, worse, that any opinion is as good as any other in determining what is most likely to be true.

[Meleagar]

Aren't you the same guy who says, "Evidence? I don't care about evidence! I believe what I want to believe regardless of evidence."

Using your epistemology I can safely say without fear of contradiction, "You're mistaken!"

Some of my beliefs or views can be argued; some cannot. I only debate things that can be argued via fact, evidence and logic.

You and Meleagar have no new method for determining truth. In fact, you and Meleagar believe that truth about the world cannot be known except within a very tiny range. You believe that all is mere opinion except for that which is directly experienced and, worse, that any opinion is as good as any other in determining what is most likely to be true.

I don't have any views about how to obtain truth about "the world"; all my truths are about my experience, not about any putative "world". You're apparently interpreting my statements erroneously through a materialist filter.

Also, you've presented contradictory characterizations of my perspective on truth; first you state that I believe that truth is only about direct experience, then you state that I believe that any opinion is as good as any other in determining what is most likely to be true. It can't really be both.

I don't think you understand enough about my perspective to even characterize it consistently, much less meaningfully criticize it.

[NameRemoved]

Quote:
You and Meleagar have no new method for determining truth. In fact, you and Meleagar believe that truth about the world cannot be known except within a very tiny range. You believe that all is mere opinion except for that which is directly experienced and, worse, that any opinion is as good as any other in determining what is most likely to be true.

Santini can you elabaorate for me? only I don`t understand how you can use your bold assertions on how I determine truth, I have never asserted I believe all is mere opinion, could you point to where I would have said this, what the issue is? then I can at least answer to it.

[Santini]

Quote:
You and Meleagar have no new method for determining truth. In fact, you and Meleagar believe that truth about the world cannot be known except within a very narrow range. You believe that all is mere opinion except for that which is directly experienced and, worse, that any opinion is as good as any other in determining what is most likely to be true.

Santini can you elabaorate for me? only I don`t understand how you can use your bold assertions on how I determine truth, I have never asserted I believe all is mere opinion, could you point to where I would have said this, what the issue is? then I can at least answer to it.

I'm fairly certain that you wrote that only a person's direct experience could count as knowledge and that all the rest was mere belief. If you do not remember writing this I'll try to find the passage for you.

[Belinda]

Meleagar wrote

I don't have any views about how to obtain truth about "the world"; all my truths are about my experience, not about any putative "world". You're apparently interpreting my statements erroneously through a materialist filter.

But Meleagar, if you find yourself a passenger in a space rocket you would presumably trust in the experience and expertise of certain others before you trust your own experience and expertise in the field of space rocketry?

I have to assume therefore that Meleagar accords some status to empirical truth, no matter what sort of truth he may prefer that overarches the empirical sort.

[Meleagar]

But Meleagar, if you find yourself a passenger in a space rocket you would presumably trust in the experience and expertise of certain others before you trust your own experience and expertise in the field of space rocketry?

I have to assume therefore that Meleagar accords some status to empirical truth, no matter what sort of truth he may prefer that overarches the empirical sort.

Empirical means "by experience". That others in my experience can do some things better than me is part of my experience. As I've already stated, I only apply the term "truth" to things I personally, directly experience, which is what "empirical" means. Not only do I afford "some status" to empirical truth, that is the only form of truth that I recognize as truth.

Everything else is, IMO, belief and theory.