"Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"
Earlier you and I had a discussion about people posting they don't care.
Just looking for outside observations, but what is your opinion of Ms. BP's comment? Do you think she really doesn't "give a shit" or do you think she's just saying for reasons that are unclear and that she really does give a shit?
"Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"
Doc Dutch (02-08-2023)
No problem.
The invisible unicorn trick assumes that observation and sensory perception are all that matters in acquiring true, universal, and certain knowledge.
If science has taught us anything it's that we have to transcend experience and sensory perception in any quest for knowledge. Nearly all modern scientific knowledge transcends experience and sensory observation.
If someone says to me that the only knowledge I can have is by experience and observation, I would tell them the epistemology of John Locke was sorta discredited about 150 years ago.
There are many things I believe, suspect, or remain agnostic about which are not within the range of my sensory perception, and may not be resolvable with mathmatical equations or laboratory equipment.
At this point, whether matter is actually real or meaningful to talk about is open to debate, assuming string theory or M theory are on the right track. I believe in equality and justice, even though there is no mathmatical basis behind it, they completely transcend experience, and there is no known law of biology that requires it.
There's lots of things to believe in which transcend experience and observation.
Doc Dutch (02-08-2023)
Phantasmal (02-08-2023)
Thought that was Hume who pushed empiricism as the core epistemology. But I'm not sure how that has been "discredited" other than the more absurd ends of hard-core empiricism.
As I said before I see no reason NOT to keep looking. You are right there are things out there that our current abilities would fail to find. But that's not the point. Let's take the Neutrino for an example. It is nearly impossible to "detect" a neutrino, it takes a HUGE amount of effort and luck and isn't always successful (a lot of neutrinos simply pass through the detectors).There are many things I believe, suspect, or remain agnostic about which are not within the range of my sensory perception, and may not be resolvable with mathmatical equations or laboratory equipment.
No one was just sitting around saying "I wonder if there's a tiny little subatomic particle no one has ever thought of that might be out in the world to detect!" No, it showed up in the mathematics as well as a tiny mass defect during some nuclear reactions so it gave away the need to "find it".
My example of the invisible widget was to say: "why do you think there is an invisible widget that cannot be detected sitting beside you?" Because that has to be answered first before anyone starts trying to find the right detector.
Does that make sense?
Well, maybe not "mathematical" (that's up for debate) it is quite easy to explain it without resorting to any sort of metaphysics. They are both really obvious simple concepts which can exist wholly in the physical world. And arguably they are not "universal" in their value to an animal. Social animals would have an appreciation for these things. But what value would say a lone predator on the savannah have for these concepts?I believe in equality and justice, even though there is no mathmatical basis behind it,
I disagree. One can easily experience both directly and physically.they completely transcend experience,
Again, I disagree. Social animals derive an evolutionary advantage by holding these values. They help to stabilize social networks which is critical to the cohesiveness of the social group. As such there's an obvious biological value to these concepts.and there is no known law of biology that requires it.
Those social groups that hold these values of equality and justice will be more stable and thus more successful.
I don't know how those are experienced.There's lots of things to believe in which transcend experience and observation.
See? That can be taken as snooty, demeaning or playful without more context.
Which way did you mean it?
BTW, me neither on psychic. There's no such thing as magic. IMO, there's only the natural laws of the Universe. Magic is only thought of by ignorant people IAW with Clarke's Third Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
"Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"
evince (02-08-2023)
Phantasmal (02-08-2023), ThatOwlWoman (02-08-2023)
Bookmarks