Sam Harris v William Lane Craig

Post Reply New Topic

It isn't mine, and frankly, I don't have the patience to deal with the insanity of another person.

Note: I did not sat it was yours.

Because such debate generates questions that can be resolved empirically.

Why is it that some assume non-empirical descriptions of reality have no merit? Can you demonstrate that empiricism is the only valid tool for the apprehension of truth?

Oh, wait, truth is a non-empirical construct. Let's not talk about it.

We determine what is true in two ways:

1. Deductively, as in a logical or mathematical argument, provided the premises of the argument are true

2. Empirically. The way you find out how the world works is by looking, measuring and experimenting.

ruveyn

How do we determine how we determine what is true? Just a small question.

Go see. Go measure. Go experiment. Learn from experiences. That is how the human races has been doing it since God invented dirt.

ruveyn

You're presupposing your solution to prove your solution.

Well that's all we have. We can't sit around deducting everything down to the littlest detail, cuz then we end up living in ivory towers.

I am not saying that it isn't. I am just pointing out that ruveyn's solution is really kind of thoughtless. I think that I agree with it to some degree, but the phrasing seen is rather unacceptable.

My "thoughtless solution" is the basis of science which has made it possible for you to spew world wide on a computer network.

ruveyn

Umm.... ok? Honestly, who says that this really is the basis of science? After all, "trust logic" and "trust empirical evidence" have many many more formulations than the one you just gave. Some of these formulations can avoid the problems of circularity.

Well you can't say whether or not it's circular if it's a chicken and egg thing. Which came first, the theories or the observations? Besides you seem to have a bigger problem with the way he worded it than his actual idea. Whatever, it's just semantics.

I don't see the formulation issue as just semantics. The reason I don't see it as just semantics is because in a philosophical discussion, these structural issues are BIG and across a system, they can have large results. Heck, just in presenting an idea, these issues can kill whether it should be considered acceptable.

This isn't to say that "semantics are *everything*", but.... what ruveyn seems to be presenting is an idea that has been considered dead for decades for good reason. As such, it is important to be more nuanced.

As for circular vs chicken-egg, the real issue is that his foundation is actually deeply problematic. As I stated, if you take what he states seriously, this is an idea that has long been considered false among philosophers due to consistency problems.

Note: If you don't actually see the issue yet, then why not look at it this way: Let's say that I am actually outright opposed to what ruveyn says. Couldn't I use how he says this in an argument against his idea? The outcome and the method are not so separate that we can just ignore bad methods so long as they reach outcomes we desire. I'd rather have people with good methods first, because those are the people who can talk about these issues, and then fight out the outcome.

Editing again: Even further... ruveyn's presupposing his solution still does not actually work. I really should have hit on that, but the problem is that he can't verify his solution despite his need to do so for his solution to work. The point that he is outright begging the question is still quite valid though.

^^^^

Agreed, it is important to be able to ground ones beliefs as 'properly basic'. Hence my regard for the work of Alvin Plantinga on 'reformed epistemology'. Ruveyn seems to be simple repeating ad nauseam a combination of the Evidentialist Objection to Theism (which was overturned in the sixties) and Verificationism (which collapsed, sometime in the fifties, because it could not be verified without circular reasoning). Ruveyn is right in that belief in the scientific method is a properly basic belief but the need to justify his starting point cannot sustain his own position without giving ground to the 'reformed epistemology' of Plantinga.

Last edited by 91 on 10 Jan 2011, 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Careful now, you're sounding like Richard Rorty. Would that make you a Pragmatist?

Sam Harris certainly likes to set himself up as a man of Science, but he holds to a naive sort of logical positivism that actually only some of the major philosophers of science - and only some of the major scientists - of the 20th and early 21st centuries would support.

This is the great irony of scientists and science-supporters (of which I am one! Yay science!) who seek to disregard philosophy in favor of science: that they are in fact engaging in philosophy in so doing, and are doing so in a less precise and more poorly-argued manner than they could if they at the very least used the tools of well-thought-out argument to dismantle traditional philosophy (a la the Logical Positivists and some Pragmatists), or better yet, own up to the necessity of philosophy and really engage with those difficult questions that they falsely dismiss.

A pragmatist AND an empiricist. And Harris is very close to getting his PhD in a science. He is a man of science. Most philosophers of science follow in the footsteps of Karl Popper and David Hume. Most scientists don't give a damn about philosophy for good reason, it is a waste of time.

ruveyn