The Obtaining of Knowledge

I'll believe that everything needs to be verified by science when you can prove these three things.

1) Prove your parents love you. They say it and they do things for you, but prove it, I think they might really hate you.

2) Prove then moon isn't made of cheese. If you've never been there...

3) Prove that Russia is a real place and all the maps aren't lying.

I'll require evidence that can't be refuted in any way.
If you don't have any open mind you'll never have all the answers. And if you do have an open mind....

Well you'll never have all the answers. But science isn't going to have them all either so you mine as well throw that idea out the window right now. (Trust me.)

Barrera wrote: I'll believe that everything needs to be verified by science when you can prove these three things.

1) Prove your parents love you. They say it and they do things for you, but prove it, I think they might really hate you.

2) Prove then moon isn't made of cheese. If you've never been there...

3) Prove that Russia is a real place and all the maps aren't lying.

I'll require evidence that can't be refuted in any way.
If you don't have any open mind you'll never have all the answers. And if you do have an open mind....

Well you'll never have all the answers. But science isn't going to have them all either so you mine as well throw that idea out the window right now. (Trust me.)

I'm sorry if this sounds wrong... but I really cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not

Prove that Angels pull us towards earth which is what we can only loosely define as 'gravity'

Prove that the great unicorn oujlikyfjgkyluhiguykydrjf didn't make our solar system in 1 single second and is secretly ruling and controlling all of our actions...

You are asking questions that require absolute objective proof... well it doesn't exist, because we are all subjective people and you can always just say "you're wrong"

The idea of science is based on accountability, testability and can be verified anywhere and by anyone

Did you know that the British sent dinosaurs in against Germany in World War 3? Trust me. It happened and it's true because I say it did. PROVE to me that it didn't happen! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence after all...

So there is precisely nothing we can know for sure, alright. There may be some self-evident statements such as "Green grass is green" which are true just because they are defined like this. X=X and to a human being there is no way to think differently and be sane at the same time.
Apart from that, we may have evidence supporting things but in the latest decades fortunately science admitted that truth cannot be found through its methods. Now, there are people who say "you wanna know the truth? Come, i'll tell you." and start rambling on and on about things they firmly believe with no absolute justification whatsoever. This is however perfectly fine, because it is our beliefs we build our lives upon. Technically it is Naive Realism that I do trust my senses to any degree.
From a rationalist point of view, since our senses can be tricked, there is no reason to believe that either of us, or the world or in fact anything we believe to know is true at all. Thus, if the task is to find the truth, all we get is frustration, for we cannot find the truth at the end of the day anyway. At least none we can be certain of, regardless of the support by other people or physical evidence. We might as well give up searching for the truth completely and just die, since for all we know, we may never have existed anyway.
I find it most profitable to accept some beliefs as a basis and build all other knowledge on them. So X=X, alright, we aren't living in some Matrix, the limits of human logic are also limits of logic in total etc. Having set these up I can start deducing things from my observations and rational reasoning. I may be wrong at the end of the day, so what? I don't need to be right in order to live a worthy or at least happy life (provided I do live any life indeed).

Right, so it looks like I have been pulled straight back in :laugh:

Akkarin wrote:

The idea of science is based on accountability, testability and can be verified anywhere and by anyone

Anyone who has been involved in the sciences at an advanced level understands that, while theories can be tested, there is also a certain amount of bias that is projected onto the experiment. Now, don't get me wrong, I have a great respect and admiration for the sciences, it's an interest that is a personal hobby of mine, though I do not think that I am naive enough to believe that it holds all of the answers, or, for that matter, the ability to gain all of the answers to life's questions.

This is, for me at least, due to the fact that it places a great deal of emphasis on empiricism, which in and of itself can be flawed. But let me bring us round to my original point, which is the how of which knowledge is valued and obtained? More to the point, can we value knowledge that is gained via other means, such as meditation, fasting, visions, lucid dreaming, trances, etc, etc, etc.

Sheuthem wrote: can we value knowledge that is gained via other means, such as meditation, fasting, visions, lucid dreaming, trances, etc, etc, etc.

I do, but its difficult to comprehend the causative agents or conditions. Repeated trial and error is the only way I've got to try and determine any patterns towards that. The scope of this knowledge though is personal by default, because of this.

Adder wrote:

I do, but its difficult to comprehend the causative agents or conditions. Repeated trial and error is the only way I've got to try and determine any patterns towards that. The scope of this knowledge though is personal by default, because of this.

Thanks, I can relate to that.

What, then, are the limits of this knowledge? If we take it from a religious point of view, is it the attainment of Nirvana? The liberation from Samsara? Is it the cessation of suffering? Spiritual enlightenment or union with God? Is it the liberation from cycles of Karma? or is it the connection to an ultimate reality?

From a Philosophical point of view, can these methods be trusted? are we limited by trusting in Empiricism? or should be be able to trust in these experiences/knowledge that we gain via alternative methods? Can we rely on these methods even though they are not the same as that used in scientific enquiry? If we can, then is science self limiting?

Sorry, so many questions, but I hope/think you get the point I am trying to make? If not, let me break it down into three questions that are much more easy to handle:

1). Can we trust religious/spiritual experience? If so, what are its limits?

2). Can we trust empirical knowledge? If so, what are its limits?

3). Can the two work together and compliment each other? If so, what are its limits?

Sheuthem wrote: I believe that I do.

Regardless, I have to agree with Jestor, you are definitely Trollin'

I think I am done. As the saying goes, 'you cannot reason with a headless man'.

Let's rewind a bit.
You: "I believe in the Force."
Me: "Why do you believe in it? Where's the evidence?"
You: "Well evidence is subjective and can be interpreted in many ways."
Me: "Alright, but where's the evidence?"
You: "Well put it this way. (procedes to talk about two men eating salt) so you see it's impossible for one man to describe to the other what it is. The same with the Force."
Me: "Er, okay. I didn't ask for a description, I just wanted to know what evidence there is for it, seeing as you believe it exists. What *evidence* is there that can be interpreted? And yes, I'm careful to remember that 'evidence can be interpreted in many ways', just like you said, but haven't given me any evidence whatsoever. So where's the evidence that can be interpreted please?"
You: "YOU'RE TROLLING! Lolololololol can't explain anything to someone who's HEADless lololololol"

Do you understand where I'm coming from now, and how moronic this is actually starting to look?
So for you trolling = asking for evidence for what you claim exists? Alright, fair enough. I won't bother arguing with that. But I wil say that if anything, wouldn't you be the one trolling for claiming something exists without providing evidence for it? You can make excuses about how "it can't be described unless you've felt it but it's definitly there" but I could just as easily say "the tooth-fairy exists, but you don't know what she really looks like or how she does it or why unless you see her." The tooth-fairy might well exist, but without evidence beyond spoken word, no reasonable man would believe it. If you want to say that's "trolling", fine, but it's not an unreasonable question so I just think you don't want to admit it on this one.

Akkarin wrote: It depends a lot on what 'The Force' is to you

*Sigh*! But that serves to back up my point. You (not you specifically Akkarin, "you" as a generalisation of Jedi here) are saying you believe in something. Alright. But you can't tell what that thing is except a vague thing that "connects and binds everything", and if questioned further it turns out this "can't be described if you haven't experienced it". Alright, but then it gets even worse because when I pry deeper, "everyone experiences it differently". So yo believe in something that 1. Cannot be known unless it is experienced, and 2. Is a different experience for everyone. Which means the Force could be anything you decide to make it and therefore learning about the "Force" is pointless. But let's push this point further: if you can't describe it, fine, but where's evidence for it so that I at least know that *it* exists. "Oh well that just depends on what it means to you". :blink:
Well, tell you what: I believe in a mystical energy force that can turn any matter it touches into gold. However, I can't describe anything about it to you unless you feel it, can't give you any evidence for it, and if you want to know more you have to find out what it "means to you" before understanding what on earth everyone's talking about.

Akkarin wrote: To me it does not require 'evidence' and it is technically not a 'belief', it is a perspective and a view of the world.

"For you"? You say "for you" when talking about vague concepts or ideas that everyone has their own opinion, not something that intrinsically exists. So either you believe the Force as an energy does *not* exist, and you just believe in some vague idea that you call "the Force" (in which case you're completely different from the poster above) or you, like me, are a bit more sceptically-minded and therefore won't delude yourself into believing in something without evidence for it.

Sheuthem wrote: 1). Can we trust religious/spiritual experience? If so, what are its limits?

2). Can we trust empirical knowledge? If so, what are its limits?

3). Can the two work together and compliment each other? If so, what are its limits?

1) Lots of people have lots of experiences in their lives. Someone might (and people do) experience out of body experiences while they are in surgery and unconscious...

If you, or they, ask "Was it real?" Well...

What is real? They were 'real' experiences. As to what they mean... well I guess that is up to us...

So can we trust them? Do we trust that 'gut instinct' when it is telling us 'DON'T DO THIS'? Why would it be any different. It's a 'feeling'... sometimes it is just better to go with our 'feelings' even if we don't know why

Can we ever know if we've reached our limit? How do we know we aren't just waiting to go that little higher. I would like to see if someone could present a scale and say 'I KNOW we cannot go higher...'

2) What isn't experienced exactly? Tell me something that isn't experiential knowledge... I have experienced someone telling me that the moon orbits the Earth. I trust them in their judgements... that is an 'experience'

But if you're talking about things like: "In my experience, (insert minority) are all bigots and evil" well... that is perhaps a different 'kind' of experience

I think each one is a different situation and it would be too hard to put them all in one category

I would just try to remember "I could be wrong"

3) I see no reason why not...



SoulSeeker, I know your frustration when you ask these types of questions but to be honest with you, do you know how I stopped being frustrated? When I realised that these questions were pretty meaningless...

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/clergy/sermons/1979

Sermon - The Force and its Irrelevance, Written by Akkarin wrote: As Jedi we believe in The Force. But I ask you, which 'The Force' exactly do you believe in?

I myself don't 'believe' in it per se. For me it is something quite different that is best left to another, more specific, discussion. But even though what I 'believe' 'The Force' to be might be one thing, what you believe it is might be something completely different. Some think it is literally an 'energy field', some think it take sides, light and dark, and some think that it is an idea - such as myself

If, however, this were some fundamental unyielding idea then we would surely have, for starters at least, some consensus of what it was, but also if others disagreed they would be wrong and any further pursuit of the idea would be met with rebuttal. If such a thing were fundamental, as a community and as an organised Temple, we simply wouldn't be able to function

And what of people and communities outside of the Jedi communtity or, more specifically, at this Temple? Well to begin with we each of us have different views about the world than our neighbours and that will be true wherever you move to...

But do those different views stop us from working together? From shopping at the same shops, working at the same jobs? I would hardly think so...

So you must therefore ask yourself. What importance is this 'fundamental belief'? Could it be that actually it isn't really important at all?

The following is used mainly for another point but I think it has relevance here

If I was to hold up a pen in front of you and ask:

"What is it?"

I would presume someone, aside from perhaps looking at me strangely, would reply:

"A pen."

The issue arises however that 'pen' is not what it is... 'pen' is a sound. What I am holding is not a sound. You see simply saying 'pen' doesn't tell me anything more about what it is that I'm holding than simply saying nothing. If someone wanted to 'tell me' what it was then a better way of doing so would be to take the pen and start writing. That tells me much more about what 'it is'

The importance of what something 'is' is not in its name but in what it does

In that way 'The Force' is largely irrelevant, because it is not simply that it is there that brings any importance, but how we behave based on that

Indeed it is not so much what anyone believes in but rather how they act that really matters. That is not to say that we shouldn't ignore our motives and intentions but that in a world where only our actions are seen by others, these must be our highest priority

I would much rather be friends with a kind Christian or Muslim or Hindu or any other of a multitude of different faiths than being friends to an unkind Jedi. The fact that we have 'similar' beliefs is irrelevant to me when I look at them and find that their actions do not portray them in the kindest of lights

The important thing is not to be the best Jedi you can be. But to instead be the best person you can be.

Alright SoulSeeker, maybe we are just not getting it...

Do you believe in anything?

Anything at all?

Maybe we are missing what you are going for...

The evidence is a feeling SoulSeeker, and once you have attempted to have that feeling you'll get it, and you'll know.

If you are honestly expecting someone to hand you a folder labeled, 'Evidence',

1) You're an idiot.

2) You're a troll.


If you are just waiting to hear something specific let me just give it to you, "We are all blithering idiots and you've made us see the light." Happy?

Its pretty clear to me your questions aren't in the spirit of academic or spiritual understanding but in an attempt to tear down what other people think of and believe.

If I'm mistaken then maybe you need to define evidence, because from where I'm sitting the idea has been conveyed to you. If you would like instruction on how I managed to feel and understand the concept feel free to PM me. This will take time and effort, and if you aren't serious about it please don't bother.