Since you brought up Kant. I'll let him reflect upon your answer. We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate and direct perception … . —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.
On May 4, 1:02 pm, Robert Henry <[email protected]> wrote: > Wel, to best sum up our ideas, you have stated that, although you > dislike labels, you are a Post Kantian. If this is true, then instead > of trimming the tree branches of each other's plumage, let us start at > the root. Kant found that all knowledge, like you stated, is human > and thus within the mind. Outside the mind, the thing in itself is > unknowable. However, there is at least one thing known about it, that > it exists. So, my question to you is this, how do you know it exists? > > > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:38 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 4, 7:49 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You made gross the mistake of stating that "the big bang was invented by > >> science"---if science invented it, as you state then--the phenomenon did > >> not > >> exist or happen---except a recent scientific invention---that is a > >> hopelesly > >> line of thought. > > > What ever happened 13.4 billion years ago is unknown, Human take what > > evidence they can > > and invent an idea to save those appearances; they invent concepts to > > explain what they discover. > > The geocentric universe was invented; pholgistan was invented, > > astrology was invented. They were > > all invented and portrayed as self evident facts, just like you are > > with the 'big bang theory'. One day > > another scientist will invent a new theory to explain some more > > observations. > > You are confused in your conclusion, you say if science invented it > > then the phenomenon did not > > happen. I am not saying that I am saying that the thing called the > > geocentric universe and the big bang > > are inventions. They are contingent explanations which explain > > phenomena which happened. > > > I was responding to your idea that no new knowledge can be made and > > that we are only repeating > > what nature (or is it god) "already knows". This is just a travesty of > > the truth. > > Nature knows nothing. > > >> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:35 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > On May 3, 8:28 pm, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Your statement is based on a fallacy. No form of study---science or > >> > > philosophy can purport to ''invent'' let alone create knew knowledge > > >> > You are being very silly indeed. All knowledge is part of a human > >> > invention. Some languages > >> > don't even make a distinction between invention and discovery. The > >> > simple point is that knowledge > >> > is not the thing in itslef, no ideas can exist outside of humans that > >> > use them, thus knowledge is > >> > wholly human dependant and it ALL exists in human praxis. > > >> > Your assertion that you can 'ONLY prove or discover' betrays your out > >> > of date Platonic assumptions. > >> > Let me ask you where the "geocentric" hypothesis was waiting around to > >> > be discovered by the Greek > >> > astronomers? Or do you think it was invented to explain certain > >> > phenomena? > >> > And where in nature do straight lines, integers and perfect circles > >> > exist that are just waiting to be uncovered by the likes of Euclid? > > >> > Nature knows nothing. The statement is so banal. WHere is its > >> > consciousness? It is utterly unscientific. > >> > Science is a model that is literally and practically invented by us to > >> > best fit or mimic that universe, but it is not > >> > identical - it exists in a dialectical relationship with experience. > > >> > I am utterly staggered by your response!!! > > >> > ---you > >> > > can only prove or discover its existence---ie you can NOT prove > >> > > anything > >> > new > >> > > outside the universal laws and elements of nature. Science is a tool to > >> > > augment our inherent incapacities to fully comprehend what nature has > >> > > already provided---and "knows". > > >> > > PROVE. OUR STATEMEN IS BASED ON This stament > > >> > ????? Are you kidding? > > >> > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:01 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > The thing you have to realise is that the big-bang theory IS accepted > >> > > > by science; it was invented by science; from evidence provided by > >> > > > science.philosophy > >> > > > It does NOT confirm the story of the bible, though politically the > >> > > > steady state was preferable in some ways. > >> > > > The simple fact is that ALL astronomy contradicts the bible and the > >> > > > medieval church. > >> > > > The simple fact that the entire story of creation in the bible is > >> > > > contradicted by science. > > >> > > > Now if you want to assert an intelligent design hypothesis then let's > >> > > > hear it, but don't confuse a bad theory with political resistance of > >> > > > some scientists to the ideology of fools that have tried to prevent > >> > > > the march of science since Ockham. > > >> > > > On May 1, 6:11 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists > >> > > > > than > >> > > > > the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed by a > >> > > > > supreme being. > > >> > > > > In order to understand why this is so, we must take a look at > >> > history, > >> > > > > and in particular, Hubble's discovery that the universe is > >> > > > > expanding. > >> > > > > Today we accept Hubble's expansion with little doubt. But at the > >> > time > >> > > > > of its announcement, there was a great controversy. Why? > > >> > > > > Because up until then, the steady state theory had prevailed. In > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > steady state view, there was no beginning, no moment of creation. > > >> > > > > Now why, you might ask, was the idea of a Beginning, a Moment of > >> > > > > Creation, so unwelcome among scientists? > > >> > > > > It was because the Steady State Theory was directly contrary to the > >> > > > > opening words of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created..." > >> > > > > The > >> > > > > Bible said there was a beginning. The steady state theory strongly > >> > > > > suggested that there was not. Could the scientists bear to admit > >> > that > >> > > > > they had been wrong, and that the Bible had been right? Perish the > >> > > > > thought! > > >> > > > > Scientists claim to be open to any theory, even a Theory of God. > >> > Just > >> > > > > present the evidence, they say, and conform to the scientific > >> > > > > method. > >> > > > > If your evidence passes muster, then we have no objection to > >> > admitting > >> > > > > your theory into the science text books. > > >> > > > > But scientists are not always quite the pristine seekers after > >> > > > > truth > >> > > > > that they are reputed to be. They are as concerned with personal > >> > gain > >> > > > > as anyone else is, and by personal gain, we must include > >> > > > > egotistical > >> > > > > and ideological factors as well. > > >> > > > > The Hubble announcement caused somewhat of a panic among scientists > >> > > > > who should have celebrated the discovery. Not only did the > >> > > > > universe > >> > > > > have a sudden beginning, but for a few tense moments, it also > >> > appeared > >> > > > > that WE are at the center of the universe. > > >> > > > > A sigh of relief could all but be heard when the centerless > >> > > > > universe > >> > > > > was restored by curvature of space theory. And after a time, the > >> > idea > >> > > > > of a moment of creation settled in, as the primordial point > >> > > > > particle > >> > > > > seemed safely agnostic once more. > > >> > > > > With M theory, we have once again reverted to the comfort zone of a > >> > > > > meta-steady-state theory, so to speak. We have unending sequences > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > Big Bangs, not moments of creation, but rather, collisions between > >> > > > > membranes that manufacture multiple universes. In this mega-verse > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > universes, we have safely retreated back into the underlying > >> > > > > philosophy that has dominated physics for the last few centuries, > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > philosophy called by various names, mostly including the word, > >> > > > > material or matter. > > >> > > > > But there is a problem. > > >> > > > > According to the materialist view of nature, we are condemned > >> > > > > forever > >> > > > > to think only inside the box, or at least, into an infinite > >> > > > > progression of boxes. Everything inside the box of nature can--- > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > must--- be explained only in terms of what is already inside the > >> > > > > box. > > >> > > > > We are not allowed to go too far in terms of questioning what might > >> > be > >> > > > > outside the box. As soon as one suggests that there MUST be an > >> > > > > outside, the immediate challenge is to redefine outside as inside. > > >> > > > > Thus, if someone says that the box is best explained by an external > >> > > > > reality called God, the first response is to say that we must > >> > > > > measure > >> > > > > God by the standards of the INSIDE of the box. > > >> > > > > If we say that God is the uncreated Creator, then the materialist > >> > > > > places upon God the requirement that He, too, must have been > >> > > > > created. > >> > > > > You see, the universe can be uncreated, a self-existent reality > >> > > > > with > >> > > > > no beginning. But God cannot be uncreated and self-existent. It > >> > > > > is > >> > > > > not allowed. Because then, there might be a God. > > >> > > > > Which is why scientists scoff at the idea of intelligent design. > >> > Why, > >> > > > > just because the universe SEEMS to be organized, that does not mean > >> > > > > that it really is. It could all be randomness. And even if the > >> > > > > universe IS organized, that could be purely by chance, there need > >> > > > > be > >> > > > > no organizer, not even an ultimate principle that requires > >> > > > > organization. > > >> > > > > And so in the end, you find that the materialists really do have > >> > their > >> > > > > own, sort of, god. Like the big G God, the little g god is > >> > uncreated, > >> > > > > self-existent. But after that, the differences become major. > > >> > > > > The little g god is not an intelligent designer, although nature > >> > > > > can > >> > > > > produce intelligent designers. > >> > > > > The little g > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
