3 ms·
> If you reread the comment you are responding to, it says raw sensory input is the only thing that is not wrong, not that it is wrong. My view is that raw sen
by javert 7y ago
> If you reread the comment you are responding to, it says raw sensory input is the only thing that is not wrong, not that it is wrong.
My view is that raw sensory input is just information, so it's not wrong, and so we are in agreement there. Further, I am saying that knowledge can be derived from that sensory input, which is where we disagree.
I see what you are saying, I failed to clearly distinguish these two cases when I used the term "sensory information."
> We don't even know that there is a stick
Yes we do. But to "know that there is a stick" is subject to certain caveats. It's not an absolute, like being omniscient. For example, if something is a stick, it's still a stick, even if we actually live in the Matrix, or in the dream of an alien being. Because to be a stick is just a mental classification (i.e., concept) that we have created for a certain kind of thing evidenced to us by our sense data and by the use of reason.
> is a useful, but still wrong, model
A model can be correct as long as it doesn't overstate its own power of generalization. There is a sibling discussion going that covers the fact that Newton's Laws are correct as long as they are understood to describe phenomena (i.e. evidence) actually observed by Newton, and then only to a certain level of fidelity; but not "correct" if you hold them to the standard of explaining everything.
> Faith, where it concerns the material universe at all, is still a method of selecting models subject to the “all models are wrong, some are useful” rule,
Faith doesn't select a model. A model is based on evidence of the senses. Faith dispenses with models entirely and just makes stuff up out of whole cloth. I see your point there, I just think you're using the word "model" too loosely and in a way that gives faith too much credit.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> Faith doesn't select a model. Yes, it does. > A model is based on evidence of the senses. No, a model is an abstraction by which one conceptualizes phenomena, regardless of the basis. It seems true that a model not based on structured application of sensory observation is likely to be a poor model if you judge quality by how well it lines up with future sensory observations, but a model is not necessarily a good model. Faith, also, does not dispense with evidence of the senses, it just applied it differently. “I perceived X describing Y as true”, where X is a (natural or supernatural) authority figure is sensory data, as are positive sensations associated with a particular belief. Now, they aren't sense data that empiricism would treat as relative to the truth of the belief at issue, but that's a different issue.
- javert 7y agoYou're just arguing that a "model" based on make believe is still a type of model. I don't find that compelling. It's like saying a scientific theory not based on empirical information is still a scientific theory. I don't see why that point is worth defending. Except perhaps as a way to give bad ideas higher stature by lumping them in with good ideas. > Faith, also, does not dispense with evidence of the senses, it just applied it differently. No idea what you are talking about here. For instance, the only sense-based evidence I know of for Christianity or Islam is the historical record, and that isn't reliable enough to establish these beliefs as anything more than make believe. In other words, we can't see Jesus work miracles, which would constitute partial evidence for Christianity; the only evidence we have is that someone said they did a long, long time ago. I'm also not aware of evidence for Zeus or Thor or Brahma. > as are positive sensations associated with a particular belief Emotions do not constitute evidence for religion.