Reply #79: Hippie, this is beginning to go from comical to hilarious. You asked me

[humblebum]

to show you other ways of knowing. I rattled off "Experiential knowledge, Propositional knowledge, Presentational knowledge, Practical knowledge, etc." I have also cited examples in the past about how an historian, for instance, needs to discover the reason why something in the past happened, but there is not enough available empirical evidence to arrive at any conclusion with 100%, or close there to, objectivity. What does the historian do? He or she investigates and examines any piece of data, information, or antiquarian evidence available to arrive at the most objective answer possible. Whenever total objectivity isn't possible, the next best method to use is the one that provides the most objectively true answer. There a varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity applied in all disciplines that I can think of.

Logical positivism, or logical empiricism, or scientific philosophy - whatever you care to call it, was designed to render the most objective, empirical results possible. That was its intended purpose. And as such, it is the only method or epistemology capable of reaching anything close to total objectivity. So stop asking me or anyone else to provide any other WOK that arrives at a conclusion that is totally logical, empirical, or objective. I know of none that exist. Math and science are the only disciplines that approach 100 % objectivity, BUT the epistemology of science (logical empiricism) is limited to the human senses (and extensions thereof, such as a telescope). That's when methods like ontological inquiry, and teleological inquiry, and "educated guesswork" based on the best available data come into play. These are some of the other ways. How does the critique of a play determine whether it is good or bad? Yes, other ways of knowing do exist. They are used in the courtroom (I know that's been mentioned) whenever circumstantial evidence is introduced, and in business, psychology, sports, and on and on.

I don't know how to be any more clearer than that. Any time you need to make a decision about something and the details are not clear, you base your decision upon the best available information possible. In doing that you have utilized other ways of knowing. Whether or not you agree is not my concern, but other ways do exist and are used regularly to find answers. The greater the degree of subjectivity used means the chance that different parties will arrive at different conclusions. That's the way the world works.