Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On these "other ways of knowing."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Science & Skepticism » Atheists and Agnostics Group Donate to DU
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 01:46 PM
Original message
On these "other ways of knowing."
I am finding it interesting how the claims of these "other ways of knowing" keep getting repeated, and when asked to provide just a single example of any knowledge gained through one of the "other ways of knowing", instead we get nothing but obfuscating, deflecting, projecting, insulting, and backpedaling.

It's like when one corners a psychic to prove their claim, you get nothing but excuses and never any proof.


I think we are seeing that here.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Steve Jobs invented the iPad using nothing but intuition!
I am surprised at how few people understand the basic concepts here. But then again, given the names involved, not really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. This is what I *still* think of when I see "iPad."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. You've seen this right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. That looks like something that requires batteries
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You can plug it into your USB port.
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. Once, I was given a list of accomplishments...
All of which rely on objective proof in one manner or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. And people are totally ignorant about the nature of intution.
Edited on Sun Nov-06-11 08:57 PM by Odin2005
It's not a form a data in and of itself, you fools! :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-06-11 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. You have such a closed mind
It's your negativity that makes you impervious to the spiritual vibrations others are privy to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Well, I we can learn from impression or instinctive feeling...
...particularly if there is an evolutionary precedent for it. We can tell how someone is feeling by processing visual cues even if we are not necessarily aware of them. Pretty sure there are physical senses beyond the 5 usually mentioned (sense of time passing, sense of bodily position, sense of bodily condition like hunger, fatigue). Of course people run into problems when the extrapolate unsupported facts from mere impressions. Having a creepy feeling does not mean the house is haunted. A sense of well-being does not mean god is watching after you.

Of course none of that can contradict objectively verifiable, scientific fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. There are as many as 19 senses depending on how you count.
Edited on Tue Nov-08-11 03:32 PM by laconicsax
Yet another thing the "great" Aristotle got wrong, and then some.

Edit: Which reminds me, if these other ways of knowing are so great, how come none of the greatest philosophers ever figured out that the Earth goes around the sun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You mean other than Aristarchus?
Let's not mistake lack of sophisticated technology with lack of sophisticated thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I forgot about Aristarchus. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Heliocentrism was based on centuries of meticulous astronomical observation.
I mean the positions of planets, sun and moon against background stars naked eye.

Until that was done there was no frame of reference for it. The only "world" we knew about for sure was the Earth and the scale of the solar system was outside of our experience. Nothing in our evolutionary past created a survival advantage to those who understood heliocentrism, so no one knew. Telescopic observations of Jupiter and Venus plus calculations of planetary orbits based on elipses rather than circles put the nails in the geocentric coffin. Now with additional knowledge, the heliocentric model is quaint and outmoded since the solar system is not the center of anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Surely those other ways of knowing could have uncovered the necessary knowledge, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Guess not. That would suggest creationism...
Natural (as in not supernatural) selection only accepts changes if they cause increased reproduction which usually means living longer to reproduce more. There is no immediate survival advantage to knowing the real scale of the universe.

Except there might be. Someday, in retrospect, humans or the descendants of humans may be able to say that our curiosity and ability to develop the scientific method is what saved us from an asteroid impact. But that would not be an "other way of knowing." So we are back at "no survival advantage for instinctive knowledge about the cosmos."

To have another way of knowing that told us things beyond our immediate survival needs implies a level of planning in the development of our senses. Some deliberate creator would have to know that there is a big universe and that we might want to know about it. That creator would then have to endow us with those senses in advance. Natural selection is unintelligent and cannot plan ahead.

I realize I am preaching to the choir, BTW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. "A popular meme among the sans-science crowd..."
:rofl:

A great snarky little article, with a BONUS VIDEO of DeeHack Chopra being embarassed. And bloviating.

Its a popular meme amongst the sans-science crowd to claim there are ways of knowing besides science.

They dont simply mean ways of knowing things like whether or not someone loves us, but rather they mean ways of knowing significant, world view-altering things beyond our personal lives. That is, they want to bring their non-methods up to the level of knowing that science gives us (or, perhaps, they want to bring science down to their level). Its sort of cute, but it never stands up to scrutiny.


http://forthesakeofscience.com/2011/10/26/other-ways-of... /

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-11 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Oh, I see.
Someone asked about "other ways of knowing" in RT and got into an argument because I read the phrase literally and inferred "besides science" after it. While conceding that scientific empiricism is the most effective, conclusive way to positively know something, I also made the point that we also ascertain information based on instinct. I conceded the limits on this kind of information and in no way suggested it could compete with science. But it does exist. I think some of the anti-OWOK posters thought I was claiming more than I was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Well, people also "ascertain information"
by watching Faux News or listening to Rush Limbaugh. Does the end result necessarily constitute "knowledge" or "knowing"? When a teabagger says "I KNOW that Barack Obama was born in Kenya!", what is your response to that "knowing"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. They're wrong.
The documentary and circumstantial evidence conclusively demonstrates he was born in Hawaii.

The kind of impressions I think of are more emotional conditions than specific purported facts. A sense of danger or empathy, for example. Something that is still very physical and natural, but not discursive. No gut feeling can support the claim that the universe was created in six days or that is was created at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Doesn't sound very "Holmesian" of you.
Subconsciously picking up cues
is not really "sensing", it's
real observation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Well, sure, it's just processed at an instinctive level...
...rather than an intellectual, discursive level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
amyrose2712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-09-11 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
18. Jumpin Jeebus!I just read that entire conversation and my head is spinning.
:spank: :spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-11 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
20. Well, what they consider "ways of knowing"
are merely ways that individuals convince themselves that things are true. And a "way of knowing" that encompasses everything and anything that any person might convince themselves might be true requires so broad and vague a definition of "knowledge" or "knowing" as to be essentially useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ninjaneer Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
22. I read deflecting as
defecating. :rofl:

Not that I would be too far off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. There usually is poo-flinging involved
So you're right, it's not too far off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
26. I like this quote on the topic...
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled sea of thought. - John Kenneth Galbraith

And this Galbraith quote seems on-topic in the days of OWS etc.:

The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 24th 2014, 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Science & Skepticism » Atheists and Agnostics Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC