| Author |
Topic:
Ontology and Epistemology Post [Locked] |
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
|
You are dodging the question. You made a specific claim that science can determine moral right and wrong. This is the only thing I have addressed. Your "everyday" examples of women's rights and slavery were easily refuted.
|
_Enkidu_  Title: Zen Badger
Posts: 280
Registered: 2001-12-24 05:02:15
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
They clearly weren't refuted, but since you think so, I'm going to let you figure this out yourself. Again, all you have to do is state your position on evolution and how you got it.
These are questions you should have the ability to answer, since they are your beliefs. 
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
Scarne  Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts: 1,087
Registered: 2001-7-23 15:24:34
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
It all depends on how you are defining right and wrong. 
-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
|
_Enkidu_ Title: Zen Badger
Posts: 280
Registered: 2001-12-24 05:02:15
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
See Scarne gets it. 
It's silly how these two are too scared to state their positions so I can show them what this all means.
Taking the wife out to dinner now, so maybe by tomorrow when I get back they will have posted something useful... 
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
_Enkidu_ posted:
They clearly weren't refuted, but since you think so, I'm going to let you figure this out yourself. Again, all you have to do is state your position on evolution and how you got it.
These are questions you should have the ability to answer, since they are your beliefs.
You never demonstrated that slavery is morally wrong or right through scientific observation. What scientific observation that is testable, and repeatable shows that that slavery is wrong or right. Or for that matter why younger women are more attractive than older women, skinnier women are more attractive fatter women, impressionist art is better than abstract art etc.
As for your question. There are more ways to get knowledge your poor attempt to describe epistemology. The only rational answer you leave to give is "appeal to science". However, your broad description of "science" is part of a category called Empiricism. You then left out idealism, rationalism, and constructivism.
|
Z-Elder  Posts: 671
Registered: 2002-3-15 13:58:39
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
Enkidu will just keep asking questions until he gets it framed for his answers.
-----signature-----
"The poison of our ordinary habits has killed the magic of the moment"
"Men are not in hell because God is angry with them . . .
they stand in the state of division and separation which by their own motion, they have made for themselves"
|
cherrim  Posts: 68
Registered: 2003-4-6 21:57:39
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
Modeeb posted:
cherrim posted:
I don't contend that delineating "ways of knowing" is arcane. I suppose most of my earlier critique applies to statements like "your metaphysical orientation changes your theories of knowledge and existence."
See my concrete example above and restated differently below, Cherrim.
Metaphysical position, Transcendental Idealism, (i.e.Reality is mind independent), thus the rock exists independent of my mind and the number three exists independent of my mind. A Conceptual metaphysical position is completely mind dependent. The ontology is different. Therfore, your ontology is dependent on your metaphysical position. If i am a Realist I am committed down a certain road. If I am an anti-Realist I am committed down another road. Now do you understand? I cant be any simpler or clearer.
Sorry if I seemed to ignore you; I had to take the wife out to dinner. Let me see if I understand you:
Reality is independent of your mind. Okay, I can make sense of that. Sounds like kind of an anti- Berkeley position to take.
Your ontology (theory of being/existence) derives from or is dependent upon your "metaphysical position" (seems that you're using "metaphysical position" as meaning "opinion of what constitutes reality and whether said reality depends on my mind"  .
So tell me if I am paraphrasing you acceptably: "My ideas about being depend on my opinion of what reality depends upon." If so, that sounds somewhat tautological (ie, I think about being in the way that I think about being). As such, it hardly seems to merit such transfigurations of language. If I am misunderstanding you again, forgive me.
-----signature-----
One special advantage of the skeptical attitude of mind is that a man is never vexed to find that after all he has been in the wrong.
- William Osler
|
Modeeb Title: A Ghost In The Machine
Posts: 1,258
Registered: 2002-4-19 10:48:36
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
Its not the case I am saying: It is either raining or not raining, a tautology. I am saying your metaphysical choices commit your belief systems to certain lines of thinking (e.g. reality is mind dependent or mind independent). For me their is being and Being* not just being. Certainly you have read the allegory of the caves. There is nothing extraordinary here. The key question restated for about the third time; How do I come to know (key concept knowing) about the Ideal or abstract objects, which exist outside time and space. Communication is a two way street. Hopefully, my example using being, as proposed by you in your post, in a way which is not tautological help[s advance the dialogue.
*being is both all and part of Being, like the holographic analogy I used earlier. This is a paradox, not a tautology.
-----signature-----
"What is here is there. What is not here is nowhere." Vishvasara Tantra
"Ever tried, Ever Failed. No matter. Try Again.
Fail Again. Fail Better. Samuel Beckett
|
_Enkidu_ Title: Zen Badger
Posts: 280
Registered: 2001-12-24 05:02:15
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
Snarf_Igraine posted:
_Enkidu_ posted:
They clearly weren't refuted, but since you think so, I'm going to let you figure this out yourself. Again, all you have to do is state your position on evolution and how you got it.
These are questions you should have the ability to answer, since they are your beliefs.
You never demonstrated that slavery is morally wrong or right through scientific observation. What scientific observation that is testable, and repeatable shows that that slavery is wrong or right. Or for that matter why younger women are more attractive than older women, skinnier women are more attractive fatter women, impressionist art is better than abstract art etc.
As for your question. There are more ways to get knowledge your poor attempt to describe epistemology. The only rational answer you leave to give is "appeal to science". However, your broad description of "science" is part of a category called Empiricism. You then left out idealism, rationalism, and constructivism.
Again you are missing the point. It doesn't matter what you are deciding, whether it is the morality of slavery, or your stance on evolution. All of these things do not exist in a vacuum, they were created by information. So if you use a faulty epistemology to make a decision, the decision is faulty. Ethics is another of the five pillars of philosophy which deals with right/wrong/good/bad and they use science to make their calls, go figure.
If you can think of another way to get knowledge, I'm all ears. These things are talked about by philosophers daily and they haven't figured out a new appeal in hundreds of years.
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
Sin_of_Onin Posts: 1,307
Registered: 2005-6-29 08:21:12
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Ontology and Epistemology Post |
Scarne posted:
It all depends on how you are defining right and wrong.
Defining what is right and wrong is the moral question.
Enk you have not answered my question and your question in response to me is irrelevant and rhetorical. You have already tried to make two things that are not necessarily alike the same. ie moral knowledge of right and wrong and knowledge of the physical world.
This entire issue revolves around my question but you seem totally unprepared to answer it. It is comical to see you squirm.
-----signature-----
"Okay... I'm with you fellas" --Delmar
F is for Fake-believe
"We apologise for the inconvenience" --God
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem"--Reg
Run, Forrest! Run!
|
|
