Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[mfbukowski]

Oops. Can't edit my post.

GA's will explicitly testify they know their spirits will survive death and their bodies physically resurrected in an objective afterlife. There's no mistaking that these are realist testimonies of objective events. I'm not sure an antirealist like yourself can have such a testimony.

You have no idea what you are talking about. YOU STILL HAVE NOT DEFINED OBJECTIVE

Objective means "scientific".

They most certainly don't mean that.

[mfbukowski]

Now, hold on. I have the greatest respect for MfBukowski. He's my favorite philosopher in part because he speaks like a magician...or a prophet. I have absolutely no doubt he has just as strong a testimony as you or I do. He just defends its legitimacy in a way that wouldn't occur to most of us because he's asked the questions that don't occur to us.

Gosh thanks for your kind words!

[mfbukowski]

I was only suggesting he doesn't have a testimony of any realist proposition because he's already made clear he is an antirealist.

I am afraid you don't understand the words or any of this. You throw around terms without defining them and you are certainly not using them as they usually are in a philosophical context.

[mfbukowski]

Well stated (no points, but if I remember I intend to come back when I have them).

Thanks again!

[Brade]

I don't see how that's relevant frankly.

It's relevant to the question of whether your view is consistent with what most or any GAs teach or imply about what they mean by their utterances and how they understand truth. And just to be clear, I don't think that if it were the case that your view were at odds with what all the GAs think that that would be a mark against you.

I cannot read their minds and neither can anyone else. I am confident that were I able to sit down with anyone and discuss this face to fact that they would end up understanding it as I do, or at least acknowledge it as one perfectly valid way of describing this.

Fair enough. I hope you don't think that I think your view is any more unreasonable than, say, my view. I think that, at bottom, we weigh the going theories differently. To use the jargon, we've reached different reflective equilibria. You're willing to cast off certain intuitions that I'm not. And I'm willing to cast off others that you're not.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Brade

[TAO]

Hehe, yep, equilibrium .. that's all what it comes down to, inside our heads =p. We try to pick the theory that offers the most good stuff and the least bad stuff as a combined whole.

[mfbukowski]

It's relevant to the question of whether your view is consistent with what most or any GAs teach or imply about what they mean by their utterances and how they understand truth.

As I said, or thought I did, I think there is no way to know if this statement is true. One would have to read a treatise by a GA on the nature of truth, and I don't think such a thing is forthcoming, or desirable. Like most normal people, I think they use the term in the usual non-philosophical way most people use it.

And just to be clear, I don't think that if it were the case that your view were at odds with what all the GAs think that that would be a mark against you.

I would think it would be.

But since that will never be known, nor is it knowable, I am not too worried about it.

Fair enough. I hope you don't think that I think your view is any more unreasonable than, say, my view. I think that, at bottom, we weigh the going theories differently. To use the jargon, we've reached different reflective equilibrium. You're willing to cast off certain intuitions that I'm not. And I'm willing to cast off others that you're not.

Well I am willing to think that it might come down to that, but I am not quite sure exactly what your position is. You might want to detail that, or just mention which philosopher best represents something close to your position. It's up to you .

[Brade]

Well I am willing to think that it might come down to that, but I am not quite sure exactly what your position is. You might want to detail that, or just mention which philosopher best represents something close to your position. It's up to you .

I don't know whose name to drop. My undergraduate philosophy education wasn't focused that much on which philosophers said what. We mostly just did analytic philosophy. A guess a good place to start is that I think that the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has something to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Edit: BTW, I'm going to run a poll, because I'm really curious how people come down on this.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Brade

[mfbukowski]

I don't know whose name to drop. My undergraduate philosophy education wasn't focused that much on which philosophers said what. We mostly just did analytic philosophy. A guess a good place to start is that I think that the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has something to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Well then no wonder you have a problem with it. That would make it self-contradictory, I suppose, alleging to know what is in principle unknowable.

But I don't think that is the purpose for people saying that, as I said. I think the purpose of the utterance is to express certainty in the belief, taken really on faith, that Jesus rose and thereby intellectually and spiritually communicate a state of certainty to the hearer to help induce them to believe likewise.

It is not uttered as a factual statement, though indeed it may be thought of that way by the speaker- but the purpose of the sentence is not to state the fact.

In fact I would dare say that it is said as a kind of badge of certainty about something which virtually everyone would take as an uncertain and unknowable fact. It is supposed to be a remarkable statement.

I suppose if one grows up on the church, one takes it so casually that it is no longer remarkable, but trust me, when you hear that for the first time in your life and when you have never heard such a thing in your life before, and when it is said with conviction, trust me- you understand that the purpose is not to state what is in principle unknowable, it is to state certainty about something that all consider very very uncertain.

Taking it out of context as an epistemological proposition about objective facts I think misses the entire contextual meaning.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know whose name to drop. My undergraduate philosophy education wasn't focused that much on which philosophers said what. We mostly just did analytic philosophy. A guess a good place to start is that I think that the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has something to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Edit: BTW, I'm going to run a poll, because I'm really curious how people come down on this.

Good

Put me down as one who knows it really happened please. I probably won't participate because I don't do philosophy by polls and I don't think anyone else should either.

I suppose we could do a poll on whether or not Quantum Mechanics is true as well, but that wouldn't tell me much either.

[Brade]

Well then no wonder you have a problem with it. That would make it self-contradictory, I suppose, alleging to know what is in principle unknowable.

I think that's a point of disagreement. If by "in principle unknowable" you mean that it is metaphysically impossible to know or perhaps even by some other less strict modality. What I'm thinking here is that, it's possible God or an angel communicate to me in some clear way that Jesus actually rose from the dead. I think I need to know more about what you mean by its being in principle unknowable.

But I don't think that is the purpose for people saying that, as I said.

This is really sort of a side quibble, I guess, but I'm saying that I think that is among the purposes for people say that.

I think the purpose of the utterance is to express certainty in the belief, taken really on faith, that Jesus rose and thereby intellectually and spiritually communicate a state of certainty to the hearer to help induce them to believe likewise.

It's clear that's what you mean by such utterances, but, again, it isn't clear to me that that's what most speakers mean -- that their purpose in such utterances is the same as your purpose.

It is not uttered as a factual statement, though indeed it may be thought of that way by the speaker- but the purpose of the sentence is not to state the fact.

Yeah, so I'm a bit confused on this point. If utterers think that the purpose of such utterances is to state a fact, then how can it be that their purpose is not to state a fact? You may be right that they're mistaken in thinking that way about their language, but I don't see how, even if you're right about how such language ought to be understood and what people ought to mean by those utterance types, that changes what their purpose is. It seems to me that what they ought to mean is irrelevant to what they mean. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you on this point. If so, help me out.

In fact I would dare say that it is said as a kind of badge of certainty about something which virtually everyone would take as an uncertain and unknowable fact. It is supposed to be a remarkable statement.

I know I've already offered my anecdotes elsewhere, but in all my years of pressing people for what they mean when they make these utterance types, I can't recall any who've claimed to mean that.

Taking it out of context as an epistemological proposition about objective facts I think misses the entire contextual meaning.

I mean, maybe you're right about that. I'm open to being convinced. It's just that my experience as an active member, who questioned people on these things, never indicated to me that what you're describing was what people understood themselves to be engaged it.

[Brade]

Good

I probably won't participate because I don't do philosophy by polls and I don't think anyone else should either.

I suppose we could do a poll on whether or not Quantum Mechanics is true as well, but that wouldn't tell me much either.

Oh, I'm not trying to do philosophy with that poll. I'm just trying to get a sense for how other people, hopefully other active members, understand these types of utterances. The poll most certainly is not an attempt to discern which view is true.

Put me down as one who knows it really happened please.

Haha, well, because of the complexities of your view I honestly wouldn't know which option to tick off merely from the above statement. But you did say this earlier so I guess I can tick off the first option:

So the statement "I know Jesus rose from the dead" has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead- it has to do with what the claimant knows subjectively in the sense of being certain about it.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Brade

[mfbukowski]

I think that's a point of disagreement. If by "in principle unknowable" you mean that it is metaphysically impossible to know or perhaps even by some other less strict modality. What I'm thinking here is that, it's possible God or an angel communicate to me in some clear way that Jesus actually rose from the dead. I think I need to know more about what you mean by its being in principle unknowable.

Of course an angel could appear to you but that's not the point. That is virtually what they are alleging in their testimonies- that they are certain because they know by spiritual manifestation of one kind or another- that Jesus rose.

But you would not accept someone saying that, because that is what in fact they are saying that you appear to dispute.

What I meant is that in a scientific sense, it cannot be proven to be a "fact" that Jesus arose.

It happened 2000 years ago and anyone without a spiritual testimony will tell you that such a think is unknowable or perhaps a fable at best. There is no way to "know" that except as a subjective kind of spiritual knowledge.

I am curious about where you did your undergrad philosophy?

[mfbukowski]

Oh, I'm not trying to do philosophy with that poll. I'm just trying to get a sense for how other people, hopefully other active members, understand these types of utterances. The poll most certainly is not an attempt to discern which view is true.

I didn't think it was about truth- my point is that it doesn't matter philosophically what non-philosophers think about philosophical questions.

It's like asking farmers about Quantum Mechanics. You might ask a farmer about farming an a physicist about physics but you will never get a precise enough philosophical explanation from someone who doesn't know philosophy to make it worthwhile.

Watch- it will be an argument about definitions- as they all are. It's like a discussion about politics in a barber shop. Everyone will have an opinion but it will be all smoke and no fire.

[Brade]

Of course an angel could appear to you but that's not the point. That is virtually what they are alleging in their testimonies- that they are certain because they know by spiritual manifestation of one kind or another- that Jesus rose.

But you would not accept someone saying that, because that is what in fact they are saying that you appear to dispute.

Right, the point I'm making here is that at least as a matter of metaphysical possibility, I don't see why it is in principle unknowable.

What I meant is that in a scientific sense, it cannot be proven to be a "fact" that Jesus arose.

Yeah, I think that's right.

It happened 2000 years ago and anyone without a spiritual testimony will tell you that such a think is unknowable or perhaps a fable at best.

So, yeah, as somebody without a spiritual testimony I will tell you that such a thing is unknowable. But, I'm not convinced it's unknowable in principle, even though I think it cannot be proven in a scientific sense.

I am curious about where you did your undergrad philosophy?

VCU

[Brade]

I didn't think it was about truth- my point is that it doesn't matter philosophically what non-philosophers think about philosophical questions.

Yeah, I think that's probably right. But, again, I'm not really interested in what non-philosophers think about philosophical questions as a strict matter of philosophy. I'm interested because I just want to get an idea of what non-philosophers think. Basically, what do people think they mean? Maybe you're right that if people sat down with you and heard what you have to say they'd change their pre-philosophical views. I expect a good number of people would.

[mfbukowski]

It's clear that's what you mean by such utterances, but, again, it isn't clear to me that that's what most speakers mean -- that their purpose in such utterances is the same as your purpose.

I am not sure why that is important.

I will tell you right now that the reason I am here is to help others see it as I do- I do not pretend to have a mainstream view- just one that works better to explain this all because I have been at this so long. It's a bit like being a Mormon in the Bible belt- if you do a poll there, you will find that most are Baptists. So this is news?

Yeah, so I'm a bit confused on this point. If utterers think that the purpose of such utterances is to state a fact, then how can it be that their purpose is not to state a fact? You may be right that they're mistaken in thinking that way about their language, but I don't see how, even if you're right about how such language ought to be understood and what people ought to mean by those utterance types, that changes what their purpose is. It seems to me that what they ought to mean is irrelevant to what they mean. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you on this point. If so, help me out.

So the point is to show that most people do not think about these issues and may be confused? I would not find that surprising.

[Brade]

So the point is to show that most people do not think about these issues and may be confused? I would not find that surprising.

The point of what I said was to discover what you meant by this:

It is not uttered as a factual statement, though indeed it may be thought of that way by the speaker- but the purpose of the sentence is not to state the fact.

I'm trying to find out if you think that a person may intend his purpose to be X and not merely Y, but really his intended purpose is merely Y and not X. Or something like that. People may indeed not think on this issue and may be confused. And that should not be surprising. But I would find it surprising if people could think their purpose is one thing, but they're wrong about what they think their purpose is.

[mfbukowski]

Right, the point I'm making here is that at least as a matter of metaphysical possibility, I don't see why it is in principle unknowable.

I am not much of a metaphysician. I think pretty much anything is "metaphysically" possible. There might be Platonic Forms floating around or who knows what. But I did not mean that. I did mean scientifically unknowable in principle because I thought that is what you meant.

I thought that is what you meant because you were interested in what "actually happened" which is a scientific kind of phrase. It is a notorious problem in the philosophy of history that it is not possible to "know" all of the details of history especially including cultural factors like motivations and values etc. THAT is what I meant by "in principle unknowable" AND why I asked about which philosophical position you were coming from.

If one asks about "facts" or "what actually happened" especially about history, that presumes that such things are knowable usually which implies an entire world-view

So, yeah, as somebody without a spiritual testimony I will tell you that such a thing is unknowable. But, I'm not convinced it's unknowable in principle, even though I think it cannot be proven in a scientific sense.

Perhaps it's a semantic issue.

VCU

Ok thanks. Just curious. Usually the history of philosophy is stressed in undergrad, not the process. It is an interesting approach.

[Brade]

Ok thanks. Just curious. Usually the history of philosophy is stressed in undergrad, not the process. It is an interesting approach.

History of philosophy was very much not stressed in my program. I know a lot of people find that unfortunate, and I can understand that, but I very much enjoyed the training I got.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Brade

[mfbukowski]

I'm trying to find out if you think that a person may intend his purpose to be X and not merely Y, but really his intended purpose is merely Y and not X. Or something like that. People may indeed not think on this issue and may be confused. And that should not be surprising. But I would find it surprising if people could think their purpose is one thing, but they're wrong about what they think their purpose is.

No, that's not what I mean.

The purpose of saying "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" is to express certainty about the issue.

That can be seen by the difference between the above statement and the statement "Jesus rose from the dead". Surely you can see that the meaning and the intent of the first is different from the second, right?

One is about Jesus rising and the other is about what I know. I mean it's just grammar.

The two sentences have different subjects, and different predicates. The subject of one is "I" and the subject of the other is "Jesus".

The predicate of one is "know" followed by the dependent clause "that Jesus rose from the dead". The predicate of the other is "rose" followed by the prepositional phrase "from the dead".

They are two very different sentences and that is clear as a bell.

[Brade]

No, that's not what I mean.

The purpose of saying "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" is to express certainty about the issue.

That can be seen by the difference between the above statement and the statement "Jesus rose from the dead". Surely you can see that the meaning and the intent of the first is different from the second, right?

One is about Jesus rising and the other is about what I know. I mean it's just grammar.

The two sentences have different subjects, and different predicates. The subject of one is "I" and the subject of the other is "Jesus".

The predicate of one is "know" followed by the dependent clause "that Jesus rose from the dead". The predicate of the other is "rose" followed by the prepositional phrase "from the dead".

They are two very different sentences and that is clear as a bell.

I agree with everything you said there. BTW, please go to the poll thread for a laugh.

[Tacenda]

I agree with everything you said there. BTW, please go to the poll thread for a laugh.

Soo am I the only one who fell for it?

Edit to add: I believed when I took the poll that it was a question as to whether I believe it actually took place instead of it being a metaphor or just a fairy tale.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Tacenda

[Brade]

I should fill in the gaps I was too tired to last night.

No, that's not what I mean.

Ok, that's good. I take it, rather, that you're saying something about how people ought to understand their purpose with regard to such utterances.

The purpose of saying "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" is to express certainty about the issue.

That's right, but that's just going to move the post to talking about what it is to be certain, and you and are going to disagree about it in the same way we disagree with what it is to know, which is fine. So, I think the purpose of saying "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" is to express a certainty about the issue -- namely, a certainty that Jesus rose from the dead. To my thinking, a person's utterance of "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" is made true, in part, by it being the case that Jesus rose from the dead. That, of course, is the something of Jesus' rising or not rising with which that statement has to do. To your thinking, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead doesn't enter into assessing whether a person's utterance of "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" is true -- as you say, it has nothing to do with it, or shouldn't have anything to do with it.

That can be seen by the difference between the above statement and the statement "Jesus rose from the dead". Surely you can see that the meaning and the intent of the first is different from the second, right?

One is about Jesus rising and the other is about what I know. I mean it's just grammar.

Well, in this context it's about a bit more than just grammar. It's about the differences between how you and I understand the meaning of "true" and "truth", and what sense of "truth" is a condition of knowledge.

They are two very different sentences and that is clear as a bell.

Again, I agree that the statement "Jesus rose from the dead" is a different type of sentence from "I know that Jesus rose from the dead". A difference between you and I is that on my view the truth of both depends on whether Jesus rose from the dead. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then "Jesus rose from the dead" is not true, and utterances of "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" are not true.

[mfbukowski]

Ok, that's good. I take it, rather, that you're saying something about how people ought to understand their purpose with regard to such utterances.

Not even that really.

People open their mouths. Words come out. I don't worry if I "ought to understand" their purposes in saying what they are saying, I figure understanding their purposes is their own business.

To my thinking, a person's utterance of "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" is made true, in part, by it being the case that Jesus rose from the dead. That, of course, is the something of Jesus' rising or not rising with which that statement has to do. To your thinking, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead doesn't enter into assessing whether a person's utterance of "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" is true -- as you say, it has nothing to do with it, or shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Well I would think you would have to define that "something" for this to work. That's not part of any truth theory I am aware of.

Well, in this context it's about a bit more than just grammar. It's about the differences between how you and I understand the meaning of "true" and "truth", and what sense of "truth" is a condition of knowledge.

As I think I have said before I think most of the epistemological views which have held that one can only have "knowledge" of something established to be "true" have been largely abandoned. Clearly logical positivism was one of those which combined an epistemology with a theory of truth. But that is the advantage of knowing what arguments have gone before and been resolved so one does not have to repeat them. Because I have never subscribed to that kind of a view, and because I believe that such views have become discounted (though I could be wrong) since later Wittgenstein's writings, I am not familiar with the typical way these arguments are refuted.

But I would have my own simple way to refute them- and it would rely on a Wittgensteinian understanding. Wittgenstein said that "there is no conceivable way of getting between language and the world and finding out whether there is a general fit between them".

THAT is the problem. The reason you were taught analytical philosophy instead of the metaphysics of reality is precisely for that reason. All we have to analyze is language, and it appears that you still believe in some kind of correspondence theory, which as far as I know, has been pretty much abandoned throughout most of the 20th century.

How could one ever "know" if any statement is the "truth" in the sense of correspondence to a world one cannot experience independent of language? Wittgenstein called language a "cage" that we are all in and cannot get outside of to check to see if anything fits. All we can know is what we see and experience and that what we do successfully works when we do it. We can build houses and send rockets to the moon quite successfully without knowing anything about what lies "beyond" language. Frankly I think you are throwing around words like "know" and "true" without any explanation of what you mean by those terms. You are presuming some kind of metaphysics of correspondence which is unwarranted.

Again, I agree that the statement "Jesus rose from the dead" is a different type of sentence from "I know that Jesus rose from the dead". A difference between you and I is that on my view the truth of both depends on whether Jesus rose from the dead. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then "Jesus rose from the dead" is not true, and utterances of "I know that Jesus rose from the dead" are not true.

You are re-asserting your position without giving it any substantiation. I know that is what you believe already- we have covered that ground. I don't mean to be giving you a hard time- I am just hoping we can learn from each other but you keep re-asserting your position without filling in the blanks about what "knowledge" and "truth" means. What is missing here is an epistemology- any epistemology will do, and then we can discuss whether or not the epistemology works or not.