tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post2574399779321536259..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: Epistemological End GameRichard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-76515193327509222622008-06-23T08:51:00.000-07:002008-06-23T08:51:00.000-07:00Aq1x: You are making a terminological error. Exper...<B>Aq1x</B>: You are making a terminological error. Experiences are the events of perception, not the acts of sensation. That my experiences are caused by senses is an inference (and thus can be wrong), but that I am having those experiences (regardless of what is causing them) is undeniable.<BR/><BR/>Thus, I am not talking about the "trustworthiness of my senses," but the deniability of my Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-13447618566389077482008-06-14T05:18:00.000-07:002008-06-14T05:18:00.000-07:00"...I cannot fail to know I am having such-and-suc..."...I cannot fail to know I am having such-and-such an experience..."<BR/><BR/>Yes you can, because you experience things via your senses, and you cannot be sure of the trustworthiness of your senses except by querying those senses, which is question-begging.AQ1Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17131972110412163606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-1151143905596503562007-01-03T13:19:00.000-08:002007-01-03T13:19:00.000-08:00Blue Devil Knight: Foundationalist philosophy is e...<B>Blue Devil Knight:</B> <I>Foundationalist philosophy is exactly what I meant by a "first philosophy."</I><br /><br />That's your own odd definition then, not what the phrase "first philosophy" ordinarily means. And as for what I mean by foundationalism, since I am noty always sure you mean the same thing, see <B><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism">Foundationalism</A></B>.<brRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-16210364467165624152006-12-23T02:24:00.000-08:002006-12-23T02:24:00.000-08:00Foundationalist philosophy is exactly what I meant...Foundationalist philosophy is exactly what I meant by a "first philosophy." <br /><br />I think the possibility of zombie scientists refutes what you are saying. More generally, I don't think semantic ascription ('means', 'is true', 'implies that') assumes that the ascribee has any internal conscious experiences. They could be 'zombies' with no experience, but internal information bearing states Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-1704662130640302572006-12-22T15:51:00.000-08:002006-12-22T15:51:00.000-08:00Blue Devil Knight: The slogan I am defending is "T...<B>Blue Devil Knight:</B> The slogan I am defending is "There is no first philosophy."<br /><br />I agree with you (and make exactly that point in my book). I am not talking about first philosophy (unless you mean something unconventional by that phrase). I am simply talking about foundationalist epistemology. That counts as "first" only in order of analysis, but not "first" in the sense of <I>a Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-26067527480544189492006-12-20T08:41:00.000-08:002006-12-20T08:41:00.000-08:00Lippard: I agree. The view that we can't use resul...Lippard: I agree. The view that we can't use results of scientific investigation in our epistemology is a throwback. The attitude that we need a first philosophy, an epistemology that doesn't resort to any scientific facts, because it must ultimately ground those facts, is a seduction that should be sidestepped like a pile of horse#%@* by the naturalist.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-61684096294617544312006-12-19T09:12:00.000-08:002006-12-19T09:12:00.000-08:00BDK:
By the time we're doing philosophy, we've al...BDK:<br /><br />By the time we're doing philosophy, we've already learned language and concepts, and have had many perceptual experiences and formed memories of them. The externalist, naturalized epistemological perspective is to ask whether the processes by which we've accumulated that information and the methods which we use in belief formation and revision are reliable, and to try to answer Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-53276877738498525892006-12-11T10:44:00.000-08:002006-12-11T10:44:00.000-08:00I may try to get in a fuller response later, but I...I may try to get in a fuller response later, but I'm currently in the middle of the run-up to final exams here in Madison, so let me just deal with one key issue: circularity. I do not claim to have found a non-circular epistemology. Nor am I reading Carrier as to say we need absolute deductive certainty to believe anything. The fact that he's merely demanding some kind of justification is The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-71288301274708524252006-12-08T21:07:00.000-08:002006-12-08T21:07:00.000-08:00You cannot immediately assume monkeys even exist, ...<i>You cannot immediately assume monkeys even exist, much less have neurons and so forth. You are thus bootstrapping, putting the cart before the horse. Hence the question is: How do you know monkeys exist and have the same brain structures that we do? You can't answer that question by appealing to the existence of monkeys and their neurons. That's the problem Chris asked me to address, and whichBlue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-90918798322152201632006-12-07T20:42:00.000-08:002006-12-07T20:42:00.000-08:00Regarding Chris Hallquist's Response:
Memory: I ...<B>Regarding <A HREF="http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com/2006/12/reply-to-richard-carrier.html">Chris Hallquist's Response</A>:</B> <br /><br /><B>Memory:</B> I agree that we must count on memory. I am not saying we should start with a distrust of memory. What I am saying is that we do not (and cannot) simply assume all memories are reliable. That any memory is reliable is a hypothesis that we Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-33816336318757143482006-12-07T20:06:00.000-08:002006-12-07T20:06:00.000-08:00Blue Devil Knight: You cannot immediately assume m...<B>Blue Devil Knight:</B> You cannot immediately assume monkeys even exist, much less have neurons and so forth. You are thus bootstrapping, putting the cart before the horse. Hence the question is: How do you know monkeys exist and have the same brain structures that we do? You can't answer that question by appealing to the existence of monkeys and their neurons. That's the problem Chris asked Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-88775647793156820632006-12-07T20:03:00.000-08:002006-12-07T20:03:00.000-08:00Mr. Jargon: Yes, I believe "that all persons who f...<B>Mr. Jargon:</B> Yes, I believe "that all persons who faithfully adhere" to my epistemology will arrive at the same conclusions, but only (a) about objective matters of fact and (b) when they all make exactly the same observations. If one person sees more than I do or less than I do, or if they see different things than I do, then even following the exact same method they will not necessarily Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-18347325253754722672006-12-03T19:42:00.000-08:002006-12-03T19:42:00.000-08:00This displays vestigial Cartesianism in its approa...This displays vestigial Cartesianism in its approach. How can <i>I</i> justify <i>my</i> belief that X by resorting only to my explicitly and consciously entertained mental states in the chain of justification?<br /><br />Why not start with the beliefs of other animals? Start like a scientist, with a full suite of beliefs in tow, and try to show how a monkey's or other person's belief can be trueBlue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-81132341808674967532006-12-02T22:30:00.000-08:002006-12-02T22:30:00.000-08:00I have posted my reply here.I have posted my reply <a href="http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com/2006/12/reply-to-richard-carrier.html">here</a>.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-45383528370735549992006-12-02T21:57:00.000-08:002006-12-02T21:57:00.000-08:00Please correct me if I have misunderstood or misco...Please correct me if I have misunderstood or misconstrued the meaning of your position. I am certainly not defending Plantinga at this point.NeoChalcedonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16811511793600645067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-40867355452807861292006-12-02T21:52:00.000-08:002006-12-02T21:52:00.000-08:00If, in your epistemology, "only what is literally ...If, in your epistemology, "<b>only</b> what is literally undeniable gets to be called 'properly basic'", then do you believe that all persons who faithfully adhere to this epistemology/methdology will arrive at the same or (very) similar conclusions? Bertrand Russell believed that many of the *basic* assumptions that we have cannot be proven and there is no logical contradiction in their denial.NeoChalcedonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16811511793600645067noreply@blogger.com