Tal's epistemology (and DCP's)

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

Not necessarily, Bond...you never know when things might explode into some heavy choke-holding and crotch-kicking! I'm happy here - I don't know about anyone else.

Voting for Daniel Craig even over Sean Connery,

Tal
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Tal Bachman wrote:Not necessarily, Bond...you never know when things might explode into some heavy choke-holding and crotch-kicking! I'm happy here - I don't know about anyone else.

Voting for Daniel Craig even over Sean Connery,

Tal


Mod Note: Just a thought.......I'll check the thread tomorrow. If some of you other guys feel differently and would like the thread to remain scholarly (regrettably missing in choke holds and what not) say the word and we'll move the thread, and democracy may overrule Tal (evil moderatorial laugh)-Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

You forgot to put "democracy" in ironic quotation marks! :P
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

Hey Bond

Can you even wait for the next Bond movie? I've NEVER been a big Bond fan (like Connery said once, "not my kind of chap"), but I saw "Casino Royale" TWICE, even though I pretty much hate movies...

I can't wait for the next one.

Also, "a lot of people tell me I'm a lot like James Bond" (Jenn Kamp)
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by _Tarski »

Tal Bachman wrote:Tarski

You wrote:

I regarded the quotes as indicating that he thought that the philosophical problems of knowledge are real and not solved and that some kind of absolute indubitable apodictic knowledge (what Dennett calls Truth with a capital T) is impossible (we are human after all).
I agree with Dennet in his essay I pointed you too.

I said I thought that those were not entirely indefensible statements and I think I indicated that they do not constitute strong evidence that DCP is a radical postmodern antirealist or epistemological relativist.


Tarski, note that I just posted a gigantic post about why I think whether some Mormon apologist "really" qualifies as a "post-modernist" is a waste of time, as are arguments about how we label them personally, and about how that wasn't my point at all. Further, as I mentioned earlier to you, skeptical arguments such as Dennett's (or Peterson's for that matter) might be entirely defensible on their own, but I would say that such skeptical arguments are not compatible with Mormonism's truth and epistemic claims - and that was my original point.

Moreover, surely you will appreciate that when an atheist like Daniel Dennett argues against the possibility of knowing the truth capital T it is one thing, but when apologists for a "one true religion" like Mormonism do so, it is quite a different - and patently problematic - matter. Do you understand what I mean?

Certainly. Radical relativism and much of post modern thought ought be anathema to the religion as it is normally understood.



I know it's long, but it might be worthwhile reading my post above.


Actually, (he said sheepishly) I did read it.

By the way, I don't know that I really can solve any outstanding epistemological problems, so if that is the climax you're waiting for, you'll be disappointed. I think I can show that the accounts I mentioned are inadequate, but if that's not really that interesting, I can knock off if you want.


I am enjoying it so far. I am just wanting to hear more. Keep going.

Do you hear what I'm saying about this stuff? DCP or whoever might be a fully committed realist deep down, but I made a comment not about a label or designation or an intentional state, but about things which were said, and whether those things can be reconciled with Mormonism's claims. In the cases I've mentioned, I don't think they can be. Do you?


Well, actually, here is what you quoted:

"
How do I know that the room in which I wrote this paper and the audience to whom I originally present it were not simply subjective experiences in my mind? I cannot prove otherwise."

"Already in the sixth century before Christ, the pre-Socratic thinker Xenophanes of Colophon recognized this aspect of the human condition: 'And as for certain truth, no man has seen it, nor will there ever be a man who knows about the gods and about all the things I mention. For if he succeeds to the full in saying what is completely true, he himself is nevertheless unaware of it; and Opinion (seeming) is fixed by fate up all things'. In other words, no mortal human being can know the truth absolutely, indubitably, precisely, or beyond any possibility of error or dispute.

"I am inclined to agree, in at least one sense, with Karl Popper's contention that absolutely pure and untainted sources of knowledge do not, and cannot, exist. Not, at any rate, here in this fallen world".


Do you think this particular statement is incompatible with Mormonism? "no mortal human being can know the truth absolutely, indubitably, precisely, or beyond any possibility of error or dispute."

I know it is not compatible with us taking seriously testimonies that contain phrases like "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

But I went to BYU and almost nobody I know talked like that.
We figured such statements were just emotional expressions of conviction and not to be taken in a philosophical sense. We all knew it and I think the testimony bearer would cop to not having absolute knowledge" if asked.
Mormonism when considered as what Moromn people believe just isn't consistent and so you get different varieties of Mormons. I was once a believer but the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" type statements just made me and my friends laugh (it was for children or overbearing windbags). What about "seeing through a glass darkly?"" or "what about needing faith?" we would retort.

So I don't know. Since Mormonism isn't internally consistent how do we decide that a Mormon just must be an epistemological absolutist.

It isn't a particularly effective angle by which to attack Mormonism. Instead I concentrate on the plausibility and evidence for or against the central supernatural claims--not on whether Mormons are confused or inconsistent in their use of the word "know".

Some Mormons use arguments against other Mormons to get them to take a less absolutist attitude toward their own religion. It doesn't matter though if we can determine that Joseph Smith didn't have any special pophetic powers and that the Book of Mormon is not history etc.
How well Mormons know what they know is not as central to the doctrine as you seem to think. You can be a good member if you just accept the core story of the first vision, the Book of Mormon etc.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

Whoah, you guys are on the move. My bbq is postponed til tommorow, so I get to try and get a post in. I ain't happy though, seasoned pork, corn on the cob, purple onion, red pepper, all on the charcoal grill. And a couple Heinekens to wash it down. That's a void philosophy can't fill.

I read these posts fast, so I apologize if I missed something important. I'm going to hold on any details on the problems with empericism and hit the LDS issues.

If I understand Tal's position on labels, we are probably not going to get very far with them. Heck, it's hard enough with professional philosophers, but with laymen, perhaps it's a total waste of time to determine who's a realist or a postmodernist. I can see that point. If I'm not mistaken, Tal also argues to move the meaning of sentences away from (real) intentions and judge "what's actually being said". I'm a little surprised he wants to go that route. But I can certainly accept the point - if this is one of the things he's going for with this position - that what DCP or anyone else claims to be is one thing but what they say is another. So let's not try to read minds and so on and just take the implications of what they say.

Tal quotes DCP on the impossibility of absolute knowledge and claims this contradicts LDS thinking. Well, I can't disagree with Tal on that. Every (Chapel!) Mormon I've meant thinks they know the church is true without a shadow of a doubt. But I'd argue two further things:

1) Very few people are entirely consistent, and we should look at as many statements as possible and find a center of gravity to them.

2) The context of this statement matters as well. If in this context, DCP was trying to cast doubt on the status of contemporary Egyptology(as an example), suggesting that in the future science will learn more and Mormonism will be vindicated, then Tal certainly scores a point. If the context was fairly far removed from evening the epistemic playing field for Mormonism, then it's harder to see how it supports Tal's contention.

My impression of DCP's center of narrative gravity sets him apart from the other apologists listed. My main evidence for that isn't just his denials of pomo affiliation, but his position that the straightforward emperical evidence for the Book of Mormon, the three witnesses etc. makes Mormonsism more likely than not. And that critics or simply non-LDS scholars who thoroughly examine the issues would be have to be the ones dancing in order to resist the force of the emperical evidence for Mormonism. I consider this situation similar to intelligent design advocates (there's a great on on MAD but I forget his name) who are thoroughly commited philosophically to Truth and think that they are the ones with the sure footing.

As I said before, religionists can hold virtually any philosophical position and be frustrating and at odds with reality.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Tal Bachman
_Emeritus
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm

Post by _Tal Bachman »

Tarski

You make a good point about how Mormonism's inconsistencies make some orthodox stance on something like epistemology pretty dubious. I do think, though, that a convincing case can be made that any theory of knowledge, to not be heretical to Mormonism, must begin with a concession that "sure and certain knowledge" is very possible, and indeed, all but guaranteed to the "pure in heart". See below.

First consider the thrust of these statements:

"How do I know that the room in which I wrote this paper and the audience to whom I originally present it were not simply subjective experiences in my mind? I cannot prove otherwise."

"Already in the sixth century before Christ, the pre-Socratic thinker Xenophanes of Colophon recognized this aspect of the human condition: 'And as for certain truth, no man has seen it, nor will there ever be a man who knows about the gods and about all the things I mention. For if he succeeds to the full in saying what is completely true, he himself is nevertheless unaware of it; and Opinion (seeming) is fixed by fate up all things'. In other words, no mortal human being can know the truth absolutely, indubitably, precisely, or beyond any possibility of error or dispute.

"I am inclined to agree, in at least one sense, with Karl Popper's contention that absolutely pure and untainted sources of knowledge do not, and cannot, exist. Not, at any rate, here in this fallen world".


Now, compare these statements, which I freely concede sound pretty unobjectionable, at the very least on their face, and which many intelligent, educated people might concur with, with the following statements:

Joseph Smith:

"No man can receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations. The Holy Ghost is a revelator". (Teachings, p. 328).

And what does the Holy Ghost reveal? Joseph Smith answers again:

"It needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God" (HC, 4:588).

Gordon B. Hinckley adds:

"The Holy Ghost is the testifier of truth...'and by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things" (Nov. '86 Ensign, p. 51).

He also says:

"And so, my brothers and sisters, as we bid you good-bye for a season, we repeat our firm and enduring testimony. We do it as individuals with a sure and certain knowledge."

reference 1

"Now He has come again, in the latter days, to bless us and warm our hearts, to quicken our faith and bring us sure and certain knowledge of His living reality."

reference2

What about these from Neal Maxwell?

"Furthermore, Latter-day Saints know that certain knowledge comes only by revelation and, therefore, is only 'spiritually discerned.' (1 Cor. 2:14–16.) So we are in some important respects on a different footing from other people of the world." (People like Mormon apologists who say "no mortal human being can know the truth absolutely..."?)

More from Maxwell:

"Truth includes, but is not limited to, knowledge which corresponds to realitythings as they were, things as they are, and things as they will be". (See Jacob 4:13; D&C 93:24.)" (Can this be reconciled with "absolutely pure and untainted sources of knowledge do not, and cannot, exist. Not, at any rate, here in this fallen world". Doesn't seem like it to me...)

For Maxwell's talk, see "The Inexhaustible Gospel" at: reference 3

Final points:

1.) I have some sympathy for Dan Peterson on this issue. How we know things, or might know we know things, is a very tough question. At once, we know that we do know things - like that the world is spherical, that it revolves around the sun, that satellites broadcast our television signals, etc. - and yet, we have good reason to believe that some, or much, of what we think we know to be true right now, isn't true at all.

So, it is a hard thing to come up with some "theory" which explains all of that - which explains our own minds to ourselves, in a way. And at the same time, Peterson and all Mormom apologists are supposed to defend a religion, the most authoritative scriptures and leaders of which make statements such as those I listed above. What's a guy to do? It is no wonder there appears to be some inconsistency (how could consistency be possible without sounding like a total ignoramus or full-blown madman?), or a reluctance to lay out some fully-developed theory, because...in that situation, as a thinking Mormon who wishes however to remain faithful or loyal...you can't really. You're vulnerable no matter what you say. You're even vulnerable if you DON'T have to try to square some intellectually unobjectionable theory of knowledge about the world (supposing there even was one) with quotes like those from Maxwell. (For example, I fully expect that I will be unable, in the end, to give any full, satisfactory account on here of "how we know things, or how we know we know them", even though I'm aware that Mormon leaders have not the authority they claim, and so feel no obligation to square anything with what they pronounce as "the truth".)

These LDS quotes support my comment above: ANY theory of knowledge, in order to not be heretical to Mormonism, HAS to begin by conceding the possibility of "sure and certain knowledge". (It was, after all, the sitting president of the church, speaking in General Conference, who used those words to describe the knowledge that people can have). But it is very difficult, if not impossible, to know what the next few steps in such an account should be...

And again, apologists denying they are post-modernists is totally irrelevant to this. I am focused on what they say about their positions, the meaning of their statements - not what tribe they claim to belong to, or not.

2.) Gadianton, the reason why I made the point about one's expression of one's intentional state, versus that intentional state itself, is that church defenders often attempt to evade responsibility for things they have said by announcing that characterizations of those things do not represent what they "really" believe. They claim, that is, almost chronically, of their beliefs being "distorted".

Take, as a hypothetical, the example I gave above in a post. I tell you "I hate cats"; but what I really mean, or come to convince myself I meant, is that "I hate the feral cats who eat Fifi's high-end cat food". And then, imagine that you refer to me as a "cat-hater", and I then start complaining about how you have "distorted my views". Have you? If so, it is only my own fault, for I simply stated "I hate cats" and left it at that.

So...referring to me as a "cat-hater" might actually be an inaccurate description of my internal intentional state; but the point is, my continual denial of responsibility for things which I have said, by means of assertion that they, or descriptions of them, do not "really" describe my intentional states, makes any discussion, the point of which is to find out the truth or falsity of a proposition, IMPOSSIBLE. (And perhaps, at some level, that is really the point of such strategies). So, for purposes of discussion, I thought to make it explicit that one's true intentional state cannot really be the issue, since that state is inscrutable, at times even to the very person experiencing it. So, we can only deal with positions, ideas, arguments.

Dan Peterson provides an example of this distraction tactic here. Rather than explicate or defend the quotes of his above, he simply repeatedly denies, as though he were a programmed robot, that he is a post-modernist. That is, rather than responding to what is at issue (his actual passages), he denies a phantom accusation - one which has not been made by anyone on this thread or any other that I know of here. Moreover, whether "Peterson is a postmodernist" (I'm sure he isn't - for one thing, that would require some kind of consistency), is NOT relevant, has NEVER that I know of been at issue, and has NO bearing whatsoever on the meaning of passages which he himself wrote, and which ARE relevant.

See how it works?

I say, "Some human races are inherently better than others". You describe my position in passing. I then come on and keep repeating, "I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE KU KLUX KLAN". Does that make any sense whatsoever? Does that make me sound anything other than incapable of critical thought on this issue? Does that in any way touch on what I have said?

No.

And so, neither does the repeated denial of being a postmodernist. Whatever its motivation, it serves as nothing but a distraction to everything that is really at issue. And that is:

Whether some Mormon apologists have attempted to use skeptical arguments in defending Mormonism (answer: yes)

Whether the quotes posted here from Peterson, however defensible they might actually be, by a normal reading appear to countenance a certain (I might say, on their face at least quite sensible) form of skepticism (answer: yes)

Whether skeptical arguments, logically, can be enlisted to defend Mormonism, given its truth and epistemic claims: (answer: no)

and now:

Whether arguments deriving from Hume, such as Karl Popper's, and more indirectly, Thomas Kuhn's, give an adequate account of knowledge or science: (answer: uncertain as of yet, but I am attempting to show that no, they do not).

We now return to our scheduled broadcasting.

See ya,

Tal
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by _Tarski »

Tal Bachman wrote:Tarski

You make a good point about how Mormonism's inconsistencies make some orthodox stance on something like epistemology pretty dubious. I do think, though, that a convincing case can be made that any theory of knowledge, to not be heretical to Mormonism, must begin with a concession that "sure and certain knowledge" is very possible, and indeed, all but guaranteed to the "pure in heart". See below.
.......
....

These LDS quotes support my comment above: ANY theory of knowledge, in order to not be heretical to Mormonism, HAS to begin by conceding the possibility of "sure and certain knowledge".

Well, suppose we as regular folks come to realize that philosphers are able to devise such purified requirements on their notions of knowledge that it becomes likely that such a level of of certainty of knowledge can not be achieved simply because we are not epistemic gods. As the same time we feel that we couldn't say what we want to say if we aren't allows to use the notion of certainty.
For example, I doubt the notion of apodictic knowldge in this rarified godlike sense and yet I do in "real life" want to to say the I am quite sure and certain that my son has smoked pot (I saw him for one thing). I also want to say that I am (or we are) sure that) molecules exist. Do I have to put up with some joker from the philosophy department demanding that I put some qualifiers in all such sentences?.
Should I be required to say "I am almost certain that I am losing my hair or that a I "strongly believe" that my father was a policeman when I was young?
These kinds of restrictions on language would distrupt communication. Even Neal Maxwell is going to concede that his use of the word "certain" was not meant to imply a philosophically perfect indubitable knowledge. After all, I just need to remind him that we all "walk by faith" or that we "see through a glass darkly" etc. (oops! We don't really literally see through a "glass" though).

Philosophically epistemology is still a problem but even for science there comes a point where we say we are certain and yet there is that philosophical gap for a bit of theoretical in principal doubt to creep in. OK so what?

The real problem is that the religionist (Mormon or not) has nowhere near the needed warrant for using the language of (high) certainty.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Tarski:

I like your suggestion of moving this thread to the CK section, as it would presumably encourage Mr. Bachman to overcome his persistent urge to insert gratuitous insults into his posts and would thus keep the discussion more cleanly focused on substance.

On the other hand, since his jibes are quite easy to endure, I'm fine with whatever you choose to do. I simply think that it might improve the discussion a bit.

Best,

DCP
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by _Tarski »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Tarski:

I like your suggestion of moving this thread to the CK section, as it would presumably encourage Mr. Bachman to overcome his persistent urge to insert gratuitous insults into his posts and would thus keep the discussion more cleanly focused on substance.

On the other hand, since his jibes are quite easy to endure, I'm fine with whatever you choose to do. I simply think that it might improve the discussion a bit.

Best,

DCP


OK, lets celestialize! Mods?

PS, what of my last post? Is my attempt to think like you way off?
Edit: OK, I'm not sure that is what i was trying to do but I was trying to use concepts that I agree with to paint a possibly charitable way of interpreting what some educated Mormons might think.
Post Reply