Re: [asa] The empirical basis of knowledge

My opinion on this is that there are no a priori
intuitions. Kant is wrong. Any a priori intuitions which
might seem to exist are from "hard wiring" in the brain.
 Where does this "hard wiring" come from? It is
genetically determined for the most part, and some
environmental influence during development.

So our hardwiring is based on our experiences in part.
 What about the genetic component? That is also based on
experience, not the experience of the individual, but the
collective experience of our predecessors that had genes
that determine brain structure selected via survivability.

So any innate or a priori intuitions are based on
experience either personally, or collectively through
evolution.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:02:01 -0400
  "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a little more on Kant, sense impressions, and
>empiricism, which I
> happend to see in an article on strategic management
>that turned up in some
> research I'm doing on a completely unrelated law paper
>about trade secrets (
> J.C. Spender, *Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic
>Theory of the Firm*,
> 17 Strategic Management Journal 45-62 (1996)). This
>article is about moving
> away from the positivist epistemology that underlies
>most contemporary
> theories of the firm (and my current legal scholarship
>is about moving away
> from the positivist empistemology that underlies most
>contemporary
> intellectual property theory). Anyway, here's the bit
>about Kant:
>
>
> As realists, we assume reality exists and is knowable.
> As empiricists, we
> assume that our knowledge corresponds to reality. As
>rationalists, we
> assume reality's structure is logical. All these
>positions neglect the
> essence of the Kantian critique which is that our
>knowledge is constructed
> from sense impressions and cannot, therefore, tell us
>anything about a
> reality beyond those impressions. While Kant believed
>that our experience
> was shaped by reality, our knowledge of it was based on
>a priori intuitions
> and consequently delimited by the available categories
>of human
> comprehension. Later philosophers, extending the
>position which Kant opened
> up, argued that the basis of our interpretation of our
>experience is as
> likely to be in the soft structures of subjective
>perception as it is in the
> hard reality within which we presume we are contained.
>
>
> Ibid. at p. 48
>
>
> On 3/20/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> To be honest, I'm not happy with the concept of
>>"Knowledge", and the idea
>> that you can KNOW something is right anyway. What does
>>it mean? All it can
>> mean is that a fact is determined to be true with
>>probability 1.
>>
>> As a Bayesian, I would say that one has a prior
>>probability (prior belief)
>> that is then either reinforced or lessened in the list
>>of evidence
>> observed. I'm not sure what it is that Glenn wants to
>>KNOW. To "know" that
>> God exists is to be excused having faith. Glenn's
>>observation that
>> Christians seemed to be happy (I know of at least one
>>Christian who has
>> expressed suicidal thoughts to me so they clearly
>>weren't happy), was an
>> empirical observation that influenced his beliefs.
>>
>> For some reason (probably irrelevant) T.S. Eliot comes
>>to mind:
>>
>> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
>> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
>>
>> (Ash Wednesday).
>>
>>
>> Iain
>> On 3/20/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> > *You said what basis was there for becoming a
>>christian. That isn't the
>> > same as saying I KNOW it is right. One believes it is
>>right--that is why it
>> > is called faith.*
>> >
>> > Very fair point. OTOH, you didn't really KNOW that
>>those Christians
>> > were happy, either. The best you could really say is
>>that it *seemed to
>> > you* that they were happy, since happiness is the
>>interior state of an
>> > "other" to which you don't have access. Lots of
>>people seem to be happy but
>> > really aren't -- even lots of Christians. So you're
>>still back to some
>> > non-empirical foundational assumptions that, in this
>>instance, supported
>> > your belief that the happiness you seemed to be
>>observing in these
>> > Christians in some way really reflected their interior
>>states.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/20/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net >
>>wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Iain wrote:
>> > > >>Yes and I've read books on the evidence for the
>>resurrection, and
>> > > I've read atheist websites dissing the whole concept
>>as a myth. At the end
>> > > of the day you have to decide which one you're going
>>to believe, and that
>> > > belief is based on conviction and the work of the
>>Holy Spirit, and not on
>> > > empirical evidence alone, although it's true that
>>empirical observations may
>> > > incline one towards belief. <<<
>> > >
>> > > So have I read both sides, and that is why I tend to
>>look for
>> > > verification elsewhere than at the resurrection. And
>>then I get criticized
>> > > for doing so upon this list and told how I should
>>rest it all at the cross,
>> > > which as you note, one can read both sides of the
>>issue. Maybe some others
>> > > should read those atheist sites to see how
>>epistemologically insecure their
>> > > belief is.
>> > >
>> > > And to address the issue of this thread, one must
>>distinguish what you
>> > > asked from 'knowing'. You said what basis was there
>>for becoming a
>> > > christian. That isn't the same as saying I KNOW it
>>is right. One believes it
>> > > is right--that is why it is called faith.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > glenn
>> > > They're Here: The Pathway Papers
>> > > Foundation, Fall, and Flood
>> > > Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>> > >
>> > > http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > *From:* Iain Strachan [mailto:
>>igd.strachan@gmail.com]
>> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:01 AM
>> > > *To:* Glenn Morton
>> > > *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
>> > > *Subject:* Re: [asa] The empirical basis of
>>knowledge
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 3/20/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net >
>>wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > For Iain, Merv, David Siemans, David W.
>> > > >
>> > > > Iain Strachan wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >>>What empirical basis is there in the decision
>>to become a
>> > > > Christian? At the end of the day, one may see
>>evidence that pulls you in
>> > > > that direction, but the crucial deciding factor
>>was (I always understood)
>> > > > conviction by the Holy Spirit. How do you measure
>>that empirically? How do
>> > > > you measure a "leap of faith" empirically? <<<
>> > > >
>> > > > In my personal case, it was empirically obvious
>>that the Christians
>> > > > were happy, I wasn't and I wanted what they had.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Yes, but that doesn't answer the question. Yes,
>>it's empirically
>> > > obvious that Christians are happy, but that
>>observation doesn't lead
>> > > logically to the KNOWLEDGE that Christianity is
>>true. People can be happy
>> > > because of a self-delusion. In the end you had to
>>make a step of faith (as
>> > > did I) because you believed that the reason they
>>were happy was because
>> > > Christianity was true - that the difference it made
>>in their lives wasn't
>> > > just a placebo effect.
>> > >
>> > > Some will say that the empirical data for the
>>resurrection is good
>> > > enough for them, for indeed, with out that empirical
>>claim of a risen Lord,
>> > > Christianity would have been still borne.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Iain
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------
>> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the
>>same box.
>>
>> - Italian Proverb
>> -----------
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 20 12:42:55 2007