Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:
A.  But since we can interpret sense data any way, we could also interpret what we sensed about the moon to support the idea of it being cheese, correct (and I don't think we could even say what color it was, as the color we perceive may not even be from the moon (colorblindness, anyone?)?  And with this ability to interpret sense data any way, so does it follow that sense data could support any world view (e.g., "All that I sense is consistent with what the real world would be" or "All I sense is consistent with what a Matrix world would be")

B  Perhaps I've misunderstood your analogy.  Just to be clear, by "up", you mean reality, by "fog", unprovability, and by "picking a direction", taking a method of truth,  and sense data is not represented, correct (more or less, or is that reading into it too much?)?  If that's the case, yes, you can pick a direction to go (assume a method of truth) and hope it leads you up (gives truth), but there's no indication which way is correct.  You could go left (empiricism), you could go right (non-empiricistic theism*), or someway else (the M4tr1x), or you could just sit there (assume nothing).  If I'm getting you right, you're saying with this there is no reason not to assume someway, which I agree with, but it doesn;t have to be empiricism.

*I use this term to show I don't think empiricism and theism are mutually exclusive, just in case it seems otherwise.

A.  No.  Incorrect.  You are speaking of denying that your senses are telling you what they are telling you -- asserting that what you are sensing as rock is REALLY cheese -- which is explicitly contradictory to the hypothesized worldview.  I'm sorry, but there's no way to weasel out of this IMO.  If you change it to a Matrix interpretation, that is no longer the original worldview. 

B.  I guess it's more or less good, except I thought that I included sense data pretty explicitly by the unreliable sense of "up" I provided. 

For me, it seems like a natural and sensible "default" position to accept the input I am given, even if I know it is unreliable, if it is ALL I have to go on, which in this case it is; and that would be "empiricism" (exclusively so).

A.  You and I have both said that the senses say nothing, that it depends on what we make of them.  So how could they contradict us?  It's only our judgements that could contradict, and you and I have said you could amek your judgements whatever you wanted.  And what is that bolded objection about?  Why is that an objection?

B.  If sense data is represented by an unreliable sense of up, then I don't see it in the analogy, as we don't even have that (being completely dizzy and practically blinded).  And, unless you mean empiricism to be "Making judgements of of sense data" (which would make the idea that the Matrix is reality an empirical one), I still don't see why you have to chose it, as opposed to any other belief.

A.  If you HAVE a worldview that involves your senses being accurate, and they TELL you something that contradicts another part of your worldview, then PART of your worldview is wrong.  I really, really don't see how you disagree with that. 

[edit:  Wait, wait!  "Why is that an objection?"  Because you said that the sense data supports ANY WORLDVIEW.  If I said "this bridge will support any vehicle", and then a big-ass truck was coming and I said "hold on, let me add extra supports", I've CHANGED THE BRIDGE.  My original statement was not true (presuming that I strengthened it because it would have failed).  If you CHANGE the worldview from what it previously was (into Matrix, or changing the definition of cheese, etc.) then you FAIL in your argument that the ORIGINAL worldview was supported by the sense data.  Thus your assertion "ANY worldview is supported by the sense data" lies undefended against my objection.  Don't you see?!]

B.  Short version:  you don't HAVE to. 

"Or, suppose I'm literally "so dizzy I can't tell which way is up".  Well, if I'll never stop being dizzy, I just have to pick the direction I THINK is up and see how it works out."  You objected to "think" because you thought it implied more than 0% reliability, but in actuality I was only trying to convey that one is getting INPUT as to "up", not that it is at all reliable -- just as we get INPUT as to the world (that may be ) around us. 

All I'm saying is that we are getting INPUT telling us about the world that has appolose, Final-Fan, donathos, etc. etc. living, eating, breathing, and going to VGChartz.  Maybe we're in the Matrix, but there's no INPUT to that effect.  One could be a bodiless entity dreaming the universe, but there is no INPUT implying this. 

The difference between empiricism and all the others is that there are two camps:  "this is real" and "this is not real", and the first camp consists solely of empiricism-based worldviews.  For me, "this is real" is the default position.  That is all.