As it is I didn't say, nor believe, any of those points (expect gravity, but I wager you took the statement wrong) you interspersed with ... . Indeed, I'd say them to be figments of your imagination,
Uh huh. I’m just making these up:
There is a certain level of reasonable trust you can put in authority. True, it might not always be correct, but overmuch skepticism garners nothing of use.
By the way, gravity IS easily disproved, so far as an invisible force goes. That's not me being 'unscientific'.
All that I meant was I'm aware that there has to be a certain bit of irrationality in making a knowledge claim about anything. That doesn't, in my mind, invalidate it, but it's neccessary for expedience.
Till such a time as the expert thoughts are found to be in error, there is nothing inherently wrong with taking taught information at face value, at least in a field where you are at that point unlearned and unable to cogently disagree.
I am compelled to reason that you either do not read what you write, or do not understand it. Let’s take ‘em point-by-point:
1. Where skepticism is concerned, you are seemingly speaking only to the special case of “overmuch” skepticism. However, like most religious-thinking folks, you cannot seem to separate the absolute certainty of religious knowledge with the tentative nature of scientific theory. In the real world, we have to be skeptical. We express confidence in well-established scientific concepts simply because, like you said, the base objection “How do you know?” is not an adequate criticism. Where the evidence is concerned, we don’t
have to “know,” in the sense of possessing real certitude. Any scientific theory is deemed plausible so long as it does not contradict evidence and does not stray from its point. But all of this is tentative. Skepticism is the default position in science, as it ought to be in all matters of life where objective determinations take precedence over artistic or emotional preferences. There is nothing wrong or “useless” in being skeptical about nearly everything. It’s no shame to admit “I don’t know.”
When we do talk about scientific
truths, it is because we have a near-absolute understanding of the subject matter. We know the number of protons in iron. We know the bond energy of water. We know that pressure drops inside a fluid flow. We “know” these things because we have measured them and can make accurate predictions based upon the measurements. At this point, any inaccuracy in the associated knowledge would require the introduction of
new information, the existence of which cannot be presumed logically.
2. This brings us to your second statement, that gravity is easily disproved. For evidence, you offer:
Why do you need an invisible force that causes things to fall? That is, things do fall with regularity given certain conditions, that observation cannot be doubted. But what gives us to assume that there is a grand, invisible force, touching everything, that causes this to happy? Why does it require an EXTRA cause beyond mere cause and effect? In essence, gravity is overcomplicating things. Understand what I mean by that?
I do understand what you are saying, nor is it complete gibberish, at least conceptually. But try to take that to any 5th grade science teacher and use it as “proof” that the theory of gravity is flawed, and you’ll either be patiently corrected or laughed out of the classroom. The mere proposal of an idea that is possibly logically plausible does not count as empirical evidence for or against anything, nor is yours properly structured as a theory—meaning that not only can it not disprove, but it cannot even compete. Yet you have now stated and
affirmed your belief that you, Daniel Krispin, have cornered gravity. You mentioned that you learned your wonderful ideas in philosophy class. Well: Beware of philosophers who try to criticize advanced scientific theories.
Next we come to your statement that science is faith-based. In fairness, you didn’t actually say that. However, what you did say is far worse: You said that
all knowledge is faith-based because it requires “a certain bit of irrationality.” Not only are you stupendously wrong about this, but, even in some parallel universe where misery had conspired to make you right, you would
still be wrong!
Every person is required to make one leap of faith in their life: This is the affirmation of “I think, therefore I am,” which allows one to parlay one’s own consciousness so as to be able to accept one’s experiences as valid in some undefined context. But this is a leap of faith only in the logical sense that it rejects the extreme conclusion of nihilism, and covers a thin area in philosophy. From a practical standpoint, accepting one’s own existence is the default position.
3. Now, to go to the point of accepting one’s experiences to the farther point of accepting any portion of the knowledge gleaned from those experiences, requires nothing more than the rejection of solipsism, which, unlike the nihilistic claim, is vulnerable to charges of absurdity. Whatever the nature of the reality around us, it is the reality we experience, and our experiences are reliably communicable to those with whom we interact, not to mention consistent with our environment. This is why I say you would be wrong even if you were right: The aforementioned “undefined context” of one’s experiences (i.e., is it a true reality, or a dream, or some kind of Matrix…) nevertheless functions as a plausible objective reality, and, absent contradicting information, objective and subjective overlap here well enough to use them interchangeably—for the very same reason that the question “How do you know?” is not legitimate in and of itself. This is one of the best instances to invoke Occam’s Razor, although I wouldn’t bother.
Having accepted one’s existence and the legitimacy of one’s experiences, no further ambiguities are required, ever. One could go to the grave having never said anything more logically egregious than “I believe in myself.”
4. Lastly there is your statement about accepting authority because it is authority. Well, that’s easily debunked. Look once again at your quote:
Till such a time as the expert thoughts are found to be in error, there is nothing inherently wrong with taking taught information at face value, at least in a field where you are at that point unlearned and unable to cogently disagree.
What you are effectively saying is that it is not appropriate to disagree with authority until one has the means to do so coherently. (You say “cogently,” but misuse the term here.) This is, of course, a fallacy, because the knowledge of the questioner has no bearing on the integrity of the claim of the authority. This is why a skeptical stance is so important in the life of a thinking person. Also, I notice that this simple ethic is the kind of tentative thinking that religious-thinking people have the hardest time understanding. Fascinating.
Interesting comments from BROJ, too. But I'll leave that for Ramsus.
