Hannah Gadsby

Something tells me that you may find something in her.

My contention has been that it is only in relation to empirical (and logical and mathematical) matters that definitive inter-subjective corroboration in a cross-cultural sense is possible. — Janus

That would be true if those were the only matters agreed upon cross-culturally. They are not.

Hannah Gadsby

Something tells me that you may find something in her. — creativesoul

I will Google her. Thank you

Hope you like her.

The epistemic standard for science is whether a belief about the physical world is justified by other beliefs about the physical world and by sense data and whether the beliefs correspond to actual states of affairs in the physical world. — Noah Te Stroete

Why couldn't a spiritual belief be based upon a justified true belief just as a physical one? The earth was created in 6 days if I have a justification for it, I believe it, and it's true. The variation is in what we take to be a proper justification, but that standard is always subjective as far as I can tell.

The Red Sea parted if I have a justification for it (the Bible says so), I believe it, and it's true.

Well, one would have to have familiarity with miracles that others could corroborate empirically? Quoting the Bible to an atheist would be like quoting a Spider-Man comic book. No one who takes it literally is taken seriously these days. I suppose that could just be a sign of Satan’s rule and the End of Times, though.

That would be true if those were the only matters agreed upon cross-culturally. They are not. — creativesoul

Note that I was speaking about "definitive inter-subjective corroboration" not mere "agreement".

It was a black swan scenario, I think Janus. Sorry to be nitpicky. Came with the hardware I was born with. Hear me out here, I think you'll agree.

All definitive inter-subjective cross cultural corroboration is built upon some sort of prior agreement. Not all of those agreements are empirical matters. There is much cross cultural agreement regarding how people ought be treated and/or governed(for example). Those people are more than capable of intersubjective cross cultural collaboration. I'm being reminded of "We Are The World"...

No one who takes it literally is taken seriously these days. I suppose that could just be a sign of Satan’s rule and the End of Times, though. — Noah Te Stroete

Noah, I like your honesty here. The bravery, knowing the potential for ridicule...

The end times thing has been going on since the death of Jesus. On a regular basis - throughout the history of 'Western' civilization - many believers in the God of Abraham have been looking at what's going on in their lives and saying the same thing...

Looking at the world through the lens of that book - especially if one believes what it says; especially if one believes that all of it is the word of the almighty God; especially if one believes that there is a war between God and Satan; especially if one believes the world and humankind has predetermined destiny and that ending that is foretold in the Bible; especially if one already believes these things...

They will be looking for signs of the end. What I'm saying here is that that has always been the case since Jesus' death, and shows no sure sign of ever being any different. The time period actually foretold within the book has long since passed. People continue to look nonetheless.

I was trying to be funny. Guess that wasn’t clear.

My mistake. Sarcasm can lose it's umph when presented with written word alone. It's easily mistook for sincerity. That's my default position. Trusting that a speaker believes what they are saying.

I do agree with what you say there, but you are picking at the wrong nits; the point about definitive cross-cultural corroboration was highlighting the difference between that which can be checked by observation as most empirical propositions can. I don't deny that there is agreement cross-culturally when it comes to ethical and aesthetic matters, but there can be no definitive corroboration in the case of ethical or aesthetic judgements. I am also by no means claiming that all scientific propositions are definitively corroborable.

What I was originally arguing against is that there is not any kind of propositional knowledge that, to stick to the example, so-called Zen masters have access to that we ordinary mortals do not. At the most they have access to extraordinary altered states of consciousness and the intuitions and feelings that may come with those. I don't think something can be counted as propositional knowledge if there is no way to test its predictions definitively by observation.

Another example may serve. We can test whether someone is a competent pianist by observation (in the broadest sense including watching and listening) and may even be able to grade their level of technical proficiency using observable criteria, but we cannot precisely determine their degree of musicianship, even though connoisseurs may largely agree on it. The Zen case of agreeing and certifying that someone is enlightened may be similar to this latter example involving expert connoisseurship.

Well, one would have to have familiarity with miracles that others could corroborate empirically — Noah Te Stroete

I don't see how this follows. Upon what basis do you assert the scientific method is the only valid justification ? The OP asks for an epistemologic standard, not for a declaration of what you find a proper justification. Whether you accept the faith based justification is another matter, but in any event, your knowledge is JTB based.

I’m a foundationalist. I didn’t make that clear. Justified beliefs have as their foundation sense data. Critical thinking skills, such as “don’t believe everything you read,” is necessary, too, and just because you read something in a book, that doesn’t count as the sense data I’m talking about. The sense data I’m talking about is witnessing the parting of the Red Sea or something similar that would make it believable.

My mistake. Sarcasm can lose it's umph when presented with written word alone. It's easily mistook for sincerity. That's my default position. Trusting that a speaker believes what they are saying. — creativesoul

No worries

Well grounded true belief. That's the epistemic standard.

I'll go this far...

I know based upon my own driving experience, my own understanding of math and physics, and a strong sense of spatial relations that there are forces acting upon this world that are completely unexplainable by those frameworks. What happened to me is physically impossible by those standards, and yet... it most certainly did happen.

:smile:

I know based upon my own driving experience, my own understanding of math and physics, and a strong sense of spatial relations that there are forces acting upon this world that are completely unexplainable by those frameworks. What happened to me is physically impossible by those standards, and yet... it most certainly did happen. — creativesoul

:smile:

Another example may serve. We can test whether someone is a competent pianist by observation (in the broadest sense including watching and listening) and may even be able to grade their level of proficiency using criteria that may be observed, but we cannot precisely determine their degree of musicianship, even though connoisseurs may largely agree. The Zen case of agreeing and certifying that someone is enlightened may be similar to this latter example involving connoisseurship.. — Janus

This is doubtful. Unless the connoisseur leaves his criteria vague, it is likely an AI program can distinguish such things as musicianship and Zen mastership. As long as we can agree on our standards of beauty, it can be objectively measured. What beauty is, I'll concede is in the eye of the beholder, but whether something meets the arbitrary standard we've agreed upon is not.

I’m a foundationalist — Noah Te Stroete

How isn't this synonymous with declaring yourself a person of faith?

The point I'm making about musicianship is that, although people may indeed agree about which of two musicians of equal technical proficiency is the better musician, there is no definitive way to measure it, because it is a matter of feeling. AI being able to judge that? I don't think so,

How isn't this synonymous with declaring yourself a person of faith? — Hanover

What do you mean?

I know based upon my own driving experience, my own understanding of math and physics, and a strong sense of spatial relations that there are forces acting upon this world that are completely unexplainable by those frameworks. What happened to me is physically impossible by those standards, and yet... it most certainly did happen. — creativesoul

I've experienced a couple things like that, when I was tripping on LSD. My memories of those experiences are extraordinarily vivid, such that I am incapable of doubting that I did experience those events. I won't go as far as to say that in consequence of those events, which would normally be considered to be physically impossible, that "there are forces acting upon this world that are completely unexplainable by those frameworks", though. Not if you are referring to physical forces, that is.

I know based upon my own driving experience, my own understanding of math and physics, and a strong sense of spatial relations that there are forces acting upon this world that are completely unexplainable by those frameworks. What happened to me is physically impossible by those standards, and yet... it most certainly did happen.
— creativesoul

I've experienced a couple things like that, when I was tripping pn LSD. — Janus

I know the difference between a hallucination as a result of ingesting LSD and a normal everyday driving experience where suddenly things quickly became not. I do not base any belief I have about unexplained forces of nature on experiences of tripping.

Fireworks are cool to watch though.

:wink:

What do you mean? — Noah Te Stroete

An Evangelical Fundamentalist, for example, would declare himself a foundationalist, asserting truth is founded in the Bible and that it can't be challenged, just as you say sense data is foundational in terms of it yielding truth.

How isn't this synonymous with declaring yourself a person of faith?
— Hanover

What do you mean? — Noah Te Stroete

If you’re asking me if I have faith in my senses, then you may have a point. That’s why I check in with my wife. She’s my eyes and ears on a lot of things. I suppose that is faith, so if that’s your point, then point granted.

An Evangelical Fundamentalist, for example, would declare himself a foundationalist, asserting truth is founded in the Bible and that it can't be challenged, just as you say sense data is foundational in terms of it yielding truth. — Hanover

Well, living my life by my and my wife’s senses work better than following the Bible in the practical world. It works, and I would really doubt that an Evangelical Fundamentalist does anything differently. They just have another kind of truth as well.

Sure, but the brain apparently produce endogenous DMT so intense hallucinations that only last a few moments are not impossible.

But I don’t think Evangelical Fundamentalism works very well if one wants to be an astrophysicist.

If you’re asking me if I have faith in my senses, then you may have a point. That’s why I check in with my wife. She’s my eyes and ears on a lot of things. I suppose that is faith, so if that’s your point, then point granted. — Noah Te Stroete

To reset the discussion: The OP asks what the epistemic standard is for spiritual knowledge, and I've asserted it doesn't vary from spiritual knowledge to physical knowledge. It all rests upon what we consider proper justifications. I understand that you rely upon your senses and the reported senses of others as your justification for holding a belief, but the faithful resort to checking the claims of the Bible. While very different worldviews, both rely upon the same epistemic standard.