@spendius,
Quote:Epistemology Listeni/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ (from Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), meaning "knowledge, science", and λόγος (logos), meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses the questions:
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. Another perennial concern of the field is the possibility that there is very little or no knowledge at all—skepticism. The field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge.
The term was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).
Why are so many experts engaged with those matters if they are so cut and dried as you are trying to delude us that they are?
Science has no answer to the moral problems. It is inspirational because it is the route to plenty and to control. But it is also embarrassing and disturbing.
Belief systems of the past were stable and interpreted the world in a way that made it acceptable to believers and underwrote social arrangements such as the distribution of wealth and power. Science can do nothing of the sort. It is morally meaningless and respects no hierarchies. Science cannot make sense of life. It necessarily declares false all beliefs.
And on top of the epistemological and moral bankruptcy of science (effective cognitive technique) it has sociological problems as well. What do we do with the systems we have inherited? And what happens to our knowledge of pre-scientific societies and to those who are concerned professionally with the maintenance of that knowledge in our partially scientific society. And you probably know that they are not insignificant. Whole departments in universities are engaged with such things. Will you approve of Orwell's methods of dealing with them?
Are those beliefs and institutions of the past irrelevant left-overs or do they address universal needs which are neglected by science or are not satisfiable by science?
You cute timeless vistas recognise no transformations unique to the industrial/scientific world we are living in and which is still an infant.
The sociological content evaporates under scientific scrutiny as I have proved hundreds, maybe thousands, of times.
You're like a kid playing with matches in an oil refinery. There are most momentous social consequences in your position. That is why you have steered around, white feathers flying, all my reminders of social consequences over 8 years. As have the other members of your foolish and inconsequential claque.
You seem to have no idea that societies might divide into those in which positivist knowledge eradicates all other forms of knowledge and those which are based on non-positive knowledge (beliefs).
If your position is like that of the Logical Positivist and Existentialist and rejects any social implications (in the timelessness) then it is profoundly irrelevant.
It was Arthur Koestler who compared you "reluctant revolutionaries" to the seducer who chickens at the bedroom door. One might add that as far as the infatuation with science and empirical verification is concerned it has never even been seen anywhere near the bedroom door. Not only is the position innocuous it damn well tries to be. It's a nothing thing. You have to avoid social implications to remain neutral, which science is and you are not, and neutrality is indefensible, irresponsible and ineffective.
Just imagine trying to validate scientifically all our beliefs and convictions.
Nah!!! You just want to undermine the Church's teachings on sexual matters for your own reasons which are easily identified.
As WJB said--words can easily be found to support any position. You just select your evidence and ignore everything else.
