Author

I hold that the only valid means to justify a belief as it being true in order for its embrace, is through the main stream science epistemological system. It is part rationalist, part empiricist and part pragmatic.
However, I also hold that rationalism often needs to be confirmed by observation. As I am sure most of you know, the assumptions or implications of theorems, however logically consistent, need to be confirmed by observation before they can be regarded as true. If such was not the case, the M theory would already be science.
It stands to reason that what is true by virtue of meaning, is not necessarily true of objective reality. As Eugene Wigner said of maths: “they are *unreasonably effective in describing the universe.

What a arguments have you to dismiss empiricism, rationalism or pragmatism as the only effective means to acquire knowledge?.
Also, do you employ any other epistemological system?. If so, how do you asses its effectiveness in regards to the acquisition of knowledge?

(By the way, I made another post. If it is not approved before I go idle, please do not hold it against me)

Discussion

10 comments

  1. Larry Koester says:

    Is that what Scripture says? In the end God is Judge not man. The modern can is that there is no absolute truth. But if that were true, then neither is the statement. Some would Md say if God were true why doesn’t. He shoe himself. God knows that game all to well. Every time he does it men find endless excuses why its not real or just ignore it. So Helen doesn’t do it. He know us too well and the fymutility of doing it man’s way.

  2. Barbara Vance says:

    All you have done is detailed in some degree what are the obvious factors and faculties in determining rational conclusions. All truth is founded upon these principles.
    So what is your point?

  3. Ramon S. Quilala Jr. says:

    Why is it that faith is not in your criteria?

  4. Jordan Bourke says:

    The three methods you’ve supposed all assume many presuppositions without necessary justification for them.

    For example they all assume
    1. the uniformity of nature
    Or the law of induction, how you know the future will be like the past?
    How do you know gravity won’t simply charge arbitrarily?
    What worldview can give a justification that can justify this necessary assumption to appeal to science and its methodology?

    2. Laws of logic; universal, immaterial, abstract laws that govern our reasoning and thinking. What worldview can make sense of the law like nature of reality, and the laws that we apply as immaterial and absolute standards of Truth?

    3. Morality. This is God’s world and we all know it.

    Also apart from the Christian God, nobody can prove anything at all.

    These 3 aspects of the nature of reality can only be justified by the Christian God and remain consistent.

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
    Proverbs 1:7 ESV

    in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.
    Colossians 2:3‭-‬4 ESV

  5. Mike Bellsmith says:

    Can you prove the truthfulness of your OP scientifically? Try to stay away from circular reasoning in the process.

  6. Fred Shaw says:

    Have you abandoned your previous meme with all
    the unanswered questions, or will that continue on as well?

  7. Brian Lachica says:

    ha ha ha nice…but I know that you believe you have a brain…but you can,t see it closely…same to God we know he exist even we not see him

  8. Joshua White says:

    I truly appreciate your post. The culture of Christianity is built upon infallibilism, but most non-Christians think in evidentialist terms. This large (majority) segment of the population will not be convinced to come to the faith by typical infallibilist arguments/logic.

  9. Kenny Wong says:

    How the records in history books are justified?

  10. […] I hold that the only valid means to justify a… […]