"X is true." implies that "A proposition X is true iff (if and only if) X is a rationally-held proposition." Since "X is true" is a positive statement it shoulders the burden of proof. Evidence is used to prove or disprove a statement, and the cardinal rule of rationality is that X is rational to the extent that it is supported by objective evidence. A proposition X is true iff there is sufficient objective evidence to defeat the burdens of proof necessary to make X a known proposition. Science is a good epistemology because the scientific method involves gathering measurable, observable and empirical evidence for a hypothesis, before it is accepted as valid. This is the opposite of faith, which tells you to just believe without evidence (faith as in non-contingent faith, which should be distinguished from contingent faith more commonly known as trust). Now, how can you say that your God is a good epistemology? If the universe is dependent onto God, then all standards are subjective to God, and there is no actual objective reality or standard. Everything becomes totally relative to God in a cartoon style universe, with no actual acausal epistemic standards.

[quote=noor]"X is true." implies that "A proposition X is true iff (if and only if) X is a rationally-held proposition." Since "X is true" is a positive statement it shoulders the burden of proof. Evidence is used to prove or disprove a statement, and the cardinal rule of rationality is that X is rational to the extent that it is supported by objective evidence. A proposition X is true iff there is sufficient objective evidence to defeat the burdens of proof necessary to make X a known proposition. Science is a good epistemology because the scientific method involves gathering measurable, observable and empirical evidence for a hypothesis, before it is accepted as valid. This is the opposite of faith, which tells you to just believe without evidence (faith as in non-contingent faith, which should be distinguished from contingent faith more commonly known as trust). Now, how can you say that your God is a good epistemology? If the universe is dependent onto God, then all standards are subjective to God, and there is no actual objective reality or standard. Everything becomes totally relative to God in a cartoon style universe, with no actual acausal epistemic standards. [/quote] thank you for actually addressing my points [/sarcasm]

 

you still did not answer my question. How do we use science to prove that science is a reasonable epistemology? You can't use evidence to show that evidentialism is a good epistemology for that would assume that evidentialism is a good epistemology. You also failed to show how science can show the truth value of metaphysical propositions. Your last point was a complete strawman. I wasn't advocating "using god as a good epistemology" but merely attacking people who think that science is the end-all-be-all of truth disciplines.

 

BTW, you never actually defined that phrase "God as an epistemology". Really helps both sides to avoid constructing strawmen.

Let us observe:

You act upon the assumption that there is a world external to yourself, relying upon your vision and tactile senses to guide you on your goal to communicate with minds other than your own, and in doing so, you are getting a response from one such mind, relying upon your vision to read my response, which comes to you from a world external to yourself.

Does that prove that it's true? Nope. But it does demonstrate that acting as if it were true gets you the results you're looking for. What is the practical difference whether it is or not if there is no way to distinguish between whether it is or not? Why would it matter to you if you're trapped in an illusion and there's nothing you can do about it? Why even bother to act? Why think?

It's perfectly concievable and hypothetically even possible that I'm not actually another mind, that you are somehow unfortunate enough to have found the one place in the universe where the randomness of the ether that constitutes you has created illusions for yourself that are purposeful and contain apparently-ordered information.

Acting as if the world was imaginary in a world in which the world was imaginary has no benefits, nor does it have any benefits in a world where the world is real. Acting as if the world was real would have no benefit in a world where the world was imaginary, but would have great benefit in a world where the world was real. The only thing you can do that could possibly pay off would be to act as if it is real, making that the only rational stance to take.

And you don't have to prove that science is a good epistemology. You just have to weigh the costs and benefits of it. Is there a technique better than science? Possibly. How would you know if you found it? It would deliver better results, guide you to what you want more reliably than science. It would bring an 80% effective cure for cancer without research, testing or development. If you can find something more useful than science for what you want, absolutely go for it! If it's also good for getting us what we're looking for, we'll probably use it too!

Although a word of warning, if all you're looking for is "not science", sharing it with us will do you little good, as finding something so much more reliable than science will eventually be adopted by scientists and thereafter considered a part of science. So if that's not what you want, don't tell us, we'll figure it out on our own, and somebody else will share it and it'll still become known as science. But only if it works, only if it reliably tells us what we need to know.

Really though, use whatever epistemology you find the most reliable. A "good" epistemology implies that it's good for a certain purpose. A good epistemology for spreading ignorance is "We can never know anything!" while a good epistemology for creating something new will be entirely different. Personally, my standard is reliability. I find that science and reason complement each other to fulfill the role I expect out of an epistemology, and hopefully you'll find one that does what you want also.

[quote=noor]I'm not using science itself, I was using basic logic and reason. Note that I didn't even mention science until the next paragraph. [/quote]

science=/=basic logic and reason. Basic logic and reason comes from philosophy, NOT science. Having accepted science as a truth discipline which does NOT stand upon its own 2 feet, you ought to abandon the discussion now.

[quote=noor]By making that statement, you implicitly admit you need evidence for the proposition that evidentialism is a good epistemology. [/quote]

reason doesn't always equate to evidence.

[quote=noor]You're asking for proof that evidence is a good way to gain knowledge about the truth-value of propositions - basically asking for evidence that evidentialism is true. [/quote]

I'm asking for a reason to accept evidentialism as an end-all-be-all truth discipline.

[quote=noor]It's self-evident/axiomatic because you cannot question it without employing it as a premise. [/quote]

once again, reason=/=evidence

[quote=noor]It's contradictory to explicitly deny something and at the same time implicitly admit it to be true, [/quote]

*insert above statement*

[quote=noor]therefore denying these axioms is self-contradictory and therefore irrational. [/quote]

What does it mean to be rational anyway? and why *should* I be rational? Do I have some sort of obligation to be rational? do YOU have some sort of obligation to be rational? If so, then whence cometh our obligations to rationality?

[quote=noor]Also, evidence works. The more evidence you have for something, the more certain you can be that your plans and decisions based on it, [/quote]

again, assumption of evidentialism.

[quote=noor]will work out. Evidentialism actually works, therefore you should listen to it. [/quote]

so its useful for some situations, like questions which can only be solved via collecting evidence. But the whole point of my original post was a deconstruction of strong evidentialism.  

[quote=noor] It doesn't. [/quote]

So are we to understand the world through science?

[quote=noor]Science deals with the world that we can sense and observe, metaphysics deals with the more abstract, but both are based upon logic and reasoning. You use logic to prove these metaphysical propositions true. [/quote]

but the logic which one uses to prove metaphysical statements IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, and that's my point. Saying blankly "you ought understand the world through science" implicity states one's committment (sp.) to strong scientism and evidentialism (which the "rational"response squad rather clearly holds to)

[quote=noor]It's not a strawman. You are a theist so I was merely questioning your epistemological basis the same way you were questioning ours. [/quote]

You dont even know my epistemology, so how can you say that you are at liberty to criticize my epistemology?

[quote=noor]Sorry, I should probably have used the term "epistemy" instead (epistemology is the field of study/branch of philosophy). "God as an epistemy" means that you use God as the basis for all knowledge.[/quote] w/e