RegularGuy

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 da...

They need not be credible to you. If they are credible to the believer is another matter, and it depends on the specific beliefs in question whether o...

Are you an Egyptologist? You seem to be very knowledgeable. Good to have you here!

Organized religion as dogma is unjustified in the epistemic sense. Practicing a religion without accepting dogma can be and is a good exercise for a l...

Well, I don’t think we would disagree that believing the Bible stories are literal truths are justifiable. I happen to think that there is a God that ...

All a cogent argument can result in is “probably true.” That is induction, and it only deals with the physical world. A believable conscious spiritual...

Well, I’m not a physicalist. I don’t find their arguments compelling, so I must rely on my conscious experience for some beliefs. This conscious exper...

Well, as a Hume scholar yourself, you already know that induction, the basis of science, is nothing more than habit. Habit, wishful thinking... pick y...

The epistemic standard for investigating the physical world is grounded in sense data. Couldn’t the epistemic standard for investigating the spiritual...

Care to back up this analogy with an argument? This epistemic standard only deals with the physical world, and almost all of the people who were respo...

And what is “the spirit of the scientific method?” And why should people value it?

That’s where you’re wrong. Science cannot answer everything, and any scientist worth his salt knows this. One can believe anything one wants when it c...

The scientific method doesn’t say anything about leaning to one side or the other when it comes to the unanswerable.

I don’t worship Hume.

A subject that is unanswerable by the scientific method, but that brings us to the “hard problem,” and I’m not interested in having that debate here.

It’s my personal preference which isn’t subject to the scientific method, nor is it inconsistent with science.

Well, for me whatever causes our conscious experience which made the laws of nature discoverable is what I call “God.” I suppose I don’t need to call ...

Coherence is whether a belief is justified (by other facts with a foundation in sense data). Consistency is whether beliefs contradict one another. A ...

Do you think that consistency has anything to do with coherency? Some do and they would be wrong.

There are different versions of the meaning of “coherency” and “consistency.” Consistency has nothing to do with coherency. That is a confusion that m...

And a belief in a god or the supernatural cannot be justified by the scientific method. That doesn’t mean that belief is inconsistent with science. (A...

Also, what makes someone religious? Do they have to be dogmatic and unquestioning in their accepting of the tenets of a faith?

Logical arguments are neither won nor lost when the premises cannot be agreed on. I think instead of “compatible,” the question should be: Are they co...

I think people should know what the epistemological term “consistency” means.

I find that mood stabilizers (for me, 400 mg of Lamotrigine daily, a rather high dose which is needed) stop the cycle almost altogether. One hundred m...

Psychiatrists

Any user of technology who isn’t trying to fix that technology. Edit: except scientists who are employing technology in the pursuit of science.

Your language is very dense. By “dense,” I mean that there is a lot to unpack. I know you’re a busy person, but if you find the time, maybe you could ...

Hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps one would have to take that time machine trip 15 times in order to get the desired results. But desire is value driven. Ar...

No worries.

I guess you’re right in questioning my interest in this topic. I’m not really interested enough to read the fundamental literature on the subject. I w...

My second set of concerns were raised. What is the libertarian definition of “liberty?” How do inherently aggressive humans fit into this system? Thes...

Are my questions not relevant to your system? I’m trying to engage you in discussion. As to market failure, you fail to justify in your system that th...

That’s very cowardly.

It had been previously established in this thread that this is all highly speculative. Take the OP with a grain of salt.

I don’t think you’re an idiot. On the contrary, I think you have a lot of original thought. I just disagree or don’t understand you a lot of the time.

If we all get to start off from square one with equal property, who’s to stop me from breaking Charles Koch’s teeth when I punch him in the mouth? Who...

Why don’t you tell us what “frame of reference” means?

“I’m looking at the man in the mirror! (Oh, yeah!) I’m asking him to change his ways! (Oh, yeah!) And no message could’ve been any clearer! If you wan...

Did you go to Oxford?

A few questions: How is the playing field leveled to start this utopia? Do we confiscate the Koch brothers’ assets and distribute them equally so we c...

A few questions: Do you believe that being religious and being a literalist are equivalent? Are people who see religious myths as valuable and having ...

Oh! So you actually studied something that society values. :smile: Philosophy is something valuable to a lot of people personally, but there’s no mone...

Well, I don’t know about any epistemological principle that it violates. I’ve only taken one course on the theory of knowledge, but all of the rest of...

This seems right to me. Where are you going with this?

Yes

Yes

I agree that people usually have beliefs and opinions that don’t reach the requirements of knowledge, and I think that a lot of philosophers don’t sha...

Well, okay. I like you. I think you’re funny, and I don’t think you’re dumb. I’m sorry we can’t see eye to eye on this.