2007-02-21 10:16:57 · 8 answers · asked by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Okay, I will state it another way: Is is possible to establish the reliability of the senses without using the senses in the process, thus begging the question?
2007-02-21 10:31:36 · update #1
There's no way, regardless of theological bent.
2007-02-21 10:25:30 · answer #1 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. Is there any non-tautological way to establish the NON-reliability of the senses?
Then which assumption is more valid given that we can use those senses to make ever more sense of this vast universe, and that without them we can only come up with trivial imaginary speculations (which are usually obvious wishful thinking).
2007-02-21 20:58:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes and no. What is reliability? Who's reliability? How would one experience the concept? Is reliability anymore absolute as something called senses? The day before "senses" were scientifically indentified, what were they called? Did they exist before its discovery? Is it anymore than what it was before the study and labeling. So, I'm saying no to buying into an idea so limited as something called senses and the idea that somehow there is a world that has absolute reliabilty in any idea..
But, to be honest YES. I find myself relying on something that says senses are to be trusted...and I find myself following right along. One more question- what is found that space where you would want to establish? As if there was ever going to be a real answer that could be relied upon.
2007-02-21 18:40:02 · answer #3 · answered by fauxdude 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Person one: We cannot trust our senses.
Person two: Wait, you're going to demonstrate that our senses do not give us accurate knowledge of reality?
Person one: Yes.
Person two: Then you cannot start from the prior assumption that our senses DO give us accurate knowledge of reality, because this would entail accepting the truth of the very proposition which you wish to disprove. Do you agree?
Person one: Of course.
Person two: Then you won't mind if, from this point on, I don't grant you this assumption.
Person one: Naturally. Now may I proceed with my demonstration? (waits for a response) I said, may I proceed? (still no response) Hey, I'm talking to you! Are you going to take this seriously or not?
Person two: (squints eyes) It looks and sounds like you are talking to me, but then I can't be certain since I never trust what I see and hear. If I could only trust what I see and hear, I might be able to reply - assuming of course that I could trust you, if you're really there, to hear and understand what I actually say. But, then, I couldn't be sure that what I hear myself saying is what I've said, because . . . .
Person one: Ok, ok, I get it. Assume, for the sake of argument, that we are communicating accurately. I admit that it cannot be proven, but assume it for now.
Person two: Why?
Person one: So I can make my point!
Person two: I must assume, in other words, that my senses are NOT deceptive - at least as they pertain to this conversation - so that you can get your argument off the ground. If your argument is correct, you don't have the means with which to make your point. Through your attempt at communication and argument, you are admitting the validity of sense perception - and, therefore, by arguing that sense perception is deceptive, you cute the ground from under your own feet and become mire in a hopeless absurdity.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
I always liked this imaginary exchange from George H. Smith's book.
2007-02-21 19:00:01 · answer #4 · answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You know what? It's 5:22 pm, I'm going home in about 1/2 hour, and I'm NOT going to look up tautological! So there.
Afterthought: It always cracks me up when I see an almost identical answer to mine!
2007-02-21 18:21:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Whatever ZER0 C00L said.
Oh, no! Wait! I got another one!
"Don't let anyone lead you astray with empty philosophy and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the evil powers of this world". Colossians 2:8.
So I'm not gonna think about it and you can't make me!
.
2007-02-21 19:58:27 · answer #6 · answered by Nobody 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This is Yahoo, not Yale. I'm a fairly intelligent person, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't answer this without extensive research and a 400-word dissertation.
Either that, or you're being purposely pedantic.
2007-02-21 18:21:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I have a college degree but I haven't a clue as to what you are asking.
2007-02-21 18:23:41 · answer #8 · answered by Stormilutionist Chasealogist 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋