Truth versus Trueness

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why would spiritual 'facts' not be objective facts? Is it still right to call them 'facts' at all? Why would they require a unique method? Since you clearly differentiate them you can hardly use any knowledge of objective facts to make conclusions about how or whether you can know spiritual facts.

I am arguing that one can know spiritual facts/truths. (The use of quotes may have messed my presentation 🙁 )

I argue that, at its root, all forms of human knowing (whether of scientific facts, social facts, perception of common reality, knowledge of the "spiritual realm", whatever) follows the same basic process.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I argue that, at its root, all forms of human knowing (whether of scientific facts, social facts, perception of common reality, knowledge of the "spiritual realm", whatever) follows the same basic process.

And I would argue that facts are facts and they do not come in varieties. So why not use the same process for all of them? I prefer the scientific method myself.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Perceiving that the man across the room is, indeed, wearing a red shirt.

"An egg is an egg." -- Chesterton (paraphrasing Aquinas)

OK, that's what I thought you meant. All right, why don't you use the man-in-the-red-shirt as your point of departure in demonstrating how we can trust our eyes in the realm of the spirit. Should be good fun.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I would argue that facts are facts and they do not come in varieties. So why not use the same process for all of them? I prefer the scientific method myself.

By "scientific method" most people think of physics, whose paradigms are less applicable to other pure sciences like biology, and are even less applicable to social sciences. It breaks down completely in modes of social and communal knowing (e.g. "Mary is feeling sad" ).

The process of gaining knowledge does have a more basic structure and, unlike the scientific method, is universally applicable.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
By "scientific method" most people think of physics, whose paradigms are less applicable to other pure sciences like biology, and are even less applicable to social sciences. It breaks down completely in modes of social and communal knowing (e.g. "Mary is feeling sad" ).

The process of gaining knowledge does have a more basic structure and, unlike the scientific method, is universally applicable.

I think you're confusing truth with knowledge. Certainly you can have knowledge of spiritual things, but unless you ascribe to something like vistesd's version of truthiness, I don't see how you can have truth by any justificatory process.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK, that's what I thought you meant. All right, why don't you use the man-in-the-red-shirt as your point of departure in demonstrating how we can trust our eyes in the realm of the spirit. Should be good fun.

Not sure what you're asking there. We follow a process of knowing when it comes to "ordinary" truths -- observation, reasoning, judgment. We follow the same process in scientific knowing. I see no reason why the same process should not be reliable in spiritual knowing.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think you're confusing truth with knowledge. Certainly you can have knowledge of spiritual things, but unless you ascribe to something like vistesd's version of truthiness, I don't see how you can have truth by any justificatory process.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I didn't say justificatory processes contribute to the truth of something; however I do disagree with vistesd's spiritual epistemic skepticism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
By "scientific method" most people think of physics, whose paradigms are less applicable to other pure sciences like biology, and are even less applicable to social sciences. It breaks down completely in modes of social and communal knowing (e.g. "Mary is feeling sad" ).

I don't know where you get the idea that the scientific method is tied to physics more than any other science. I certainly haven't heard that before.
It does not 'break down completely' when it comes to social 'knowledge'. It should be possible to approach the issue of 'Mary feeling sad' scientifically.
I would argue that it is actually the best method if what you are trying to ascertain is the factuality of Mary feeling sad in fact there are innumerable examples of people using other methods in such situations and getting it badly wrong.

The process of gaining knowledge does have a more basic structure and, unlike the scientific method, is universally applicable.
And what is 'the process of gaining knowledge'? And why is the scientific method not universally applicable?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not sure what you're asking there. We follow a process of knowing when it comes to "ordinary" truths -- observation, reasoning, judgment. We follow the same process in scientific knowing. I see no reason why the same process should not be reliable in spiritual knowing.

I'm not sure whether the process you've outlined is correct--you seem to have left out experience (what happens when you come to terms with an experience you haven't had before and weren't expecting?)--but nevermind. How does one make a spiritual observation?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I didn't say justificatory processes contribute to the truth of something; however I do disagree with vistesd's spiritual epistemic skepticism.

What is truth if not justified by process?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not sure what you're asking there. We follow a process of knowing when it comes to "ordinary" truths -- observation, reasoning, judgment. We follow the same process in scientific knowing. I see no reason why the same process should not be reliable in spiritual knowing.

What the scientific method does is help to ensure that our reasoning and judgment is consistent. For example you may see a man with a red shirt and reason that his shirt is red and judge that it is red. Now suppose I look and tell you it looks green to me. What next? There has to be a process to deal with such conflicts and I see no reason why the process should be different when it comes to spiritual matters.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know where you get the idea that the scientific method is tied to physics more than any other science. I certainly haven't heard that before.
It does not 'break down completely' when it comes to social 'knowledge'. It should be possible to approach the issue of 'Mary feeling sad' scientifically.
I would argue that it is actually the best method ...[text shortened]... ss of gaining knowledge'? And why is the scientific method not universally applicable?

Why don't you describe the scientific method concisely and we can put it to the test on some "non-scientific" situations.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm not sure whether the process you've outlined is correct--you seem to have left out experience (what happens when you come to terms with an experience you haven't had before and weren't expecting?)--but nevermind. How does one make a spiritual observation?

Experience comes in at all three levels of knowing -- our memories themselves act as objects of observation; our experience helps us reason more intelligently and arrive at the right judgment.

I would say that a spiritual "observation" would come from our own personal encounter with the Divine (or the Ground of Being, if you prefer), as well as the encounters of others and of humanity as a whole.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What the scientific method does is help to ensure that our reasoning and judgment is consistent. For example you may see a man with a red shirt and reason that his shirt is red and judge that it is red. Now suppose I look and tell you it looks green to me. What next? There has to be a process to deal with such conflicts and I see no reason why the process should be different when it comes to spiritual matters.

There are any number of matters where such intersubjective verification is impossible (e.g. "I am feeling sad" ).

EDIT: Btw, I think intersubjective verification is possible with spiritual experiences. One can look at spiritual writings (distinct from religious texts) from different religious traditions to see common threads.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I didn't say justificatory processes contribute to the truth of something; however I do disagree with vistesd's spiritual epistemic skepticism.

(1) I agree that all experience is participatory. All our efforts to conceptualize, represent, describe are in some way self-referential, as well as perspectival.

(2) Re your red shirts and eggs—are you a direct realist?

(3) Everything that can be said about the motivations of being a heretic can be said about the motivations of those who think of themselves as orthodox. That, however, was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Whether or not I enjoy being a heretic in certain contexts has naught to do with the honesty of that hereseism.

(4) My “epistemic skepticism” is partial, not complete. My arguments also go to the difference between episteme and gnosis, though I seldom use the latter word because of sectarian associations that I don’t necessary subscribe to.

The general epistemological definition of (epistemic) knowledge is “justified true belief.” I am not (yet anyway) challenging one’s ability to make propositional statements, that may be epistemically justifiable, about the phenomenal nature of the experience itself—I am challenging the ability to such statements about the preconceptual “noumenal” ground.

(5) The experience of the divine, or the divine ground, or the mystery (I will use whatever terminology you like here, as long as we both know what the other is talking about, and keep in mind whatever dualist versus non-dualist difference we might have)—that “experience” is either (a) non-conceptual, at the pre-conceptual level of awareness; or (b) experience through a conceptual screen at the get-go.

In the latter case, there is nothing that you can say about the divine ground that is not biased by the conceptual/representational content you bring to it. It is like putting on colored glasses, and then attempting to describe the color of a wall.

In the former case, the attempt is to translate a non-conceptual experience in terms of the conceptual “grammar” of our consciousness. Again, that is to place concepts “on” the experience. I think that might be analogous to drawing gridlines of a blank sheet of paper, and then asserting that the paper is described by those gridlines.

The divine ground is itself ineffable. Our attempts to represent it conceptually will always represent as much of ourselves as the ground.

NOTE: I responded in a similar vein to you question about ineffability in the “Madeleine McCann picture blessed” thread. http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=70233 . I think what I said there is on point here as well.