From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 13 Oct 1992 18:59:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) says:

err...
This seems to have not come out right on my mail reader, I can not tell
who said what to whom. I only can recognize some of my previous posts. 
I have tried to "reconstruct" individual's posts, but please excuse me if 
I make a mistake.

>And, whether or not one can determine the truth does not play a role in
>knowing whether or not it is even really true, or even if truth/falsehood
>has any meaning in the specific case.
>
>--kenny: 
>Uhh? This escapes me.

	Meaning, a proposition may be either true or false, we just may
not know it at the time. It may even be meaningless to say it is true
or false, and we may not know that either. Just because we do not know if
its true or false, does not mean that it can't be either, or neither.


>I require strong knowledge of god's existence, not weak knowledge ( or
>second hand )
>
>--kenny:
>If you're using the strong/weak knowledge distinction made by N. Malcolm,
>then you must be willing to countenance "The sun is 93 million miles from
>earth" as something weakly known.  And I think it would be perverse [or at 
>least argue obscurantism on your part] to withhold assent from "God exists"
>merely because it was not, in the stated sense, strongly known. Malcolm's
>'weak' sense of 'know', after all, means to be reasonably certain. And 
>'reasonably certain' in turn means something like, 'so certain that a 
>reasonable person will not demand more evidence'. I suspect many atheists
>would settle for that kind of certainty.

err.. I think we have cross meanings here.

An a brief synopsis: ( of how I'm using the terminology )

Strong knowledge: Those propositions that I can determine the validity
 and experience directly. An example: I have a headache. The sky is
 blue, etc. Without throwing the validity of my senses in doubt, they
 are without doubt. These are generally very inconsequential, even thou
 they are what I know best! A part of this is self-constructive knowledge:
 I know what I mean by "hot", etc the dfn of sensory perceptions. 

Medium knowledge: Those propositions which I can not directly determine,
 but I can find evidence in the state of affairs. This is probably the
 most common knowledge. I can set up an experiment, use tools, etc to
 generate sensory information which I can then evaluate.

Weak knowledge: Those propositions that have been relayed to me, buy
 others, whether verbal, written, etc. If after a particular source 
 earns my trust, I may begin to treat it as pseudo-medium. How do I 
 evaluate this type? Well, if it contradicts other, medium sources, I
 will hold it in suspect. If it contradicts other, strong sources, I
 will not believe it. ( If I have a headache, you can talk all you want,
 but I'll still believe I have a headache. ) If it seems to coincide
 logically with other medium sources, then I may or may not believe it,
 it really depends on the exact example. If you tell me that a tiger is
 outside my door, I probably won't believe you. But, if I hear growls
 etc, I may be very leery to go outside. If you tell me that there a
 tigers in Africa, I will believe that statement: I know of many weak
 sources, and I can easily construct a source for medium sources; even
 though I have never been to Africa. 

In the case that I was using: All the "evidence" I have for god's 
 existence is weak. I only have people telling me ( or have written 
 it down, from which I have read it ) that god exists. I see no evidence
 in the state of affairs of such, so that practically precludes the medium. I
 find the concept of finding anything in the state of affairs to be direct
 evidence of his existence as being incomprehensible. I can think of no
 such "miracle" that would be evidence. Because of this, I weight the lack
 medium knowledge against the weak. And, I see many more, logical medium
 sources that preclude such. I see no logical reason, at this point,
 to accept another telling me "god exists" is true. Not saying they are
 purposely deceiving me.

In the case of the sun, I can not tell directly how far away it is. I am
 not very accurate with my two eyes for even short distances. However, I can
 easily think of a number of ways that I can construct a device which will
 give me sensory input that I can evaluate. Now, I admit, I actually haven't
 done that. However, I find it logically possible, and I have numerable 
 sources of weak knowledge which I have no reason to distrust which supports
 this. So, I don't know the sun is 93 million miles away in the strong sense.
 But, its doubt is not called into question, so I believe it to be in the
 medium sense.

{ this point is really jumbled up, I am sorry I can not truly construct
what I being discussed, asked, etc }

>Well, then there would be a truth to found: does person S really find her
>beautiful? This is a matter for empirical psychology. Also, not 
>philosophically interesting.

I agree there...

-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside down, under six feet of water...
Newsgroups: alt.atheism