Ermm... I'd suggest that there are very similar epistemic problems in asserting belief in ancient astronauts and supernatural entities. But that similarity is not something I can explain here....
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
where do you sit on ancient astronaut theory?
- Thread starter basscooker
- Start date
Ermm... I'd suggest that there are very similar epistemic problems in asserting belief in ancient astronauts and supernatural entities. But that similarity is not something I can explain here....
I believe that I mentioned beer just a few posts above!
While a priori knowledge can be known merely through reflection, knowledge which is a posteriori is subject to uncertainty and problems of justification.
Examples:
a priori (knowledge independent of experience) - "a bachelor is an unmarried male"
a posteriori (knowledge from experience) - "Jupiter has 64 moons"
The first statement can be known to be true merely by considering the definition. The second statement is the result of empirical observation and thus subject to possible uncertainty due to error. The total number of moons of Jupiter has been revised several times throughout history.
The question then becomes, how can one have justified knowledge in the face of such uncertainty? That's where rational and evidential justification comes in. If a sufficiently compelling case can be made, then such knowledge claims can be justified. What that entails exactly would take a rather lengthy discussion, bringing up epistemic issues which are the subject of considerable debate....
The definition of a word is definitive, no matter how philosophers feel about how it's used. A philosopher should have more sense than to restrict a word to one definition, his, when there are several valid uses. It's kind of out of his field to begin changing definitions of words; adding, yes, changing, no.
Language is a funny thing... the meanings of words change over time and depending upon context. Dictionaries often report multiple meanings for the same word, often quite different. Thus, philosophers try to define the meanings of the terms that they are using in order to minimize confusion. Sometimes that does not accord with general usage, though with the word 'belief' certainly a large number of people use the term in reference to things that they assert to be true.
Should probably mention that the not all philosophers hold the view that I'm suggesting. Some (like William James) take a more lenient approach toward evidential justification when it comes to matters of belief. However, that sort of wishful thinking can only lead to the dark side.... 
But that's exactly my point. If scientists with good reputations and proper equipment tell me Jupiter has 64 moons, I'll believe it ... tentatively. I've been a scientist long enough to know that people are seeking new information all the time. New information leads to new conclusions.
I pointed out previously that no one knew what causes earthquakes until after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Even now, we don't know exactly what the driving forces are for plate tectonics. Current theory favors convection cells in the mantle, but I'm sure new data will refine that theory. Do I believe the current theory? Sure. Kinda. Until someone comes up with a more compelling one.
I think if a belief contradicts evidence that is readily available, it's probably silly.
Depends upon the "version"... whether it is "weak/implicit" or "strong/explicit". Ignosticism suggests that such notions are not even cognitively decipherable, let alone existentially evaluable.
"Strong" atheism isn't atheism, but anti-theism.
Correct, and as such one can agnostic theist. Or a gnostic atheist. Or any combination thereof.
That's no more provable than atheism. But either can be a rational position if you adopt the rule of thumb that beliefs are held on a tentative basis.
The qualification of 'provable' does not apply. So-called "weak" atheism is merely the absence of belief in theistic entities, thus there is no claim to prove. It represents a lack of belief, not a claim that requires any justification. Ignosticism is similar, as it also makes no existential claims, though it does suggest that such claims lack sufficiently coherent cognitive content to even be rationally or evidentially adjudicated. The short answer is that those making a positive claim hold the burden of proof. This would entail both formulating a claim which is clear, specific, and testable, as well as demonstrating the truth of that claim.
As an example, consider the claim "Jupiter has 64 moons". This empirical claim is specific and falsifiable. If scientists can find evidence that there are even more moons, the claim of 64 moons must be rejected in favor of a new number of moons, which ought to be accepted provisionally as the correct answer. Importantly, such claims can be verified or falsified. On the other hand, metaphysical claims, even if they are not rationally incoherent, cannot, by their very nature, be verified or falsified. Although not strictly a metaphysical postulate, string theory is in a similar situation - unless there is some way to either experimentally verify or falsify its claims, it should not be entertained seriously as a candidate for belief. Perhaps theoretical physicists will eventually find a way to test the veracity of this hypothesis.
Not sure... can't always separate the voices inside my head from the ones outside.
In any case, what I'm trying to do is lay out some basic principles for a rational notion of belief.
How does one move, and place accurately, a 1200 ton block of stone? In present day, and say 6000 years ago? I am curious as to how Baalbek was constructed ?
Rollers? Levers? Like many other ancient structures, smart engineering, relatively simple mechanical solutions, plus a massive amount of manual labor, I would imagine. People seem to forget that the ancients were just as intelligent as we are today, only lacking the benefits of modern knowledge and technology.
If extraterrestrials were responsible for such things, why did they use ancient stone technology and not employ building materials and techniques which are far beyond the technology we have today? Finding ancient examples of structures built using carbon nanotubes would represent a much more significant and inexplicable discovery.
Rollers and levers? hahahaha OK. Have you seen photos of the blocks I am talking about? I believe it is not even possible today with our technology to move and place stones that large. 1200 tons... those aren't small blocks.
Clearly, we won't know how the blocks were moved until the History Channel makes up a bunch of drivel about it.
Judging by the history students that I've met, I'd imagine that they have little to no respect for the History Channel. Most of them seem to be pretty interested in learning about historical facts, not making up historical conspiracy theories.
DerHoggz said:
I don't think the energy I was talking about can accurately fall into a category such as those. I would imagine it most closely being related to potential energy if anything, but that is just a guess.
On a different note... I don't know how much was discussed on a parallel universe, but I am just going throw this one out there. Has anyone ever really contemplated the internet and its existence? Something we can all plug into or use a wireless signal... A wireless signal.... We are traveling the internet through the fabric of of space that we live in.. yet we cannot tap into without the appropriate device. There is only one internet. Could there be a second of someone wanted to create it? Any thoughts?
