quote:
Because we have some knowledge of the world around us. We are not scientists, but we didn't just make this stuff up!
You didn't just make it up?
Show me, then.
Now, you claim that "particularism" is a valid way to derive "true knowledge", but that is flawed:
quote:
So it’s better just to assume that our properly formed beliefs are innocent until proven guilty.
What is the definition of "properly formed belief"? How can I tell the difference between a "properly" formed belif and an "improperly" formed one?
So, the truth of these stories is something you can't demonstrate to anybody else. You think they are probably true because you believe in God, but not because any evidence leads you to the conclusion that they are probably true.
quote:
Admittedly so, yes.
So, explain to me again why your faith in the veravity certain myths or legends should be given any special consideration or respect when determining what we know and what we do not know?
quote:
If I were completely skeptical, I’d disbelieve everything.
That's not true.
Skeptics simply require evidence to believe things, and we don't accept things without critical examination first.
quote:
That would safeguard me against every falsehood. But the problem is that I’d miss out on all truth whatsoever”and some truth might be very important. So that wouldn’t help me much either.
No one urges us to believe absolutely everything. But some very important and influential thinkers do advise us to believe nothing (or very little)”or at least they recommend that we believe only when an idea is incredibly well supported.
Right.
...they recommend that we believe only when an idea is incredibly well supported .
quote:
And my point is that I believe that people did not just base their beliefs on "cleverly devised stories" and legends. These events were passed down on a personal level between people who respected each other and who were honest to the best of ther abilities.
...and you know this because...?
quote:
I agree with you that we just don't know so in a strict sense, this is a belief we are talking about. My point is that stories need not be discredited if told from otherwise rational people to others.
But if it's "all about belief", why does it matter if any of the stories are strictly, actually true or not?
Well, then, how are we to decide what is true among the thousands of stories out there which are not supported by any evidence?
quote:
We can't make any conclusion at all....as you said...unless we trusted the person making the claim.
No, no, no.
You still can't make any conclusion, regardless of who is making the claim, unless you have evidence to support it.
quote:
Like I said, if I trusted you as an otherwise sane person and you presented me a truth (experience) claim I would not dismiss you as outrageous simply because there was no empirical evidence for your claim.
But you should, phat.
Anybody can be mistaken or deluded or biased.
Anybody.
Always, always, always insist upon evidence before coming to any conclusion.
If there isn't any evidence, you simply have to say that you
do not know. And you cannot go any further with what you know.
Now, if you want to move into faith/belief, that's your choice, but that is not critical thinking anymore. That is credulity.
quote:
Aside from the evidence that I consider myself sane and that I may trust my belief when I see it in others.
Being sane doesn't preclude being wrong, phat.
™ Version 4.2
