>The biggest factor is repeat-ability. That is what the scientific method is all about.
That's also what the other way of knowing is about, logic. As long as things keep happening the same way, as long as the same input produces the same output, that's as certain as we can be of anything. Science is rigor. Math and logic are rigor of a different sort.
>Most of what we know and believe was put together in our brains as infants, seeing, hearing, touching, tasting the world. These are our base experiences that we have learned through a great deal of repeated experience. That we can communicate with each other, and come to an agreement about most of reality only confirms our perspectives of reality. There are always subtle differences in our perspectives of the world, but there is enough to agree upon. We further test our perspectives of reality through games and sports, and our overall ability to make things happen.
There, you've hit on two move very good points, each of which is True ( tiny.cc/TheWholeStory bolsters both points ). On the Truth side (
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/, epistemology and metaphysics ) is solved by taking your first point about replication to it's logical extreme and the Spiritual side is solved by understanding the value of salience, perspective, and one you forgot - priority. Each answer in that realm is contingent. Reality is our consensus experience. Actuality is that which is beyond - transcendent; inaccessible.
>Then we encounter more subjective things, taste in music, art, literature, philosophy, religion, abstract thought. When we communicate these things, we find far greater interpretations of reality. These abstract concepts can not be easily tested in the physical world. Mainly we share our perspectives through discussions and debates, such as these forums.
From another perspective there are three layers of filter between us and Actuality, namely biological (eyes, etc.), cultural (the subconscious, basically), and psychological (the story we tell ourselves about ourselves).
>Then there are those things we can not confirm through repeat-ability. Rumor, myth, events and observations of phenomenon encountered by normal rational people, by all accounts, except for the experiences that no one else can confirm to exist. These experiences can be any number of well known things, from a dream where we feel that we are encountering something real that exists at a higher plane of existence, to clairvoyance and telepathy, sightings of UFOs and aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, spirits, dejavu. These are experiences few people ever claim to have witnessed.
Just going to drop this here:
universal taxonomy - evidence by certainty
0 ignorance (certainty that you don't know)
1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)
>What is repeatable, and widely known, we designate as fact. What is subjective we leave to opinion. Unusual phenomenon is is viewed with widely varying opinion.
In order to take this idea to it's logical extreme to test it's viability, you have to say that the more replicable something is, the more real it is, which is a problem-free answer to all such questions as far as i can tell.
>The thing is, that the unusual, the unproven, phenomenon, myths, create speculation, claimed by many to support abstract beliefs, philosophy, art, religion. Much of this has a long history, it captures the imagination, entertains. A great deal of the most popular tales are also the least credible. Some of these beliefs have a very profound impact on culture, justice, law and order, society. Often, at the very least these tales are cautionary tales that express ideas and concerns that for what ever reason can not be put in more concrete terms. Even a great deal of science includes concepts that are primarily straight out of imagination, unproven, many concepts, unwitnessed by anyone, simply conjectures based on speculation of phenomenon observed through scientific experimentation, and examination of artifacts.
Popular wisdom survives because a) it's mundane enough that everyone sees themselves reflected in it b) it's interpretable enough that anyone can make it mean whatever they want. Typical wisdom that lasts lasts because it's common, not because it's special.
>When we ask about the truth, the complete truth, these phenomenon are considered by many. Some people dismiss phenomenon outright, others believe completely, and those in the middle choose to keep things open.
It's simple really. Is there replicable evidence of it? If not, it's indistinguishable from fiction and, short of additional evidence, only a fool will take it seriously, whether god or homeopathy. They're pragmatically identical. Intellectual maturity is the process of Closing your mind by finding necessary truths and thereafter insisting upon them.
>It is important because these things have very significant impact on moral considerations of what is right or wrong.
Questions of right and wrong are spiritual ones, subject to the three contingencies listed above.
>Is there such a thing as God, life after death? Is religion important? Is science important? Is there such a thing as morality, right or wrong? Does life have meaning?
As a concept, yes, as a testable thing, no.
If there's anything else, you're not dead.
Yes, in the sense that it has major impacts on the world. No in the sense that there's nothing religion provides that isn't available in other ways without the bullshit.
Yes, because it's the best way of understanding material reality, and we are all materially embodied beings.
Yes, but it depends on your desired objectives. To the extent we agree (survival, freedom, etc.), that's what's typically understood as morality.
The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves.
If you'd like, i can show you how to derive each of those answers from the three points you made initially here. Hit me up.
>Our personal philosophy, our individual perspective of the truth, is how each of us determines these things for ourselves.
It's subjective but not arbitrary. Depending on the desired result, some ways of thinking clearly lead to better outcomes than others. The truth can be known, even contingent truth.