"Knowledge can't go beyond the experience"

This is a question for FE-ers. What does that even mean? When I was a FE-er, I also asserted that airplanes didn't exist and that everyone claiming to have been in an airplane is a liar or a lunatic ("Before people who needed attention were saying they had been flying a dragon, now they say they have been in and airplane."), because I've never seen an airplane and don't know much about how they work. Also, I've never fallen in love, so I asserted that everyone claiming to be in love was just craving for attention and lying. Do you think that that line of reasoning is correct? If not, why?

If i recall.. Dont yoy gain  knowledge from experience.

Light being. Single candle in the dark.

If i recall.. Dont yoy gain  knowledge from experience.

I suppose that depends on how you look at it.  Are you talking about gaining knowledge from your own experience or from someone else's experience?

Gaining knowledge from some one else would be them telling you the steps and practices to take to get the knowledge. 

So you are still gaining knowledge from. Your own experience wich is knowledge. Your conscious implants into itself. 

Any one who believes what another man calls knowledge and takes it. For their own . are fools.

Let god word be the ttruh and all mans be lies

Why do you want men to be liars?

Well, you know, experience, unless we do proper experiments, isn't so reliable way to acquire knowledge. It's true that the reality is essentially just a name we give to the world our senses give us access to. However, we experience all sorts of illusions, cognitive biases, and even hallucinations. Scientific method compensates for all of them. So, why not trust science over your own experience?

Well, you know, experience, unless we do proper experiments, isn't so reliable way to acquire knowledge. It's true that the reality is essentially just a name we give to the world our senses give us access to. However, we experience all sorts of illusions, cognitive biases, and even hallucinations. Scientific method compensates for all of them. So, why not trust science over your own experience?

Only trust science in matters of empiricism.  Trust your experience when exploring the creative, the spiritual and the sublime.

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on July 09, 2016, 02:48:14 PM

Well, you know, experience, unless we do proper experiments, isn't so reliable way to acquire knowledge. It's true that the reality is essentially just a name we give to the world our senses give us access to. However, we experience all sorts of illusions, cognitive biases, and even hallucinations. Scientific method compensates for all of them. So, why not trust science over your own experience?

Only trust science in matters of empiricism.  Trust your experience when exploring the creative, the spiritual and the sublime.

I don't think that spiritual experience is a way of knowing. Maybe it would be if millions of people talked with god and got consistent answers, but that's not at all how it works in reality. Also, think of this way: if you saw a dragon, would you think it's really there, or would you think that you are dreaming or hallucinating? Our culture makes us think that god or spirits are somehow different, when, in reality, they aren't. You can call me close-minded because of that, but, let's face it, if you, for example, reject evolution or anthropogenic climate change because of your religion, you are also close-minded.
As for exploring the creative, I am not so sure. You can safely reject what others tell you if they just tell you advices of the people who just happened to be successful by luck. But if someone makes a scientific study about, for example, how to program more productively, and comes with statistically significant results, I will take that seriously.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 09, 2016, 07:01:19 PM

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on July 09, 2016, 02:48:14 PM

Well, you know, experience, unless we do proper experiments, isn't so reliable way to acquire knowledge. It's true that the reality is essentially just a name we give to the world our senses give us access to. However, we experience all sorts of illusions, cognitive biases, and even hallucinations. Scientific method compensates for all of them. So, why not trust science over your own experience?

Only trust science in matters of empiricism.  Trust your experience when exploring the creative, the spiritual and the sublime.

I don't think that spiritual experience is a way of knowing. Maybe it would be if millions of people talked with god and got consistent answers, but that's not at all how it works in reality.

It's a way of getting to know oneself, their emotional life, what they value in this world. To learn who you are as a human.

Also, think of this way: if you saw a dragon, would you think it's really there, or would you think that you are dreaming or hallucinating?

That is an empirical matter and I would explore it logically and maybe scientifically.

Our culture makes us think that god or spirits are somehow different, when, in reality, they aren't. You can call me close-minded because of that, but, let's face it, if you, for example, reject evolution or anthropogenic climate change because of your religion, you are also close-minded.

I'm with you. Just to be clear, I am spiritual but not religious.

As for exploring the creative, I am not so sure. You can safely reject what others tell you if they just tell you advices of the people who just happened to be successful by luck. But if someone makes a scientific study about, for example, how to program more productively, and comes with statistically significant results, I will take that seriously.

That's programming, it's a logical system, and that would be appropriate, but what would you do with painting?  Or poetry? Or theatre?

Statistical analyses are virtually useless in those fields.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Anyway, you say that science can be trusted on empirical matters. Well, you are FE-er, right? So, isn't the shape of the Earth an empirical matter?

Rama Set is the flattest flat earther.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Anyway, you say that science can be trusted on empirical matters. Well, you are FE-er, right? So, isn't the shape of the Earth an empirical matter?

I am not a FEer.