Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

I'm trying to formulate an idea of epistemology and I would like to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Imagine you have three sources of authority in your model of epistemology, A, B and C. Sometimes those sources disagree or contradict each other, so you use another source, which we'll call D, to adjudicate the disagreement and decide which one is correct. Given that type of scenario, would it be logically sound to say D has a higher tier of authority than A, B, and C?

Assuming that's true, a simplified secular epistemology might look like this:

1. Reason

2. Intuition, sense data, outcomes, authority figures (doctors, scientists, etc.)

And a simplified religious epistemology might look like this:

1. The Bible

2. Intuition, outcomes, authority figures (pastor, theologian), sense data

Regardless of what you put in the #1 slot, there must be only one authority source in that slot because it there were two authorities there, they might disagree, which would require another higher authority to adjudicate the disagreement.

Does that make sense?

Not sure what you are asking here.
We have not more reason to trust D than we have to trust A,B, or C.
So when asking "would it be logically sound to say D has a higher tier of authority ", we have nothing to say on the matter since the value of the sources is unknown.
In the case you might be asking about the use of langauge, then "higher" implies better. But logic (as such) has little to offer here.

Let us assume that D agree with A, but B agrees with C. Where do we stand now?

[Sculptor1]

Appeals to "holy scriptures" such as the Bible and the Koran are appeals to testimonial evidence.

Would not stand up in a court of law.

The Koran is claimed to be mostly the ramblings of one man.
And the various sources of the Bible contradict one another.

THe highest authority, according to thse books would be "god" , but He seems to remain silent.

[Pattern-chaser]

AI is the ultimate extension of reason...

Isn't that idea deceptive?

AI reason doesn't appear to entail reason at all. AI merely consists of compute based logical systems that achieve qualitative results within human reason.

Maybe so...

Reason involves purpose.

Here, I think there is some confusion between the meanings carried by "reason".

Reason
noun

a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reasons for declaring war.

a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action: I dare you to give me one good reason for quitting school!

sufficient cause, as produced by a situation that makes an act, feeling, etc., obviously proper or appropriate: After the mess he made of our yard, we have good reason to look for another landscaper.

the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences: Effective leadership requires a person of reason.

sound judgment; good sense.

normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

Logic. a premise of an argument.

Philosophy.

the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.

Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.

verb (used without object)

to think or argue in a logical manner.

to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.

verb (used with object)

to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out).

to conclude or infer.

There is reason, commonly associated with logic, as in "logic and reason". Then there is 'the reason I did X was...', which offers a different sense of meaning. The former meaning has little to do with "purpose", but the latter meaning is closely aligned with "purpose".

I think these two different (but related) meanings are introducing some confusion?

[ConsciousAI]

I do think that logic and reason differ on the basis of lack of purpose in the former. When one reasons, one does so on the basis of the idea of good, while logic is merely a formal system that has been created using reason for the purpose of serving that interest, similar to how the scientific method has been created by and for reason.

Reason doesn't stand independent of the purpose of a human that applies it. When one takes a piece of text, one cannot determine on the basis of that text, this is "reason".

Because the system of logic is created to serve the primary interest of reason in thinking, the terms are used interchangeably. Similarly, the logical systems applied by AI that mimic human reason in thinking are actually logic and not real reason.

What would make you believe that reason is unrelated to purpose?

[RJG]

**

Truth Hierarchy aka Tiers of Epistemology:
1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth – experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective Truths (#3), and Religious Truths (#4) are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful.