Epistemology, the standards of truth (tradition, church, Revelation, philosophy)

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Pah

Because truth derived in this way has a tendancy to be "not-true". It is the epistemology of tradition which has no way to acheive truth.

Mere opinion.

~Victor

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Victor

Mere opinion.

~Victor

Another thread? I'd love to see your opinion of the criteria of truth.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Pah

Another thread? I'd love to see your opinion of the criteria of truth.

Not sure what you are planning to accomplish here. There is volumes written on this and you know this I'm sure. It really does come down to I believe and trust in the Church. I'm not sure how you plan to get around that.

~Victor

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Victor

Not sure what you are planning to accomplish here. There is volumes written on this and you know this I'm sure. It really does come down to I believe and trust in the Church. I'm not sure how you plan to get around that.

~Victor

What you believe is evidence that can be evaluated for truth. Tradition and revelation are not the best standards of truth.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Pah

What you believe is evidence that can be evaluated for truth. Tradition and revelation are not the best standards of truth.

That depends on which truth we are looking for. History is an interesting excersize. It may be considered scientific, but it MUST access traditions in order to do its work. It is both a science and a philosophy at the same time. With history, tradition is the only standard, (edit) however criticized and revised, history evaluates tradition and makes up new traditions as it is revised.

So I agree with you. Tradition by itself is not the best standard of truth, but it is the only standard that we have for history.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

....Tradition by itself is not the best standard of truth, but it is the only standard that we have for history.

That is not true. According to Epistemolgy, we have, among other citeria, Authority - in which the credentials of the historian are considered. The problem with authority as a standard is that those in authority on the vast majority of topics are a dime a dozen and can differ from one another.

There are other standards that can be applied to the truth of a particular historian. Correspondence and Coherence to reality.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Pah

That is not true. According to Epistemolgy, we have, among other citeria, Authority - in which the credentials of the historian are considered. The problem with authority as a standard is that those in authority on the vast majority of topics are a dime a dozen and can differ from one another.

There are other standards that can be applied to the truth of a particular historian. Correspondence and Coherence to reality.

All historians can do is review traditions. I am agreeing with you, Pah.

The root of history is tradition. While we cannot uncritically accept tradition as truth, tradition is the substance of history. Tradition is the loci of *historical* truth. Without tradition, there is nothing for historians to reivew, and the work of history would not exist.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Pah

That is not true. According to Epistemolgy, we have, among other citeria, Authority - in which the credentials of the historian are considered. The problem with authority as a standard is that those in authority on the vast majority of topics are a dime a dozen and can differ from one another.

Very true, but there is a system designed to correct that in RC theology. That's why it's mind blowing to me that they aren't teaching about Quatum Unicorn Farts with all the choas that goes sometimes.

Can you clearly spell out what it is you are asking or aiming for so I understand please.

~Victor

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Victor

[/color]

Very true, but there is a system designed to correct that in RC theology. That's why it's mind blowing to me that they aren't teaching about Quatum Unicorn Farts with all the choas that goes sometimes.

Can you clearly spell out what it is you are asking or aiming for so I understand please.

~Victor
[/color]

You humor is too caustic to be funny and is based on nothing.

I do not have to pick on your theology - there is no theological system that corrects the faults of tradition or revelation without trying to bring in another faulty standard.

I'm surprised you made previous comments, if you didn't understand clearly. But to re-establish the topic. Tradition can not be called true nor can relevlation. Since you have called upon these two standards of truth, it is up to you to show that they are reliable.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

All historians can do is review traditions. I am agreeing with you, Pah.

The root of history is tradition. While we cannot uncritically accept tradition as truth, tradition is the substance of history. Tradition is the loci of *historical* truth. Without tradition, there is nothing for historians to reivew, and the work of history would not exist.

I was thinking that facts in primary documents can be judged according to corresponence. It's picky, I know, but more in keeping with Epistemology