CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

So out of curiosity I decided to look for an online epistemology quiz.

I don't know of any reputable ones, but found these two:
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-basic- ... ology-test
http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/sto ... gy-and-you

Interested in having a go and letting me know what you got?

For the first, I got The Hegelian, which states:

"You have, in general, an excellent understanding of how nature and society work, except that you then stick God (in some form) on top of it. You place ideas first in importance, yet, in spite of that, you seek to understand the laws the govern development and change. You probably believe in evolution, yet see a creator as behind it all. Your understanding of the world is an interesting mix of the insightful and the utterly bizarre. If you start beginning with matter, and see ideas (including the idea of God) as flowing from material conditions instead of the other way around, you will have a solid grounding in reality.

- You scored 42% on Materialism, higher than 28% of your peers.
- You scored 92% on Objectivity, higher than 97% of your peers.
- You scored 57% on Dialectics, higher than 70% of your peers."

I found it funny that it "subtly berated" me for having a belief in God.

For the second, I got the Post-Positivist:

"Post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of positivism. A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different. Scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are essentially the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. In everyday reasoning, we don't always proceed so carefully (although, if you think about it, when the stakes are high, even in everyday life we become much more cautious about measurement. Think of the way most responsible parents keep continuous watch over their infants, noticing details that non-parents would never detect).

One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study."

For the first

The Empiricist
You scored 83% Materialism, 85% Objectivity, and 14% Dialectics
"You have a tendency to accept "facts" as the ultimate knowledge, which gives you an advantage over many, but leaves you a bit helpless under certain circumstances. That is, you are doubtful about whether Man can truly understand the laws the determine the movement of matter, and you have the habit of looking at things in isolation, rather than in their interconnectedness. Chances are you also view things in terms of rigid catagories--This is X, this is Y, and that is that. Unfortunately, nature doesn't work that way--things move from one catagory to another, and even the catagories change; what is radical is one generation is conservative the next; what is a cause now is an affect later. This leaves you confused on a lot of issues. You still have a big advantage over those who attribute everything to God, or who just think it's all a matter of opinion. Many Empiricsts have performed valuable work in the sciences, collecting data. Their ability to interpret those data often leaves something to be desired."

For the second

Positivist
"In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic -- they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive reasoning to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesn't fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism -- the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation."

Same a Hegelian

2nd is Subjectivist
Subjectivist believe that there is no external reality -- we're all making this all up!

Reading the description of Subjectivist is funny XD

Pragmatist
You scored 17% Materialism, 31% Objectivity, and 0% Dialectics
"Truth is what works!" you cry. "If believing in God makes you happy, then God exists for you." To you, everything is a matter of opinion. It may please you to know that most Americans are brought up to agree with you. However, this won't really help you to understand the complex processes operating around you; certainly no scientist can operate that way. But, more than likely, you don't much care about the complex processes operating around you. And if that makes you happy, then for you, they don't exist.

Lol 0% on Dialectics. Obviously I'm not Hegelian AT ALL. But 31% objectivity seems too high for me.


On the second test I scored Subjectivist. Still pretty vague because that can mean many things. Generally I tend to align with most existentialist thought. I don't agree with logical positivism or empiricism at all. It's far too egoistic.

Believer
You scored 33% Materialism, 92% Objectivity, and 43% Dialectics
You are an objective idealist; you beleive that there is such a thing as objective truth, but you consider thought primary to matter. Very likely you are religious. At some level, consciously or not, you believe that an idea can exist without a brain to think it. That leads you to reverse the relationship of many very important aspects of life. For example, you see the problems in politics as being because people are *thinking* wrong, which prevents you from searching for the material causes behind their thinking. You put ideas first. If you can shuck that notion, many things that are confusing to you now will make a lot more sense.

And Post-positivist for the second.

I have to lol at these quzzes, though. Some of the questions seem kind of prejudiced. Ah, well, I suppose it takes a lot of pride-swallowing and effort to present a purely neutral, unbiased set of ideas and thought-processes. But anyway, I'm not entirely satisfied with my results on the first quiz (and not because it hurt my feelings). It just seems...off. I wonder if I answered the questions as honestly as I meant to. There were a few times I could have gone either way. And I didn't like how they had a default "because God" answer half the time. It's as if whoever set it up just expected Christians to be mindless zombies that don't really care to think out the logic of things, because "it doesn't matter what anyone thinks because God controls everything". But now I'm just ranting. Ignore me.

Did anyone else notice the copious number of typos? That threw me off, a lot.

ClaecElric4God wrote:I have to lol at these quzzes, though. Some of the questions seem kind of prejudiced. Ah, well, I suppose it takes a lot of pride-swallowing and effort to present a purely neutral, unbiased set of ideas and thought-processes. But anyway, I'm not entirely satisfied with my results on the first quiz (and not because it hurt my feelings). It just seems...off. I wonder if I answered the questions as honestly as I meant to. There were a few times I could have gone either way. And I didn't like how they had a default "because God" answer half the time. It's as if whoever set it up just expected Christians to be mindless zombies that don't really care to think out the logic of things, because "it doesn't matter what anyone thinks because God controls everything". But now I'm just ranting. Ignore me.

I found it interesting how it evaluates 'belief in God' as something that isn't grounded in reality (regardless of whether people have arrived at that view through looking at the various principles of the universe or not).

I felt there were limited options in some of the questions, and so I ended up picking the response that I least disagreed with.

ClaecElric4God wrote:Did anyone else notice the copious number of typos? That threw me off, a lot.

I loved the use of "cat-a-gories". LOL

Epistemology, huh? I've had some conversations that have touched upon that in the past few months. Recently, my epistemology in regard to Christianity in particular, i.e. how we know what Christianity is and what it teaches, has been shifting, but that is probably too theological to post here. If anyone wants to know about this for some reason, you can PM me.

Based on what I've read in this thread, I'll decline to take the quiz, but generally speaking, my epistemology is that God is the source of all truth. That is not to deny the role of logic and reason, observation of the physical world, or even things like personal experience, intuition, and emotion. All of those things are important and can reveal truth. But if we are able to gain reliable knowledge through observing the physical world around us, it is because God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and he has created a rational and orderly world which can apprehended through a rational use of the senses. Observation of the created world around us reveals how God created things to be (e.g., he created a universe in which things that have mass are attracted to each other following an inverse-square law), so that science can be said to be "thinking the thoughts of God after him." Likewise, if reason can be used to come to an understanding of the truth, we are able to arrive at truth through logical reasoning because God is a God not of confusion but of peace, and it is through his grace as a God of order that we are able to use our minds to reason. God is in all things and filling all things, in him we live and move and have our being, and he has given us divine revelation, our senses, our minds, and emotions and intuition and experiences as ways of apprehending truth.

(Mods, if this post is too theological, let me know and I will change it.)

On a different note, but also related to epistemology, I find this thought interesting to ponder:

George R. Knight wrote:[. . .] mankind is suspended, so to speak, in midair both metaphysically and epistemologically. Our problem is that it is not possible to make statements about reality without first having a theory for arriving at truth; and, on the other hand, a theory of truth cannot be developed without first having a concept of reality. We are caught in a web of circularity. [. . .] The acceptance of a particular position in metaphysics and epistemology is a “faith-choice” made by individuals, and it entails a commitment to a way of life.

Kaori wrote:Based on what I've read in this thread, I'll decline to take the quiz, but generally speaking, my epistemology is that God is the source of all truth. That is not to deny the role of logic and reason, observation of the physical world, or even things like personal experience, intuition, and emotion. All of those things are important and can reveal truth. But if we are able to gain reliable knowledge through observing the physical world around us, it is because God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and he has created a rational and orderly world which can apprehended through a rational use of the senses. Observation of the created world around us reveals how God created things to be (e.g., he created a universe in which things that have mass are attracted to each other following an inverse-square law), so that science can be said to be "thinking the thoughts of God after him." Likewise, if reason can be used to come to an understanding of the truth, we are able to arrive at truth through logical reasoning because God is a God not of confusion but of peace, and it is through his grace as a God of order that we are able to use our minds to reason. God is in all things and filling all things, in him we live and move and have our being, and he has given us divine revelation, our senses, our minds, and emotions and intuition and experiences as ways of apprehending truth.

I think what you are saying is far too egoistic. Humans are directly interacting with what is true? So then epistemologically how do you come this entire conclusion? This all hinges on the assumption that God exists. If so what is the basis for that belief?

The OKCupid quiz is rather opinionated. It's ironic that a quiz about the philosophy of knowledge turns around and pretends to know what's wrong with your philosophy of knowledge. Clearly, the author of this quiz (on a dating site, no less!) is the keeper of all knowledge. At last, we have found him... and his spelling is not very good, by the way. We must listen to him or persih.

PS I'm a believer, guys. That means I'm backwards and confused. Also, "WTF" is a category. This is science, people.

I came out as a positivist, but I think the second quiz is far too simplistic. So there are only three answers to the question "What's the difference between knowledge and belief," huh? And the first and third answer are essentially the same? My, these quiz authors have so much figured out! I must find them and study at their feet.

Sammy Boy wrote:I found it interesting how it evaluates 'belief in God' as something that isn't grounded in reality (regardless of whether people have arrived at that view through looking at the various principles of the universe or not).

This, exactly.

Sammy Boy wrote:I loved the use of "cat-a-gories". LOL

Haha, I missed that one. My brain must have been overloaded with misspelling and blocked that one out.

For the record, I very much agree with Kaori on this one. I liked that synopsis.

Yuki-Anne wrote:PS I'm a believer, guys. That means I'm backwards and confused.

*high five* We should totally start a club! Or a therapy group, where we can all work on reversing our thought processes.

ClaecElric4God wrote:

Yuki-Anne wrote:PS I'm a believer, guys. That means I'm backwards and confused.

*high five* We should totally start a club! Or a therapy group, where we can all work on reversing our thought processes.

Man you guys are so backwards


Real post: The quizzes didn't seem to really measure much in a very "scientific way". I probably am both an empiricist and positivist, but lol the typos and condescending nature of the results.

Ah yes, the neckiest of neckbeards.
...M'lady.

Yuki-Anne wrote:I came out as a positivist, but I think the second quiz is far too simplistic. So there are only three answers to the question "What's the difference between knowledge and belief," huh? And the first and third answer are essentially the same? My, these quiz authors have so much figured out! I must find them and study at their feet.

Well to be fair I doubt any real online quiz could *not* be too simplistic for something like epistemology.

OKCupid Quiz wrote:Believer
You scored 33% Materialism, 92% Objectivity, and 43% Dialectics
You are an objective idealist; you beleive that there is such a thing as objective truth, but you consider thought primary to matter. Very likely you are religious. At some level, consciously or not, you believe that an idea can exist without a brain to think it. That leads you to reverse the relationship of many very important aspects of life. For example, you see the problems in politics as being because people are *thinking* wrong, which prevents you from searching for the material causes behind their thinking. You put ideas first. If you can shuck that notion, many things that are confusing to you now will make a lot more sense.

Translation: You believe that people are thinking wrong, which is the wrong way to think. You should get rid of that way of thinking and then you won't be thinking so wrong.

This quiz is hilarious. Especially the answers that say, "Meh, depends on your point of view" or, "Everything's a matter of opinion". Isn't the purpose of this quiz to discern the opinion or point-of-view of that particular person taking the quiz?
Oh, well. As an Empiricist I see everything as fact, so just ignore me. I can only see in black and white. I am what I am, no matter another person's opinion of me.

I'm just so relieved that someone finally did what my parents said they could never do, which is to figure me out.

Hey, Xeno! We're the same! That can only mean that you and I will always come to exactly the same conclusion on everything because we're both awesome. If only we weren't so "helpless", "doubtful", "rigid", and "confused", right?

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:I think what you are saying is far too egoistic.

Although I as an individual certainly lack humility and continually need to work on attaining it, I fail to see what is egoistic about this line of reasoning. To me, it seems a lot less self-centered and arrogant to say that all sources of truth and methods of apprehending it depend for their existence and reliability on a source outside of the self, not within one’s own mind (à la Descartes).

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:Pragmatist

I think this tells me everything I need to know about the first quiz.

Peanut wrote:

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:Pragmatist

I think this tells me everything I need to know about the first quiz.

Exactly my point because I'm definitely *not* a pragmatist. Why isn't "skeptic" an option?

Kaori wrote:

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:I think what you are saying is far too egoistic.

Although I as an individual certainly lack humility and continually need to work on attaining it, I fail to see what is egoistic about this line of reasoning. To me, it seems a lot less self-centered and arrogant to say that all sources of truth and methods of apprehending it depend for their existence and reliability on a source outside of the self, not within one’s own mind (à la Descartes).

When I say egoistic I mean in the sense that the self can be a valid benchmark to knowing things. I have a feeling that you confused me for saying "egotistical".

At the end of the day we're always subjectively interpreting things so there must be a lack of certainty in that interpretation. We're subject to arbitrary and non-essential language biases. To say we can objectively measure things implies that our methods are valid.

Going back to de Sassure, there is nothing that bridges the signifier from the signified. The bridges are all arbitrary constructions.