Human Consensus: Its Limits and Criteria as Evidence — Author’s Introduction

Human Consensus: Its Limits and Criteria as Evidence — Author’s Introduction Introduction Undoubtedly, "people's thoughts and actions tend to be governed by a set of general ideas about the nature of the world and man's place in it, and these general ideas can be called 'the image of the world' or man's view of the world".[1] But since the beginning of the eighteenth century after the radical revolution, which witnessed the birth of experimental science in its modern form, the course of history has changed, and the unanimous experiences or general ideas have become very doubtful. Gradually, the results of the impressive experimental science have led to the use of its means to create a new world image, so that science - cognitive science and neurology here - has become the expected reformer who will present a great moral standard in this way. Yes, the birth of this science has not been without a prior experience. I present in this paper a restriction or regulation of these social experiences, or human commons, and I will discuss the validity of these experiences, and does it have a role in the scientific construction? In answering these questions, the reader will learn the true value of these experiences, and of course science, and we will support the latter – the true value of science – with a very rapid presentation of the most famous contemporary philosophies of science, all in order to compare the cognitive value of unanimous human experiences with the cognitive value or conceptual content offered by experimental science or the scientific community. It is not a comparison between an ancient mind and a modern one, but a research into the nature of a healthy human mind, and how to make a particular idea out of the structure of a healthy mind? And how to judge and evaluate our experiences? And can we justify all our ideas? And are there central ideas called innate ideas? And what is the difference between the classical debate throughout history between rationalists and experimentalists and this previous comparison? First, I'm going to give a job presentation to the famous schools that have talked about common humanity or common experience, or, more precisely, that have set standards for these commons, which are weak standards in my view, so I'm going to critique these standards and then set a new standard that allows us to protest such commons. But, of course, a philosophical foundation for this protest must be established in the first place, and a correct justification for the fact that these commons are an argument, and a presentation of the central objections to these commons from different fields, and then a critique of them. If the argument is correct, and if the criticism of these objections is correct, it must be recognized that the standard of these commons "new controls", and adopted as a correct image of the world, from the original structure of humans, and that the violation of these structures anomalies or intellectual / moral disorder. We will give some examples of these commons such as interpolation and belief in the sacred, within an inductive framework that shows that relying on one of these commons without the last fallacy, I hope this research will be a new entry point for the critique of modern philosophical atheism. [1] Walter Stace, Religion and the Modern Mind, Madbouli Library, translation, commentary and submission: Imam Abdel Fattah Imam, p. - Reza Zeidan. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2017-01-24 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/publications/intros/الإجماع-الإنساني-المحددات-ومعايير-الاحتجاج-مقدمة-المؤلف