A colossal accident?

[James1215]

lol. Nearly there. A bald and dogmatic assertion claiming certainty on the issue of experience for knowledge is liable to fail. However, a hypothesis is not. The hypothesis of empiricism also does not claim that experience is certainly necessary for knowledge, but evidence points this way and as yet at no other option. On that I think we can agree, but for the issue of rationalism.

If we want certainty, perhaps knowing that we doubt something is fine. That’s certainty, yes, but is it knowledge? We cannot say a thing about the world/our senses by disavowing them. And why should we doubt them anyway? As to logic and maths generally, there is an argument that these assist in gaining knowledge (which I have mentally downplayed). However, like the fate of the best laid battle plans at the first moment of engagement, structures of logic tell us nothing about empirical reality, they can only work from what is evidently here and have to change or be rejected to suit it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…A bald and dogmatic assertion claiming certainty on the issue of experience for knowledge is liable to fail.

You just admitted it is a logical contradiction, not just “liable to fail”.

However, a hypothesis is not.

Ummmm…you do know that calling a proposition a “hypothesis” doesn’t mean it isn’t a bald dogmatic assertion right?

The hypothesis of empiricism also does not claim that experience is certainly necessary for knowledge,

Then the proposition you refer to cannot be the one you have been claiming.** experience (physical evidence) is required for knowledge**. This proposition says that evidence is certainly necessary for for knowledge, hence the use of the word “required”. As you have already admitted empiricism as a dogmatic assertion is a logical contradiction and this proposition is clearly a dogmatic assertion, then you admit that empiricism is a logical contradiction. Thank you for reiterating our point.

but evidence points this way

Please post this world shattering evidence that no has ever seen, I have asked for it a couple times where is it?

and as yet at no other option. On that I think we can agree, but for the issue of rationalism.

You have agreed with us as too the contradiction of empiricism and on the matter of rationalism. Doing so inadvertently, because you did not know what the proposition that you stated actually means, does not invalidate your several admissions that we are right on the two matters.

If we want certainty, perhaps knowing that we doubt something is fine. That’s certainty, yes, but is it knowledge? We cannot say a thing about the world/our senses by disavowing them. And why should we doubt them anyway?

We doubt in order to demonstrate that the only object in reality whose existence we can be sure of, is a rational, not empirical object. Previously you have used the word knowledge to mean certainty, now you are using it to mean something that is physically evidenced. Which means you are assuming that physical evidence is required for knowledge. Which is yet again assuming the contradiction. Using the actual meaning of the word “knowledge”, yes it is knowledge.

knowl·edge/ˈnälij/Noun

1. Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.

What was the legitimate reason for you to refuse to use standard terminology? I noticed that you haven’t been able to provide any.

…structures of logic tell us nothing about empirical reality,

1+1=2. Feel free to test that one empirically.

they can only work from what is evidently here

1+1=2. No physical objects needed. See how easy it is to disprove?

…and have to change or be rejected to suit it.

No rule of logic has ever changed for any reason, much less because of empirical observation. When you see a discrepancy, it is an error in observation. The universe conforms to logic, not the other way around. Ever heard the phrase “G-d is a mathematician?”

 

[James1215]

1. A dogmatic empiricism fails, empiricism as a hypothesis stands. I’ve given positive evidence before
2. Empiricism as a hypothesis does not require certainty for knowledge. Certainty is not possible when inductive reasoning is used, and claiming certainty leads to self-contradiction. All that is required is reason to believe from evidence.
3. Rationalism has not been shown to provide knowledge independently. It is very useful in conjunction with empirical evidence, however.
4. You demonstrate yourself that there is a disconnect between logic and reality as it is observed, such that the former does not inform us about the latter. Maths is not testable empirically and as you say, ‘no rule of logic has ever changed’. They are necessary in the sense that to claim a logical proposition is wrong is to enter into self-contradiction. However, they are tautologous, and can only tell us how concepts of what is here can logically interrelate. This is not to say that the universe has necessary features that can be deduced from a priori statements, and if we want to use logical systems to understand the world we must choose these systems according to evidence. It is in that sense that we have to accept or reject logical models; either they fit a scenario or they do not.
5. This brings us to your issue with definitions. Dictionary definitions give the interrelation of words and concepts within language, which has a conventional relation to reality. I might use a dictionary definition to talk about some well known concept, but I would not refer to a dictionary to tell me what is actually there. They are books of tautologies.

It takes faith to think that reason alone can tell us what is here, and if we are to pick between dogmatic rationalism and dogmatic empiricism, I would pick the latter, even though if true, it is not empirically apparent. The hypothesis of empiricism does not fall prey to this objection, however, and it is a most fruitful way of seeing the world.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. A dogmatic empiricism fails, empiricism as a hypothesis stands. …

experience (physical evidence) is required for knowledgeDo you see the large red letters here? Do you remember typing them? This proposition is dogmatic and it is still the same contradiction. What part of this very simple demonstration is not clear? You do know that the words “proposition” and “dogmatic” mean? Further you have already admitted that empiricism is a contradiction.

I’ve given positive evidence before

Where? I have asked for it several times. If you had any you would post it. The fact is that none of the experts in the whole world ever have. So please post this “evidence” that you claim to have.

1. Empiricism as a hypothesis does not require certainty for knowledge.

No, it requires physical evidence, I don’t see your point.

Certainty is not possible when inductive reasoning is used, and claiming certainty leads to self-contradiction.

Why? What do you think this statement has to do with it?

All that is required is reason to believe from evidence.

Then post this evidence that you have. It will change the world. Simply asserting that you have evidence that **

experience (physical evidence) is required for knowledge

** isn’t enough. you have to actually have it, and considering that no one has ever found i

1. Rationalism has not been shown to provide knowledge independently.

You have already admitted this is false. Dubito, 1+1=2

1. You demonstrate yourself that there is a disconnect between logic and reality as it is observed, such that the former does not inform us about the latter.

Where?

Maths is not testable empirically

You can’t take too objects and add them? Do you need the Principia Mathematica?

and as you say, ‘no rule of logic has ever changed’.

Observation has never changed a rule of logic.

They are necessary in the sense that to claim a logical proposition is wrong is to enter into self-contradiction.

No it’s not. What are you even talking about?

However, they are tautologous, and can only tell us how concepts of what is here can logically interrelate.

Mathematics is not tautological. Tautological mathematical statements are truths independent of anything else as I keep demonstrating ,1+1=2

This is not to say that the universe has necessary features that can be deduced from a priori statements,

1+1=2

and if we want to use logical systems to understand the world we must choose these systems according to evidence. It is in that sense that we have to accept or reject logical models; either they fit a scenario or they do not.

You’re back to the verification criterion of meaning here. Yet another long dead contradiction.

[5. This brings us to your issue with definitions. Dictionary definitions give the interrelation of words and concepts within language, which has a conventional relation to reality. I might use a dictionary definition to talk about some well known concept, but I would not refer to a dictionary to tell me what is actually there. They are books of tautologies.

Do you mean to tell me that your excuse for refusing to use the standard definitions of words is because they are tautological? Are you kidding me? That is not a legitimate reason to refuse to use standard terminology.

It takes faith to think that reason alone can tell us what is here,

No, it only takes Dubito, that one rational object is the only thing that can be proven to exist. No empirical objects can be proven to exist, just that lone rational one. So there is no faith involved in that. Now the empirical world, that actually does require faith,

…and if we are to pick between dogmatic rationalism and dogmatic empiricism, I would pick the latter, even though if true, it is not empirically apparent.

Since you already admitted that a dogmatic empiricism is a logical contradiction, you just said that you would prefer an impossible truth over a proven truth.

The hypothesis of empiricism does not fall prey to this objection, however, and it is a most fruitful way of seeing the world.

Back to the same logical contradiction, that all the experts, historical fact and demonstrations have proven false. BTW Where is the evidence of empiricism that you claim to have that no one else has ever seen?
[/quote]

 

[James1215]

Firstly, experience for knowledge does not mean physical evidence for knowledge, it means experience. That experience might be of something physical, it might not, but what it has to be is perceptible.

Secondly, the hang up here is over the idea that a hypothesis is a dogma. It’s not a dogma because it can be supported or countered, and is asserted provisionally - subject to evidence. A dogma is more akin to ‘God exists as an invisible being who is the very act of being’. This is an interestingly put idea which is immune to all testing and asserted regardless of evidence. The evidence for empiricism I have already given several times, and simply put it is everywhere. Science makes predictions which come true based on perceptible evidence… prejudice is often exposed as incorrect… we rely upon empirically evidenced things all the time. On the negative side, there do not appear to be viable ways to get knowledge which are entirely non-empirical.

These 2 points are central, and your exploding approach of saying that everything is wrong does not grapple with them, but confuses, ignores or changes these points.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Firstly, experience for knowledge does not mean physical evidence for knowledge, it means experience.

You have been using the the word experience to mean physical evidence. Pick a definition and stick with it.

That experience might be of something physical, it might not, but what it has to be is perceptible.

You have previously been using the word perceptible to mean physical evidence as well. If you insist on using standard terminology, I insist on correcting it.

Secondly, the hang up here is over the idea that a hypothesis is a dogma.

experience (physical evidence) is required for knowledge This proposition is clearly dogmatic and its a contradiction. I have no idea why you think calling it a hypothesis changes that.

It’s not a dogma because it can be supported or countered, and is asserted provisionally -

experience (physical evidence) is required for knowledgeWhere in this proposition do you see it asserted provisionally? I see the word “required” as I keep pointing out. This is clearly a dogmatic statement and the same contradiction that you keep asserting as true.

subject to evidence.

I see you still claim to have evidence, but cannot provide it. Where is this evidence? How is it that you found evidence that all the experts admits does not exist? If you have it, provide it? If it’s a pic, there is a pic button on the left side of the quote button. There is no empirical evidence that empiricism is true.

The evidence for empiricism I have already given several times, and simply put it is everywhere.

Where?

Science makes predictions which come true based on perceptible evidence…

Science is empirical it is not itself empiricism. A fish is wet, it is not water. Where is your evidence that Empiricism is true? Like I said, you don’t have any. Even worse, we pointed this one out at the very beginning of the conversation. On top of that all the people who worked on this issue were well aware of science and empiricism still died. Why? because science is not empiricism.

On the negative side, there do not appear to be viable ways to get knowledge which are entirely non-empirical.

First, there is no “negative”. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. Second you have already admitted to Dubito and 1+1=2 is clearly knowledge free of any reference to the empirical. I will keep demonstrating it as long as necessary.

These 2 points are central,

Your first point is something you can fix when you decide to use standard terminology. The second point asserts that the word hypothesis saves your proposition from being dogmatic. Further, It’s still the same contradiction that you have been asserting and we have been demonstrating false for hundreds of posts.

and your exploding approach

What is an exploding approach?

of saying that everything is wrong

I am not just saying it I am either demonstrating it or refering to previous demonstrations. I am not simply asserting you are wrong, I have proven it time and again.

does not grapple with them,

How are demonstrations not grappling them?

but confuses,

You don’t ask me to explain anything and every time I try you ignore it.

ignores

I answer every single point you make. That’s what the quote button is for. You are the one that ignores every post. You don’t quote what I said and respond to it as you are supposed to, you ignore it and just post the same disproven argument again.

or changes these points.

You refuse to use standard terminology. You can fix that any time you want. What was your legitimate reason not to use standard terminology again?

 

[James1215]

Could it be a genuine hypothesis that ‘the Big Bang happened around 13.7 billion years ago’?

By your judgement, this statement can only be a dogma because it is said definitely and without inserting the word ‘provisionally’.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…this statement can only be a dogma because it is said definitely and without inserting the word ‘provisionally’.

The proposition you are actually making

experience (physical evidence) is required for knowledge

is clearly dogmatic. What part of this proposition is provisional? Nothing about “is required” seems provisional to me. Not that it matters, because you still don’t have any evidence for the hypothesis. You confused science with empiricism. A hypothesis without any evidence is worthless. Its personal opinion and nothing more. Further, what difference do you think this makes to the contradiction? It doesn’t matter if you call it a hypothesis, dogma, or what ever. As BR pointed out any proposition that makes knowledge dependent on experience (physical evidence) is necessarily a logical contradiction. You are arguing about things that really have nothing to do with the issue. I am happy to debate them, but it’s not as though they actually matter. Why do you even bother to keep bringing them up? It’s like your house burned down and all you want to talk about is what color to paint it. It doesn’t matter what color it is, it’s already burned down. You still haven’t escaped the contradiction.

 

[James1215]

Well, quite simply, it is not dogmatic or contradictory. Would you prefer this:

‘[provisionally] to have reason to believe in the truth of a statement about reality it is necessary to have perceptible evidence for the statement. However, if alternative evidence comes up, it may not be necessary’

And the evidence I have cited now at least 4 times. Science is used as evidence, however you want to classify it, for the above proposition. This is because it does not purport to gain knowledge divorced from study of the empirical, and it produces knowledge (as defined above) exceedingly well. If that does not seem like evidence to you, I’d like you to explain why not.

The other issue is that you want to try to weaken an otherwise viable proposition with the insertion of the need for physical evidence into it. How many times will I need to point out that experience or perception need not be of anything physical? It doesn’t matter whether it is or not. To say that everything that is perceptible/experienced is physical (ie to advance materialism) may not be possible; it may be a matter of faith, but it is not entailed by empiricism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, quite simply, it is not dogmatic or contradictory.

Which part of experience (physical evidence) is required for knowledge is not dogmatic? Which part of the proposition does not make knowledge dependent on experience? The words “is required” doesn’t leave any doubt. It also directly says that knowledge is dependent on experience, which is clearly the contradiction that BR refers to. I keep demonstrating that it is dogmatic and why, I keep demonstrating it is contradictory and why. You just keep making the same assertion when you know it’s proven false. Why would you do that? Further, why do you care if it’s dogmatic? Calling it a hypothesis that you can verify with evidence is the verification criterion of meaning, which is a contradiction, and you have no evidence at that making it empty of meaning as a hypothesis. It’s a loser like all the demonstrations, historical facts, and the experts have shown, decades ago.

-]’[provisionally] /-]to have reason to believe in the truth of a statement -]about reality/-] it is necessary to have -]perceptible/-] (physical) evidence for the statement.

This is just the same contradiction you have been making since the beginning

However, if alternative evidence comes up, it may not be necessary’

This sentence contradicts the first sentence.

And the evidence I have cited now at least 4 times

You haven’t posted one shred of evidence. Not one. Science isn’t empiricism.

Science is used as evidence, however you want to classify it, for the above proposition.

First, you’re back to verification criterion of meaning, yet another contradiction. Second, science is not empiricism. You cannot provide evidence because there is none. Simply shouting SCIENCE!, isn’t evidence of empiricism.

This is because it does not purport to gain knowledge divorced from study of the empirical,

Except for all that math, huh? Most hard science cannot function without rational truths. Science cannot be separated from the rational.

and it produces knowledge (as defined above) exceedingly well.

Your above statement is just the same contradiction, with a statement contradiction it tacked on to the end.

If that does not seem like evidence to you, I’d like you to explain why not.

Like I demonstrated in the beginning of the conversation, science is empirical, it is not empiricism. Science says nothing about empiricism as a theory of knowledge. You haven’t been able to post one piece of evidence, and I know that you cannot because there is no way to empirically test a theory of knowledge. Science never addresses empiricism because it cannot.

The other issue is that you want to try to weaken an otherwise viable proposition

How can a logical contradiction be viable? They are always false by definition. It clearly makes knowledge dependent on physical experience, and as we already know, that always results in a logical contradiction

with the insertion of the need for physical evidence into it. How many times will I need to point out that experience or perception need not be of anything physical? It doesn’t matter whether it is or not. To say that everything that is perceptible/experienced is physical (ie to advance materialism) may not be possible; it may be a matter of faith, but it is not entailed by empiricism.

You refused to use standard terminology because dictionaries are tautological. You don’t have any right to complain about my attempts to make sense of it.

 

[James1215]

Would you prevent all scientists from advancing a single hypothesis on the grounds that to go about evidencing it would amount to falling into verification? No, of course not. So there are the grounds for making the claim that experience is required for knowledge, just as one might claim that a certain amount of thrust is required for a rocket to escape the earth’s gravity. The use of the word ‘required’ does not undo the fact that the assertion is provisional. Because it is a claim awaiting evidence, it is not a dogma.

Alternatively, if you dogmatically assert that none of us can base belief on evidence… welcome back the flying spaghetti monster!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Would you prevent all scientists from advancing a single hypothesis on the grounds that to go about evidencing it would amount to falling into verification? No, of course not. So there are the grounds for making the claim that experience is required for knowledge, just as one might claim that a certain amount of thrust is required for a rocket to escape the earth’s gravity

Science is not empiricism and science has no more to do with empiricism than Chevrolet does. Science is not grounds to believe empiricism any more than Chevrolet is.

The use of the word ‘required’ does not undo the fact that the assertion is provisional.

If something is required it is not provisional by definition.

Because it is a claim awaiting evidence, it is not a dogma.

It is clearly a dogma as I keep demonstrating. Not that it matters. Your house burned down and now you are worried about what color it was

Alternatively, if you dogmatically assert that none of us can base belief on evidence…

No one has ever made that argument as we have repeatedly told you. Be great if you actually read our posts.

welcome back the flying spaghetti monster!

Why are you so scared of the FSM? It’s not a logical contradiction, there may or may not be one. An argument from incredulity is always a logical fallacy

 

[James1215]

Scientists are practicing empiricists if they take their work to be evidence for the hypothesis that knowledge requires experience, so that takes away your last, tangential, objection.

Finally, if a hypothesis is a hypothesis, it is a hypothesis. If an assertion is provisional upon evidence, it is a hypothesis, and not a dogma. And that is what empiricism is.

Maybe check a dictionary…?

 

[James1215]

If I asserted that the FSM existed and would decide your fate based solely upon obedience, what would you do?

To ask for evidence undermines your position, to respond that there is neither reason to believe nor disbelieve is mine.

Alternatively, to say “This is a ridiculous question” would be to miss the philosophical point in asking.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Scientists are practicing empiricists if they take their work to be evidence for the hypothesis that knowledge requires experience,

Scientists, aren’t science and science isn’t empiricism. I would suggest that most aren’t even personally empiricists, it takes too much mathematical training for that.

so that takes away your last, tangential, objection.

Hello? Logical contradiction? remember? Like I said, you’re trying to argue about the color of a house that’s already burned down. Did you not notice the last 400 posts of objections? The decades of historical objections, all the experts that object, the demonstrations disproving your position? I know that you refuse to use the quote button and actually address them, but they haven’t gone anywhere.

Finally, if a hypothesis is a hypothesis, it is a hypothesis.

So what? They are all propositions and run afoul of BR’s rule. Any proposition that makes knowledge dependent on experience is necessarily a logical contradiction.

If an assertion is provisional upon evidence, it is a hypothesis, and not a dogma. And that is what empiricism is

No really? are you sure? Why do you bother to keep repeating this? As I have repeatedly pointed out, the words “hypothesis” and “dogma” cannot save the proposition from BR.

Maybe check a dictionary…?

Why, is there something in there that shows empiricism isn’t a contradiction? How has the entire philosophical community missed it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If I asserted that the FSM existed and would decide your fate based solely upon obedience, what would you do?

I usually say “thanks, but I have a church”

To ask for evidence undermines your position,

Why? We can ask for evidence all we want. It’s like your not reading our posts at all.

to respond that there is neither reason to believe nor disbelieve is mine.

You are hardly the only person that can say those words.

Alternatively, to say “This is a ridiculous question” would be to miss the philosophical point in asking.

It’s not ridiculous, it’s essentially the same claim that all other religions make.

 

[James1215]

Lol, I think 2 things can be used here to sum up.

James: Finally, if a hypothesis is a hypothesis, it is a hypothesis.
Warpspeedpetey: So what?

You are not prepared to accept a proposition that does not conform to a logical contradiction, so that is effectively the end of meaningful debate.

 

[James1215]

And as a light-hearted way to leave this, for your reference:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Lol, I think 2 things can be used here to sum up.

James: Finally, if a hypothesis is a hypothesis, it is a hypothesis.
Warpspeedpetey: So what?

You are not prepared to accept a proposition that does not conform to a logical contradiction, so that is effectively the end of meaningful debate.

As I demonstrated, Bertrand Russell pointed out, all the experts in epistemology, the historical facts, and even the author of that paper you read have admitted. No such proposition exists. It doesn’t matter if you call it a hypothesis or not. Further, its a “hypothesis” with no evidence because you confused science and scientists, with empiricism and empiricists. You don’t even have a hypothesis, you have a bare logical contradiction.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And as a light-hearted way to leave this, for your reference:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning

dictionary.reference.com/browse/definition