A colossal accident?

[Sean_Conerly]

I don’t know who originally put this up here, but I think it’s just lovely.

1. Nothing need exist.
2. Order needn’t exist.
3. Complexity needn’t exist.
4. Life needn’t exist.
5. Consciousness needn’t exist.
6. Intelligence needn’t exist.
7. Self-control needn’t exist.
8. Goodness needn’t exist.
9. Beauty needn’t exist.
10. Love needn’t exist.

To think everything exists for no reason is absurd…

I’d like to add that it’s pretty darn incredible the existence exists!! It makes more sense to me that someone would think there is a Creator that isn’t active on a personal level than that there is none at all. Though for me, I can see that God works on a personal level.

 

[James1215]

What is seems to you may not be what it is. It seems to me that you have created the confusion by conflating several term critical to understanding the topic at hand.

Yes, I may have done, though I do have the recollection that I explained why I thought the perceptible was the physical in a physics sense several times. This didn’t need to lead to the present confusion. Anyway, no matter who is confused or not it does not change the fact that materialism and empiricism are separate issues.

 

[davidv]

Yes, I may have done, though I do have the recollection that I explained why I thought the perceptible was the physical in a physics sense several times. This didn’t need to lead to the present confusion. Anyway, no matter who is confused or not it does not change the fact that materialism and empiricism are separate issues.

Not only that, they don’t appear to be on topic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…no matter who is confused …

There is no question to who is one who is confused. Using standard language would help you out a lot.

…or not it does not change the fact that materialism and empiricism are separate issues.

You are the only person talking about materialism.

 

[James1215]

Soldier of God, I did not seek empirical verification of maths, I actually argued maths and the empirical were different – not arguing they are one and the same. Maths is not evidence of the properties of reality (not certainly) because various concepts such as those of infinity are regarded as impossible in reality. I get the feeling we will not agree on the issue of the interrelation of maths and empirical reality.

Warpspeedpetey, However, when we do look at the application of mathematical formulae to real life, we can only do this when we know that the formula fits. How can you use maths without checking which theory to use? That is not the verification that was tacked onto positivism/empiricism, and verification is unnecessary to empiricism so why bother attacking it? Experts and history do not matter to the truth of a proposition, so another thing that irks me is why you would seem to suggest that I conform on a matter as if that would make it true.

As you keep ignoring what I’m saying in the hope that it will fit the format of a failed dogmatism, if I were you I’d read that article defending empiricism, which I am about to quote to you anyway.

As to missing the issue with a hang up over materialism conflated with empiricism. There is a distinction there which I believe was missed, and that might be the cause of your objection to my original position that statements have to be evidenced to be believed. You again appeal to a populist notion that I shouldn’t criticise experts, when this is not only a poor line to take but an irrelevant one. All I said there was that we’re missing the issue!

The assumption that empirical evidence must be physical… Empirical evidence is that which is perceived, simple as that. We seem to agree that sense perception is not of that beyond the physical, or perhaps, not ‘supernatural’ as I would say. However, sense perception can be of anything and my position is the same: needing evidence for statements.

David, Yes this is definitely straying off topic, but it does address the fundamentals of the original post. If one were to assert that we were/were not a colossal accident, one would need evidence. Unless of course WSP is right, and this is not tenable and instead, one can say anything and expect it to be equally well received.

I suppose, to summarise for now, my thinking is:

The only reality we have access to is that through our perceptions and experience. (Which is a tautology of some sort)

To have knowledge we have to be aware of the truth of a statement about this reality.

To have awareness we have to comprehend as evidence something which has a bearing on this reality.

Empirical evidence is that which is perceptible, so it includes all the available evidence to use.

I do not say statements have to have evidence to be true, nor that they have to be verifiable or falsifiable, nor do I mention meaningfulness. If we accept that knowledge is separate from truth, that it is only of the perceptible world and that we require evidence from a reality to which we have access, the only question is why we should bother to support a position at all. The answer is that we have no reason to believe or disbelieve anything without evidence. As a result, we have to have empirical evidence for knowledge. Note this is a result, not a first principle, based on what ‘knowledge’ and ‘empirical’ are

Evidence would be the effectiveness of using evidence to come to conclusions about reality, such as whether to board a plane (will it fly?). Yes this is only tested against our perception, but our experience is the totality of our experience! I cannot think of an academic discipline in which success can be achieved without the use of evidence, nor a professional scenario nor specifically the police/criminal justice system. Even in the most mundane personal interactions, we do not believe that for which we have no evidence without facing the consequences! Prejudice, false assumptions, ignorance are exposed quickly enough. Here is my reasoning and evidence, the steps of thought and the consistencies laid bare. It cannot be reduced to a dogmatic statement, whether it is empiricism or not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, I may have done, though I do have the recollection that I explained why I thought the perceptible was the physical in a physics sense several times. This didn’t need to lead to the present confusion. Anyway, no matter who is confused or not it does not change the fact that materialism and empiricism are separate issues.

I have a recollection of pointing out that all particles are particles so to speak. When you tried to make that argument .You don’t get to make up your own meaning of words. Your insistence on using the incorrect terminology is why you are confused. I do not understand why you won’t just use the words the rest of us do with this subject. I cannot think of a legitimate reason for not using standard terminology.

 

[James1215]

No I understand the terms well, my problem is assuming that others will pay attention and not ‘adapt’ meaning expediently. In that bit on physical in a physics sense but not physical in an intuitive sense you saw my materialism. However, this elaboration is only an elaboration and with regards to empiricism it is not necessary. So as this is not a substantive point but instead apparently only another opportunity for ad hominem, let’s move on.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know who originally put this up here, but I think it’s just lovely.

1. Nothing need exist.
2. Order needn’t exist.
3. Complexity needn’t exist.
4. Life needn’t exist.
5. Consciousness needn’t exist.
6. Intelligence needn’t exist.
7. Self-control needn’t exist.
8. Goodness needn’t exist.
9. Beauty needn’t exist.
10. Love needn’t exist.

To think everything exists for no reason is absurd…

I’d like to add that it’s pretty darn incredible the existence exists!! It makes more sense to me that someone would think there is a Creator that isn’t active on a personal level than that there is none at all. Though for me, I can see that God works on a personal level.

Welcome to the party, Sean! Thanks for your appreciative comment.

It would be very odd if God didn’t work on a personal level in view of the teaching of Jesus!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Soldier of God, I did not seek empirical verification of maths,…

Verificationism is a contradiction. No one is saying it’s the exact same thing

Warpspeedpetey, However, when we do look at the application of mathematical formulae to real life, we can only do this when we know that the formula fits.

No we don’t. 1=1+2, I can keep demonstrating this simple proof you are wrong as lomg as you can pretend you don’t see it.

How can you use maths without checking which theory to use?

What theories are you talking about? just like this 1+1=2, no theories, no empiricism, nada. a true statement made without any of the things you keep insisting are necessary.

That is not the verification that was tacked onto positivism/empiricism, and verification is unnecessary to empiricism so why bother attacking it?

That certainly is a verification criterion of meaning. You are trying to make mathematical truths dependent on physical experience.

Experts and history do not matter to the truth of a proposition, so another thing that irks me is why you would seem to suggest that I conform on a matter as if that would make it true.

What seems to irk you is to be proven wrong. The fact that you won’t accept demonstrations of the matter, you won’t accept out right statements from people like Russell who were both atheists and world famous logicians. Not only him but all the well trained and knowledgeable people that spent decades, entire careers trying to make it work. You outright reject historical fact. It is true they may all be wrong, but as you admit to not knowing much about it, you have no reason not to accept what has been demonstrated, to you. Yet you continue to do so.

As you keep ignoring what I’m saying in the hope that it will fit the format of a failed dogmatism,

I haven’t ignored you at all I have used your own word to demonstrate that Russell is right. Every time you try to make knowledge dependent on physical experience you will make a contradiction.

if I were you I’d read that article defending empiricism, which I am about to quote to you anyway.

Since I used his qoute from Russell, and mentioned the first time, maybe I might have seen it. Like I said, boring dissertations don’t mean much.

As to missing the issue with a hang up over materialism conflated with empiricism. There is a distinction there which I believe was missed, and that might be the cause of your objection to my original position that statements have to be evidenced to be believed.

My objection is because of the logically contradictory nature of such propositions as Russell pointed out.

You again appeal to a populist notion that I shouldn’t criticise experts, when this is not only a poor line to take but an irrelevant one. All I said there was that we’re missing the issue!

I am not claiming they are right because they are experts, I am claiming that you don’t have the necessary tools to reject the historical facts. A guy that admits to not knowing a subject doesn’t have a rational basis to reject the decades of history and hundreds of experts involved. I wouldn’t pretend to be an expert on exegetical expert, thats not my bag. But I certainly wouldn’t dismiss decades of work by hundreds of learned men as piffle because I didn’t like the outcome of that work.

The assumption that empirical evidence must be physical…

That’s what it means. No assumption to it.

Empirical evidence is that which is perceived, simple as that.

Nope. empirical evidence can be perceived, just as many non-empirical things can. You don’t get to make up words.

We seem to agree that sense perception is not of that beyond the physical, or perhaps, not ‘supernatural’ as I would say. However, sense perception can be of anything and my position is the same: needing evidence for statements.

Back to the same logical contradiction. Making knowledge dependent on physical evidence. sense perception only means the 5 regular senses to me.

… Unless of course WSP is right, and this is not tenable and instead, one can say anything and expect it to be equally well received.

As we have told you several times, that’s a false idea. One does not have to accept any statement as true simply because empiricism is a logical contradiction.

I suppose, to summarise for now, my thinking is:

The only reality we have access to is that through our -]perceptions and experience. /-] (physical senses) (Which is a tautology of some sort)

We have demonstrated that this is both false and not a tautology. let me do so again. 1+1=2 and Dubito.

To have knowledge we have to be aware of the truth of a statement about this reality.

This logical contradiction is always false as we have repeatedly demonstrated and all the experts attest too. Historical fact.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…

To have awareness we have to comprehend as evidence something which has a bearing on this reality.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No I understand the terms well,

If that were true, ytou would be using them correctly. Instead of standard terms your inventing your own words.

my problem is assuming that others will pay attention and not ‘adapt’ meaning expediently.

Its not adaptation, its restoration. Just use the standard terms.

In that bit on physical in a physics sense but not physical in an intuitive sense you saw my materialism. However, this elaboration is only an elaboration and with regards to empiricism it is not necessary. So as this is not a substantive point but instead apparently only another opportunity for ad hominem, let’s move on.

This doesn’t have anything to do with an ad hom. You are just refusing to use terms correctly, and we see no legitimate reason for you to do so.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Soldier of God, I did not seek empirical verification of maths, I actually argued maths and the empirical were different – not arguing they are one and the same. Maths is not evidence of the properties of reality (not certainly) because various concepts such as those of infinity are regarded as impossible in reality. I get the feeling we will not agree on the issue of the interrelation of maths and empirical reality.

If I understand you, your belief is that *all *mathematics cannot provide evidence because a few mathematical concepts, such as infinity, are believed to be impossible in reality because you read some person perhaps believes it to true. Ultimately, this is not only a significant shift from your original objections, it’s contrived logic and demonstrates your inability of unwillingness to come to reason. What’s does this line of thought have to do with mathematics being useful as a tool to derive knowledge, I don’t rationally know. No one argued mathematics and empirical observations to be the same, they’re different methods or modes of acquiring knowledge.

I would agree that we will not agree.

 

[James1215]

Russell who were both atheists and world famous logicians. Not only him but all the well trained and knowledgeable people that spent decades, entire careers trying to make it work. You outright reject historical fact. It is true they may all be wrong, but as you admit to not knowing much about it, you have no reason not to accept what has been demonstrated, to you. Yet you continue to do so.
I haven’t ignored you at all I have used your own word to demonstrate that Russell is right.

Since I used his qoute from Russell, and mentioned the first time, maybe I might have seen it. Like I said, boring dissertations don’t mean much.

All I can say is: dude! The article is about 14 pages long, well referenced and versed in the very history you claim to know all about (also, you’re using empirical, common sense knowledge in mentioning it). BR is known for having put philosophical issues accessibly but not always perfectly. I suggest you do look at the article because (1) you have committed yourself to it by quoting from it and saying you know this stuff; (2) it deals with your issues with empiricism in a non-inflammatory way; (3) it is educational on different types of rationalism and empiricism, like moderate varieties which might be like a prodigal son moment for you(!) Jokes aside, it’s clear.

Ultimately, I think it makes sense of why we don’t see eye to eye on:

a priori statements/knowledge;
Maths and whether it is substantive or just analytic;
Whether moderate rationalism is actually empiricism;
Emprical/empiricism, and whether empiricism can be empirically verified;
The value of the experience of God, the evidence of common sense.

I guess it means that my position is akin to a moderate empiricism, and that it does not fail. There is a lot to learn here and I am not content to spend my time disagreeing with you, wasting forum space etc etc, when the philosophy of real value is sitting there condensed into a lively and short article.

Highly recommended reading for all:

A Defense of “Naïve” Empiricism: It is Neither Self-Refuting nor Dogmatic
ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/defense_of_naive_empiricism.pdf

 

[James1215]

It finishes on the 11th page

 

[warpspeedpetey]

All I can say is: dude! The article is about 14 pages long, well referenced and versed in the very history you claim to know all about

So are thousands of other papers on it. Why should I care about that particular one?

(also, you’re using empirical, common sense knowledge in mentioning it).

So what? Why do you think that matters?

…BR is known for having put philosophical issues accessibly but not always perfectly…

x–>y is about as simple as propositions get.

I suggest you do look at the article because (1) you have committed yourself to it by quoting from it and saying you know this stuff;

I haven’t committed myself to it at all, he had a convenient copy of BR’s quote to use. “Knowing this stuff” doesn’t obligate me to do anything either. If you want to make his argument than do so. If you cannot, then you don’t know if the argument is correct and cannot assert it is simply because you like his conclusions. Like I said, the world is full of crackpots, simply because they make an argument doesn’t mean anything if you can’t make it stick.

(2) it deals with your issues with empiricism in a non-inflammatory way; (3) it is educational on different types of rationalism and empiricism, like moderate varieties which might be like a prodigal son moment for you(!) Jokes aside, it’s clear.

The only thing inflammatory is your insistence on ignoring overwhelming evidence disproving your position and your refusal to use standard terminology.

Ultimately, I think it makes sense of why we don’t see eye to eye on:

We don’t see eye to eye because you refuse proof contradictory to your position. All the experts, all of history and all the demonstrations prove you wrong.

I guess it means that my position is akin to a moderate empiricism, and that it does not fail.

Yes it does, as we have repeatedly demonstrated to you, using your own words. When you admit to believing a logical contradiction is true, then you admit believing in the impossible. It’s like believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. What good is it too call yourself an atheist if you have to have a greater faith then the people who believe in a G-d that you claim doesn’t exist? After all, at least our beliefs are logically possible.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It finishes on the 11th page

Feel free to make his argument. If you can’t then how can you claim to believe it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

 

[James1215]

So are thousands of other papers on it. Why should I care about that particular one?

If you have read thousands of other papers on empiricism, then maybe you would have good reason to ignore this one, but I don’t think this is the case.

All the experts, all of history and all the demonstrations prove you wrong.

Well, maybe not all. The one given in the article somehow has no problem.

Here is a nugget from it in favour of empiricism:

‘Contrary to Russell, empiricism construed as an empirical theory is not selfrefuting. The fundamental principle of empiricism is an empirical hypothesis … If we
demand certainty for knowledge, Russell is correct that empiricism “…cannot, if true,
be known to be so,” but knowledge of the fundamental principle of empiricism is not
necessary to avoid self-refutation. All that is required is that the fundamental
principle of empiricism be an empirical hypothesis, and that it is.’

And here is one that counters a rejection of empiricism:

‘To deny the fundamental principle of empiricism the metaphysician must
claim that it is false: he must claim that there are non-empirical sources of knowledge,
but this also is an empirical claim that has been defended on empirical grounds by
anti-empiricists. Kurt Gödel argued that our capacity for mathematics demonstrates
that humans can “perceive” abstract eternal objects as clearly as we perceive physical
objects. More recently Noam Chomsky has argued for a version of Cartesian
rationalism based on innate ideas. His evidence for his theory of innate ideas is
empirical. That humans do not have any sources of non-empirical knowledge is an
empirical hypothesis and the person who would deny it should present evidence as
such against it’

Here is something on rationality:

‘BonJour (1998), who styles himself a moderate rationalist, argues that there
must be a priori knowledge because without it no knowledge beyond what is
immediately observable would be possible. Since there is such knowledge, we must
have a priori knowledge. However, as admitted by BonJour, this only establishes that
we have a priori knowledge of principles of reasoning and inference. As already
conceded, the moderate empiricist can (and probably must) admit that basic logic and
mathematics are a priori. The interesting issue between the rationalist and the
empiricist is whether a priori knowledge extends beyond these formal realms. In
order to establish that we have access to substantive a priori knowledge rationalists
would need to provide answers to three questions: 1. What is the mechanism? 2. Why
is there no wide agreement? 3. What reliable methods of reaching agreement are
available where there is disagreement? Lacking satisfying answers to these three
questions leaves rationalism without any visible means of support.’

If you want to understand these quotes fully you will need to read the context, ie read the very article which contradicts you. Good luck.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you have read thousands of other papers on empiricism,

Please post where I claimed to have read thousands of papers on epistemology.

then maybe you would have good reason to ignore this one, but I don’t think this is the case.

I am not ignoring it. I am just not interested in reading another boring paper. If you understand the argument, then you can make it, and if you don’t, then it doesn’t matter anyway

Well, maybe not all. The one given in the article somehow has no problem.

Which one? One after they gave up or one of the crackpots since?

Here is a nugget from it in favour of empiricism:

…The fundamental principle of empiricism is an empirical hypothesis …

Only in the scientific method does one form empirical hypothesis. Science is empirical it is not empiricism. Remember?

…If we
demand certainty for knowledge, Russell is correct…

Your expert just agreed with me.

And here is one that counters a rejection of empiricism:

‘To deny the fundamental principle of empiricism the metaphysician must
claim that it is false: … and the person who would deny it should present evidence as
such against it’

And that is exactly what we repeatedly demonstrated for you.

Here is something on rationality:

… As already
conceded, the moderate empiricist can (and probably must) admit that basic logic and
mathematics are a priori…

Here is your expert telling you the same thing we have been telling you.

If you want to understand these quotes fully you will need to read the context, ie read the very article which contradicts you. Good luck.

Nope.

 

[James1215]

I quoted balanced arguments from it, and your trying to use them against me is fruitless.

If you read it, any attempt to demonstrate that there is non-empirical knowledge takes the position of advancing an empirical statement. A priori is a way of categorising a type of statement, not of conferring truth on that statement. He cites problems with a priori statements such as:

'rationalists have never offered any acceptable explanation for how human beings might get substantive a priori knowledge (or non-substantive a priori knowledge for that matter). Even such a friend of the a priori as Christopher Peacocke admits that there is no explanation for our supposed a priori knowledge of the propositions he offers as examples:

‘It is often clear that a proposition is a priori, while the nature of the justification or entitlement for belief in the proposition remains unclear. When this combination obtains, it is a task for a philosophical theorist of the a priori to explain what the justification or entitlement is… The identification of the full nature of the entitlement that sustains a priori knowledge, as opposed to its existence, is an open question in almost all the domains mentioned above’’ [p. 5]

To put it another way, if we have an a priori statement about reality, why on earth should we believe it? How does one know or have reason to think that the statement is true?

He offers empirical evidence to suggest that we do not have a capacity for rational apprehension of the non-empirical. But the point is, if someone thought we did and showed this, the very demonstration would conform to my proposition that every claim has to be evidenced to be believed. That person would make the non-empirical knowledge become empirical:

‘For example, we believe on empirical evidence that humans are continuous with the rest of nature and that we rely like other animals on our senses to tell us how things are. If humans are more successful than other animals, it is not because we possess special non-experiential ways of knowing, but because we are better at cooperating, collating, and inferring. In particular we do not have any capacity for substantive a priori knowledge. There is no known mechanism by which such knowledge would be made possible. This is an empirical claim’ [p. 5]

If you still think mathematics counts as substantive knowledge, read the article. That issue is far from settled, and I don’t know how you’d justify that it was.

 

[James1215]

As to science being the only place for hypotheses.

This shows your willingness to apply your conception over someone else’s, or to try to insist on alternative definitions for your purposes.

If empiricism as a position is fundamentally an empirical hypothesis, that is what it is! We make the statement, we decide what the statement is. You might as well just say “Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong!” and be done with it. As the article mentions, moderate empiricism takes as its evidence even common sense, intuition and the experience of God, and as its hypotheses ordinary beliefs. This does not require a labcoat to practice…

Anyway, because you thought you agreed with a few things from the article quotes, perhaps we can all admit that, sometimes, we use evidence for the purposes of arriving at knowledge. Whether that is the only way is not certain, but if we wanted to be certain, we’d have to see other methods in action. Given that reliance upon evidence is supposed to be consistent with Christianity, as Jesus presented himself empirically to men, who wrote empirically apparent books about him, what is the fuss about?