A colossal accident?

[Soldier_Of_God]

All that is required is that the fundamental
principle of empiricism be an empirical hypothesis, and that it is.

A hypothesis is simply an explanation of a phenomena, which is an* interpretation *of a situation or condition. This is not necessarily knowledge or truth and, hence, the argument already fails on the onset. If empiricism is a hypothesis, how do we know the hypothesis to be true? If we prove it, it’s not a hypothesis but a matter of fact. Belief that a hypothesis is empirically valid goes well beyond the deliverances of experience. Furthermore, if there is more than one equally valid hypotheses, an empiricist has no means of deciding between the theories. Any selection or choice made by the empiricist would invalidate this form of empiricism. A belief in the truth of any one of the empirically equivalent theories is unfounded. In addition, since theories in the past have been shown to be false, we should think that current theories are potential false as well.

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.

Why is claiming there are non-empirical sources of knowledge necessarily empirical? What is the basis of the hypothesis? Anti-empiricists do not hold empirical evidence to be invalid and using empirical evidence to defend is not contrary to their position (thus not making them anti-empiricists). It would be my guess the empiricists slip into rationalist modes of thinking and the use of logic or mathematics when it suits their purposes. I find it anomalous that pure empiricists always goes beyond what perception can give in their efforts and use the tools they critique.

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.

Again, it is not contrary to use empirical evidence to support one’s position if one does not exclude it as a source of knowledge. Rationalists, nativists and so on do not argue against empirical evidence. They argue against empiricism to be the exclusive source of knowledge.

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.’

In must be noted, the author concedes that a priori knowledge is valid within the formal realm. Futhermore, his argument assumes an a priori assessment is causal in nature and therefore needs a comparison. Additionally, mechanisms for acquiring knowledge is “domain specific” and not universal as it is being alleged here. Knowledge is acquired in units and in a holistic fashion.

Empiricism, it has a number of issues as outline in previous messages (e.g. mathematics, infinitesimals, logic, etc…). As a further example, empiricism holds that the thought begins with perception. From these perceptions thought-objects are formed and with and thinking occurs. However, for the first thought-objects to be formed, there needs to be a priori thought-objects because without thought-objects there can be no thought according to empiricism. Non-empirical approaches solves this dilemma because there is some a priori knowledge necessary to form thought-objects.

 

[James1215]

Do you agree with these objections, Warpspeedpetey?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Do you agree with these objections, Warpspeedpetey?

Although presumptuous on my part, the essence of his contention is that one cannot make the assertion “all knowledge is obtained by the five senses” as one cannot observe the truth of the assertion. Now, I’m going to enjoy the long weekend here in Ontario for a while.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

Demonstrating that the people you quoted agree with me seems like a really good point to make.

If you read it,

You seem to have lost the point of the argument again. Empiricism is a logical contradiction. Logical contradictions are always false. Nothing that anyone can say changes that. This entire conversation is pointless. Your position will always be false.

any attempt to demonstrate that there is non-empirical knowledge takes the position of advancing an empirical statement.

Any attempt to demonstrate empirical knowledge takes the position of advancing a metaphysical statement.

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?

Big deal, all knowledge is a priori at some point in the logical buildup of a propisition

…my proposition that every claim has to be evidenced to be believed…

You’re still making the same logical contradiction .

If you still think mathematics counts as substantive knowledge…

1+1=2, substantive knowledge demonstrated yet again.

read the article. That issue is far from settled, and I don’t know how you’d justify that it was.

I am not going to read the article. If you cannot make the argument yourself, then it doesn’t matter what your opinion of it is because you don’t understand it well enough to know. Empiricism has been a settled issue for decades. The existence of crackpots that cannot accept the extremely simple fact that empiricism/verification/falsification are self refuting logical contradictions, does not obviate that contradiction.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

No…your source said “empirical hypothesis”. That’s the scientific method.

…sometimes, we use evidence for the purposes of arriving at knowledge.

Who is arguing that we don’t?

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.

1+1=2

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you agree with these objections, Warpspeedpetey?

I haven’t noticed any valid objections yet. Of course none of the experts could find any either. Hmmmm. Funny that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you agree with these objections, Warpspeedpetey?

Do you agree that any proposition which makes knowledge reliant on empirical experience is necessarily a logical contradiction and therefore false, James1215?

 

[James1215]

Enjoy, SoG!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Although presumptuous on my part, the essence of his contention is that one cannot make the assertion “all knowledge is obtained by the five senses” as one cannot observe the truth of the assertion. Now, I’m going to enjoy the long weekend here in Ontario for a while.

You should come south, we have a new thing here. “Instant tan”. All you have to do is walk to your car. If this weather keeps up its going to put all those tanning salons out of business.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Enjoy, SoG!

You have a nice weekend as well. I’m at my parents house right now helping buy a bungalow online. No rest just yet.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

You should come south, we have a new thing here. “Instant tan”. All you have to do is walk to your car. If this weather keeps up its going to put all those tanning salons out of business.

I might be able to take a motorcycle out for a trip down south. Being Italian by descent means I tan easy. Have a great weekend!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I might be able to take a motorcycle out for a trip down south. Being Italian by descent means I tan easy. Have a great weekend!

Manx descent means I burn like toast. Last summer I rode my bike out to the farm, 300 miles later I was a burnt to a crisp and couldn’t tell because the wind kept me cool all day. That night was pure torture! I blew that bike up and haven’t found a new scoot yet, but if you come this way some day, let me know. I live to ride.:takeoff:

 

[James1215]

‘A hypothesis is simply an explanation of a phenomena, which is an interpretation of a situation or condition. This is not necessarily knowledge or truth and, hence, the argument already fails on the onset. If empiricism is a hypothesis, how do we know the hypothesis to be true?’

Firstly, let’s think just how broad ‘experience’ is and what is included within ‘perception’. Everything is; it is impossible to feel or see or in any way sense what is not perceptible. Our lives are lived in the realm of the accessible and there is nothing outside the reaches of current, past, future or potential experience that matters to us. (Do you agree here?) This is the realm encompassed by the hypothesis ‘empiricism’, and it claims that we can only believe in the truth of a statement about the world if it has evidence for it that comes from experience. In other words, that experience is the only thing that provides for knowledge.

Hypotheses are therefore not ‘simply’ an explanation of phenomena, they can be as complex as anything. Secondly, empiricism is only to be thought true if it is evidenced, and thirdly, belief in the truth of a hypothesis such as this is always provisional, especially when it comes to the use of induction. This is not a problem for us, just a reality we face that no keenness, arrogance or desire for absolute truth can overcome. For example, we may understand a lot about gravity, the solar system and the sun and we do have the observation that it has apparently never stopped shining. From this we can inductively reason that it will shine tomorrow, and for a good while after that; this is a sound hypothesis even though we cannot be absolutely certain that it will. This is the same as flipping a coin 100 times and always getting heads – it doesn’t mean that there is no tails side, it doesn’t mean that things couldn’t change or that our observations won’t turn out to be incomplete at a crucial moment. I can accept this as the state of ‘knowledge’: something we think is true, appears to be true and works like it is true, but which we cannot be 100% sure is actually true. This applies to all the things we think of as knowledge – scientific understanding, everyday experience, skills, and other things that deal with the world of experience.

‘If we prove it, it’s not a hypothesis but a matter of fact’

From this you can see that the distinction between evidenced hypothesising and ‘fact’ is not necessary as there is no hard line separating them. Your question ‘If empiricism is a hypothesis, how do we know the hypothesis to be true’ is the necessary question, and entails demonstrating strong evidence for the position. Once evidence is given, ‘Belief that a hypothesis is empirically valid’ will not go ‘well beyond the deliverances of experience.’, because this evidence will be from our common experiences and observations. Associated with this is your point that: ‘It would be my guess the empiricists slip into rationalist modes of thinking and the use of logic or mathematics when it suits their purposes.’ But if there is evidence used to make these rationally explored analyses or speculation, there is fundamental reliance upon the evidence of experience that backs up even a distant and abstract reasoning process. This is the test of whether something is empirical, and maths fails it, being an independent logical system that tells you nothing about this world until you apply it to real life, or shape real life to fit mathematical formulae.

‘if there is more than one equally valid [competing] hypotheses, an empiricist has no means of deciding between the theories. Any selection or choice made by the empiricist would invalidate this form of empiricism.’

Firstly, if there are two competing or even contradictory evidenced hypotheses, this only enriches our understanding of reality. We may have framed one or both hypotheses badly, misinterpreted evidence, not used enough or made a faulty test, or both hypotheses may actually hold as correct. It is merely a priori thinking that tells us this cannot be. Take the example of electromagnetic radiation, is it a wave or is it a stream of particles? It’s both and also either. We can decide to use one hypothesis on the basis of its fitness for purpose in context, whilst acknowledging the ‘truth’ of the other. Or on a more mundane level, how to choose methods of transport based on the evidenced hypotheses that both the subway and cycling would work fine. Can’t do both, both routes are hypothetically adequate, so which to choose? No need to be a Buridan donkey, just pick whichever you want, in recognition of the empirical evidence, not violating it.

‘Why is claiming there are non-empirical sources of knowledge necessarily empirical?’

Claiming there are other sources of knowledge can be framed as a claim awaiting empirical evidence. How would we demonstrate the non-empirically evident? Anything that is evidenced through perception just enlarges the realm of empiricism’s grasp, and any claim made about reality which does not do this will look weak… try it. I could claim Plato’s Forms exist, you just don’t know it, or that there is an invisible Spaghetti Monster, or anything. How do I know this? From reason alone, from guesswork, from what exactly? If I cannot demonstrate how I know it, why should you believe me, and why should I believe myself?

 

[James1215]

‘Anti-empiricists do not hold empirical evidence to be invalid’

Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, but if an anti-empiricist wanted to show that the hypothesis of empiricism was false, they would have to show that we can reasonably believe that knowledge can come from somewhere outside experience.

‘it must be noted, the author concedes that a priori knowledge is valid within the formal realm’

I think the author says that while a priori statements abound in the formal realm, usefully so, one cannot prove them (merely restate them like saying 1+1=2) and also that there is no evidence that they hold outside this realm. It is outside the closed system of logic that we can have knowledge: knowledge of the experiential world; it is not knowledge to elaborate logically from principles which are given, as with maths. Outside these systems, what makes an a priori statement true of the real world? Why should we believe them? These are questions that even rationalists admit apparently cannot be answered. They have not been answered yet. One thought on this might be that reason as elaborated at great distance from the empirical can produce patent absurdities corrected by a moment’s reconnection with experience. For example, Zeno’s paradox that movement is impossible rests either on faulty reasoning or its empirical invalidity tells us that pure reason is not up to the task of describing reality.

‘empiricism holds that the thought begins with perception’

No it doesn’t, it says that wherever thoughts on reality come from, we can only believe them if we can provide evidence for them based on experience. I think your statement qualifies as an a priori statement whose truth is not demonstrated, but simply asserted: ‘for the first thought-objects to be formed, there needs to be a priori thought-objects because without thought-objects there can be no thought according to empiricism’. In a materialist conception of reality, it is possible to provide for a physical basis to thoughts/perception and from there it matters little where thoughts appear from.

Finally, the evidence for the hypothesis of empiricism:

The whole field of science or any example of being ‘proved’ right when one follows evidenced ideas counts as positive support.

On the negative side: ‘Our common empirical experience and experimental psychology offer evidence that humans do not have any capacity to garner knowledge except by empirical sources. The fact is that we believe that there is no source of knowledge, information, or evidence apart from observation, empirical scientific investigations, and our sensory experience of the world, and we believe this on the basis of our empirical a posteriori experiences and our general empirical view of how things work.’

And the author’s last point:

‘Although empiricism construed as an empirical theory does not fall victim to the two standard objections, perhaps circularity is now a problem. Supporting empiricism empirically might seem to involve circular reasoning. Aren’t I presupposing empiricism to support empiricism? Not exactly. The argument would be circular only if it presupposed the fundamental principle of empiricism, but it does not. All that it supposes is that the fundamental principle of empiricism can be supported by and undermined by empirical investigations and evidence. That there are no non-empirical sources of non-analytic knowledge is an empirical claim comparable to the claim that the Sun has eight major planets or that the Earth has only one natural satellite. The fundamental principle of empiricism is just another empirical claim, according to my view, and unless the anti-empiricist rejects all empirical claims and any possibility of empirical support for any claims, he or she must confront the fundamental principle of empiricism empirically.’

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… it is impossible to feel or see or in any way sense what is not perceptible…

Not according to the standard definition of the word “perceptible” in this context. Perception isn’t restricted to the physical senses. What was the legitimate reason you had for using personal definitions of words instead of standard terminology again? You do have a legitimate reason right?

Our lives are lived in the realm of the accessible and there is nothing outside the reaches of current, past, future or potential experience that matters to us.

By accessible you mean empirical no? If that’s the case then how can you claim to know that non empirical experience does not matter? It seems to me that as the empirical world ends for everyone, there is little more important than the non-empirical. Dust is just that, dust.

In other words, that experience is the only thing that provides for knowledge.

You’re just posing the same logical contradiction again.

Hypotheses are therefore…

Every statement made from here on in the argument relies on a premise that is demonstrably false.

Claiming there are other sources of knowledge can be framed as a claim awaiting empirical evidence.

Claiming that empirical experience is the only source of knowledge is a metaphysical claim.

How would we demonstrate the non-empirically evident? Anything that is evidenced through perception just enlarges the realm of empiricism’s grasp, and any claim made about reality which does not do this will look weak… try it.

1+1=2. See how we just demonstrated a truth without reference to the empirical?

I could claim Plato’s Forms exist, you just don’t know it, or that there is an invisible Spaghetti Monster, or anything. How do I know this? From reason alone, from guesswork, from what exactly? If I cannot demonstrate how I know it, why should you believe me, and why should I believe myself?

I just demonstrated a form, Dubito demonstrates another. Yet again.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, but if an anti-empiricist wanted to show that the hypothesis of empiricism was false, they would have to show that we can reasonably believe that knowledge can come from somewhere outside experience…
I think the author says that while a priori statements abound in the formal realm, usefully so, one cannot prove them (merely restate them like saying 1+1=2)

Given the axiomatic nature of all knowledge, nothing can really be proven. So what?

and also that there is no evidence that they hold outside this realm. It is outside the closed system of logic that we can have knowledge: knowledge of the experiential world; it is not knowledge to elaborate logically from principles which are given, as with maths.

You are still misusing the word “knowledge” to mean certainty. Knowledge actually means…What was the legitimate reason you had for not using standard terminology again?

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

When you insist on using personal definitions, it makes it extremely easy to invalidate the argument that flows from them.

Finally, the evidence for the hypothesis of empiricism:

The whole field of science or any example of being ‘proved’ right when one follows evidenced ideas counts as positive support.

Your “expert” is ignoring the logical contradiction that the verification criterion of meaning always is. The actual experts agree that on that. It couldn’t be that the guy is a crack pot huh?

On the negative side: ‘Our common empirical experience and experimental psychology offer evidence that humans do not have any capacity to garner knowledge except by empirical sources. The fact is that we believe that there is no source of knowledge, information, or evidence apart from observation, empirical scientific investigations, and our sensory experience of the world, and we believe this on the basis of our empirical a posteriori experiences and our general empirical view of how things work.’

Translated as “We insist on using logical contradictions to attempt to validate other logical contradictions!”

‘Although empiricism construed as an empirical theory does not fall victim to the two standard objections,

Except for those darn demonstrations that it does…wonder how he is missing that?

…perhaps circularity is now a problem. Supporting empiricism empirically might seem to involve circular reasoning. Aren’t I presupposing empiricism to support empiricism? Not exactly. The argument would be circular only if it presupposed the fundamental principle of empiricism, but it does not. All that it supposes is that the fundamental principle of empiricism can be supported by and undermined by empirical investigations and evidence.

Gee, the contradiction empiricism is supported by the contradictions of verification/falsicfication? Awesome. Yeah, this guy is definitely better informed than all the experts who spent decades on the subject.

That there are no non-empirical sources of non-analytic knowledge is an empirical claim comparable to the claim that the Sun has eight major planets or that the Earth has only one natural satellite…The fundamental principle of empiricism is just another empirical claim, according to my view, and…

That’s a metaphysical claim concerning a priori knowledge about the universe. It is fundamentally a claim to rationalism.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

In other words, that experience is the only thing that provides for knowledge.

You are merely regurgiating your reasoning from previous posts. So far, nothing new has been added.

Hypotheses are therefore not ‘simply’ an explanation of phenomena, they can be as complex as anything.

This is non-sequitur as is does not follow your line of reasoning in the prior paragraph. As we are considering empiricism as a valid way of determining what is observable is true, your definition of hypothesis is discrepant.

Secondly, empiricism is only to be thought true if it is evidenced.

Again, you are employing your invalid philosophical statement. How do you know it to be true if you cannot verify what your belief is true through observation?

…thirdly, belief in the truth of a hypothesis such as this is always provisional, especially when it comes to the use of induction.

Belief in the truth of a hypothesis is provisional? Then none of what you believe is necessarily true, which is why empiricism as a philosophical system is self-refuting. You cannot verify what you belief is true is actually true.

Firstly, if there are two competing or even contradictory evidenced hypotheses, this only enriches our understanding of reality.

You are side stepping the problem by stating that competing hypotheses are ‘enriching’. You still do know which one is true.

Claiming there are other sources of knowledge can be framed as a claim awaiting empirical evidence.

Knowledge being derived from non-empirical sources is not simply a claim that awaits empirical verfication. It’s knowledge regardless of verification.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, but if an anti-empiricist wanted to show that the hypothesis of empiricism was false, they would have to show that we can reasonably believe that knowledge can come from somewhere outside experience.

Again, you argue that non-empirical sourced evidence needs to be empirically validated. We have demonstrated that knowledge does not require empirical observation to be true.

I think the author says that while a priori statements abound in the formal realm, usefully so, one cannot prove them (merely restate them like saying 1+1=2) and also that there is no evidence that they hold outside this realm.

Then the author needs to reasonably demonstrate that 1+1=2 outside the formal realm cannot be true and empircally demonstrate this case. Regardless, they hold a truth and, therefore, can be used to derive knowledge.

Outside these systems, what makes an a priori statement true of the real world?

The are true because of their inherent meaning. You will never have a condition where that isn’t the case.

Why should we believe them?

Because such statements are always reflective of the actual conditions.

These are questions that even rationalists admit apparently cannot be answered. They have not been answered yet.

Source?

Zeno’s paradox that movement is impossible rests either on faulty reasoning or its empirical invalidity tells us that pure reason is not up to the task of describing reality.

A strawman argument. No one here arguing that logical reasoning is sole source of describing reality.

No it doesn’t, it says that wherever thoughts on reality come from, we can only believe them if we can provide evidence for them based on experience.

Which is why empiricism is cannot hold for initial thought-objects.

I think your statement qualifies as an a priori statement whose truth is not demonstrated, but simply asserted: ‘for the first thought-objects to be formed, there needs to be a priori thought-objects because without thought-objects there can be no thought according to empiricism’.

It can be logically demonstrated. If you do not have any* a priori* thought-objects, then how can one form the thoughts nececessary to begin thinking? Empiricial philosophy holds that thought begins with perception and observation. If that is the case, in order for initial thought-objects to be formed we must understand (at some level) what is being perceived. How can that be without a priori knowledge?

In a materialist conception of reality, it is possible to provide for a physical basis to thoughts/perception and from there it matters little where thoughts appear from.

Please provide this “physical” basis then.

And the author’s last point:

‘Although empiricism construed as an empirical theory does not fall victim to the two standard objections, perhaps circularity is now a problem. Supporting empiricism empirically might seem to involve circular reasoning. Aren’t I presupposing empiricism to support empiricism? ’

The author asserts some statements whose truth or falsehood cannot be verified empirically. Somewhat ironic I think. He again asserts the verification principle of empiricisim, which cannot be observed to be true.

 

[James1215]

Woah! The amount of misunderstanding here is epic. I’d say refer to the article, everything I’m saying is linked to that: ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/defense_of_naive_empiricism.pdf

Several points though.

-Verification can be brought down without bringing down naive empiricism (as the article explains).

-The hypothesis is that experience is required for knowledge; this hypothesis is evidenced and that makes empiricism not a logical failure. Do we all see?

-The fact that we cannot be certain but must have belief that something is true allows this position to be non-contradictory, because empiricism ‘if true cannot be known to be true’ as BR and others said.

-Doubt is either empirically evident, or the doubt issue merely claims to know that perception is unreliable therefore that it should be doubted. How this would be upheld I don’t see, because what perspective do we have outside our perspective that we could use to doubt the first perspective?

-Maths is a non-issue because it is removed from reality. 1+1=2 is already given from the agreement of what 1 and 2 are, and these need not be arrived at with any consideration of reality. Maths tells us nothing of what is here, it is applied maths that helps ie maths+empirical.

Something to add:

My question: ‘what makes an a priori statement true of the real world?’

SoG: ‘The are true because of their inherent meaning. You will never have a condition where that isn’t the case.’

This claim would be a softer target than moderate empiricism I feel! Do we have any a priori statements we believe and are willing to admit to? One potent one is that the universe had to have come from nothing. Seems ok, but then why should it? Why should we take that as a priori true? The universe might not have been caused, we don’t know. And with other a priori statements, why should we care? Bachelors are single… green aliens are green… martian bachelors are single and green… These statements might ring true and have plenty of meaning, but does that make them true? Can we gain from them any knowledge of whether there was life on Mars?

 

[James1215]

Also, if the example of Zeno getting his knickers in a twist (UK idiom…) is taken as a straw man for your position when you do not claim that reason alone is sufficient, then I think that statement betrays fundamental agreement between us! I also think that reason alone is insufficient for knowledge, but you think that basing every bit of reasoning on the empirical is invalid? What else do we have then, if we cannot rely upon reason as the basis, nor upon experience?