No
…it’s not actually a problem that people don’t all agree with what the reason is and that doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason anyway.That’s what we keep demonstrating for you.
We know. He is just pushing long dead arguments. There is a reason he admits…
He wants the rest of the philosophical community to change their mind. You aren’t quoting from a mainstream source. I could find any crackpot who supports a position I hope to be true. Not to mention the construal of empiricism as empirical assumes empricism is true. Oh wait, he explains that as a function of verif…but wait…he…lol
since both are logical contradictions, both are necessarily false.
Where is this evidence that empirical experience is required for knowledge?
Since all knowledge is uncertain, that is empirical evidence that empiricism is true, or it is verification that verificationism is true? What?
Why do you keep repeating this? It’s obviously not true. Unless doubt has become something one can observe with their 5 senses since I last checked.
Noooo…it demonstrates that the only object that we can be certain of is Dubito… It proves beyond any doubt (pun intended) that the only thing we can be certain of is a platonic form. In other words it disproves your contention that we cannot prove the existence of non-empirical phenomenon.
What does this mean?
You’re still misusing words “reality” doesn’t mean the physical world as you us eit here. What was that legitimate reason you had to refuse to use standard terminology again? Further, you are assuming that to be true or meaningful a statement needs empirical evidence. Which is just the same contradiction as before.
We do not think reason alone is insufficient for knowledge. As we have demonstrated empiricism is invalid because it is a logical contradiction. You continually misstate what our position is, he just told you for the umpteenth time
I would agree. I think sourcing a document one does not fully comprehend leads to this sort of condition. It appears you would have others do your ‘heavy lifting’ in terms of discussion.
You* feel*? I hope this is an attempt at humour.
It would appear your reasoning would entail that things or concepts do not mean what they are defined as meaning. Truth is that which conforms with reality and nothing more. Insisting that empiricism defines the truth of reality is the self-refuting concept you adhere to in this thread.
My position is that sense-experience is the prime source of knowledge. However, I do not hold that all knowledge is a posteriori.
Truth deals with reality and refers to it. The source of truth is irrelevant. You need to consider that empiricism is not the sole purveyor of truth.
It’s my opinion you are merely supposing what the article is true because you accredit it to defend your position. However, I will review the article in more depth if that would be your preference. Let me know what are your requirements for equitable review and, if you can, define your interpretation of any disputed terms to be as clear as possible for me.
The quote button is under the clockwise arrow on the toolbar above. Just highlight the text you are referring to and click it for the quote tags.
This guy isn’t a mile ahead, he is a mile behind. He is regurgitating arguments that are long dead and attempting to excuse them with arguments long dead as well. Weak empiricism was an attempt to escape self refutation. It is “empiricism” in name only. The purpose of which was to exclude metaphysical statements. Weak empiricism does not do that.
Yes, there are a few, but they are not nearly considered mainstream, and haven’t been for decades. Like I said, there are a lot of crackpots long on desire and short on logic.
Doubt that anything exists. Now that you are doubting the existence of anything, what is left? Doubt. Can you doubt, doubt? of Course. In the process you prove that doubt exists.
Here is your opportunity to change the world and history, You will be famous forever more if you can only show empirical evidence that empiricism is true. Please show me this evidence that no one else has ever found.
Unless you have empirical evidence that empiricism is true it is certainly contradictory.
As the premise that empiricism is evidenced and therefore not a contradiction is demonstrably false, this conclusion must be as well.
Verification criterions of meaning are still logical contradictions.
You still haven’t been able to make an argument against mathematics or Dubito, you have asserted that doubt is somehow empirical, and that math doesn’t mean anything unless it refers to the physical world. Both of which rely on presupposing that empiricism is a valid theory of knowledge.
Empiricism is still a logical contradiction. None of your arguments change that even it is true. (unless you have empirical evidence that empiricism is a valid theory of knowledge like you claim above.)
There are thousands of unread papers, are we to read any that you want us too? Please
You are still misusing the language. Reality doesn’t just refer to the empirical. What was the legitimate reason you had for not using standard terminology again?
Sure, where is the evidence that you claim evidences empiricism? I don’t think you can formulate this claim without relying on the verification criterions of meaning which are well known contradictions.
No requirements when you read it, just reading it will do.
Where else do you think knowledge comes from? I would answer that for you, but I want to know I’m not misrepresenting you or misunderstanding.
Then do so.
Then provide it.
If you are not verifying the truth of the statement with the evidence, then what is the evidence for?
Since we have demonstrated that both premises are impossible, the conclusion here is necessarily false.
Why can’t you just make the argument? If you understand it well enough to know its right in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, then surely you don’t need me to do your work for you? It’s your responsibility to present an argument. If I want to argue with the author, I would email him.
Because this particular debate has been settled for decades. As even the author of the paper indicates.
Who claimed he was? Just because I do not agree with everything he said does not mean he was wrong on this very simple point about empiricism.As appealing as that might be, let’s not forget your authority is a man who wrote Why I’m Not a Christian. Perhaps he is not authoritative on everything…
It will be easier just as soon as you start to follow intellectual norms. Using the language correctly, doing your own research and argumentation, and so on. The only issue here is how long it will take you to admit what everyone else already knows. Surely you understand that all these things make us think that you are desperately trying to save your cherished belief?
You just said that you can only accept empirically observed non-empirical knowledge. Yet another logical contradiction.
The scientific method is empirical, it is not empiricism. Even were that true, it would still be false because logical contradictions are always false.
You forgot to doubt that you exist. Since this is actually a common argument against the implied “I” of Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum, you have misunderstood the wiki, or whoever you happen to be quoting. Hence our use of Dubito as opposed to Cogito Ergo Sum. Now that you have agreed with us that Dubito is experienced, welcome to Rationalism.
You are still making the contradiction. As I pointed out, Russell pointed out and the experts involved found after decades of research, whenever you put forth a proposition where knowledge is dependent on experience, it is a logical contradiction. We do not understand why this isn’t blindingly obvious to you as it is to everyone else.
I haven’t seen any empirical evidence from either of you that empirical evidence is necessary for knowledge. Neither has anyone else. Ever. Feel free to post this world changing evidence.
Now you are presupposing the contradiction is true.
If he says that physical evidence is necessary to think that Empiricism is true, then he is proposing a verification criterion of meaning. The evidence verifies the hypothesis so to speak.
The vast majority of the professionals that disagree with him know a lot as well. Why aren’t you reading them?..because they deny that your cherished belief is true.
This isn’t about you personally…is that why you cannot admit that empiricism is false? Do you think if empiricism is wrong, that means that you personally are at fault? Of course it doesn’t.
In my view, it can come from an aggregate of reasoning (e.g. probability, deductive, inductive) and from empirical sources. As an aside, I’ll hopefully be able to get to the article shortly.
As the proposition"experience (physical evidence) is required for knowledge" is a dogmatic assertion by definition, and it is a contradiction as demonstrated, you have just admitted our point.
You said
You are still forgetting to doubt that you exist, but no matter. You admitted to experiencing a rational object. You are now a rationalist. Welcome to reality.
…on it’s head, you just admitted that empiricism is a contradiction.Empiricism is still standing
