A colossal accident?

[James1215]

Very good! This shows that not all of what a dictionary contains are tautological statements, some are synthetic. However, there is no necessary connection between all the contents of a dictionary and what really exists. Take the Enamel God:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/pray+to+the+enamel+god

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Very good! This shows that not all of what a dictionary contains are tautological statements, some are synthetic. However, there is no necessary connection between all the contents of a dictionary and what really exists.

Then this can’t be why you refused to use standard terminology. There is no connection between the definitions that you give words and what really exists either. So what then is the legitimate reason you have to not use standard terminology like every one else?

 

[James1215]

I don’t think it needs further explaining, but I’ll say it again. I would not consult a dictionary to tell me what the nature of knowledge is, but instead what is the definition of knowledge. Just 'cause the book says x don’t make it so! Dictionaries are first and foremost about the use of language, and they are not held to account based on whether their meanings correspond with reality, but based on their correspondence with use. It would be no good going to a dictionary to preempt what I’m typing or hypothesising, nor would a dictionary be able to test it.

Take ‘the’ definition of empiricism:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/empiricism

No.3 is an older English use still apparently lingering, which I know from reading Raywond Williams’s Keywords entry on it is not philosophical criticism. The medical context makes it amount to an insult to accuse someone of empiricism, but not refutation.

Indeed, it does not say: “Empiricism: the defunct epistemological self-contradiction exposed in the course of History and now just an object of curiosity”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t think it needs further explaining, but I’ll say it again.

No need. I just demonstrated why your excuse was a false statement. As you have found out, if you repeat a long defeated argument, I will simply repeat the refutation. Ignoring what I say does not work.

I would not consult a dictionary to tell me what the nature of knowledge is,

This statement has nothing to do with using standard language like everyone else.

but instead what is the definition of knowledge.

This is another false statement. You have not been using standard terminology. The entire point of this fairytale is to explain why you have not been consulting a dictionary and using standard terminology.

Just 'cause the book says x don’t make it so!

Yes in the case of dictionaries it certainly does. That’s the point of a dictionary.

Dictionaries are first and foremost about the use of language,

No, they are simple indices that standardize the definitions of words.

and they are not held to account based on whether their meanings correspond with reality,

This is another statement that has nothing to do with using standard language like everyone else.

but based on their correspondence with use.

BINGO! That’s the purpose of a dictionary! A Standard terminology!

It would be no good going to a dictionary to preempt what I’m typing or hypothesising, nor would a dictionary be able to test it.

This is another statement that has nothing to do with using standard terminology like everyone else.

Take ‘the’ definition of empiricism:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/empiricism

No.3 is an older English use still apparently lingering, which I know from reading Raywond Williams’s Keywords entry on it is not philosophical criticism. The medical context makes it amount to an insult to accuse someone of empiricism, but not refutation.

This is another statement that has nothing to do with using standard terminology like everyone else.

Indeed, it does not say: “Empiricism: the defunct epistemological self-contradiction exposed in the course of History and now just an object of curiosity”

Of course not, it’s not a history book. Yet all the experts, all the historical facts and all the demonstrations prove your position is wrong, empiricism has been dead as a theory of knowledge for decades. Even the author of the paper agrees. You, a person unfamiliar with the topic, have no basis on which to disagree. It’s all cognitive dissonance. Not too worry though, I will help you through the reduction for as long as necessary.

 

[James1215]

lol! Well read past the first 2 pages and the author argues for empiricism. Hence the title, a defense of naive empiricism.

Anyway, I didn’t use a dictionary because I defined my terms adequately. For example, empiricism as a hypothesis.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

lol! Well read past the first 2 pages and the author argues for empiricism. Hence the title, a defense of naive empiricism.

It’s the final paragraph. BTW, there is not one single argument in that paper. It’s all talk and no logic. Please print any logic the author used because I didn’t see any symbolic statements at all. None.

…Where, then, does the construal of empiricism as empirical leave contemporary analytic metaphysics? Many of us have been suffering from metaphysical intoxication for the last thirty years or so, mainly brought on by the work of Kripke, Lewis, and others. We‟ve had a ball these last thirty years with metaphysics, now it‟s time to return to our senses.

This isn’t the conclusion to an argument, its a plea to ignore logic and historical facts. Notice it’s not published in a peer reviewed journal?

Anyway, I didn’t use a dictionary because I defined my terms adequately.

Here again you make an obviously false excuse. If adequacy of definition is the goal then the dictionary gives a much more adequate definition than you can. Do you have another excuse to not use the standard terminology like everyone else?

For example, empiricism as a hypothesis.

You do know that “hypothesis” is synonymous with “theory” right? It’s a theory of knowledge. Calling it by a synonymous term doesn’t mean anything different. Neither does calling it “dogma”. Which it is by the way, remember the words "is required’? All propositions that make knowledge dependent on experience are logical contradictions as was pointed out by BR. No matter what term you use. It is a proposition and falls afoul of BR’s rule.

 

[James1215]

You seem to have learned BR’s words, well done. But beyond that we do not have agreement, so for me the discussion of empiricism is over on the word ‘hypothesis’.

As to dictionaries. I am either referring to common use or my use. If I want to talk about common use, I’ll refer to a dictionary. For my own philosophical position, I am the one responsible for defining it. I say empiricism as a hypothesis, you want it to be a dogma. I say experience, you say physical evidence. Whilst the dictionary is lacking in detail on empiricism, it is clear enough about ‘dogma’ and ‘hypothesis’ - and I’m using these words in the same way.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis
dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

Once one sees that belief in the need for experience for knowledge is provisional, one cannot say that it is a dogma. If it were a dogma, it would be both requiring evidence and requiring none, hence self-contradictory.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You haven’t replied to 99% of these posts. As long as you refuse to use the quote button and reply to what I have actually said, simply repeating your position is going to receive the same refutation.

You seem to have learned BR’s words, well done. But beyond that we do not have agreement, so for me the discussion of empiricism is over on the word ‘hypothesis’.

Nothing about the word “hypothesis” changes the bare logical, historical and demonstrable fact that empiricism is a logical contradiction. First because “hypothesis” is a synonym of “theory”. They mean the same thing. You haven’t said anything different by calling it a “hypothesis”, than when everyone else calls it a “theory”. 2. It is still a proposition regardless of your choice of adjectives and is thus necessarily a logical contradiction as BR pointed out and the philosophical community. 3. It is still a “hypothesis” or “theory” with no evidence. Science is not empiricism. These are all things that you cannot deny.

As to dictionaries. I am either referring to common use or my use. If I want to talk about common use, I’ll refer to a dictionary. For my own philosophical position, I am the one responsible for defining it.

Feel free to define your own philosophical position, just do it with the standard terminology, like the rest of us.

I say empiricism as a hypothesis,

Empiricism, the theory of knowledge is the same thing as Empiricism the hypothesis of knowledge. The two words are synonymous.

you want it to be a dogma.

You keep claiming it isn’t while I am pointing out that the words “is required” make it a dogmatic statement, it is nonsensical to say that you hold a dogmatic statement provisionally, as you did previously. But none of that matters, it does not matter if you call it a hypothesis a dogma or any other adjective because it is a proposition, and as has been long proven any proposition where in knowledge is dependent on experience results in a logical contradiction.

I say experience, you say physical evidence.

You refuse to use standard terminology. You just keep trying to make excuses about why you don’t have to use the dictionary defiontion and everyone else does. Do you do that anywhere else? Do you play any sports? Do you just make up the rules as you go along there? Of course not.

Whilst the dictionary is lacking in detail on empiricism,

It’s not an encyclopedia, they’re of indices words and there standard definitions

it is clear enough about ‘dogma’ and ‘hypothesis’ - and I’m using these words in the same way.

You are the only one that doesn’t understand that no matter what you call it, it is a proposition. Saying the words “dogma” and “hypothesis” only has some special meaning to you.

Once one sees that belief in the need for experience for knowledge is provisional,

Where is it provisional? What about “is required” is provisional?

one cannot say that it is a dogma.

I certainly can. “is required” is clearly not provisional

If it were a dogma, it would be both requiring evidence and requiring none, hence self-contradictory.

What makes you think that dogma both require and do not require evidence? what does that have to do with anything?

 

[James1215]

What about “is required” is provisional?

Take the hypothesis that x amount of thrust is required for a rocket to get into orbit. This is either supported or countered by evidence, and so is definitely a hypothesis.

Given that empiricism can be framed as a hypothesis, it is not dogmatic to say that experience is required for knowledge.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Take the hypothesis …

The proposition you have stated is…experience (physical evidence) is required for knowledge I see nothing provisional in here at all and neither do you. There are only 5 words. Which of them is provisional?

Given that empiricism can be framed as a hypothesis,

It is always phrased as “hypothesis” because that word is synonymous with “Theory” as in “empiricism is a theory of knowledge” Calling empiricism a hypothesis doesn’t change anything, further it is still a “hypothesis” without any evidence. Science isn’t empiricism. Not that this part of the conversation matters at all because like all propositions where in knowledge relies on experience, it is a logiacal contradiction as BR pointed out and all epistemological efforts confirmed decades ago.

it is not dogmatic to say that experience is required for knowledge.

Which of those 5 words is provisional?

 

[James1215]

Experience is required for knowledge is provisionally asserted = awaiting/dependent upon evidence.

Evidence has been given… Earth to Warpspeedpetey:wave:

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Experience is required for knowledge is provisionally asserted = awaiting/dependent upon evidence.

Evidence has been given… Earth to Warpspeedpetey:wave:

This proposition is awkwardly formatted and can be easily misconstrued. I would reconstruct it for clarity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Experience*** is required*** for knowledge

Still a dogmatic assertion. See the words “is required” Not that it matters because*** all propositions ***that make knowledge dependent on experience are necessarily logical contradictions as Russell pointed out and all epistemological efforts confirmed. You’re fighting a battle lost decades ago. Feel free though, the more page views the better.

is provisionally asserted = awaiting/dependent upon evidence.

“Provisionally asserting” a dogmatic statement doesn’t mean anything. It’s just another contradiction. The statement will always be dogmatic until the actual statement is changed. Simply claiming that you mean it provisionally doesn’t matter. The actual statement is still dogmatic. Not that it matters in the least because the proposition is still a logical contradiction.

Evidence has been given…

Where? Science still isn’t empiricism, nor is an empirical experiment possible for a theory of knowledge. Scientists are not epistemologists, nor would an epistemologist practicing the scientific method be generating evidence for empiricism, because science is not empiricism. Further, no number of inductions proves a statement. You cannot induce your way into proving the proposition.

 

[James1215]

You’re right SoG, that was poorly worded.

I meant that the proposition that knowledge requires experience is asserted as a hypothesis, meaning it is awaiting evidence and dependent upon evidence for support.

And Warpspeedpetey, if one makes a dogma conditional upon evidence, it is no longer a dogma. There is no contradiction in saying ‘is required’, because that is the same as hypothesising that ‘the only way for a rocket to get into orbit from the ground is with the (name removed by moderator)ut of x amount of thrust.’ Do you really think that is a dogma?

Empiricism is not a self-refuting position, either. Empiricism as a position must face the same criteria for knowledge that it imposes on all statements, that it requires of them, in order for us to have reason to believe. It says that if we want reason to believe something, we need perceptible evidence. Therefore, one must be able to evidence empiricism empirically. Knowing means having reason to believe, not having absolute certainty, because that is all that is logically possible from inductive reasoning, which is all that empiricism asks. So how can we have reason to believe that, as a general rule, knowledge cannot be formed without experience?

Firstly, we do have knowledge based on experience. This is the area in which science features as evidence.

Secondly, we do not apparently gain knowledge from pure reason, although reasoning and logic are vital to a lot of understanding.

Thirdly, empiricism as a hypothesis does admit that it may be wrong. Another hypothesis would be that actually we can get knowledge from pure reason, but as with empiricism, this claim is awaiting evidence. There are good reasons to think that logic alone is inadequate to inform us about what is here.

Bertrand Russel may simply have been saying that any proposition which [a priori] states that empirical evidence is necessary for knowledge is a self-refuting empiricism, whether it is given that name or not. What his criticism cannot apply to is any hypothesis on knowledge, for the reasons I have just demonstrated. Empiricism as a hypothesis is both contradiction-free (able to meet its own criteria) and well-evidenced. Empiricism that states finally and certainly that there can be no knowledge without experience does not have the means to prove that claim, hence it is simply a belief which if true cannot be known, because of the limitations of inductive reasoning. It does chime well with evidence, but it asks more than it can logically back up, and hence is a dogma.

SoG, have you read that article by the way?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

SoG, have you read that article by the way?

Yes, I’ve partially read the article but I only read to page 7 before stopping. Admittedly, I found the thinking a little discursive, which may be in part due to my lack of expertise. My impression there was a quantity of logical positivism and constructivist positions within his abstractions, which may be incongruous with his stated objective.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

You’re right SoG, that was poorly worded.

I meant that the proposition that knowledge requires experience is asserted as a hypothesis, meaning it is awaiting evidence and dependent upon evidence for support.

Just to clarify for me, you are saying you have a hypothesis (theory) that…

*Knowledge requires experience. *

Since this is* only a hypothesis (theory),* it only requires evidence and is accepted as probable in light of such evidence.

 

[James1215]

Yes, that’s it. But it could be just as probable as the hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the plane will still be aerodynamic the next time we fly.

If the philosopher’s purpose was simply to show that empiricism can be non-self-refuting, it is extraneous whether there’s anything else going on. But there are many unsettled issues when one builds on empiricism, to do with perception and meaning.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…And Warpspeedpetey, if one makes a dogma conditional upon evidence, it is no longer a dogma…

So now you admit the phrase is a dogma. Thank you. The idea that you can change the nature of a proposition by declaration is silly. You have to change the proposition.

Empiricism is not a self-refuting position, either.

So all the demonstrations that it is and all the professional community that believes it is, they are wrong, but you, you’re right.

Empiricism as a position must face the same criteria for knowledge that it imposes on all statements, that it requires of them, in order for us to have reason to believe.

And it requires empirical evidence for any statement to be considered true or meaningful. Where is the evidence that the empirical statement is true? There is none, and no one has ever seen any.

It says that if we want reason to believe something, we need perceptible evidence. Therefore, one must be able to evidence empiricism empirically.

Exactly what kind of empirical experiment can be performed on a metaphysical statement? None, it is impossible by definition. As BR pointed out more than a century ago.

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.
   Knowledge does not mean having a reason to believe.

So how can we have reason to believe that, as a general rule, knowledge cannot be formed without experience?So how can we have a reason to believe that a reason to believe cannot be formed without experience? You’re refusal to use standard terminology makes refuting this stuff very easy.

Firstly, we do have knowledge based on experience.

How do you know? As has been pointed out, you really have no idea if your senses are experiencing anything empirical. The only thing that can be proven to exist is the rational object Dubito

This is the area in which science features as evidence.

So science is the reason to believe that we have reason to believe that knowledge cannot be formed without experience? Occam is spinning in his grave.

Secondly, we do not apparently gain knowledge from pure reason, although reasoning and logic are vital to a lot of understanding.

If you want to ignore that to believe you’re senses represent an empirical world is itself a function of rationalism feel free, but the truth is that all empirical experience is rational at it’s core. As to your constant assertion that we do not gain knowledge rationally, I again refute it by demonstrating… 1+1=2

Thirdly, empiricism as a hypothesis does admit that it may be wrong.

As “hypothesis” is synonymous “theory”, calling it that is no different than what all epistemologists have always called it. You are not stating new information by using a synonymous term. Further, I see no admission it might be wrong in the proposition you have asserted “is required” does not mean “might”, “maybe”, “could be”, or anything like that.

Another hypothesis would be that actually we can get knowledge from pure reason, but as with empiricism, this claim is awaiting evidence.

No problem, Dubito. It is not a hypothesis or theory, it’s a fact.

There are good reasons to think that logic alone is inadequate to inform us about what is here.

Such as?

Bertrand Russel may simply have been saying that any proposition which [a priori] states that empirical evidence is necessary for knowledge is a self-refuting empiricism, whether it is given that name or not.

That’s not what he said, he said all propositions. then the entire epistemological community confirmed it.

What his criticism cannot apply to is any hypothesis on knowledge, for the reasons I have just demonstrated.

Where? None of the reasons you just gave excused a proposition from the rules of logic simply by calling it a “hypothesis”. You miss defined a word and then restated several long refuted claims. I have no idea how you are drawing that conclusion from that set of premise’

Empiricism as a hypothesis is both contradiction-free (able to meet its own criteria) and well-evidenced.

“hypothesis” is synonymous with “theory”. The theory of empiricism is a well known logical contradiction, and there is no evidence for it as science is not empiricism. As you said, science is evidence that knowledge can be based on experience. That is not evidence for the proposition that experience is required for knowledge. So even if we accept the refuted assertion as true, it still isn’t evidence for empiricism.

Empiricism that states finally and certainly that there can be no knowledge without experience does not have the means to prove that claim, hence it is simply a belief which if true cannot be known, because of the limitations of inductive reasoning. It does chime well with evidence, but it asks more than it can logically back up, and hence is a dogma.

You just admitted that empiricism is a logical contradiction again.

 

[James1215]

Empiricism can be tested if one wants, in fact it is continually being tested. “If empiricism is true, we would expect to find (a), if false, then (b)” is followed up like so: if true, we should gain knowledge from experience – predictions based on perception should be found true. If false, we should gain knowledge from a source outside of experience. The results are in, (a) is confirmed, (b) remains unevidenced.

If we doubt everything, then all we know is that we’re doubting… unless we doubt that too. But there is no reason to embark on such a project; it is illogical, and it rules itself out from the possibility of gaining knowledge. Knowledge is having reason to believe one’s statements, the ‘proof’ of which will always only be the test of perception. We have nothing outside our perception with which to prove our perception. Something can be true and unknown, but nothing is known and not in some way resting on the perceived. That is a detail of empiricism (the hypothesis, remember?), and it is a complex issue that cannot be overlooked or reduced to absurdity.

Saying that we need to have reason to believe that there is only reason to believe statements backed up with empirical evidence is merely long-winded. It is not self-refuting or contradictory and a claim that it is reduces the reliability of your thinking. I know it is inelegant, but elegance or simplicity do not confer truth, much as Occam would have liked.
I’ve answered these problems now, without dealing with them adequately, you cannot deny that empiricism is sound without yourself asserting merely a dogma to the contrary.

A few other points - good reason to think that maths does not provide knowledge lies in its being a tautological system plus the necessity of interpreting reality in conjunction with maths to gain knowledge. ‘Hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ are both words for provisional statements, so I don’t mind which you use as long as you remember the concept ‘provisional’. Also, you would realise that I am not standing alone against history if you read the short article, it’s defending empiricism and quoting numerous empiricist thinkers.

 

[davidv]

Empiricism can be tested if one wants, in fact it is continually being tested. “If empiricism is true, we would expect to find (a), if false, then (b)” is followed up like so: if true, we should gain knowledge from experience – predictions based on perception should be found true. If false, we should gain knowledge from a source outside of experience. The results are in, (a) is confirmed, (b) remains unevidenced.

If we doubt everything, then all we know is that we’re doubting… unless we doubt that too. But there is no reason to embark on such a project; it is illogical, and it rules itself out from the possibility of gaining knowledge. Knowledge is having reason to believe one’s statements, the ‘proof’ of which will always only be the test of perception. We have nothing outside our perception with which to prove our perception. Something can be true and unknown, but nothing is known and not in some way resting on the perceived. That is a detail of empiricism (the hypothesis, remember?), and it is a complex issue that cannot be overlooked or reduced to absurdity.

Saying that we need to have reason to believe that there is only reason to believe statements backed up with empirical evidence is merely long-winded. It is not self-refuting or contradictory and a claim that it is reduces the reliability of your thinking. I know it is inelegant, but elegance or simplicity do not confer truth, much as Occam would have liked.
I’ve answered these problems now, without dealing with them adequately, you cannot deny that empiricism is sound without yourself asserting merely a dogma to the contrary.

A few other points - good reason to think that maths does not provide knowledge lies in its being a tautological system plus the necessity of interpreting reality in conjunction with maths to gain knowledge. ‘Hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ are both words for provisional statements, so I don’t mind which you use as long as you remember the concept ‘provisional’. Also, you would realise that I am not standing alone against history if you read the short article, it’s defending empiricism and quoting numerous empiricist thinkers.

From Dictionary.com

Philosophy . the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Compare rationalism ( def. 2 ) .

Based on what you state above it appears that you are using different definition of empiricism. Are you?