A colossal accident?

[James1215]

My use of ‘empiricism’ is in the way that this author uses it: Stephen P. Schwartz A Defense of “Naïve” Empiricism: It is Neither Self-Refuting nor Dogmatic

ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/defense_of_naive_empiricism.pdf

Empiricism as the hypothesis that experience is required for knowledge.

 

[James1215]

He says, on p. 3:

‘I propose to defend the claim that the fundamental principle of empiricism is an empirical hypothesis, and can be advanced in a way that avoids the objections that empiricism is self-refuting or engaged in dogmatic metaphysics.’

 

[davidv]

My use of ‘empiricism’ is in the way that this author uses it: Stephen P. Schwartz A Defense of “Naïve” Empiricism: It is Neither Self-Refuting nor Dogmatic

ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/defense_of_naive_empiricism.pdf

Empiricism as the hypothesis that experience is required for knowledge.

Thank you.
Given that this is a different definition than than one from the dictionary, and the one that I believe that warpspeedpetey is using, one or both of you have committed the equivocation fallacy. As a consequense, truth has been obscured.

 

[James1215]

I am certain that I am arguing for my own position, and it would rest there had it not been for the prolonged objections to it. But I agree that there is equivocation going on here, though not from my side!

I’d like to add that equivocation is not permitted here, in the sense that one should not be hesitating between the option of a self-refuting and a self-consistent position. Warpspeedpetey has demonstrated enough times that there was such a thing as dogmatic empiricism, however, there is an empiricism which stands. Therefore, if we are thinking in terms of philosophy that is ‘alive’, out of the two definitions on offer, mine is the only one we should be using.

 

[James1215]

Lol also, try searching for ‘defense naive empiricism’ with Google. 1st result is the article, 2nd is this thread!

We’re so unworthy…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

Metaphysical statements cannot be verified empirically by definition. Further, this is the long refuted verification criterion of meaning that is itself a logical contradiction.

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.

[The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate the existence of rational objects and not the empirical objects are certain. That is clearly 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.When you refuse to use standard terminology, simply pointing out that actyual definition of the word is sufficient to reject the entire argument that it supports

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.

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.

It’s funny because you used two different words to mean the same thing and then proceeded to argue from. The proposition you refer to though, is still a logical contradiction as everyone knows.

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.

You have only reasserted the same refuted arguments without actually answering any refutation as usual. Empiricism is still a logical contradiction as has been long proven and you are misusing the word dogmatic.

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.

1+1=2. See? we have knowledge and did so without reference to the empirical.

‘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’.

There is nothing provisional in your proposition, as I have pointed out. Further, no matter what adjective you use, it is still a proposition where in knowledge is dependent on experience and therefore is a logiocal contradiction. Holding it to be true is irrational.

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.

Having read more than an 11 page article, I know the issue is long settled and as I pointed out, even the proponents of it admit it is false.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My use of ‘empiricism’ is in the way that this author uses it: Stephen P. Schwartz A Defense of “Naïve” Empiricism: It is Neither Self-Refuting nor Dogmatic

ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/defense_of_naive_empiricism.pdf

Empiricism as the hypothesis that experience is required for knowledge.

Which peer reviewed journal has published this paper?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

He says, on p. 3:

‘I propose to defend the claim that the fundamental principle of empiricism is an empirical hypothesis, and can be advanced in a way that avoids the objections that empiricism is self-refuting or engaged in dogmatic metaphysics.’

He proposed, but certainly has not delivered. No wonder you ignore all my posts and repeat the same refuted arguments. You don’t have any answers to them that aren’t in the paper.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thank you.
Given that this is a different definition than than one from the dictionary, and the one that I believe that warpspeedpetey is using, one or both of you have committed the equivocation fallacy. As a consequense, truth has been obscured.

Technically he is attempting to defend strong empiricism with the weak empiricism argument.

 

[Oreoracle]

Why should empiricism have to verify itself? It is the means of verification. An attempt to verify it by its own standards would be a circular argument anyway.

There is a distinct method of proving identities in math, but you never hear anyone ask for a mathematician to prove this method by its own standard. You never hear about a logician being asked to demonstrate that modus ponens is a correct form of argument by using modus ponens.

It’s funny that science, an inductive system, is held to a much higher standard than math and logic, which are deductive systems.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why should empiricism have to verify itself?

Empiricism makes a claim about knowledge that it cannot satisfy itself. Therefore it is a false claim about knowledge.

It is the means of verification. An attempt to verify it by its own standards would be a circular argument anyway.

verification criterions of meaning are logical contradictions.

It’s funny that science, an inductive system, is held to a much higher standard than math and logic, which are deductive systems.

Science is empirical, it is not empiricism, the theory of knowledge.

 

[Oreoracle]

Empiricism makes a claim about knowledge that it cannot satisfy itself. Therefore it is a false claim about knowledge.

Of course you can’t use empiricism to prove that empiricism is true. You can’t use math to prove that math’s axioms are true, and you can’t use logic to prove that logic’s axioms are true. That’s why they’re considered “axioms”–they are considered self-evident and don’t require verification.

What you don’t understand is that the most fundamental principles we use to gain knowledge, whatever they may be, cannot be used to prove themselves. That would be inviting circularity. If empiricism were true because it satisfied its own principle of knowledge, then that amounts to saying that empiricism is true because empiricism is true. This is basic stuff, Pete.

 

[RobbyS]

Of course you can’t use empiricism to prove that empiricism is true. You can’t use math to prove that math’s axioms are true, and you can’t use logic to prove that logic’s axioms are true. That’s why they’re considered “axioms”–they are considered self-evident and don’t require verification.

What you don’t understand is that the most fundamental principles we use to gain knowledge, whatever they may be, cannot be used to prove themselves. That would be inviting circularity. If empiricism were true because it satisfied its own principle of knowledge, then that amounts to saying that empiricism is true because empiricism is true. This is basic stuff, Pete.

This may have been brought up in a very long thread, but for more than a century, it is been more orless accepted that the Brain is a kind of computer, analogue than digital,of course. But the computers, it seems to me, more like a mirror of human intelligence, an actualization of mathematical /limguistic forms forms, than the other way around. The judeo-Christian notion of man is that he is the mirror of the divine. The gap between a man and a machine-man like the fictional DATA similarly unbridgeable. So DATA’s grasp of the human will forever elude him. More from the mechanistic view, I have read about speculations that the brain may be a receiver of “psychic"impulses from both living and 'dead” forms, other than those received through the senses. In short, the spirit world may existand eventually recognized empirically. Probably scifi and/or fantastic, but…

 

[James1215]

Why should empiricism have to verify itself? It is the means of verification. An attempt to verify it by its own standards would be a circular argument anyway.
.

‘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.’

page 8 of the article A Defense of Naive Empiricism:

ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/defense_of_naive_empiricism.pdf

 

[James1215]

In short, the spirit world may existand eventually recognized empirically. Probably scifi and/or fantastic, but…

Well, I look forward to it! We can only wait and see…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Of course you can’t use empiricism to prove that empiricism is true. You can’t use math to prove that math’s axioms are true, and you can’t use logic to prove that logic’s axioms are true. That’s why they’re considered “axioms”–they are considered self-evident and don’t require verification…

Empiricism cannot be an axiom because it is a logical contradiction. No axiom can be a contradiction by definition. A=A is an axiom, while A=notA is a contradiction. Feel free to condescend some more while making basic errors in logic. That one was classic. :bowdown:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

Empiricism the theory/hypothesis of knowledge is a metaphysical statement. Exactly how does one construe a metaphysical statement as empirical, when it cannot be by definition? That’s just another logical contradiction. That’s like saying you can construe black as white.

 

[James1215]

[Dogmatic] Empiricism makes a claim about knowledge that it cannot satisfy itself. Therefore it is a false claim about knowledge.

Be careful your criticism does not over-reach logic. BR says that dogmatic empiricism if true cannot be known to be true; not that it is false.

 

[James1215]

Empiricism the theory/hypothesis of knowledge is a metaphysical statement. Exactly how does one construe a metaphysical statement as empirical, when it cannot be by definition? That’s just another logical contradiction. That’s like saying you can construe black as white.

This might be called a ‘classic’ error as well. Empiricism as a hypothesis is exactly like the hypotheses in science. No-one calls these metaphysical. Perhaps you ought to look up ‘metaphysical’, given that you like dictionary definitions!

Are you afraid of dealing with the hypothesis of empiricism head-on? No re-framing, no ignoring, no repetition of criticisms of a dogma can make this empiricism wrong. If you want to challenge it, the best way to counter a hypothesis is with evidence to the contrary, which was the dubito issue. That seems like the only substantive point of difference here.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Be careful your criticism does not over-reach logic. BR says that dogmatic empiricism if true cannot be known to be true; not that it is false.

BR did not say “dogmatic”. Further self refutation is a logical contradiction. It is necessarily false as all logical contradictions must necessarily be. Of course you made a similar claim and I offered the same refutation a couple hundred posts ago.