A colossal accident?

[James1215]

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.

The empiricism BR says that of is dogmatic, that point is worth emphasising. It is not necessarily wrong simply because it cannot meet what it requires of other statements. It means that dogmatic empiricism is not known, not that dogmatic empiricism is false. Are we in agreement?

Empiricism as a hypothesis is a neglected separate issue

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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!

The very first page of the paper you talk about says different. It is a common charge that the empiricist is a rival metaphysician with different first principles.

Are you afraid of dealing with the hypothesis of empiricism head-on?

I have been refuting it point for point. You ignore my posts and repeat arguments refuted decades ago. That doesn’t work with me. If you repeat, I repeat. You will catch on to that eventually.

No re-framing,

You refuse to use standard terminology in the conteext of the conversation because “dictionaries are tautological”. That’s just ridiculous.

no ignoring,

I have been responding point for point, you have not. You are the one ignoring me because you know that empiricism died decades ago.

no repetition of criticisms of a dogma can make this empiricism wrong.

First, the proposition you stated is dogmatic. Remember the words “is required”? Second, regardless of the adjective you hang on it, it is still a proposition and as Bertrand Russell pointed out all propositions that make knowledge dependent on physical experience are logical contradictions.

If you want to challenge it, the best way to counter a hypothesis is with evidence to the contrary, which was the dubito issue.

The best way to counter it is to debunk it point by point as I have been doing. Reducing it to absurdities and contradictions. Which is easy, because although you think the entire epistemological community is wrong, they are the experts, and you read an 11 page paper.

That seems like the only substantive point of difference here.

Are you kidding me? Have you seen the last 400 or so posts where I refute your claims, point by point? Notice that you do not do the same? None of the issues raised in this thread are going to be settled until you actually address them. Considering the historical outcome of the argument, I don’t think you can anymore than the experts could.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The empiricism BR says that of is dogmatic, that point is worth emphasising.

Where? It says “All” propositions. It doesn’t even seem to imply it. The word “all” seems pretty straightforward here. Further, the statement is dogmatic. “is required” remember?

It is not necessarily wrong simply because it cannot meet what it requires of other statements.

Ummm…yes it is. That situation is called self refutation and is always a logical contradiction. It sets a standard of truth such that if it is true it is necessarily false. Making it a false standard of truth. As I had to point out to Oreo, it cannot be an axiom because it is a contradiction. It would be irrational to ignore a logical contradiction and then use that contradiction as the basis for any kind of reasoning.

It means that dogmatic empiricism is not known, not that dogmatic empiricism is false. Are we in agreement?

Not in the least. First because “dogmatic” is not implied in his statement unless you are willing to admit that any proposition that requires experience for knowledge is dogmatic, which would contradict your position as I have been pointing out it is dogmatic for a great many posts now, which you cannot refute. Second * Dubito* and mathematics and logic, etc all show that it is not true. 3rd all of the historical facts, the experts and demonstrations proved it wrong decades ago. 4th self refutation is always a logical contradiction and therefore false.

Empiricism as a hypothesis is a neglected separate issue

It’s not a separate issue, the statement “empiricism is a theory of knowledge” is the same as the statement “empiricism is a hypothesis of knowledge” because, as I have pointed out many times, the words “hypothesis” and “theory” are synonymous.

 

[James1215]

James1215: 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!

Wsp: The very first page of the paper you talk about says different. It is a common charge that the empiricist is a rival metaphysician with different first principles.

My response: The very first page outlines the arguments made against ‘naive empiricism’: dogmatic and the failure of verification principle. In the rest of the article the author proceeds to show how these do not apply to empiricism when its fundamental principle is an empirical hypothesis. Firstly, is is conditional upon evidence, and it receives it, therefore it is not dogmatic. Secondly, verification is not an additional principle tacked onto empiricism, but entailed by the hypothesis in the form that evidence is required but not required to be conclusive. It strikes me that you both missed the meaning of the title: ‘a defense of naive empiricism’, and the familiar rhetorical technique of starting with the views of your opponent, which this author does. It would be a foolhardy author who sets out to defend a position, ends up agreeing with the critics and then publishes anyway…

James1215: Are you afraid of dealing with the hypothesis of empiricism head-on?

Wsp: I have been refuting it point for point. You ignore my posts and repeat arguments refuted decades ago. That doesn’t work with me. If you repeat, I repeat. You will catch on to that eventually.

My response: You asked for it, so now I’m holding your hand and walking you through, so to speak!

James1215: No re-framing,

Wsp: You refuse to use standard terminology in the conteext of the conversation because “dictionaries are tautological”. That’s just ridiculous.

My response: my terms are clear - hypothesis, empirical, dogma… these are non-controversial. You return to ‘knowledge’ as contentious, but whether you like it or not, my position and that of the author is ‘having reason to believe in the truth of a statement’. The author’s use is better grounded and more philosophical, but basically comparable to mine. The definition of knowledge you seem to want to rely upon says nothing of how knowledge is acquired or what makes it knowledge, and it is a dictionary, not a statement of fact nor a philosophical treatise, so why should it be consulted as if it were absolutely and necessarily the truth?

James1215: no ignoring,

Wsp:I have been responding point for point, you have not. You are the one ignoring me because you know that empiricism died decades ago.

My response: **The disagreement is on what sort of empiricism stands. Dogmatic empiricism does not, empiricism as a hypothesis does.
**

James1215: no repetition of criticisms of a dogma can make this empiricism wrong.

Wsp: First, the proposition you stated is dogmatic. Remember the words “is required”? Second, regardless of the adjective you hang on it, it is still a proposition and as Bertrand Russell pointed out all propositions that make knowledge dependent on physical experience are logical contradictions.

My response: Clearly you demonstrate this willful conflation. There is a difference between a dogma and a hypothesis. The former is asserted without evidence (irrespective of), and the latter is predicated on evidence. Do you follow? If you take BR’s unqualified use of ‘all propositions’ to be gospel, you commit an error. It does not override that distinction, and I think BR would be turning in his grave if he knew his careful thought was being blurred so wantonly.

James1215: If you want to challenge it, the best way to counter a hypothesis is with evidence to the contrary, which was the dubito issue.

Wsp: The best way to counter it is to debunk it point by point as I have been doing. Reducing it to absurdities and contradictions. Which is easy, because although you think the entire epistemological community is wrong, they are the experts, and you read an 11 page paper.

My response: It is not ‘debunked’, and the simplicity of the thinking which demonstrates this is such that an 11-page article suffices. I don’t think you’ve actually read it, and certainly doubt you’re conversant with the whole of empirical epistemology, which you would need to be to try to make such an outrageous assertion.

James1215: That seems like the only substantive point of difference here.

Wsp: Are you kidding me? Have you seen the last 400 or so posts where I refute your claims, point by point? Notice that you do not do the same? None of the issues raised in this thread are going to be settled until you actually address them. Considering the historical outcome of the argument, I don’t think you can anymore than the experts could.

My response: we can put your so-called refutations aside because they miss the target and are highly faulty. What remains is to deal with the hypothesis of empiricism as a hypothesis, and see whether there are any ways to gain knowledge of reality outside of experience.

 

[Oreoracle]

Okay, so you both agree with this:

Empiricism tells us what must happen for us to acquire knowledge.

We can’t meet this standard with respect to empiricism.

Therefore, we can’t know that empiricism is correct.

Your problem, Pete, is that you’re interpreting empiricism to mean that something is only correct if it can be empirically verified. That is not empiricism’s position. Empiricism simply states that something can only be known with verifying evidence. At worst, this means that we can’t know empiricism is the right epistemology, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. James’ defense of this is that the scientific method could make this choice of epistemology appear to be less arbitrary, without necessarily “proving” it. In other words, the success of science in comparison to other “disciplines” shows that knowledge through sensory perception is better than knowledge through intuition, for example.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Now you’re starting to get it! It is much easier to write and read if you use the quote buttons. To use it, you highlight the text that you want to respond to. Then you click on the quote button which is the icon that looks like a text bubble in a cartoon. It is immediately below the clockwise turning blue arrow on the toolbar above. It will wrap quote tags around the selected text just like the B icon.

…My response: The very first page outlines the arguments made against ‘naive empiricism’: dogmatic and the failure of verification principle.

Did you notice that the charge of an empiricist being a rival metaphysicist is on the first page?

In the rest of the article the author proceeds to show how these do not apply to empiricism when its fundamental principle is an empirical hypothesis.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You return to ‘knowledge’ as contentious, but whether you like it or not, my position and that of the author is ‘having reason to believe in the truth of a statement’. The author’s use is better grounded and more philosophical, but basically comparable to mine. The definition of knowledge you seem to want to rely upon says nothing of how knowledge is acquired or what makes it knowledge, and it is a dictionary, not a statement of fact nor a philosophical treatise, so why should it be consulted as if it were absolutely and necessarily the truth?

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.

This is the definition of the word “knowledge”. There is no reason for a dictionary to make epistemological statements. It’s only purpose is to set a standard definition for people to use. It is not an ecyclop[edia. Further, you do not get to define words personally, and neither does the author of the paper. Can you imagine communication if we all did that?

My response: **The disagreement is on what sort of empiricism stands. Dogmatic empiricism does not, empiricism as a hypothesis does.
**I answer this above.

My response: **Clearly you demonstrate this willful conflation. There is a difference between a dogma and a hypothesis. The former is asserted without evidence (irrespective of), and the latter is predicated on evidence. Do you follow? **

First, the proposition is dogmatic, second, the word “hypothesis” doesn’t change anything because it is a synonym of the word “theory”. Third, you have no evidence for the proposition.

If you take BR’s unqualified use of ‘all propositions’ to be gospel, you commit an error. It does not override that distinction, and I think BR would be turning in his grave if he knew his careful thought was being blurred so wantonly.

Where do you get this idea? Both hypothesis and dogma refer to a proposition. Nothing about either word changes the fact it is a proposition, and nothing about either word changes the well known fact that any proposition wherein knowledge is dependent on experience is a logical contradiction.

My response: **It is not ‘debunked’, **

It’s been debunked for decades, no matter what you say, even the people involved in its formulation later admitted it was flawed.

and the simplicity of the thinking which demonstrates this is such that an 11-page article suffices.

Which peer reviewed journal published this world changing paper?

I don’t think you’ve actually read it,

I read the first page and the final paragraph. Where in he admits that empiricism has been dead for decades. You have to do your own work as I told you before.

and certainly doubt you’re conversant with the whole of empirical epistemology, which you would need to be to try to make such an outrageous assertion.

Or I could just take the word of the people actually involved. See I have had this conversation many times. I already know how this story goes. You have read 11 pages, and those only because they defend a position you hope is true.

My response: **we can put your so-called refutations aside because they miss the target and are highly faulty.
**

That’s what you have to demonstrate, not assert. See, even here you attempt to ignore them instead of deal with them.

What remains is to deal with the hypothesis of empiricism as a hypothesis

, As the words “theory” and “hypothesis” are synonymous, That’ is what we have always been dealing with. You don’t seem to understand that using a synonymous term doesn’t change the nature of the statement.

and see whether there are any ways to gain knowledge of reality outside of experience.

First, that doesn’t have anything to do with it because absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. Second, we can easily show that we do. Dubito, mathematics, logic and so on
You seem to want me to just accept this guys argument,ent without pointing out the errors at every turn. That’s not going to happen.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Okay, so you both agree with this:

Empiricism tells us what must happen for us to acquire knowledge.

I wouldn’t agree to this statement. Empiricism is a theory of knowledge.

We can’t meet this standard with respect to empiricism.

Therefore, we can’t know that empiricism is correct.

We know it is false because it is a logical contradiction.

Your problem, Pete,

I don’t have a problem. the side I am taking won this debate decades ago, he is trying to dispute it on the basis of an unpublished 11 page paper.

is that you’re interpreting empiricism to mean that something is only correct if it can be empirically verified. That is not empiricism’s position. Empiricism simply states that something can only be known with verifying evidence.

The proposition he is using is “experience is required for knowledge”. Though verification criterion’s of meaning are also logical contradictions as well as falsification. He hasn’t even gotten to those yet.

At worst, this means that we can’t know empiricism is the right epistemology, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Self refutation is always a contradiction. We can rule it out on that basis alone. We can go farther but once you hit that there is no point.

James’ defense of this is that the scientific method could make this choice of epistemology appear to be less arbitrary, without necessarily “proving” it.

I understand his argument, no need to restate it.

In other words, the success of science in comparison to other “disciplines” shows that knowledge through sensory perception is better than knowledge through intuition, for example.

And as I pointed out to him science is not empiricism. It is not evidence for empiricism and so on. One cannot induct their way into the proposition he is using. I appreciate the spirit of the post but I need no help, all the real work has already been done. Thank you.

 

[James1215]

Firstly, Warpspeedpetey -

You want to see the authority on which the arguments I’m making rests, which of course does not affect whether they are sound. You also seem to doubt that this guy is worth reading or even that he is a genuinely rigorous intellectual. His bio is online and tells us that he got his PhD from Cornell in 1971, and that he taught at Ithaca College from 1988-2005, when he retired. As you can see from the web address of the article, it was published online and linked via his page on the Ithaca site. Other current professors in the philosophy department do the same, and they do not all publish controversial papers. Take this one by Craig Duncan, called ‘Torture: Foolish and Wrong’. (ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/torture.htm) These are their thoughts in progress, and Stephen P. Schwartz’s defense of empiricism is likely to have been included in his other work, published in journals. His thoughts were public and his reputation was on the line.

As to definitions, I think that issue can be laid to rest with the consultation of a dictionary of philosophical ideas. This one clearly shows that a standard language dictionary is inadequate to determine the meaning, use or truth of a word/concept when philosophically analysed. Things are more complicated than they appear, and this is only a brief intro!

'knowledge {Gk. gnwsiV [gnôsis]; Lat. cognitio; Ger. Wissen}

Justified true belief. Since Plato, nearly all Western philosophers have accepted this deceptively simple statement of the three necessary (and jointly sufficient) conditions for knowledge. That is, I know a proposition if and only if:

1. I sincerely affirm the proposition,
2. the proposition is true, and
3. my affirmation is genuinely based upon its truth.

The correct analysis of each element of the definition, however, is open to question. Philosophers have held different views about the nature of belief and have proposed many different theories of truth. Much of Western epistemology has focussed on the third element: precisely what constitutes adequate justification for knowledge? Rationalists and empiricists disagree about the sources which might provide relevant evidence, fallibilists raise practical doubts about our certainty in achieving the second condition, skeptics suppose that the third condition is never met, and contemporary philosophers since Gettier have questioned whether even the satisfaction of all these elements is genuinely sufficient for knowledge.’

ditext.com/encyc/frame.html then click on entries for ‘knowledge’

I am not trying to evade clarity, and you are questioning every important use of a word, but what I am keen to show is that dictionaries generally provide info on the use of words not the truth of their concepts. It is necessary to use a dictionary to ascertain the meaning of words we’re both using, but totally irrelevant to find out if empiricism is sound.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

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.

This is Bertram’s actual view…

I will observe, however, that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and that any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that itself cannot be known. While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so.

He clearly indicates any theory (hypothesis) regarding empiricism as an epistemological system refutes itself. Therefore, empiricism as a epidemiological system (as system of justified beliefs) fails. Even though empiricism may be true, it cannot be justified.

 

[James1215]

Secondly,

Thanks for the advice about quotes though, that’s helpful. I think this is a feature I have to turn on somehow, as I can see no icon like it, nor a blue rotating thing. Anyway, I’ll make it clear:

Oreoracle: James’ defense of this is that the scientific method could make this choice of epistemology appear to be less arbitrary, without necessarily “proving” it.

Warpspeedpetey: I understand his argument, no need to restate it.

O: In other words, the success of science in comparison to other “disciplines” shows that knowledge through sensory perception is better than knowledge through intuition, for example.

Wsp: And as I pointed out to him science is not empiricism. It is not evidence for empiricism and so on. One cannot induct their way into the proposition he is using.

‘My’ defense is not quite that empiricism can be chosen less arbitrarily, but rather that there is a sort of empiricism which makes a claim about the nature of knowledge which is self-consistent and well evidenced.

The issue of proof seems to be a problem. ‘One cannot induct themselves into the proposition he is using’. However, this is entirely, totally wrong! One cannot induct oneself into certainty about a law of nature (say), or a statement about epistemology. This was what BR meant - empiricism if true cannot be known certainly [by induction]. But one can and should induct oneself into belief in the truth of a hypothesis which is well-evidenced.

What’s the difference? We have no absolute certainty about anything in science. Give us new info, anomalies, whatever, and hypotheses change or paradigms shift. However, certainty is not possible - it is unattainable - so it is illogical to require knowledge to be based on certainty. Knowledge is reason to believe, instead. Why should we believe that which is well-evidenced now, but which might change in future? Because it is rational to do so! Hypotheses are tested according to experience, and if we perceive they are right hundreds of times now (and we understand why), it doesn’t matter what might happen in future. It may be the case that the general laws of aerodynamics do not hold in future, but they hold now, so we should still board that airplane, safe in the knowledge that it will be able to fly.

The fundamental principle of naive empiricism can be a hypothesis, so it is analogous to the claims of science. It seems that experience is required… it is suggested that experience is required… there is evidence that experience is required… let’s hypothesise that experience is required… Hey presto! The hypothesis that experience is required for knowledge, arrived at without dogmatism!

 

[James1215]

This is Bertram’s actual view…

I will observe, however, that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and that any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that itself cannot be known. While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so.

He clearly indicates any theory (hypothesis) regarding empiricism as an epistemological system refutes itself. Therefore, empiricism as a epidemiological system (as system of justified beliefs) fails. Even though empiricism may be true, it cannot be justified.

This is not tenable, for the reason that empiricism can be evidenced, and is not necessarily unknowable. If it is unknowable, it doesn’t make it false - it simply cannot be known to be true. Are we happy to take something on faith when it doesn’t make sense? How can all similar propositions be necessarily false, when he’s making an empirical claim? He’s awaiting a Black Swan, and Stephen P. Schwartz gives it to him.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

This is not tenable, for the reason that empiricism can be evidenced, and is not necessarily unknowable. If it is unknowable, it doesn’t make it false - it simply cannot be known to be true. Are we happy to take something on faith when it doesn’t make sense? How can all similar propositions be necessarily false, when he’s making an empirical claim? He’s awaiting a Black Swan, and Stephen P. Schwartz gives it to him.

I quite disagree. We are speaking to epistemology here, not of knowledge gathering tools, which is an entirely different matter. Justified belief is what this discussion has been about.

 

[James1215]

I quite disagree. We are speaking to epistemology here, not of knowledge gathering tools, which is an entirely different matter. Justified belief is what this discussion has been about.

Sorry, you’re going to have to clarify for me!

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Sorry, you’re going to have to clarify for me!

Epistemology is the inquiry into knowledge and justified belief. The question is whether empiricism can be an epistemological system or not.

 

[James1215]

Epistemology is the inquiry into knowledge and justified belief. The question is whether empiricism can be an epistemological system or not.

I think it always has been about epistemology… The difference is that empiricism is about knowledge of existence specifically defined - non-analytic statements. Maths is not considered part of this. I don’t see why maths can’t sit alongside an empirical epistemology, with both maintaining their full importance.

 

[James1215]

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge. It’s fundamental object is knowledge. There is nothing by which to add the adjective “empirical”. The scientific method is “empirical” because it only deals with empirically observable premises and conclusions. That is not the case with empiricism as a theory of knowledge. The word “hypothesis” does not automatically entail “empirical”. Emphasizing the synonym of the already accepted word “theory” doesn’t change the premises or conclusion to empirically observable objects. Changing to another synonym doesn’t change anything.

I’m trying to understand what you mean, and think I can say this in response. The study of knowing is perhaps a lot more esoteric and abstract than the study of atoms and so forth, but both can be considered objects of study. We can look at examples of knowledge and work up to the conditions for knowledge (if there are any). Empiricism makes the provisional assertion that one condition is experience.

Science is not empiricism, the findings of science are not about empiricism, they are about the subject of the experiments. No experiment can be conducted to show that “experience is required for knowledge”. Nor can one induct ones way into that proposition. There is always going to be the black swan problem. You can never say “is required” because you can never know it it is true. Further, to accept your senses as valid representations of reality requires an act of reason. Which is an induction in favor of rationalism for everyone you get for empiricism.

Empiricism and science can be analogous in that the former is a hypothesis and the latter a practice of making hypotheses. I have already suggested that the hypothesis of empiricism is tested daily, so you could do the courtesy of referring to that example, even if you do not like it. Induction can lead to law-like generalisations in which we can have faith. Again, I have tried to show that even unconditional requirements can be provisional. Gravity unconditionally pulls mass together? “Don’t be so dogmatic!” - this is clearly not the right interpretation of science. We have no reason to doubt or confirm the veracity of our perceptions, but instead we have to use them. Reason is not rejected in empiricism, the two work together very well.

“experience is required for knowledge” is clearly a dogmatic statement. There is really no possible discussion about that, its as plain as day. The earlier contention that one can assert a dogma in such a way that it is not a dogma is ludicrous. The content of a statement is what makes it a dogma, not the intention of the speaker. If you don’t want it to be a dogma, you have to change the proposition, but I suspect you know that you can’t do that without the admission of metaphysical statements to the entire schema. As the historical course of this argument shows. Finally, the adjective you apply to a proposition, does not change the fact it is a proposition. Either way Russells rule kills that proposition call it a dead hypothesis, dead theory or whatever, but it is dead nonetheless.

Something is a dogma if it is asserted irrespective of evidence. See above!

No matter where the verification statement is made it is a contradiction. one cannot verify that empirical evidence is necessary to verify the truth/meaningfulness of a statement. As I mention above, one cannot induct there way into the proposition that “experience is required for knowledge.”

Verification is extraneous to empiricism. What is asked is that the claim for evidence finds evidence for itself. You cannot jump on a statement that fails to support itself and jump on one which does find support. Something that happens to be verifiable is not bad, false or illogical.

What peer reviewed journal is this published in? Where is he tenured at? If this is the world shaking document that you seem to think then he would be famous.

Lol I have mentioned this above, obviously.

You have no reason not to use the terms the same way every one else does. I think the way you use these words contreversial, you use the word “hypothesis” as used in science,l but we are not practicing science. You refuse to recognize a statement is a dogma because of the content of the statement. Empirical, I’ll give you, provisionally. You use the terms in ways they are notmeant to be used. not just a little, your not being metaphorical or speaking broadly, you directly misintepret words. On purpose, and then make lame excuses about it. It’s just ridiculous.

And this. What we are doing is analogous to science, in that it is investigation based on reasoning with evidence to produce hypotheses.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Firstly, Warpspeedpetey -

You want to see the authority on which the arguments I’m making rests…

I didn’t ask that, I wanted to know which peer reviewed journal published this paper, where did he work? Was it his own departments press or a professional journal? Just putting an argument on the net doesn’t mean much. The net is full of crackpots with perpetual motion machines, how do you know he isn’t just another crackpot pushing a long dead idea?

As to definitions, I think that issue can be laid to rest with the consultation of a dictionary of philosophical ideas. This one clearly shows that a standard language dictionary is inadequate to determine the meaning, use or truth of a word/concept when philosophically analysed…

You’re just repeating an already refuted argument. This doesn’t mean what you seem to think, a dictionaries purpose is not to “determine the meaning, use or truth of a word/concept when philosophically analyzed…” When has it ever been the purpose of a dictionary to do those things? A dictionary gives us the standard definitions of words. That’s it. Nothing more. You have no excuse not to use one other than you cannot make the argument using the actual definitions of words. Which is what your refusal to use standard terminology is about. Come on, am I really supposed to believe that you don’t know what a dictionary is for?

 

[James1215]

I didn’t ask that, I wanted to know which peer reviewed journal published this paper, where did he work? Was it his own departments press or a professional journal? Just putting an argument on the net doesn’t mean much. The net is full of crackpots with perpetual motion machines, how do you know he isn’t just another crackpot pushing a long dead idea?
You’re just repeating an already refuted argument. This doesn’t mean what you seem to think, a dictionaries purpose is not to “determine the meaning, use or truth of a word/concept when philosophically analyzed…” When has it ever been the purpose of a dictionary to do those things? A dictionary gives us the standard definitions of words. That’s it. Nothing more. You have no excuse not to use one other than you cannot make the argument using the actual definitions of words. Which is what your refusal to use standard terminology is about. Come on, am I really supposed to believe that you don’t know what a dictionary is for?

If you really actually honestly still think that a man who got his PhD from Cornell Uni is likely to be a crackpot, then real discussion will be difficult… As far as I can tell, the article itself has not been peer-reviewed, but his arguments will always be tested: by his colleagues, by his rivals, by his students. That is the kind of scrutiny that peer-review achieves, and the outcome of critical evaluation will have been achieved. That is the point to your question, I believe - “Has this stuff been critiqued? Is it likely to be reliable?” Yes, it has and yes it is, by this test.

And I know what a dictionary is for. What are the problem words in your mind? I think we actually are using the same meanings, by and large.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Secondly,

Thanks for the advice about quotes though, that’s helpful. I think this is a feature I have to turn on somehow, as I can see no icon like it, nor a blue rotating thing. Anyway, I’ll make it clear:

Why didn’t you tell me hundreds of posts ago that you didn’t see it the first time I told you about it? It’s not a feature you turn on as far as I know, I use simple machines for my forums though. It is to the left of the # icon, on the same row as the B.

…there is a sort of empiricism which makes a claim about the nature of knowledge which is self-consistent and well evidenced.

The proposition that you asserted “experience is required for knowledge” is clearly not consistent, nor evidenced.

The issue of proof seems to be a problem.**‘One cannot induct themselves into the proposition he is using’. However, this is entirely, totally wrong! One cannot induct oneself into certainty about a law of nature (say), or a statement about epistemology.**You just said I was wrong and then in the next sentence you agreed with me. Awesome.

This was what BR meant - empiricism if true cannot be known certainly [by induction]. But one can and should induct oneself into belief in the truth of a hypothesis which is well-evidenced.

Not in the least. Self refutation is a logical contradiction and you still have no evidence for the proposition you asserted.

What’s the difference? We have no absolute certainty about anything in science. Give us new info, anomalies, whatever, and hypotheses change or paradigms shift. However, certainty is not possible - it is unattainable - so it is illogical to require knowledge to be based on certainty.

Now you are contradicting your position from a few hundred posts ago.

Knowledge is reason to believe, instead.

**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.

Why should we believe that which is well-evidenced now, but which might change in future? Because it is rational to do so!

Where is this evidence again?

Hypotheses are tested according to experience,

Nothing in the word “hypothesis” entails empirical experience.

and if we perceive they are right hundreds of times now (and we understand why), it doesn’t matter what might happen in future.

A billion white swans is not evidence that swans are required to be white.

It may be the case that the general laws of aerodynamics do not hold in future, but they hold now, so we should still board that airplane, safe in the knowledge

that it will be able to fly.Yet you are not safe in that knowledge, you could hit a black swan at any point.

The fundamental principle of naive empiricism can be a hypothesis, so it is analogous to the claims of science.

No it isn’t. It is a theory of knowledge, a rational object. Science is empirical, an adjective describing the way the scientific method is conducted. Empiricism is not, it is fundamentally different than science. There is no connection between science and empiricism as a theory of knowledge.

It seems that experience is required…

Dubito

it is suggested that experience is required…

meaningless

there is evidence that experience is required…

You haven’t posted any.

let’s hypothesise that experience is required… Hey presto! The hypothesis that experience is required for knowledge, arrived at without dogmatism!

The proposition is still dogmatic and still a logical contradiction either way. Repetition will not solve the problems you refuse to address.