A colossal accident?

[warpspeedpetey]

This is not tenable, for the reason that empiricism can be evidenced,

You have posted no evidence, you have jjust claimed that science is proof of an epistemological theory.

and is not necessarily unknowable.

As BR pointed out, this isn’t true.

If it is unknowable, it doesn’t make it false - it simply cannot be known to be true.

It is necessarily false because it is self refuting, self refutation is a logical contradiction, and logical contradictions are always false.

…How can all similar propositions be necessarily false, when he’s making an empirical claim?

What similar propositions? Do you know what a proposition is?

He’s awaiting a Black Swan, and Stephen P. Schwartz gives it to him.

What does this mean? What piece of information are you referring to?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m trying to understand what you mean, and think I can say this in response.

You are just now telling me that you don’t understand what I mean? If you didn’t understand it, then why didn’t you say so?

Empiricism makes the provisional assertion that one condition is experience.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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…

I know plenty of crack pot PhD’s. Like I said, I have sat through more than one boring dissertation. I know that he is using the weak empirical argument to support the strong empirical proposition. If you are accurately reporting his argument, the it’s clear to me that he is crying over spilled milk. Metaphorically speaking.

As far as I can tell, the article itself has not been peer-reviewed,

I wonder why?

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.

In other words, no. None of his peers have reviewed it. Trying to find lame excuses doesn’t work with me. If he has published these, you can find them. Maybe they are reviewed somewhere else, but considering his admission that empiricism has been dead for decades, I think that paper is not really an argument, but more a plea to his colleagues to ignore the historical facts.

And I know what a dictionary is for.

Then why did you say that it didn’t do all those things, that it isn’t meant to do?

What are the problem words in your mind? I think we actually are using the same meanings, by and large.

I will point them out as you use them. You switch definitions when convenient. Of course you could simply use standard terminology in the context of the conversation like the rest of us. But then you would have to admit that the author is a crackpot purposefully misusing terminology to make the argument.

 

[James1215]

In which peer-reviewed journal was the Bible published?

If there is a rational world separate from the empirically observed one, do you suppose that knowledge belongs to that realm rather than the latter? How about the obvious: empirical observations are interpreted rationally to produce knowledge of existence.

This is strained, to say the least:

‘I know that he is using the weak empirical argument to support the strong empirical proposition’. How would you know anything about this article when you have neither read it nor paid attention to my arguments! First and last pages do not give you much to misrepresent, but you have done a thorough job.

He says that the fundamental principle of empiricism can be a hypothesis. If you fail to understand even this much, the rest of the discussion is aimless.

 

[Pieman333272]

In which peer-reviewed journal was the Bible published?

The Bible has to be the worst example of dodging rational analysis of an essay you like I have ever seen. Peer-review is only for modern texts. Ancient texts do, and did, not need peer-review to be considered authoritative. If somebody questioned it, they would do primary research to refute it.

 

[James1215]

The Bible has to be the worst example of dodging rational analysis of an essay you like I have ever seen. Peer-review is only for modern texts. Ancient texts do, and did, not need peer-review to be considered authoritative. If somebody questioned it, they would do primary research to refute it.

Well there are two routes; either one says that the Bible was in effect peer-reviewed, or that it wasn’t and didn’t need to be. Why start from the assumption that age makes a document believable?

We currently have youtube, international news agencies and all kinds of recording and sharing media. We’re human, we’re sinful, if coverage was what God wanted, now is the best time in human history to send Jesus. Still, this is all a minor issue even though it is fun.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In which peer-reviewed journal was the Bible published?

How does one peer review a library of books? How does one do it for texts that existed prior to Scholaticism? Do you think this kind of red herring is going to advance your position?

If there is a rational world separate from the empirically observed one, do you suppose that knowledge belongs to that realm rather than the latter?

Yes. Rational entities are not empirical by defintion.

How about the obvious: empirical observations are interpreted rationally to produce knowledge of existence.

Dubito

This is strained, to say the least:

‘I know that he is using the weak empirical argument to support the strong empirical proposition’. How would you know anything about this article when you have neither read it nor paid attention to my arguments!

I have been refuting your statements point by point for hundreds of posts, I am obviously paying attention.

First and last pages do not give you much to misrepresent, but you have done a thorough job.

The first was because I wanted to use his BR quote, the last was to check for crackpottery. As you point out I had nothing to represent, so how could I meaningfully misrepresent it? As you wished to use it, it is your job to represent his arguments and it is your responsibility to represent it accurately.

He says that the fundamental principle of empiricism can be a hypothesis.

That is the same thing as saying the fundamental principle of empiricism can be a theory. You seem to think that using one synonym is somehow different than the other.

If you fail to understand even this much, the rest of the discussion is aimless.

I understand well enough to recognize that a change in synonym does not equal a change in argument.

 

[Pieman333272]

Well there are two routes; either one says that the Bible was in effect peer-reviewed, or that it wasn’t and didn’t need to be.

It was “peer-reviewed” in the sense it was fact-checked by God, but when you said “peer-reviewed” you presumably meant by academics from the time. Peer-review is a modern invention, not useful at the time the Bible was written down.

Why start from the assumption that age makes a document believable?

I didn’t. Context gives us the right to apply different methodologies to ancient documents. This isn’t special pleading. That’s how ancient scholarship works. Not just the Bible, Tacitus, Josephus, China, you name it, context plays role.

We currently have youtube, international news agencies and all kinds of recording and sharing media. We’re human, we’re sinful, if coverage was what God wanted, now is the best time in human history to send Jesus. Still, this is all a minor issue even though it is fun.

No, the time Jesus came was the best time. If you’re not convinced by the documents, that’s YOUR problem, not God’s.

 

[James1215]

Ok, fair do’s, the Bible could not have been peer-reviewed, but was fact checked by God. Well mine was not a serious point other than to remark on Warpspeedpetey’s remarkably high valuation of peer review. No the article was not peer reviewed, but yes it was critically evaluated and the author’s reputation was on the line. It was in his interest not to make errors, so I believe he tried not to to the best of his ability.

 

[James1215]

He [Schwartz] says that the fundamental principle of empiricism can be a hypothesis.

That is the same thing as saying the fundamental principle of empiricism can be a theory. You seem to think that using one synonym is somehow different than the other.

If you fail to understand even this much, the rest of the discussion is aimless.

I understand well enough to recognize that a change in synonym does not equal a change in argument.

That was the original exchange. You said you understand the fundamental principle of empiricism as a hypothesis, so I would like you to explain your understanding to me. Do you understand what you are criticising? Without reading the article even? You say science does not stand as evidence, when it does; that he is using weak empiricism to argue for strong, which he is not; that induction is a problem, when it is central to the validity of empiricism; and other things…

As regards my arguments, I can see a few errors in your thinking which are impeding agreement. ‘Hypothesis’ and ‘theory’, as far as they are synonymous, have the same meaning - deal with the meaning, don’t skirt around it! The change is not from ‘theory’ to ‘hypothesis’ but from dogma to hypothesis.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Ok, fair do’s, the Bible could not have been peer-reviewed, but was fact checked by God. Well mine was not a serious point other than to remark on Warpspeedpetey’s remarkably high valuation of peer review. No the article was not peer reviewed, but yes it was critically evaluated and the author’s reputation was on the line. It was in his interest not to make errors, so I believe he tried not to to the best of his ability.

Unfortunately, the author hasn’t bothered to proof read his own work as there are obvious syntax errors in the document. Here is a for instance from page 7…

*According to empiricism **an hypothesis *that is immune to any empirical evidence

I think it bodes ill for a person’s reputation and a work’s quality when there are glaring and sloppy grammar mistakes in the document, part of the reason why I stopped reading it.

 

[James1215]

Unfortunately, the author hasn’t bothered to proof read his own work as there are obvious syntax errors in the document. Here is a for instance from page 7…

*According to empiricism **an hypothesis ***that is immune to any empirical evidence

I think it bodes ill for a person’s reputation and a work’s quality when there are glaring and sloppy grammar mistakes in the document, part of the reason why I stopped reading it.

I know exactly what you mean… I was reading the Catechisms and was so put off by the persistent mis-capitalisation on ‘His’ and poor use of apostrophes that I gave up. In this case, the indefinite article can be ‘an’ before a noun beginning with ‘h’, so I don’t see cause for alarm. If it bothers you, ignore the medium and focus on the message! Soldier on!

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I know exactly what you mean… I was reading the Catechisms and was so put off by the persistent mis-capitalisation on ‘His’ and poor use of apostrophes that I gave up. In this case, the indefinite article can be ‘an’ before a noun beginning with ‘h’, so I don’t see cause for alarm. If it bothers you, ignore the medium and focus on the message! Soldier on!

It seems your understanding of grammar is not very good. You use “an” only before an unsounded “h” in English. Feel free to keep on trying, however, to defend the article as “quality” work.

 

[James1215]

It seems your understanding of grammar is not very good. You use “an” only before an unsounded “h” in English. Feel free to keep on trying, however, to defend the article as “quality” work.

Lol then it only works if this guy had a cockney London accent, which would make the h silent(!) Fair enough, the grammar is wrong. There is no impact on the meaning whatsoever, especially not for someone like you who understands grammar.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeedpetey’s remarkably high valuation of peer review.

You are using that article in an attempt to refute historical fact and the common understanding of the entire philosophical community. Considering the claim, not being peer reviewed is telling.

No the article was not peer reviewed,

That’s all you needed to say.

but yes it was critically evaluated and the author’s reputation was on the line. It was in his interest not to make errors, so I believe he tried not to to the best of his ability.

It was not critically evaluated, that is the purpose of peer review. I have no doubt that he tried not to make mistakes. That doesn’t say anything about the validity of the argument.

 

[James1215]

That doesn’t say anything about the validity of the argument.

Yes indeed. So let’s leave the issue of peer review to one side.

And the common understanding of the whole philosophical community? Hmmm actually no, there is a lot of division on this issue, and historically so. Note the post earlier from the phil dictionary which spelled out a difference between rationalists and empiricists. This is a fairly major split.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Lol then it only works if this guy had a cockney London accent, which would make the h silent(!) Fair enough, the grammar is wrong. There is no impact on the meaning whatsoever, especially not for someone like you who understands grammar.

I understand what you are saying. It’s not merely, however, a matter of overlooking errors. If it was a one time event, that’s forgiveable. Mistakes happen. However, the author makes the* same* mistake prior to the example I cited. Furthermore, he is not consistent in making the error, as he uses “a hypothesis” in his document as well. If this article is to be taken seriously, simple and glaring mistakes shouldn’t be in the work and the one I cited isn’t the only one. It’s scholastically sloppy to have both inconsistency and incorrect syntax in a work, especially when dealing with already an opaque subject matter and technical jargon. It undermines the confidence in work’s quality and clarity.

Nonetheless, you do raise a point regarding judging the message. I reconsider finishing the article but bear in mind grammar and spelling wasn’t the only reason the I decided not complete the reading. It was merely icing on the cake.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

He [Schwartz] says that the fundamental principle of empiricism can be a hypothesis.
If you fail to understand even this much, the rest of the discussion is aimless.

I understand. However I also understand that using a synonym doesn’t change anything. The word “hypothesis” cannot be construed as empirical, which seems to be the implication.

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun

1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

That was the original exchange. You said you understand the fundamental principle of empiricism as a hypothesis, so I would like you to explain your understanding to me. Do you understand what you are criticising? Without reading the article even? You say science does not stand as evidence, when it does; that he is using weak empiricism to argue for strong, which he is not; that induction is a problem, when it is central to the validity of empiricism; and other things…

You claimed that “experience is required for knowledge”, the dogmatic strong empirical proposition. Then you claim that if we construe this statement as the non-dogmatic weak empirical proposition instead, “It may be that experience is required for some knowledge”, by using the synonym “hypothesis”, that inductions from the exercise of the scientific methods will support the strong empirical statement by that construal. Obviously I am pointing out the massive flaws with such an argument. Frankly, the author knows better. Hence the lack of peer review.

1. The change from “hypothesis” to “theory” is meaningless, the implied “empirical” isn’t entailed in “hypothesis”
2. The proposition “experience is required for knowledge” is dogmatic.
3. The content of a statement determines its’ nature, not the intent of the speaker. I could tell you that I meant this statement as a question, but the fact is it is still an assertion.
4. The “scientific method” is not “empiricism the theory of knowledge.” No number of observations such as “I observe X–>Y” make the leap to “I observe that experience is required for knowledge”. No scientist would make such a statement and if they did it would be entirely unjustified. I have been unable to get you to provide a concrete example of this evidence so I will make one for you. There is no way to make the leap from “I observe that water causes iron to oxidize” to “Therefore I have observed that knowledge is required for experience”. You have only observed that in this instance you gained knowledge from observation. Not that “experience is required for knowledge”. No matter how many times you make a similar observation you can never reach the strong empirical statement. Secondly, even that is problematic, in that accepting “empirical experience” actually represents reality is a rational judgement about rational objects. You are using your reason to assume that objects in thought are objects in reality. You can only reach the conclusion that you have made an empirical observation by first making a rational one. Which shoots the entire idea of empiricism down by itself.
5. Regardless of the adjective we hang on the proposition that “experience is required for knowledge”, it is still a proposition and as BR pointed out all propositions like that are logical contradictions.

As regards my arguments, I can see a few errors in your thinking which are impeding agreement. ‘Hypothesis’ and ‘theory’, as far as they are synonymous, have the same meaning - deal with the meaning, don’t skirt around it! The change is not from ‘theory’ to ‘hypothesis’ but from dogma to hypothesis.

The change was from “theory” to “hypothesis”. There is no change from dogma to hypothesis because as you seem to be unable to admit, the proposition “experience is required for knowledge” is clearly dogmatic. Of course I have said this repeatedly in nearly every post, so the idea that I am not “dealing with it” means you are either not reading my posts, or do not understand them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes indeed. So let’s leave the issue of peer review to one side.

No one is claiming it’s not valid because it isn’t peer reviewed. I am claiming that without peer review such an article doesn’t pack much intellectual punch. There isn’t much of a reason to give it the credibility that you seem to other than the mere fact that it agrees with your cherished belief.

And the common understanding of the whole philosophical community? Hmmm actually no, there is a lot of division on this issue, and historically so.

No, not really. Even the people involved admit it is long dead.

Note the post earlier from the phil dictionary which spelled out a difference between rationalists and empiricists. This is a fairly major split.

It’s been dead for decades, not centuries.

 

[James1215]

I think your interpretation that even empiricists admit empiricism is dead is based on the first page of the article. The author goes on to explain how it is not dead.

As to intellectual punch, that comes from the validity of the arguments the article contains, which you say is independent of whether the article was peer reviewed. Anyhow, if I pointed out every rhetorical error on your part, where would I get!