Demanding Evidence

[Tybourne]

Empiricism is an example of strong self-consistency – when we review the evidence, and look at what performs and stands up to the tests for knowledge, we see striking patterns that align that knowledge with empirical methods; given the specifics we have available, the generalization that proceeds from the data is that empiricism works, and works in a singular fashion as the building blocks of knowledge (reason gets applied and all that, but empirical (name removed by moderator)ut is the driver).

Sed contra, take the example the novel experience of space travel. The Soviet Cosmonaut Gagarin sees the arc of the Earth in space and states: “I see no god”. The crew of Apollo 8 read from Genesis as they watch the Earth rise over the lunar horizon. On 20 July 1969, Buzz Aldrin receives communion on the surface of the moon. Later he writes: In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine slowly curled and gracefully came up the side of the cup. Then I read the Scripture, I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will bring forth much fruit. Same sense data- different interpretations.

The point is, our inductive use of sense data is interpretive and depends on the horizon upon which we are standing, our historical situation. For the hard-bitten empiricist to say: “I have no tradition, I merely take my stand here on the basis of my sense data” is already to place himself within a tradition- one that denies the fact that we are always working from a set of conventions.

 

[Betterave]

WSP (and others) I suspect just do not understand the inductive nature of the claim “empiricism is the sole source of knowledge”, and suppose it must be either a) deductive, b) certain (which inductive inferences such as this cannot possibly be) or ideally c) both of the above.

TS,
Agree or disagree?: It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who insists on using terms he doesn’t understand and refuses to be corrected and to learn their actual meanings.

“empiricism is the sole source of knowledge” - don’t you mean *experience *is the sole source of knowledge? Are you aware that empiricism is a doctrine about the role of experience in constituting knowledge, that it is not synonymous with ‘experience’? You seem not to be - look at the way you have been using this term - you literally don’t know what you’re talking about!

 

[Betterave]

The claim that all knowledge comes from experience is not self-refuting in any way that I can see. How does that claim refute itself? Why do you insist that the truth of empiricism is something that cannot be gained through experience?

It sounds like you really cherish the belief that empiricism is self-refuting, but you haven’t made a rational argument for that claim.

What other way of acquiring knowledge are you suggesting? If you mean revelation, isn’t revelation a sort of experience?

Leela’s right, Pete - the problem isn’t with ‘empiricism’ merely as a general assertion that knowledge is grounded in experience. The problem is when a dogmatist like TS is unable to see that the term ‘experience’ itself is not self-interpreting, it doesn’t circumscribe its own domain of meaning and application - we are responsible for doing that. TS sometimes claims to be aware of this, but it is pretty evident from most of what he says that his adherence in theory to a broad, nuanced, defensible kind of empiricism (one which in reality is compatible with rationalism!) is merely verbal, not something that reliably actuates his actual reasoning.

(p.s.: I recommend not running with your defense of the concept of ‘magical’ as whatever… I’m pretty sure that whole discussion will turn out to be a worthless red herring)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The claim that all knowledge comes from experience is not self-refuting in any way that I can see. How does that claim refute itself? Why do you insist that the truth of empiricism is something that cannot be gained through experience?

It sounds like you really cherish the belief that empiricism is self-refuting, but you haven’t made a rational argument for that claim.

its right in front of you.

"when empiricism claims it is the only source of knowledge, **i know this claim is self refuting because it is not knowledge one can gain empirically. **

can you see it now? the claim itself is non-empirical knowledge.

What other way of acquiring knowledge are you suggesting? If you mean revelation, isn’t revelation a sort of experience?

who said anything about revelation?, we are discussing the logical contradiction of empiricism, theology doesnt have a thing to do with it.

an attempted tu qouque would be fallacious here because it doesnt change the validity of the empirical claim.

 

[Leela]

its right in front of you.

"when empiricism claims it is the only source of knowledge, **i know this claim is self refuting because it is not knowledge one can gain empirically. **

can you see it now? the claim itself is non-empirical knowledge.

You just keep saying that, and I’m quite convinced that this is a cherished belief of yours, but you still haven’t even attempted to make a case for your claim that one can’t come to know that empiricism is true through experience.

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

Well, I did allow for “however you want to frame it” – anticipating,…

That’s right, TS, and this kind of anticipating is completely groundless and nonsensical, and keeps repeatedly coming up! And all you ever do when challenged about such errors in your thinking is to fall back on the same lame rationalizations of your lame dialogical practice.

but not constraining you to that or any particular objection. However you want to object – doesn’t matter to me – let’s get it out there on the table! Why dance around this? If you have an objection, state it positively.

What do you mean ‘positively’??? I’ve continually offered counter-arguments to your views and you continue to fail to repond to them. You think you’re magically in touch with reality somehow such that you need not respond to objections to your view of reality? What’s going on here, TS?

I just find it odd that you refuse to offer a positive response of your own. I’m quick to ask probing answers of colleagues, friends, my children. But if I want to be persuasive, or informative, I am keen to provide a positive solution and support for it to go with it. That’s conspicuously absent in your posts. I guess I understand from this post it is because it’s a lost cause anyway, but maybe just fielding as many questions as you can rattle off (asking questions is easy, answering is hard! You’ve got the easy chair here) will work me to rehabilitation and penitence.

A response to what, TS? Did you actually want to understand my view? Have you been asking me questions to try to understand it properly? NO! You can’t be bothered to “torture it out of me” (i.e., ask questions about what you don’t understand) - and why? It seems like it’s because you’ve already convinced yourself that you’re more in touch with reality (including the reality of epistemology!) than any theist, so why bother - right?

I do ask questions here and there, if you notice.

“here and there” - sure, but I’ve noticed that’s not a significant part of what you’re about…

But I try to avoid the asymmetries you are enjoying here – one can ask a dozen questions in less time and with less thought than it takes to provide one good answer. I’m interested to know the arguments, but I can’t be bothered, generally, to torture it out of you, or anyone. I’m fine with carrying more load in terms of answers and defending than I exert in asking and demanding. Part of why I’m here is just to represent unbelief in a thoughtful, coherent way.

In other words, you can’t answer my questions? A lot of my questions are merely rhetorical and form parts of counter-arguments to your views. They take the place of a flat out contradiction of claims you make that seem to me to be false. It’s supposed to function as an invitation to respectful dialogue where we try to understand each others views on the basis of the reasons available for holding them, instead of just willfully misconstruing them. That’s the point of my real questions too - do you get that?

Oh, I know it’s part of your experience, too. That’s not in question. The problem seems to be identifying the ramifications of that for (and all of us), epistemologically. That is a different, and more elusive kind of awareness. We feel the flame on our hand, for sure, but it’s not a given that the implications of this are realized. Syntax is a smart, eloquent poster, and it’s a live question based on our last exchange whether these ramifications are held in view, or not. If one asks, “what is my justification?” in that case, I strongly suspect there is a disconnect, for this is asking for the justification for an axiom. If it’s axiomatic, it’s a contradiction in terms to ask for justification. If we need justification, if the premise is not necessary to proceeding, it ain’t an axiom, by definition.

Are you granting my point or just backpedalling again?.

There’s a big gap between “flame is real” and “reality is real” as the insight gained from “flame is real”. It may seem obvious, but your questions (and Syntax’s, and many others) underscore the non-obvious nature of the connections.
It’s persuasive, I think, for those that do suppose we are liberty to proceed in “Matrix” mode, adopting that kind of skepticism toward the efficacy of the reality around us. If the idea has merit, not as just idle musing, but as a claim about reality itself and the epistemology available to us, the flame should not be a barrier to adopting and “living” that idea. But I don’t know anyone who can “live the idea”.

Live what idea? What are you talking about? If you don’t want me to ask questions, don’t make impossibly vague claims like this.

The flame seems perfectly real and extramental to me. My body reacts involuntarily to the sensation when I put my hand too close the flame in the fireplace here in the room. If you don’t think that’s “in touch”, I await your correction as to what “in touch” would mean and how it would be applied and demonstrated, if you have such.

Do you *really *think that I was suggesting that you were out of touch in the sense you suggest here? No one would suggest that, including Berkeley, and including myself - why would you interpret me that way? Do you really not see my point? I think you do, to some degree (e.g., you wrote: “I don’t think the flame is dispositive towards realism or idealism as an existential metaphysic”) - so why this disingenuous obtuseness?

 

[Betterave]

its right in front of you.

"when empiricism claims it is the only source of knowledge, **i know this claim is self refuting because it is not knowledge one can gain empirically. **

can you see it now? the claim itself is non-empirical knowledge.

who said anything about revelation?, we are discussing the logical contradiction of empiricism, theology doesnt have a thing to do with it.

an attempted tu qouque would be fallacious here because it doesnt change the validity of the empirical claim.

Leela’s right again, Pete. Like TS, I think you need to try to slow down with your repeated assertions, and spend more time trying to understand whatever it is that people object to in your assertions. Ask questions if you need to - it’s a sign of an open mind and a reasonable interlocutor will respect that.

 

[Syntax]

its right in front of you.

"when empiricism claims it is the only source of knowledge, **i know this claim is self refuting because it is not knowledge one can gain empirically. **

can you see it now? the claim itself is non-empirical knowledge.

an attempted tu qouque would be fallacious here because it doesnt change the validity of the empirical claim.

Hey warpspeed. I think you might be meaning this: Empiricism is not problematic. It is the verification criterion of existence and meaning that people use to lock in sense-experience as the only source of knowledge. This criterion says that every statement is meaningless unless it is, in princple, testable. But you are right to think this principle is self-undermining by its own accounts, since it is itself empirically untestable.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Empiricism is inherently inductive – it goes from the specific to the general –

this statement is clearly false because…

empiricism is simply an epistemological claim that your senses are the only source of knowledge. one does not practice empiricism, they simply make the claim

ergo, empiricism is not inherently inductive.

you may be conflating it with the scientific method.

so even in “hardcore” cases, where the claim is “all knowledge comes from empirical interaction with the world”, that statement itself is an expression of empiricism at work. It is “practicing what it preaches” by making that general statement about the world based on a pattern of specifics.

since one doesnt practice empiricism, i assume you mean the scientific method again. mooting the point

however, the statement made here would also fail in that verification and falsification schemes all rely on the empirical claim. which is a logical contradiction.

ergo, the statement is based on an already debunked claim. making it false as well

WSP (and others) I suspect just do not understand the inductive nature of the claim “empiricism is the sole source of knowledge”, and suppose it must be either a) deductive, b) certain (which inductive inferences such as this cannot possibly be) or ideally c) both of the above.

i suppoose none of the above, actually. i uderstand that the empirical claim is a bare logical contradiction that no rational person may accept, and still call themselves rational. to accept a logical contradiction, is to admit that you believe in magic.

to demonstrate again.

"when empiricism claims it is the only source of knowledge, i know this claim is self refuting because it is not knowledge one can gain empirically.

the claim itself is non-empirical knowledge.

hellloooooo…huge logical contradiction in your belief system, right here. in great big flashing lights.

do you believe in magic? or can you accept that your cherished belief is false?

The fallacy of the ‘empiricism refutes itself’ then is basically the forcing of a false threshold on its claims a means of justifying itself.

every belief must be subject to logical contradiction, if it isnt, then its magic

Empiricism is an example of strong self-consistency – when we review the evidence, and look at what performs and stands up to the tests for knowledge, we see striking patterns that align that knowledge with empirical methods; given the specifics we have available, the generalization that proceeds from the data is that empiricism works, and works in a singular fashion as the building blocks of knowledge (reason gets applied and all that, but empirical (name removed by moderator)ut is the driver).

yet again, empricism is a simple claim. no matter how many times you “verify” the empirical claim, a logical contradiction, you are still relying on that contradiction.

circular reasoning

What empiricism does not claim to do, and what it finds wholly INCONSISTENT with its epistemology is to establish some sort of certain positive validation. Empiricism is the rejection of that basis for acceptance.

again, empiricism is an epistemological claim. not the same thing as the scientific method, which is simply a collection of investigatory techniques. which is inductive, and does suffer the problem of induction.

given the evidence, you are definitely conflating the scientific method with empiricism

The terms warpspeedpetey would demand for “justification” for empiricism would necessarily be a repudiation of empiricism!

if a belief isnt open to invalidation by logical contradiction. then it is magical, the laws of logic and reason do not apply, to this magically invulnerable claim.

do you believe in magic? because i dont.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You just keep saying that, and I’m quite convinced that this is a cherished belief of yours,

because it is a bare logical contradiction. you cannot deny it. its obvious like the shining sun. just ignoring it wont make it go away.

the empirical claim that the only source of knowledge is the senses, is non- empirical knowledge its self.

hence the term self refuting. unless you believe in magic, that somehow something can both be true and false at the same time, you must agree to the bare contradiction

if you do believe in magic, that the law of non-contradiction doesnt apply in this case. then avicennes suggested the appropriate solution for that kind of denial…

but you still haven’t even attempted to make a case for your claim that one can’t come to know that empiricism is true through experience.

what are you missing here? empiricism is always false, regardless of experience. its a logical contradiction.

maybe you need it restated in a different form.

it is circular reasoning to say, if i just have enough empirical experience, then empiricism will be proven true. every instance you take of empirical experience is itself a logical contradiction.

you cant build a good house on a false foundation.

first thats induction and doesnt offer proof.

secondly, no matter how many times you “verify” the empirical claim, a logical contradiction, you are still relying on that contradiction. verification and falsification schemes are self refuting becaus they too rely on the empirical claim.

circular reasoning

 

[Syntax]

The claim that all knowledge comes from experience is not self-refuting in any way that I can see. How does that claim refute itself? Why do you insist that the truth of empiricism is something that cannot be gained through experience?

“Knowledge comes from sense-experience” **is not **self-refuting.
“Knowledge only comes from sense-experience” is self-refuting.

You must notice that the latter pretends to be a knowledge claim itself, namely about the *only *source of knowledge. So it is strictly excluding the possibility of non-experiential knowledge. But how can this claim be consistently applied to non-experiential situations when it itself says that knowledge only comes from experience? It can’t restrict the domain of knowledge to experiential situations while simultaneously being a claim about non-experiential situations.

It sounds like you really cherish the belief that empiricism is self-refuting, but you haven’t made a rational argument for that claim.

Wow, so now you’re holding these standards above everyone else’s claims except your own that “Jeff is a bachelor” is a relation. Sounds like a double standard.

What other way of acquiring knowledge are you suggesting? If you mean revelation, isn’t revelation a sort of experience?

**A priori **knowledge. E.g., mathematics, geometry, ethics, philosophy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

this principle is self-undermining by its own accounts, since it is itself empirically untestable.

bingo!

the claim is itself is non-empirical knowledge.

why does it take a grad student to get this? its a very simple idea. its not even a new idea.

 

[Syntax]

bingo!

the claim is itself is non-empirical knowledge.

Correct. see 189.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Knowledge comes from experience” is not self-refuting.
Knowledge only comes from experience" is self-refuting. You must notice that it itself pretends to be a knowledge claim, namely about the only source of knowledge. So it automatically exclude those cases where knowledge doesn’t come from experience. But how can this claim be consistently applied to non-experiential situations when it itself says that knowledge only comes from experience? It can’t restrict the domain of knowledge to experiential situations while simultaneously being a claim about non-experiential situations

.

what do i have to do? dance it out in bee language?

buzzzz…buzzity buzz buzzzzz, stinnger wag, stinger wag at a 45 degree angle to the suns current position. buzz buzzy buzzz. dance to the left for 3 body lengths…buzzzzzz!..

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Correct. see 189.

nicely said. do you think anyone will believe you ?

the hard part isnt making the point, its getting a person with a vested interest to agree.

 

[Syntax]

nicely said. do you think anyone will believe you ?

the hard part isnt making the point, its getting a person with a vested interest to agree.

I am not sure why it is not immediately apparent to everyone. We are not throwing out empiricism at all. We are just throwing out the dogmatism fueling logically inconsistent claims. “Knowledge only comes from sense-experience” has a similar air of paradox like the following self-referential sentence.

“This sentence is false.”

If its false, then its true. If its true, then its false.

However, I think there might be a little bit of a difference with respect to the claim that “Knowledge only comes from sense-experience.” Since the claim is also about** non**-experiential situations, if it is true, then what it says is false. And if what it says is false, then it is just plain false. So there is not really any paradox at all. It is just plain false. Lol.

 

[Syntax]

I am not sure why it is not immediately apparent to everyone. We are not throwing out empiricism at all. We are just throwing out the dogmatism fueling logically inconsistent claims. “Knowledge only comes from sense-experience” has a similar air of paradox like the following self-referential sentence.

“This sentence is false.”

If its false, then its true. If its true, then its false.

However, I think there might be a little bit of a difference with respect to the claim that “Knowledge only comes from sense-experience.” Since the claim is also about** non**-experiential situations, if it is true, then what it says is false. And if what it says is false, then it is just plain false. So there is not really any paradox at all. It is just plain false. Lol.

This is funny: notice that sense-experience might, after all, just be the only source of knowledge. The problem is that no-one can consistently claim this, nor can anyone know this! lol.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am not sure why it is not immediately apparent to everyone. We are not throwing out empiricism at all. We are just throwing out the dogmatism fueling logically inconsistent claims. “Knowledge only comes from sense-experience” has a similar air of paradox like the following self-referential sentence.

“This sentence is false.”

If its false, then its true. If its true, then its false.

However, I think there might be a little bit of a difference with respect to the claim that “Knowledge only comes from sense-experience.” Since the claim is also about** non**-experiential situations, if it is true, then what it says is false. And if what it says is false, then it is just plain false. So there is not really any paradox at all. It is just plain false. Lol.

yup.

just plain false.

 

[Syntax]

yup.

just plain false.

Here’s what’s even more humorous:

The claim might just be true. The problem is that no one can consistently claim that it is. Nor can anyone know it. So it is an absurd belief to boot.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Here’s what’s even more humorous:

The claim might just be true. The problem is that no one can consistently claim that it is. Nor can anyone know it. So it is an absurd belief to boot.

thats what bertrand russel said about it 70 years ago.

im not sure why the “new atheists” think that it has changed.