Does Empiricism Make a Logically Valid Standard of Proof? What Do You Think?

[honestquestions]

‘valid’ yes
‘only’ no
And valid a valid standard for who?

Agreed.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

the argument is a pretty poor one.

It looks valid to me. Did I make a deductive mistake? Where?

But does that mean we should believe these multitude of things that we can imagine just because it could be true?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought we accept the uncertainty principle because it states that we cannot assign exactly 100% to any belief - we will never be 100% sure of any belief. Of course, in terms of useful dialogue that actually give understanding to us, we say ‘proven’ for something that is an acceptable position based on reason. Am I following your point correctly?

I am a Chemistry student, and if I am not mistaken, the Uncertainty Principle says that we can not know the position of an electron and the momentum of an electron at the same time.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

So what is the methodology that we should use to evaluate claims?

The Church does it for us, as it is guided by the Holy Spirit and was the Church first initiated by Jesus Christ.

We don’t put complete faith without evidence that Socrates existed. There is at least some evidence, and the claims are not extraordinary. On the other hand the miraculous claims violate some laws of physics, and even to this day there are supposed miracles happening by proposed healers on Earth, one of which has over one million followers, but yet it can’t even get airtime on T.V. This has been happening all throughout history. Nevertheless, I don’t doubt how much the followers believe in his extraordinary claims.

Yes, we do put complete faith that Socrates existed. During his lifetime, works were passed down orally. In fact, had Plato not referenced Socrates, we would have not known he existed at all. But examine this fact closely. If we can’t even be sure about Socrates’ existence, who lived on this mortal planet, what makes anyone think we can “strongly empirically verify” God’s existence, when God has never been seen by any living man in history?

What if another religion (some do) made that statement? I think a real choice of denying/accepting God would be some great evidence that is undeniable, and those who did really would be denying based on their choice.

Let’s take things slowly. First of all, you have to believe in God’s existence. Then we can go on to proving Monotheism, and then Christianity, and then ultimately Catholicism

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

No, It only means that you cannot reject these claims on the basis of the empirical statement because the empirical statement is logically invalid. If it helps, this is really nothing new, neither you, me, nor anyone else who has rejected a metaphysical claim on the basis of the empirical statement has done so validly. We are only two among millions.

Not to mention the fact that God is the “greatest thing that can possibly be conceived of” (Anselm). So when Atheists try to advance the suggestion that Christians should likewise believe in supernatural tooth fairies, cosmic teapots and whatnot, it fails as an analogy of God’s existence because we can think of things which are greater than supernatural tooth fairies and cosmic teapots.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m not following…

“Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

 

[warpspeedpetey]

‘valid’ yes
‘only’ no
And valid a valid standard for who?

Deductively valid.

 

[honestquestions]

No, It only means that you cannot reject these claims on the basis of the empirical statement because the empirical statement is logically invalid.

So you’re saying I can only reject the claim based on another philosophy of burden of proof?

I’m just a little confused: If I make a (make up any hard to believe) statement, is it reasonable to accept the claim or not? It indeed may or may not be true, but in terms of acceptance, should we believe it or not?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

So you’re saying I can only reject the claim based on another philosophy of burden of proof?

I’m just a little confused: If I make a (make up any hard to believe) statement, is it reasonable to accept the claim or not? It indeed may or may not be true, but in terms of acceptance, should we believe it or not?

No you can’t just make up any claim. We are not saying that “empirical verification” is without its benefits. You’ll be surprised to know in fact that the Catholic Church invented what is known as the “scientific method”, which is used to prove/disprove hypotheses. There are many cases where empirical verification is needed (such as the production of medicines).

What we are merely arguing is that empirical verification has no place in proving the language used to describe God’s nature and God’s existence. God has never been seen by any man in history (John 1:18), so to empirically verify God would be “weaker than weak”; God is transcendent and completely different to humanity (Isaiah 55:8-9), and so to empirically verify God would be likening God to Humanity, thus falling into the trap of anthromorphism. Not to mention that empirically verifying God puts God in a box…but the Bible instructs us that we can not put God in a box (Daniel 4:35) since God does whatever He wants to do. This would and can only make sense, since God is existence itself and more than existence itself: He is.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not to mention the fact that God is the “greatest thing that can possibly be conceived of” (Anselm). So when Atheists try to advance the suggestion that Christians should likewise believe in supernatural tooth fairies, cosmic teapots and whatnot, it fails as an analogy of God’s existence because we can think of things which are greater than supernatural tooth fairies and cosmic teapots.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Your solution is elegant, But it rests on the ontological argument, one that is notoriously hard to explain. You might spend a lot of time pushing Anselm before you even get to that.

Here is how I handle the situation.

I am an agnostic as to the existence of cosmic teapots, unicorns, tooth fairies, etc. I see no reason to accept or reject them on the basis of the evidence I have. To reject them because they seem incredulous is a logical fallacy. To accept them because we don’t have a reliable, logically valid methodology for their rejection is simply naive. For these kind of claims we should admit that we simply lack enough evidence to pick any position other than the agnostic “I don’t know”

This isn’t the case with Christianity we have a lot of evidence. More than enough for any reasonable man to make a decision.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I will tackle post #28 Tommorrow. Goodnight folks.Nice talking to everyone.

 

[honestquestions]

I am an agnostic as to the existence of cosmic teapots, unicorns, tooth fairies, etc. I see no reason to accept or reject them on the basis of the evidence I have. To reject them because they seem incredulous is a logical fallacy. To accept them because we don’t have a reliable, logically valid methodology for their rejection is simply naive. For these kind of claims we should admit that we simply lack enough evidence to pick any position other than the agnostic “I don’t know”

This isn’t the case with Christianity we have a lot of evidence. More than enough for any reasonable man to make a decision.

You seem to be unaware that almost everyone is agnostic in regards to religious or other extraordinary claims such as unicorns, tooth fairies, etc. It is highly unlikely that we will find hard evidence for either side. An atheist does not state that there is no god. Rather an atheist rejects that claim that gods exist, also known as I do not believe in god, NOT I believe there is no god (which would then require justification). And almost all atheists (if not all) are also agnostic. Most religious people are also agnostic with the exception of those that say “I JUST KNOW” and when you ask why they give personal experiences.

 

[po18guy]

We must always make a distinction between empirical beliefs and Empiricism. Empiricism is the beleief that all our beliefs come from our senses. This theory is false and leads the Logical Positivist position, which is self-refuting. But we derive many beliefs from our sense and the justification of these beliefs take on a different form that other more strictly logical beliefs. That is to to say that our standered of proof relaxes a bit for more empirical beliefs. This more ordinary account of of belief formation and justification.

The empiricist therefore exercises control of the level of ‘proof’ required in any given context or situation. Thus, only their personal preference as to what constitutes proof is acceptable to them. This is also known by another, much more common term: opinion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So you’re saying I can only reject the claim based on another philosophy of burden of proof?

I am saying that you cannot reject it on the grounds of the empirical statement because the empirical statement is demonstrably false. Where you take it from there is your decision.

I’m just a little confused: If I make a (make up any hard to believe) statement, is it reasonable to accept the claim or not? It indeed may or may not be true, but in terms of acceptance, should we believe it or not?

I think we should explore critical thinking a little more deeply. your desire to reject notions that you find incredulous, on the basis of that incredulity is very common among atheists, but its actually a logical fallacy. You’re next post will allow me address the issue more directly.

 

[CatSci]

How can people bash empiricism with a computer on the internet!?

Science WORKS. I mean, it put a man on the moon.

There’s nothing more to it: it yields results.

That’s why its awesome.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You seem to be unaware that almost everyone is agnostic in regards to religious or other extraordinary claims such as unicorns, tooth fairies, etc.

I am aware of the atheist position, I was an atheist as a teenager.

It is highly unlikely that we will find hard evidence for either side.

There is no hard evidence for unicorn or tooth fairies, that I know of. We not only witnessed Christs ministries, we have the records and witness statements beyond the Messiah, all the way back to Abraham through Judaism. The two are simply not comparable.

… Most religious people are also agnostic with the exception of those that say “I JUST KNOW” and when you ask why they give personal experiences.

They are making a statement of faith, not agnosticism. Personal experiences aren’t invalid simply because they don’t meet the invalid empirical statements standard…
That said I have noticed that you wish to reject extraordinary claims, on the basis that they are extraordinary. This is called the fallacy of incredulity. Don’t feel bad, everyone else is guilty of it too.

**Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.**

The desire to reject extraordinary claims simply because they seem extraordinary is little different than a person saying “G-ddidit” because they don’t understand the cause of an event. It simply represents a lack of imagination. Both the fallacy of incredulity and The G-ddidit claim stems from ignorance of how a phenomenon may be caused.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How can people bash empiricism with a computer on the internet!?

Science WORKS. I mean, it put a man on the moon.

There’s nothing more to it: it yields results.

That’s why its awesome.

Because the empirical method of scientific investigation is different than the Philosophical Doctrine of Empiricism. Please read the OP.

 

[CatSci]

Because the empirical method of scientific investigation is different than the Philosophical Doctrine of Empiricism. Please read the OP.

The OP doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Philosophical Doctrine of Empiricism.

There is no “proof” in empiricism and nobody who knows anythings says that empirically verifiable evidence is the only way that a statement can be considered true.

I was more replying to the 3 votes I saw for “Boo! Empiricism” and things like:

Empiricism is just sad. It only goes to show how closed the minds of some people are. Beyond that, it is weak and useless.

 

[Pieman333272]

What are other aspects of our lives that don’t deal with religion where it is seen as acceptable to accept claims based on tests that are philosophical or historical? I’m not sure if that’s official terminology or anything but I’m going with what you wrote. Or do we (as we should?) only accept things through hard evidence? (I’m not being facetious, I’m really trying to figure this out as well, though I immediately suspect it’s the latter).

Politics, ethics, history itself, the usage of science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The OP doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Philosophical Doctrine of Empiricism.

Here

A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.

There is no “proof” in empiricism

As essentially all knowledge is inductive at some point in the logical build up, there technically isn’t proof in anything. All axioms can be doubted

and nobody who knows anythings says that empirically verifiable evidence is the only way that a statement can be considered true.

I agree, however there are a great number of people who feel differently.

I was more replying to the 3 votes I saw for “Boo! Empiricism” and things like:

His opinion seems to be shared by a number of people in the mainstream of the Philosophy of Science.