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

[CatSci]

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.

Yeah, that’s not the Philsophical Doctrine of Empiricism. It doesn’t make statements about what can be proven true.

I like sub sandwiches.

That statement is true and it hasn’t been proven empirically and an Empiricist wouldn’t say that its not true because it hasn’t been prvoen empircally.

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.

Like who? Can you point me to a few examples from this great number of people?

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

Such as?

I hope you’re not referring to those worthless Modernist or, heaven forbid, the Post-Modernists



When’s the last time any of these “Philosophy” people actually contributed anything worthwhile to anything at all? Have they gotten one thing done? Yielded a single result? Or are they still trying to figure out what’s real?

A child can easily determine that the ball is, in fact, a real object.

Great, now I’m ranting…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Great, now I’m ranting…

Why are you ranting? It seems like you are upset that someone is questioning empiricism. In my experience this is usually someone who wants to be a scientist. I understand. I don’t like it when someone questions the ability of my football team. We all have our heroes. No one wants to see them questioned. That said, you aren’t making a lot of sense in these posts. If you are simply offended that empiricism is being questioned by Philosophers of Science. Then you should rant at them. If you have a serious, intelligent philosophical objection, to the deduction I made in the OP, then the correct form of attack on a deductive statement should be to question the premises, or the validity of the inference drawn from them.

Of course. You can insist that I answer this post in full. However, I would rather not waste either of our time if this is more a matter of being offended, than anything substantive. Let me know how you wish this conversation to continue.

 

[CatSci]

Why are you ranting?

I got carried away… because I thought it was funny so I kept going with it.

It seems like you are upset that someone is questioning empiricism.

No. No, you’ve totally misread my tone.

In my experience this is usually someone who wants to be a scientist. I understand. I don’t like it when someone questions the ability of my football team. We all have our heroes. No one wants to see them questioned.

You should picture me as smugly chuckeling instead. I’m enjoying myself.

If you have a serious, intelligent philosophical objection, to the deduction I made in the OP, then the correct form of attack on a deductive statement should be to question the premises, or the validity of the inference drawn from them.

I did. In the post that you just quoted me from:

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

Here

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

Yeah, that’s not the Philsophical Doctrine of Empiricism. It doesn’t make statements about what can be proven true.

I like sub sandwiches.

That statement is true and it hasn’t been proven empirically and an Empiricist wouldn’t say that its not true because it hasn’t been prvoen empircally.

The OP simply misrepresent Empiricism.

And where do you find your atheists? Practically every atheist I’ve ever debated online would never use the argument you outlined in the OP.

You go further:

Empiricism is little more than a lie, it is essentially meaningless.

In the way your using it in the OP, yeah, you’re spot on. But nobody who actually employs empiricism (the real every-day kind), has anything to do with the Empiricism (this Philisophical meaningless lie) in the OP.

You then go on to conflate the two and lead to no reason for meeting it.

Now’s where it gets funny to me. You’re arguing on a computer on the internet against the very thing that has been employed to get you those things.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yeah, that’s not the Philsophical Doctrine of Empiricism.

OK. Then please demonstrate what it is.

It doesn’t make statements about what can be proven true.

It seems to do exactly that (bolded). Which is one reason why I wondered if you were being serious

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

I like sub sandwiches.

That statement is true and it hasn’t been proven empirically and an Empiricist wouldn’t say that its not true because it hasn’t been prvoen empircally.

Of course not, why would he? This statement doesn’t make any falsifiable claims. (this is the other reason why I wondered if you were serious)

Like who? Can you point me to a few examples from this great number of people?

Sure, anytime someone rejects a claim with metaphysical elements under an empirical rubric. You have identified a member of that group. It includes just about every atheist I have ever met.

Such as?

That’s outside the scope of the OP which is epistemological Empiricism. You can, of course, read the .pdf I linked for “other resources” or you can Google “philosophy of science”, and find a number of resources germane to that subject

This is why I thought you were offended that empiricism is being questioned

When’s the last time any of these “Philosophy” people actually contributed anything worthwhile to anything at all?

Lets see…

Mathematics
Geometry
Calculus
Algebra
Physics
Logic
Scientific Method
Ethics
Political Models
Economic Models
The point being that except for theology, almost every discipline and discovery is based at some point in philosophy.

Have they gotten one thing done? Yielded a single result?

How do you like that computer that you keep talking about? Its function is entirely a matter of logic. Democracy and Capitalism, hows that working out for you? Political philosophy at work. You like scientists? Guess what. Scientists didn’t start the scientific method. Philosophers did. Philosophy is at the root of everything we have except theology.

Or are they still trying to figure out what’s real? A child can easily determine that the ball is, in fact, a real object.

What do you mean by “real”? How do you know its “real”? Can you prove it? I would be amazed, because no one else ever has. I don’t really want an answer, my point is that what you seem to think is some easily answered question is much more complicated than you realize

Scientists aren’t much different than car mechanics. A mechanic hypothesizes from a set of premises. Say a leak and a strange sound. He then tests his hypothesis. Checks seals, replaces bearings, etc. The car still leaks and squeaks so reformulates his hypothesis and retests until he reaches a hypothesis that conforms to the data he has, then the car is repaired. While most science careers require much more training than an auto mechanics, its not really any different in process. The research scientist does the exact same thing as the car mechanic. In reality most research scientists are worker bees, they get all their tools and methods from philosophy. If you want to be impressed, then be impressed by the people who have created those tools and methods that make our world so interesting. Be impressed by the clarity of Euclid’s Elements, Descartes Dubito, Cogito Ergo Sum, Aquinas’ Summa, or Kripkes semantics. Your idols should be the great mathematicians, the logicians, the rationalists, people who have created this world though sheer force of collective will. Is that results enough for you?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No. No, you’ve totally misread my tone. You should picture me as smugly chuckeling instead. I’m enjoying myself.

It sure looks like you are belittling the practice of philosophy without knowing what it entails. You spoke without thinking and you clearly did no research.

I did. In the post that you just quoted me from:

I answered in the post below, if you have any further questions let me know

The OP simply misrepresent Empiricism.

Then show me how. I think you are confusing the empirical method scientists use with the Doctrine of Empiricism, the epistemological claim

And where do you find your atheists?

I know a bunch of atheists. Family, friends, aacquitances.

Practically every atheist I’ve ever debated online would never use the argument you outlined in the OP.

That’s the argument they make all the time. They don’t phrase it that way, but that is the very heart of the new atheism. As I said “anytime someone rejects a claim with metaphysical elements under an empirical rubric. You have identified a member of that group. It includes just about every atheist I have ever met.”

In the way your using it in the OP, yeah, you’re spot on.

I know because I didn’t invent this. I am trying to give other theists the tools necessary to reject atheist claims based on a misunderstanding of what empiricism is.

But nobody who actually employs empiricism (the real every-day kind), has anything to do with the Empiricism (this Philisophical meaningless lie) in the OP.

Here you just out right confuse the empirical method for the epistemological doctrine.

Now’s where it gets funny to me. You’re arguing on a computer on the internet against the very thing that has been employed to get you those things.

The empirical method and the scientific method are not the same thing, much less the Doctrine of Empiricism.

Now if you have a salient point within the scope of the OP feel free to make it.

 

[John21652]

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.

Pete, Pete, slow down from warp speed please.

You began this thread using syllogistic, or deductive logic. Now you are talking about “evidence”. Syllogisms only require hypotheses. One can hypothesise without evidence. If you are wanting “evidence” then we must start with evidence, or empirical knowledge and then inductively arrive at an answer. I know, you will then doubt the empirical method, but empiricism only requires justification enough to arrive at, you guessed it, a hypothesis!

Your last sentence regarding the evidence for Christianity is a classic example of inductive logic at work. We still can’t see the inner workings of the “atom”, but we have enough evidence on which to justify our conclusions.

 

[CatSci]

Yeah, that’s not the Philsophical Doctrine of Empiricism.

OK. Then please demonstrate what it is.

tinyurl.com/6ccxlsd

It seems to do exactly that (bolded). Which is one reason why I wondered if you were being serious

It might seem like that to you, but that is not what its says. There’s no proving things true in Empiricism.

I like sub sandwiches.

That statement is true and it hasn’t been proven empirically and an Empiricist wouldn’t say that its not true because it hasn’t been prvoen empircally.

Of course not, why would he? This statement doesn’t make any falsifiable claims

Okay, so there’s at least that error in the OP in that it doesn’t specify this.

Sure, anytime someone rejects a claim with metaphysical elements under an empirical rubric.

So, you’re really are agnostic about the Easter Bunny? Really?

When’s the last time any of these “Philosophy” people actually contributed anything worthwhile to anything at all?

Lets see…

Mathematics
Geometry
Calculus
Algebra
Physics
Logic
Scientific Method
Ethics
Political Models
Economic Models
The point being that except for theology, almost every discipline and discovery is based at some point in philosophy.

But scientists, mathematicians, etc. don’t actually do any philosophy and philosophers don’t actually do any science or math.

All Philosophers do is observe what other people are actually acomplishing things with, then describe them afterwards, and then try to take credit for what the other people did.

Plus, if “everything” is philosophy, then philosophy is nothing. It doesn’t add anything nor make any distinction than if it wasn’t there.

How do you like that computer that you keep talking about? Its function is entirely a matter of logic. Democracy and Capitalism, hows that working out for you? Political philosophy at work. You like scientists? Guess what. Scientists didn’t start the scientific method. Philosophers did. Philosophy is at the root of everything we have except theology.

No, philosophers did not develop these things. They simply try to take credit for them afterwards by describing what was done to develop them.

What do you mean by “real”? How do you know its “real”? Can you prove it? I would be amazed, because no one else ever has. I don’t really want an answer, my point is that what you seem to think is some easily answered question is much more complicated than you realize

lol… you exemplify my point. Even a child knows that the ball is real and can figure out how hard they have to throw to get it to go where they want.

 

[CatSci]

Scientists aren’t much different than car mechanics.

You’re right. They get their hands dirty and they get things done. They yield results. That was my first point here. That’s why employing empiricism is the best. That’s the reason you should meet it.

In reality most research scientists are worker bees, they get all their tools and methods from philosophy.

No, they don’t. Scientists don’t study philosophy and couldn’t care less about it.

If you want to be impressed, then be impressed by the people who have created those tools and methods that make our world so interesting. Be impressed by the clarity of Euclid’s Elements, Descartes Dubito, Cogito Ergo Sum, Aquinas’ Summa, or Kripkes semantics. Your idols should be the great mathematicians, the logicians, the rationalists, people who have created this world though sheer force of collective will. Is that results enough for you?

No, its not. Philosophers just sit there in their armchairs waching the mechanic fix the car, then afterwards they describe what he did, and try to act like he would have fixed the car if they hadn’t described it. “He was just using the Philosophy of Mechanics that I came up with”. No, you didn’t actaully do anything at all to help get the car fixed.

It sure looks like you are belittling the practice of philosophy without knowing what it entails. You spoke without thinking and you clearly did no research.

Philosophy doesn’t yield results. The reason for this is that they have no rigor. Nobody checks to make sure if they’re wrong ot not. Thousands of years later, the same philisophical debates are still unsettled. Meanwhile, empiricism has made leaps and bounds.

I answered in the post below, if you have any further questions let me know

You haven’t rebuttle the errors that I’ve pointed out in the OP.

Then show me how. I think you are confusing the empirical method scientists use with the Doctrine of Empiricism, the epistemological claim

Nobody uses the epitemological claim that you have in the OP. People use the actual empiricism that gets stuff done.

That’s the argument they make all the time.

Can you provide some links to these arguments being made by atheists? Honestly, all the atheists I’ve met online would think the argument in the OP was terribly flawed and not representative of their thinking at all.

They don’t phrase it that way, but that is the very heart of the new atheism.

How do you know you’re not misunderstanding it?

As I said “anytime someone rejects a claim with metaphysical elements under an empirical rubric. You have identified a member of that group. It includes just about every atheist I have ever met.”

That’s crazy. I know that Harry Potter doesn’t really exist because I know that J. K. Rowling made him up. The inane position of having to be agnostic about Harry Potter is something only a philosopher would argue.

I know because I didn’t invent this. I am trying to give other theists the tools necessary to reject atheist claims based on a misunderstanding of what empiricism is.

But you’re the one who’s misunderstanding empiricism. Noboby except philosophers use the Empiricism you outlined in the OP.

Here you just out right confuse the empirical method for the epistemological doctrine.

But you’re the one who’s conflating the two. Nobody employs the epistemological doctrine, they’re all using the empirical method.

The empirical method and the scientific method are not the same thing, much less the Doctrine of Empiricism.

Now if you have a salient point within the scope of the OP feel free to make it.

The OP misrepresents Empiricism as it is actually used by people, including atheists. It conflates that actually-employed empiricism with some meaningless philisophical empiricism that nobody has anything to do with.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Pete, Pete, slow down from warp speed please.

You began this thread using syllogistic, or deductive logic. Now you are talking about “evidence”. Syllogisms only require hypotheses. One can hypothesise without evidence. If you are wanting “evidence” then we must start with evidence, or empirical knowledge and then inductively arrive at an answer. I know, you will then doubt the empirical method, but empiricism only requires justification enough to arrive at, you guessed it, a hypothesis!

Your last sentence regarding the evidence for Christianity is a classic example of inductive logic at work. We still can’t see the inner workings of the “atom”, but we have enough evidence on which to justify our conclusions.

The post you quote is a response concerning the substantive differences in metaphysical claims.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

tinyurl.com/6ccxlsd

Did you even read the wiki you linked? This is the form of empiricism I am talking about.

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge comes via sensory experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views that predominate in the study of human knowledge, known as epistemology. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or tradition[1] in contrast to, for example, rationalism which relies upon reason and can incorporate innate knowledge.

This is what you are talking about.

Empiricism then, in the philosophy of science, emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

It might seem like that to you, but that is not what its says. There’s no proving things true in Empiricism.

I bolded the parts of the sentences that are the same, so you could see it. A=A right?

Okay, so there’s at least that error in the OP in that it doesn’t specify this.

How is it an error not to specify something that isn’t part of the OP? Like I demonstrated from the wiki you quoted, you are confusing the empirical method, with the Doctrine if Empiricism

So, you’re really are agnostic about the Easter Bunny? Really?

Of course, what else could I be? Do you have some evidence there is or is not an Easter bunny? To simply reject the notion because it seems incredulous is called the fallacy of incredulity. The nature of a claim gives us zero information about its validity.

But scientists, mathematicians, etc. don’t actually do any philosophy and philosophers don’t actually do any science or math.

What? are you serious? Mathematics is a philosophy, its a subset of symbolic logic. One of the first classes any philosophy student takes. (at least it was when I started college 20 years ago) Every mathematician by definition is a philosopher. Meta-mathematics is a hotly contested issue in the philosophy of mathematics.

All Philosophers do is observe what other people are actually acomplishing things with, then describe them afterwards, and then try to take credit for what the other people did.

What are you talking about? Please give me an historical example.

Plus, if “everything” is philosophy, then philosophy is nothing. It doesn’t add anything nor make any distinction than if it wasn’t there.

notA=A? what?, are you kidding me?

No, philosophers did not develop these things. They simply try to take credit for them afterwards by describing what was done to develop them.

Can you give me some historical examples of your assertion?

lol… you exemplify my point. Even a child knows that the ball is real and can figure out how hard they have to throw to get it to go where they want.

Please then, answer the questions I asked. What is real? How do You know? Can you prove it? A child doesn’t know, he just assumes. Big difference.

 

[CatSci]

Did you even read the wiki you linked? This is the form of empiricism I am talking about.

Yes. And I know what you’re talking about. I’m telling you that you are wrong about it. The Philosophy of Emiricism has nothing to do with proving things true.

I bolded the parts of the sentences that are the same, so you could see it. A=A right?

What you’re describing in the statement is not Empiricism.

How is it an error not to specify something that isn’t part of the OP?

You said that Empiricism claims that “A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.” <–that is not Empiricism by the way.

I provided a statement that an Empiricist could consider true without any empirically verifiable evidence. You replied that it wasn’t a falsifiable statement. It needing to be a falsifyable statement isn’t reflected in the OP.

Like I demonstrated from the wiki you quoted, you are confusing the empirical method, with the Doctrine if Empiricism

No, I’m keeping them seperate, except where I’m discussing the conflation of the two that you do in the OP near the end when you talk as if the Philisophical stuff you outlined had anything to do with the atheists standard, which it does not.

Of course, what else could I be? Do you have some evidence there is or is not an Easter bunny?

The Easter Bunny is a counterpart to Santa Clause, it was invented by a german guy as a character in a story to tell to children. Just like J.K. Rowling invented Harry Potter. Wait, are you agnostic about Harry Potter too!?

What? are you serious? Mathematics is a philosophy, its a subset of symbolic logic. One of the first classes any philosophy student takes.

And how many Philosophy classes do mathematicians take? (what, one requirement for the general education that everyone is required to take?) Of course the Philosophers are going to act like they invented math, that’s all they ever do is try to take credit for things other people did.

Every mathematician by definition is a philosopher.

And since that makes no distinction whatsoever, no mathmeticians are actually philosophers.

Philosophers, presumably because they haven’t made any advancements or yielded any results, must define everyone else who does accomplish things to be included in their own group in an attempt to justify themselves. But nobody pays attention to the philosophers except for themselves.

 

[Betterave]

Philosophy doesn’t yield results. The reason for this is that they have no rigor. Nobody checks to make sure if they’re wrong ot not. Thousands of years later, the same philisophical debates are still unsettled. Meanwhile, empiricism has made leaps and bounds.

I haven’t read much here, but this comment made me laugh. Empiricism is philosophy. Therefore your comments are complete nonsense.

 

[CatSci]

I haven’t read much here, but this comment made me laugh. Empiricism is philosophy. Therefore your comments are complete nonsense.

You might be able to call empiricism a philosophy, but Philosophy, itself, is not something that gets stuff done. It just describes the things that do get stuff done.

 

[Betterave]

You might be able to call empiricism a philosophy, but Philosophy, itself, is not something that gets stuff done. It just describes the things that do get stuff done.

Sure, that’s all empiricism attempts to do (not really, but whatever - empiricism certainly doesn’t “get stuff done” - at least not any more than any other philosophical view). The question is: does it do so well? And the answer is: no.

 

[CatSci]

Sure, that’s all empiricism attempts to do (not really, but whatever - empiricism certainly doesn’t “get stuff done” - at least not any more than any other philosophical view). The question is: does it do so well? And the answer is: no.

When you employ empiricism, as in the scientific approach, is when you get stuff done… like inventing these computers and internets that we’re communicating over, or putting a man on the moon, or curing diseases.

No other philisophical view has accomplished even a fraction of what employing empiricism has.

 

[Betterave]

When you employ empiricism, as in the scientific approach, is when you get stuff done… like inventing these computers and internets that we’re communicating over, or putting a man on the moon, or curing diseases.

No other philisophical view has accomplished even a fraction of what employing empiricism has.

I’m afraid you are confused: no one employs empiricism to invent computers or cure diseases. Such accomplishments are in no way dependent upon an espousal of (or even awareness of) empiricist doctrines - are they??

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, they don’t. Scientists don’t study philosophy and couldn’t care less about it.

Yeah, except for that whole Mathematics, Physics, and Scientific Method thing.

No, its not. Philosophers just sit there in their armchairs waching the mechanic fix the car, then afterwards they describe what he did, and try to act like he would have fixed the car if they hadn’t described it. “He was just using the Philosophy of Mechanics that I came up with”. No, you didn’t actaully do anything at all to help get the car fixed.

Then I am sure that you can provide historical examples of your claim.

Philosophy doesn’t yield results. The reason for this is that they have no rigor. Nobody checks to make sure if they’re wrong ot not.

I am pretty sure that your math teacher is checking your test results. Logical systems are all about “rigor”. In fact one could say that rigor is their defining characteristic.

Thousands of years later, the same philisophical debates are still unsettled.

You clearly have no idea what philosophy actually is or its historical context. Please do a little research, it is wasting my time to refute your emotional responses to attacks on empiricism. Use your brain, not your heart.

Meanwhile, empiricism has made leaps and bounds.

Empiricism has done nothing, the empirical method you are constantly conflating with epistemological empiricism is simply one part of the scientific method. The scientific method has made leaps and bounds. Good thing that philosophers developed it huh?

You haven’t rebuttle the errors that I’ve pointed out in the OP.

I haven’t seen you point out any errors in the OP. Please list any error you feel there is that I haven’t addressed.

Nobody uses the epistemological claim that you have in the OP. People use the actual empiricism that gets stuff done.

It seems that you are still conflating the two idea because they both have the word “empiricism” in them.

Can you provide some links to these arguments being made by atheists? Honestly, all the atheists I’ve met online would think the argument in the OP was terribly flawed and not representative of their thinking at all.

Of course. Post #8.

How do you know you’re not misunderstanding it?

Maybe I am, but I was an atheist, I personally know and spend time with a number of atheists, not just online. It comports with what I learned in school, and it comports with the historical progress of the arguments from the early Empirics, through the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle, on to Popper, Quine, Etc. I might be misunderstanding it. But then a whole lot of people more intelligent and erudite than me would also be misunderstanding it which puts me in some very good company indeed.

That’s crazy. I know that Harry Potter doesn’t really exist because I know that J. K. Rowling made him up. The inane position of having to be agnostic about Harry Potter is something only a philosopher would argue.

Really?, because I have seen several motion pictures featuring a very human looking Harry Potter and friends. How do I know that you aren’t just some Potterian atheist, attempting to spin up an alternative origin story? Oh, wait, I don’t, I guess I am going to have to employ some of that useless philosophy and logic you think so little of. Can you prove that Harry Potter isn’t real? Good luck with that.

But you’re the one who’s misunderstanding empiricism. Noboby except philosophers use the Empiricism you outlined in the OP…But you’re the one who’s conflating the two. Nobody employs the epistemological doctrine, they’re all using the empirical method…The OP misrepresents Empiricism as it is actually used by people, including atheists. It conflates that actually-employed empiricism with some meaningless philisophical empiricism that nobody has anything to do with.

And that the problem, People repeatedly confuse the empirical method, for the philosophical doctrine of empiricism, all the time. In fact I have now spent several posts pointing this out to you. You are clearly offended that people are questioning empiricism, you seem to have very little understanding of the subject, how about instead of telling us how wrong we are, you just watch and listen for a while. You seem to be arguing from emotion, not from rational thinking. Please research these topics before you post, so that you can make3 an intelligent and substantial contribution to the thread.

 

[Pieman333272]

No other philisophical view has accomplished even a fraction of what employing empiricism has.

This is simply false. Dozens of different philosophical views have created political and economic positions (including capitalism, distributism, socialism, communism, conservatism, anarchy, some forms of modern feudalism, and fascism, all of which either made a huge impact or are considered highly useful).

While empiricism may make the discoveries, other philosophical schools have done a much, much, much better job understanding the implications and applications of scientific discoveries such as evolution, the big bang, genes, language, and neurology. So, yes, other schools have made major accomplishments, and this is granting that empiricism is actually a “school”.

In fact, empiricism isn’t even making the discoveries. It’s the scientific method. Going from the scientific method to empiricism is such a huge non-sequitor it is the equivalent of admitting you know nothing of philosophy or science. Empiricism has done nothing except make some hack atheists think they took down the Christians so they can feel good inside (and wrongly so!). Nothing more.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I haven’t read much here, but this comment made me laugh. Empiricism is philosophy. Therefore your comments are complete nonsense.

I keep trying to be charitable, but it doesn’t seem to be working.

 

[Betterave]

I keep trying to be charitable, but it doesn’t seem to be working.

IOW, my comments seemed uncharitable? My apologies, CatSci, if I came across with a tone of derision: I was just trying to give you an honest reaction and a clear refutation of your claim.