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

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

On what basis? Your opinion?

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

On what basis? Your opinion?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.

On what basis? Your opinion?

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.

Because the OP isn’t about the process of the empirical method. You keep confusing the two.

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.

On what basis? Your opinion?

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!?

If you believe you have certain knowledge concerning the reality of any of these subjects feel free to prove that they are or are not existent.

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 mathematics class by definition is a course in symbolic logic.

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

M=P means that M=notP? Can you hear yourself? There is literally no more illogical position that A=notA. How seriously can I take someone who keeps making these kind of basic errors?

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.

This is nothing but another emotional statement because you don’t like the reality being presented to you. The fact is that the people you idolize are not the giants you thought they were. Everyone of them depends on a philosophers work, whether its mathematics, physics, or the scientific method. Every advancement that you are enthusiastic about depends on some aspect of philosophy at some point. It doesn’t matter if you like it or not, its just a bare historical fact.

I hereby apologize to every teacher, professor, tutor or grad student that ever had to deal with me. I am sure that I was just like this as a kid.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

Sorry, my bad, I shouldn’t have implied that. Diplomacy isn’t my strong suit.

 

[CatSci]

I’m afraid you are confused: no one employs empiricism to invent computers or cure diseases.

What do you mean? Scientists employ empiricism when they use the scientific method to gather empirical data.

Such accomplishments are in no way dependent upon an espousal of (or even awareness of) empiricist doctrines - are they??

No, and that is one of the points I’m making. Nobody actually cares about the Philosophy of Empiricism, they simply employ its tenants as a byproduct of using the scientific method.

What petey has done in the OP, is argue against the Philosophy of Empiricism, and then conflate that with the empirical approach to problem solving that atheists use, which is the same as the scientific method.

Here is what wiki says about Empiricism:
wiki:

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 in contrast to, for example, rationalism which relies upon reason and can incorporate innate knowledge.

Her is what petey says about Empiricism:

petey:

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

That’s not really The Philosophy of Empiricism, but lets let that slide for now, he goes on to talk about the atheist approach:

So when an atheist attempts to use Empiricism as the standard of proof, he is really asking you to meet a logically invalid standard.

There’s the conflation. Atheists use empiricism in the sense that science does, not in the sense that he claims The Philosophy of Empiricism does.

He then goes on:

If they cannot defend this standard, I see no reason that we should try to meet it.

I say the reason you should use empiricism, again the way atheists really do and not the way that he is saying The Philosophy of Empiricism does, is simply because it works. It yields results and it gets stuff done.

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.

No need. You seem honest and sincere.

Petey, on the other hand, wants to attack my character by making assumption about my emotions:

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.

You are clearly offended that people are questioning empiricism,

 

[mellestad]

I’m sure I’ll regret this. Anyway.

The question in the OP is sort of a trick. No, empiricism isn’t a 100% logically valid standard of proof. The only 100% logically valid standard of proof is, well, logic.

The real question isn’t whether or not empiricism is perfectly logical, the question is how effective it is compared to other systems.

Pure logic, pure reason, is only as good as what you put into it. Without empiricism there isn’t any practical way to figure out if your presuppositions are good or not. It is easy to make a perfect logical argument that is nevertheless totally false.

So to me the question isn’t whether or not empiricism is perfect, the question is whether or not we have superior alternatives. I’m not aware of any. That is assuming the goal is to learn about what we define as reality. If the interest is purely in making internally coherent

What goes up, must come down. Two objects can never touch, because the distance between them will always be divisible. The universe revolves around the Earth. All of those statements were logically perfect in their time. The only way we learned they did not match reality was empiricism…pure reason could never sort it out.

So to sum it up, I think other methods of reasoning are fine and many of them are certainly ‘better’ from a model perspective, but I don’t think they are worth much until empirically verified.

Having said that, if we had perfect knowledge then empiricism wouldn’t be the best system anymore.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

 

[mellestad]

I’d also like to say I agree strongly with CatSci. When the typical atheist calls for empiricism they are talking about methodology for comparing truth claims, not claiming they are adherents of Empiricism as a philosophy of knowledge.

In my experience most atheists who understand the terminology would not self identify as Empiricists, they would self identify as Physicalists or something similar.

**
You’ll catch lots of non-philosophy student atheists by conflating usage though, which will result in a great deal of ‘talking past each other’ disease!!!**

Edit: Added emphasis. I can’t stress the above point enough. If anyone is interested in *honest8 discussion with an atheist, be careful of confuses usage for empiricism.

Cheers!

 

[jwright82]

Of course there is always the Rationalist/Empiricist dichotomy. I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t issues in that debate (foundations in meta-mathematics anyone?). But those issues are out of the scope of my argument here.

I tend to regect the Rationalist/Empiricist dichotomy myself. Our beleif formation is a little more complicated than that. But I agree with your original argument. I would drive it a bit further in attacking their faith in science. You are right that Empiricism is wrong and also destroying their faith in science leaves them with no foundation at all.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I tend to regect the Rationalist/Empiricist dichotomy myself. Our beleif formation is a little more complicated than that.

We ought to call that the never ending war! lol.

But I agree with your original argument. I would drive it a bit further in attacking their faith in science. You are right that Empiricism is wrong and also destroying their faith in science leaves them with no foundation at all.

I get so tired of seeing Christians agree to the terms of empiricism, without knowing that it is a logically invalid. If I could make every other Christian see the strength in opposing the epistemological basis of the new atheist position, pretty soon there wouldn’t be a new atheist position. There would still be atheists, they just wouldn’t have any teeth.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What do you mean? Scientists employ empiricism when they use the scientific method to gather empirical data.

The empirical method means to collect empirical data because it maintains the falsifiability of the hypothesis.

No, and that is one of the points I’m making. Nobody actually cares about the Philosophy of Empiricism, they simply employ its tenants as a byproduct of using the scientific method. What petey has done in the OP, is argue against the Philosophy of Empiricism, and then conflate that with the empirical approach to problem solving that atheists use, which is the same as the scientific method. Here is what wiki says about Empiricism:

The philosophy of Empiricism is not the same thing as the empirical method, as I demonstrated in post 50 by quoting from the wiki that you linked to.

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

Remember this?

That’s not really The Philosophy of Empiricism, but lets let that slide for now, he goes on to talk about the atheist approach:

Oh my, this is tiresome to keep repeating

Scientism

The statement “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically”, is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as it cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true”.[30] (This kind of issue was a serious problem for logical positivism)…Verification- and falsification-principlesThe statements “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified” and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea They changed the wiki about the time I started arguing along these lines last year. I saw them talking about it in the edits. Now empiricism is no longer a separate category, its now lumped in to the scientism/verification headings.

There’s the conflation. Atheists use empiricism in the sense that science does, not in the sense that he claims The Philosophy of Empiricism does.

I am obviously speaking about the way atheist conflate the two ideas. When atheist are here making the argument, we aren’t arguing science, we are arguing philosophy, hence the title of the forum the “Philosophy Forum”

He then goes:

I say the reason you should use empiricism, again the way atheists really do and not the way that he is saying The Philosophy of Empiricism does, is simply because it works. It yields results and it gets stuff done.

And again you conflate the empirical method with the Doctrine of Empiricism. Which is exactly what I am talking about the atheists are doing! The empirical method in science protects the falsifiability of the hypothesis by using only empirical evidence, the doctrine of empiricism on the other hand says that a statement can only be considered true if it is supported by empirical evidence. Two completely different things.

Petey, on the other hand, wants to attack my character by making assumption about my emotions:

You are clearly making emotional statements about how useless philosophy is and how great scientists are, making bare assertions about the nature of philosophy and mathematics, that aren’t born up in the historical record, etc. How is that kind of thing anything but emotional? Its hardly an assumption.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’d also like to say I agree strongly with CatSci. …

There is no trick, its simple deductive logic. You can look it up. You can see that I am not conflating or confusing anything from quotes in the post immediately above this one. He simply doesn’t have a sufficient familiarity with the epistemologies used to differentiate between them. I can’t teach the basics of philosophy to everyone who wishes to opine on a subject with which they are unfamiliar. Obviously, if one chooses to post on a topic, one should have a working knowledge of the subjects involved.

 

[CatSci]

The empirical method means to collect empirical data because it maintains the falsifiability of the hypothesis.

It also works and yields results. If something else worked and yieled results, then that would be used to.

The philosophy of Empiricism is not the same thing as the empirical method,

The Philosophy of Empiricism is that knowledge comes from sensory experience. The empirical method abides by that philosophy to collect data.

Scientism

The Philosophy of Empiricism is not Scientism. I haven’t seen any atheists arguing Scientism, and if I did, then I would tell them that they are wrong too.

I am obviously speaking about the way atheist conflate the two ideas.

But they don’t. You’re the one conflating what they actually use with your misrepresentation of the Philosophy of Empiricism.

And again you conflate the empirical method with the Doctrine of Empiricism. Which is exactly what I am talking about the atheists are doing! The empirical method in science protects the falsifiability of the hypothesis by using only empirical evidence,

I’m not sure what you mean by “protecting the falsifiability of the hypothesis”…

The empirical method doesn’t use things that are not sensory experiences, so it abides by the Philosophy of Empicism. It is methodological empiricism.

the doctrine of empiricism on the other hand says that a statement can only be considered true if it is supported by empirical evidence.

No, it doesn’t.

You are clearly making emotional statements about how useless philosophy is and how great scientists are, making bare assertions about the nature of philosophy and mathematics, that aren’t born up in the historical record, etc. How is that kind of thing anything but emotional? Its hardly an assumption.

Oh wow. In one post, you deny that you can know that fictional characters aren’t real, and in another its clear to you that what you’ve wrongly interpreted as my emotion from an incomplete medium couldn’t be anything else How about this:

ZOMG! HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE MY EMOTION FROM WORDS I TYPE INTO A TEXTBOX! RAWR! THAT IS SO %*$&ING CRAZY!!!

I wrote the above without any anger whatsoever and was completely calm. That’s why its important that you argue the position and not the person.

 

[Betterave]

What do you mean? Scientists employ empiricism when they use the scientific method to gather empirical data.

No they don’t. When they use the scientific method, they employ *the scientific method *(which in reality, btw, is messier than the version we all were taught in 6th grade or whenever). I think you are just confused on a basic terminological issue here: “empiricism” is not at all the same as “the scientific method.”

No, and that is one of the points I’m making. Nobody actually cares about the Philosophy of Empiricism, they simply employ its tenants as a byproduct of using the scientific method.

Both of these statements are false: plenty of people care about empiricism (which, yes, names a philosophical position, or positions) and nobody employs its tenets as a byproduct of using the scientific method.

What petey has done in the OP, is argue against the Philosophy of Empiricism, and then conflate that with the empirical approach to problem solving that atheists use, which is the same as the scientific method.

I think Petey is trying to unconflate empiricism from an empirical approach.

There’s the conflation. Atheists use empiricism in the sense that science does, not in the sense that he claims The Philosophy of Empiricism does.

There are atheists and there are atheists. I don’t think it’s helpful for anyone to be making generalizations that inevitably turn out to be half-truths. Many atheists do cling to a naive form of empiricism (I’ve talked to some of them), and no doubt many do not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think Petey is trying to unconflate empiricism from an empirical approach.

Exactly. When an atheist asks for empirical evidence for our claims the underlying assumption is the empirical statement that I posted. Essentially he is saying that he can reject our claims on the basis that they lack empirical evidence. They get that idea because they don’t know the difference between the empirical method and the doctrine of empiricism. The western educational system is pretty poor when it comes to critical thinking skills and apparently history. The counter to this argument, is to point out that such standard is logically invalid. It rips the basis of the new atheism, right out from under them. Of course there are some atheists already aware of this so they attack in different ways, but those require a lot more training and education and are not nearly as effective…Their are a lot fewer philosophy PhD’s than there are high school kids that hang out on atheist forums. Kill all the soldiers and the generals will be little more than toothless old men.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It also works and yields results. If something else worked and yieled results, then that would be used to.

Empiricism, doesn’t yeild results, the scientific method does.

The Philosophy of Empiricism is that knowledge comes from sensory experience. The empirical method abides by that philosophy to collect data.

Reread the quotes

The Philosophy of Empiricism is not Scientism. I haven’t seen any atheists arguing Scientism, and if I did, then I would tell them that they are wrong too.

Anything to avoid being wrong at this point huh? Now its just funny.

But they don’t. You’re the one conflating what they actually use with your misrepresentation of the Philosophy of Empiricism.

et another baseless assertion

I’m not sure what you mean by “protecting the falsifiability of the hypothesis”…

And thats the problem, you insist on speaking about a topic you clearly do not understand.

The empirical method doesn’t use things that are not sensory experiences, so it abides by the Philosophy of Empicism. It is methodological empiricism.

Reread the quotes.

No, it doesn’t.

Um… yes it does?

Oh wow. In one post, you deny that you can know that fictional characters aren’t real,

I didn’t just deny it, I proved it by demonstration. Remember the Fallacy of Incredulity?Oh, wait…the logical validity of a statement doesn’t matter to you. it gets in the way of your opinions.

and in another its clear to you that what you’ve wrongly interpreted as my emotion from an incomplete medium couldn’t be anything else How about this:

I haven’t wrongly interpreted your emotions, you clearly are upset that anyone attacks empiricism or the greatness of scientists, or disagrees with you. Even if you don’t know if you are right or wrong, because you don’t know the basics of the topic. I don’t care about your intellectual pride. You can either reason rationally, or continue to make emotive outbursts, its your decision. I can’t control you.

ZOMG! HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE MY EMOTION FROM WORDS I TYPE INTO A TEXTBOX! RAWR! THAT IS SO %*$&ING CRAZY!!!

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. It is so important to you that no one prove you wrong that it doesn’t cross your mind that the entire purpose of language is to express ideas, emotions, etc. They even have things called “emoticons!” You are using exclamation points, yelling in capital letters and cussing. You’re emotional state is completely clear to anyone who is reading these posts.

I wrote the above without any anger whatsoever and was completely calm.

Of course you did, you invested 5 minutes of time, emoted that statement, all in an attempt to convince us that you aren’t making emotional statements. Those are the things you really think, as you keep pointing out. Adding emotive emphasis and then claiming that you were calm as you wrote it is a ludicrous claim.

That’s why its important that you argue the position and not the person.

I argued the position, I posted evidence, I explained it six ways from Sunday. As have other people. Its clear that you are not interested in finding out if it is right or wrong, having the taken the position it is wrong, you now insist in the face of evidence to the contrary that you are right. By the way, what grade are you in?

 

[CatSci]

When an atheist asks for empirical evidence for our claims the underlying assumption is the empirical statement that I posted.

I disagree. They typically start with the null hypothesis and wait for empirical evidence of something before accepting it. This is different from rejecting things because of a lack of empirical evidence.

Essentially he is saying that he can reject our claims on the basis that they lack empirical evidence.

I disagree with this too. They typically don’t reject the claim, but instead simply do not accept it.

Not-accepting does not equal rejecting.

The counter to this argument, is to point out that such standard is logically invalid.

And yet, the process I explain above has lead to great improvements in the lives of humans due to the advancements of science. Logical invalidity doesn’t seem to matter.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I disagree. They typically start with the null hypothesis and wait for empirical evidence of something before accepting it. This is different from rejecting things because of a lack of empirical evidence.

Your talking about the scientific method. Besides I said…When an atheist asks for empirical evidence for our claims the underlying assumption is the empirical statement that I posted.

I disagree with this too. They typically don’t reject the claim, but instead simply do not accept it.

Not-accepting does not equal rejecting.

notA~=notA.:bowdown:

And yet, the process I explain above has lead to great improvements in the lives of humans due to the advancements of science.

So what? The scientific method isn’t the topic of conversation. Here let me make some random statements…Ferraris are fast. Zebras have stripes. My cat, Opie likes tuna fish and sunny spots on the floor…hey, your right its fun to make random statements unrelated to the thread!

Logical invalidity doesn’t seem to matter.

As I demonstrated above, you don’t seem to be a aware of a logical contradiction when you see one. You simply aren’t aware of the issues your choosing to talk about. I just had to waste 5 minutes responding to a red herring, a logical contradiction and this assertion that logical validity doesn’t matter. Tell that to the next mathematician/logician you meet. Its the very basis of every rational thought that ever existed!

 

[CatSci]

Your talking about the scientific method. Besides I said…When an atheist asks for empirical evidence for our claims the underlying assumption is the empirical statement that I posted.

When an atheist typically asks for empirical evidence, they are not underlyingly assuming the empirical statement that you posted. They are talking about the scientific method.

Not-accepting does not equal rejecting.

notA~=notA

Wrong. You can have the position of neither accepting a claim nor rejecting it. An athiest can be a person who does not accept the claim of god existing while not rejecting it either.

And yet, the process I explain above has lead to great improvements in the lives of humans due to the advancements of science.

So what?

So it works. Your arguments about how you don’t see any worth in something extremely useful because you’ve convinced yourself its invalid make you look foolish, or defensive.

As I demonstrated above, you don’t seem to be a aware of a logical contradiction when you see one.

And you force-fit logical fallacies when they aren’t really in the argument because that’s the only thing you’re left with when you can’t actually address the argument.

I just had to waste 5 minutes responding to a red herring, a logical contradiction and this assertion that logical validity doesn’t matter. Tell that to the next mathematician/logician you meet. Its the very basis of every rational thought that ever existed!

If you post in this thread, then you are foolish.
You’ve posted in this forum.
Therefore,

I’ll let you figure out the logically valid conclusion there, then let me know if and how it matters.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When an atheist typically asks for empirical evidence, they are not underlyingly assuming the empirical statement that you posted. They are talking about the scientific method.

Hey! Finally! It only took you six or seven days to figure out what we have been telling you. Atheists confuse the empirical method with the logically invalid doctrine of empiricism. Congratulations!

Wrong. You can have the position of neither accepting a claim nor rejecting it. An athiest can be a person who does not accept the claim of god existing while not rejecting it either.

notA~=notA, Its sweeter because you obviously can’t tell when you do it.:whacky:

So it works. Your arguments about how you don’t see any worth in something extremely useful because you’ve convinced yourself its invalid make you look foolish, or defensive.

What works? The scientific method? Of course it does, that’s the reason philosophers developed it, they needed a better system. I have never argued that the scientific method isn’t useful or valid in its domain. But this thread isn’t about the scientific method. You keep confusing it with the empirical method, and then you confuse that with the doctrine of empiricism, which is demonstrably a logical contradiction and therefore false. Basic rules of logic. These emotional outbursts cloud your reasoning. Calm down before you post.

And you force-fit logical fallacies when they aren’t really in the argument because that’s the only thing you’re left with when you can’t actually address the argument.

Demonstrating a logical fallacy* is* addressing the argument. In fact its the main way one is supposed to reason…where did you ever go to school? But if you think I have wrongly applied some fallacy, you could have posted it. But you didn’t you just asserted it. How is this not another emotional outburst?

If you post in this thread, then you are foolish.
You’ve posted in this forum.
Therefore,

I’ll let you figure out the logically valid conclusion there, then let me know if and how it matters.

You aren’t even insulting me right! There is no logically valid conclusion because posting on this forum is not the same as posting on this thread:yeah_me:
Let me guess, you still can’t figure out how we know you are being emotional, hint: its statements like that.

 

[CatSci]

Hey! Finally! It only took you six or seven days to figure out what we have been telling you. Atheists confuse the empirical method with the logically invalid doctrine of empiricism. Congratulations!

You’re the one who is doing the confusing, but since its intentional, then its actually misrepresentation. Or a “trick” as that other poster identified.

When athiests ask for empirical evidence, they are typically following the scientific method. They hold the null hypothesis until empirical evidence indicates something. That is not saying that something cannot be true until it has empirical evidence.

notA~=notA

There you are, trying to force-fit a logical fallacy where one doesn’t exist, because you can’t actually address the argument.

Belief that a god exists, belief that no god exists, and lacking a belief that a god exists are three different positions.

But this thread isn’t about the scientific method. You keep confusing it with the empirical method, and then you confuse that with the doctrine of empiricism, which is demonstrably a logical contradiction and therefore false.

You conflate the two in the OP. You argue against the Philosophy of Empiricism and try to use that against atheists using the scientific method.

Demonstrating a logical fallacy is addressing the argument.

But you don’t demonstrate them, you assert them and simply repeat yourself to the rebuttles.

You aren’t even insulting me right! There is no logically valid conclusion because posting on this forum is not the same as posting on this thread

I did use the wrong word there. But the point was that logical validity is independent of truth.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re the one who is doing the confusing, but since its intentional, then its actually misrepresentation. Or a “trick” as that other poster identified.

You linked to the definition yourself. lol

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

See the problem? This is a PHILOSOPHY forum, we conduct philosophy here, not science. You have seen this before, why can’t you admit what everyone else can see? Just being wrong isn’t nearly as bad as these constant emotional outbursts.

When athiests ask for empirical evidence, they are typically following the scientific method.

Yes, I know that’s the problem. they are confusing the empirical method for the for philosophical empiricism

They hold the null hypothesis until empirical evidence indicates something. That is not saying that something cannot be true until it has empirical evidence.

That’s exactly what it is. A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.

There you are, trying to force-fit a logical fallacy where one doesn’t exist, because you can’t actually address the argument.

Ummm…thats not a fallacy…thats a logical contradiction. See why I keep pointing out that you aren’t familiar with the subject material? And since you don’t seem to know that you are publicly professing belief in a logical contradiction, I guess I have to lead you by the hand to it. Look here, You said
**Not-accepting does not equal rejecting. ** The antonym of reject is accept. Your attempt to claim that not accepting something is not the same as rejecting it is false! notA~=notA!Sense 1:
reject
Antonym of accept (Sense 1)
=>accept
Do you see it now? You have denied the contradiction 3 times! You didn’t eve nneed to use logic, just think it our. If someone offers you a present and you don’t accept it, what are you doing? rejecting it! Really,

Belief that a god exists, belief that no god exists, and lacking a belief that a god exists are three different positions.

Yeah, like not accepting is not the same as rejecting!

You conflate the two in the OP. You argue against the Philosophy of Empiricism and try to use that against atheists using the scientific method.

I point out that atheists often conflate the two and argue against that conflation. Asking people for empirical evidence to prove their claim is not the empirical method its the empirical statement that I used in the OP. You are doing the exact thing that I am talking about.

But you don’t demonstrate them, you assert them and simply repeat yourself to the rebuttles.

Since you just demonstrated that you don’t know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical contradiction. Let me point out that I demonstrated that one several times, look here** → notA-=notA ← **Do you see that there? That is a demonstration of a logical contradiction. You keep making emotional accusations and outbursts that turn out to be caused by your unfamiliarity with the subjects we discuss.

I did use the wrong word there. But the point was that logical validity is independent of truth.

Since it wasn’t logically valid, it makes your point? What? Are you serious. I don’t even have to point out that logical validity has pretty much the same meaning as logical truth do I? It seems that you are so desperate not to be wrong, that you will say almost anything to be right.

 

[Betterave]

I’ll suggest one more time that y’all wipe the slate and start this relationship over (regardless of who started it).

I’ll also suggest again that there’s not much point in abstractly discussing what atheists supposedly do or do not typically do. There are atheists and there are atheists. If you’re going to discuss, discuss something concrete, not some dubious abstraction.