Empiricists vs Dogmatists

[NewUlm1976_2000]

You know in ancient Greece there were two kinds of physicians: there were empiricists and dogmatists and the dogmatists thought the way you understood illness was by developing theories and ideas, and the empiricists thought you should actually go out and study some sick people. And the dogmatists went away, we all know what dogmatic means because their patients kept dying. And the empiricists kept finding out true things about the world.

abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2008/2243006.htm#transcript

As I was listening to this podcast last night, this part stood out in relation to the Church past, present, and future between those we can call empiricists who go out into the world and study things and dogmatists who stay back and study theories but never apply it in real life.

This discussion relates specifically to happiness but can be applied to a wide range of Church teachings. The Church is a subset of society, with subsets of its own. It is this inter-relation between empiricists and dogmatists that leads to the discussions in the Church with CAF being one example.

Lets put this in the context of the Church, which many on both sides would say is suffering in many ways for various reasons (pick your side here). The question I want to bring up is, given (by this definition) that dogmatics hole themselves up against and away from the world, would this be ineffective in how to relate to the rest of the world? Wouldn’t the idea makeup is a fluid mixing of our own internal empiricists and dogmatists, to know what came in the past but be able to keep matters relevant into the future? To have the best parts complement each other rather than have two mutually exclusive groups?

 

[Harmony1988]

Considering that western civilization is a direct consequence of the actions of the church whether it be for good or bad, and this came about through the actions of monks, nuns, priests, popes, cardinals, bishops as well as the scientists and philosophers directly influenced by Catholic thinking, empiricists test out the theories of what came forth directly or indirectly through the universal Church’s actions that includes the people of the Church not in the religious orders.

They are distinct groups such as science and religion, but are linked such that they complement each other ideally. The question is finding the right balance. And yes sitting there theorizing the whole day is ineffective, but like sciences goes, you need the theory before the practice.

There is a given problem, you either can kill the patients by testing all the medications you want or sit and think about what you know about medication and the effects of certain types of medications, and then when you are sure your theory is right, then you test it.

I’m not quite sure I like your definition of empiricists or dogmatists.

 

[fhansen]

abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2008/2243006.htm#transcript

As I was listening to this podcast last night, this part stood out in relation to the Church past, present, and future between those we can call empiricists who go out into the world and study things and dogmatists who stay back and study theories but never apply it in real life.

This discussion relates specifically to happiness but can be applied to a wide range of Church teachings. The Church is a subset of society, with subsets of its own. It is this inter-relation between empiricists and dogmatists that leads to the discussions in the Church with CAF being one example.

Lets put this in the context of the Church, which many on both sides would say is suffering in many ways for various reasons (pick your side here). The question I want to bring up is, given (by this definition) that dogmatics hole themselves up against and away from the world, would this be ineffective in how to relate to the rest of the world? Wouldn’t the idea makeup is a fluid mixing of our own internal empiricists and dogmatists, to know what came in the past but be able to keep matters relevant into the future? To have the best parts complement each other rather than have two mutually exclusive groups?

For myself, Church dogma has proven itself over time by empirical testing in the real world. While we are exhorted to walk by faith and not by sight, basic doctrines need to demonstrate their validity-doctrines such as original sin or the existence of evil, for example. Our faith, itself, needs to prove itself by bearing fruit as a result of exercising that faith and cooperating with grace. Fruit such as growth in love and faith itself, and the overcoming of sin, which aren’t achievable by our own efforts. All dogma is useless unless put into practice.

 

[Cure_of_Ars]

Every system of thought has dogmas. Dogmas are the premises that you start with that you can not doubt. An empiricist has the dogma that there is truth, humans can know truth, and that you can get at truth through testing. If you do not hold these dogmas as an empiricist it doesn’t make sense to do empiricism. An empiricist to make a hypothesis has to go into a mode of ideas and theories. So the bottom line is that it is not a matter of philosophy vs empiricism, you need both.

From a Catholic point of view, dogma is the deposits of faith that was revealed by God. It’s the starting point of living a holy life. Empiricism can answer the questions of how the world works but it is not able to answer the questions of why and for what purpose.

 

[jman507]

abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2008/2243006.htm#transcript

As I was listening to this podcast last night, this part stood out in relation to the Church past, present, and future between those we can call empiricists who go out into the world and study things and dogmatists who stay back and study theories but never apply it in real life.

This discussion relates specifically to happiness but can be applied to a wide range of Church teachings. The Church is a subset of society, with subsets of its own. It is this inter-relation between empiricists and dogmatists that leads to the discussions in the Church with CAF being one example.

Lets put this in the context of the Church, which many on both sides would say is suffering in many ways for various reasons (pick your side here). The question I want to bring up is, given (by this definition) that dogmatics hole themselves up against and away from the world, would this be ineffective in how to relate to the rest of the world? Wouldn’t the idea makeup is a fluid mixing of our own internal empiricists and dogmatists, to know what came in the past but be able to keep matters relevant into the future? To have the best parts complement each other rather than have two mutually exclusive groups?

To accept one and disregard the other would be quite stupid. Empiricism can really help one figure out how things work. It though is dogmatism (or at least making dogma and platitudes) that one comes up with value judgments. Even the Empiricist who explicitly states he wants to completely disassociates with dogmatism, is probably coming up with a dogma by default.

If one wants to work more in one or the other, but doesn’t downplay that the other plays an important part, that is fine.