On the Necessity of Proving Things

[warpspeedpetey]

No, my friend, I did not misunderstand anything. It is you and WSP who misunderstand the requirements and the meaning of empiricism. You set up a strawman in the form of “knowledge can be gained only by the senses” - which is **NOT **what empiricism says,

if you accept that empirical observation is not the only way to gain knowledge, then what are we arguing about?

if you dont need empirical evidence of G-d to believe, then we can skip this step, and procede directly to the logical system of metaphysics.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/empiricism

em·pir·i·cism (m-pîr-szm) KEY

NOUN:

The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/empiricism

em·pir·i·cism   /ɛmˈpɪrəˌsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[em-pir-uh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
**
2.Philosophy. the doctrine that all knowledge **is derived from sense experience.Compare rationalism (def. 2).

philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/Empiricism%20oct%20069.pdf

Empiricism
Empiricism is an ism with many meanings. In accounts of the history of
philosophy, empiricism is often contrasted with rationalism, though serious historians
often look with jaundiced eye at this way of telling the story (Van Fraassen 2002).
According to this formula, empiricists emphasize the role of sense experience,
rationalists the role of reason. Each position can be given extreme formulations, as in
the clashing claims that sense experience is the only source of knowledge, or that reason is, and each position can be moderated, with the attendant possibility that they no longer conflict. The debate was usually framed in terms of the existence of
“innate ideas” and often blurred the distinction between psychological and
epistemological questions.

as you can see, hard empiricism does say that. so, unless your willing to start talking metaphysics now, then i dont see what the existence of softer forms of determinism have to do with it.

What would you say if someone claimed that logic is self-contradictory, because the laws of logic cannot be proven logically? You would ridicule such a dumb claim. And so do I when I point out that empiricism is not supposed to be proven empirically, just like logic is not supposed to be proven logically. I hope you see the parallel, but my hopes are not high. However, maybe you will surprise me. It would be a pleasant surprise.

i see what you think is a parallel, but its a false analogy, in that logic never claims to be the sole source of knowledge. empiricism, as demonstrated above, does.

Materialists and empiricists gladly agree that abstract type of knowledge

is not verified, proven, substantiated by sensory observation. So there you go.

great, then we can start talking about the metaphysics that show G-ds existence, right?

If you wish to take a poke at empiricism, be my guest, but at the very least **understand **

what empiricism IS. Building strawmen can be fun, but it does not raise your credibility in a discussion. You only revealed your ignorance with the claim that “empiricism is the idea that things can *only *be true if proven empirically”. Obviously you are not a mathematician, otherwise you would not have said something so patently false.

mathematicians arent generally hard empiricists. you should check out a book called the “mathematical experience” it makes it quite clear.

btw, being a mathematiciann doesnt preclude one from saying things that are false about another subject, much less about his own. hilbert anyone?

The so-called “miracles”

finally, something we can agree on, i dont believe in miracles or magic either!

That is your business. But stick to it, and understand that all the revelations, miracles etc… are human claims of some sensory observation of a real or imagined event.

Remember: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu

". All our thoughts and ideas start with observation - though they do not end there. We create new ideas, new abstractions. People have seen horses, have seen antlers and horns, so they combine the two and come up with an imaginary animal: a unicorn. If someone claims to have seen a unicorn, you would be within your rights to demand actual, physical evidence (evidence and proof are NOT the same!) for such a claim. When such an evidence is not forthcoming, it is rational and reasonable to reject the claim (Hic Rhodos, his salta!). Mind you, it is not a “proof” that the claimant was wrong, he may have seen the result of a genetic experiment, and may have actually seen a bona-fide unicorn. But as long as the evidence is lacking, it is rational and reasonable to reject the claim.

The other incorrect (but frequently claimed) assertion is: “absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence”. It is an evidence of absence and a very strong evidence it is. The correct form would be: “absence of proof is not a proof of absence”. But then again I (and many others) have pointed that one out before - and I am willing to bet dollars to cents, that it will come back again.

soft empirical positions arent the problem. we are talking about a specific empirical claim.

talk about a straw man

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You guys are simply killing me… you are too funny by half.

so are you going to answer post #12?

 

[Image_of_God]

No, my friend, I did not misunderstand anything. It is you and WSP who misunderstand the requirements and the meaning of empiricism. You set up a strawman in the form of “knowledge can be gained only by the senses” - which is **NOT **what empiricism says, and then happily burn it into the ground. Well, good riddance. That is not what empiricism says. It is quite sad that such an obvious point has to be told over and over again. No matter how many times I, and many others have pointed it out, someone will come back with the same BS, and present it a “glorious argument” against empiricism.

The dictionary clearly supports us as warpspeedpetey has shown. What he has stated is the standard definition of empiricism.

What would you say if someone claimed that logic is self-contradictory, because the laws of logic cannot be proven logically? You would ridicule such a dumb claim. And so do I when I point out that empiricism is not supposed to be proven empirically, just like logic is not supposed to be proven logically. I hope you see the parallel, but my hopes are not high. However, maybe you will surprise me. It would be a pleasant surprise.

Logic makes no such claim. Logic is based on intuition. Certain nonlogical assumptions have to be made before one can begin to use logic. That something is nonlogical does not necessarily make it illogical.

Materialists and empiricists gladly agree that abstract type of knowledge is not verified, proven, substantiated by sensory observation. So there you go. If you wish to take a poke at empiricism, be my guest, but at the very least **understand **what empiricism IS. Building strawmen can be fun, but it does not raise your credibility in a discussion. You only revealed your ignorance with the claim that “empiricism is the idea that things can *only *be true if proven empirically”. Obviously you are not a mathematician, otherwise you would not have said something so patently false.

Materialist and empiricist scientists in particular often claim that unless something is subject to empirical testing then it cannot be true. The conclusion is that God and spiritual things cannot exist because they are not subject to empirical tests (for they are not material). But as demonstrated above, empiricism is not subject to empirical testing. Therefore, it must not be true. If you agree that empiricism cannot be true, then you cannot completely deny the existence of spiritual things.

Revelation is only some other human’s claim - in which he claims that he experienced God in some fashion or another. The so-called “miracles” are also just human claims - that something actually happened according to their senses. But those claims cannot be substantiated, and as a matter of fact, the Catholic Church does not even require you to accept some other person’s claim of revelation. But all those are just human claims of a sensory (name removed by moderator)ut… nothing more. And you accept their claim, and sometimes their claim of some supporting data. All that is a kind of “sensory knowledge”.

That is your business. But stick to it, and understand that all the revelations, miracles etc… are human claims of some sensory observation of a real or imagined event.

Again, no one is arguing against the use of sensory knowledge to arrive at truth. We are only arguing against the idea that only sensory knowledge could be used to arrive at truth. This is false and you seem to agree that it is. For example, how do I know that historical events happened. It it certainly not by empiricism. Certainly people know that they have happened through various documents, but I have never seen those documents myself. I know them to be true intuitively. Reading historical events on a page does not prove anything.

Perhaps I should combat your disdain for miracles by guiding you here. It is an article on Our Lady of Guadeloupe. It is one of the few miracles that has completely escaped scientific explanation. We know that Our Lady could not have been drawn because there are things on it that are just *too /I small to be drawn. The material that is on the “picture” does not exist on Earth. Something most likely immaterial must have been involved in the painting. Does the fact that this cannot be proven empirically prove that it’s wrong? If you say no, then you don’t believe in empiricism.

We seem to agree more than you think. You have misunderstood what empiricism is and you don’t believe in it. Perhaps, you do believe in materialism. Yet, without empiricism, believing in materialism is pointless.*

 

[Michelle_in_WV]

To Image of God,

What I was talking about when I mentioned the material universe’s instability back on page 1 is the apparent fact that subatomic particles do not follow the laws of Newtonian physics. For example, matter seems to appear out of nowhere, and then disappear again, and it can move from point A to point B without crossing the space between the points.

Scientists do not know why there is a difference between the behavior of subatomic particles and larger particles, so they have put forth a variety of theories such as Probability Theory, String Theory, and the notion of parallel universes in their search for what they call “The Grand Unifier” (or, “The Theory of Everything”).

I believe that the “thing” that links the subatomic and larger worlds of matter, the “Grand Unifier,” is God. He sustains a stable universe which obeys predictable laws from unpredictable subatomic particles simply by willing it.

As a side note, I have also read that objects that appear to us to be solid are composed of more space than matter. They are not really solid. In light of this, I think that Jesus’ ability to walk through walls, or to walk on water (which is no less solid than the floor that supports me) does not contradict the laws of nature, but harmonizes with them in a way that we do not understand.

Michelle

 

[R_Daneel]

The dictionary clearly supports us as warpspeedpetey has shown. What he has stated is the standard definition of empiricism.

Generic dictionaries are hardly the best way of finding the meaning of words. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: “Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.” You see it does not claim that it is the ONLY source, it is the ultimate source. Therefore there is no contradiction at all.

Logic makes no such claim.

“Logic” makes no claims, humans do. “Empiricism” does not make claims either. Humans do. And empiricists do not deny the abstract sciences, and they do NOT discard the true statements of mathematics, just because they cannot be verified empirically. So why not discard your incorrect definition, and start to argue based upon the correct one? You still may bring up some objection pertaining to empiricism - maybe. But don’t try to sweep it under the rug by stipulating a strawman.

Materialist and empiricist scientists in particular often claim that unless something is subject to empirical testing then it cannot be true. The conclusion is that God and spiritual things cannot exist because they are not subject to empirical tests (for they are not material). But as demonstrated above, empiricism is not subject to empirical testing. Therefore, it must not be true. If you agree that empiricism cannot be true, then you cannot completely deny the existence of spiritual things.

Your definition of empiricism is incorrect. But that does not let you off hook in the case of “spiritual” claims. First, I showed you that every one of your claims is ultimately based upon some sensory perception. Revelations (perceived or otherwise) are sensory based. Miracles (perceived or otherwise) are sensory based. The scripture is a physical book. The Church is the physical collection of human beings. All your claims of “spiritual” are the result of some sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

For example, how do I know that historical events happened. It it certainly not by empiricism. Certainly people know that they have happened through various documents, but I have never seen those documents myself. I know them to be true intuitively. Reading historical events on a page does not prove anything.

Oh, the good old claim pertaining to history. The past **does not exist **any more. Your claims of “spiritual” nature supposedly do exist today. So your analogy is false. If something does not exist and therefore it is inaccessible to the senses, then there is no other way to gain “knowledge” about it, except relying of some first/second/third/etc… hand testimony. But the first hand testimony does claim (either reliably or otherwise) that it directly experienced the event in question. So even for the claims of history the way to gain “knowledge” about it - is to rely on some sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. How does one measure the reliability of the testimony is a different question.

We seem to agree more than you think. You have misunderstood what empiricism is and you don’t believe in it. Perhaps, you do believe in materialism. Yet, without empiricism, believing in materialism is pointless.

Shall we start a childish game of chanting “I do, you don’t” - “No, I do and you don’t”? I gave you the correct definition of empiricism above. If you are interested in going on based upon that definition, fine. If you wish to stick to the incorrect definition, I am not interested. Your choice.

 

[tonyrey]

If something does not exist and therefore it is inaccessible to the senses, then there is no other way to gain “knowledge” about it, except relying of some first/second/third/etc… hand testimony. But the first hand testimony does claim (either reliably or otherwise) that it directly experienced the event in question. So even for the claims of history the way to gain “knowledge” about it - is **to rely on some sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. **

False! How about your knowledge of yourself? Which sense do you use to** observe **your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions? Touch, sight, smell, taste or hearing? Which sense do you use to interpret your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions?

You give the impression that you are a body without a mind, i.e.** mindless!**

 

[R_Daneel]

False! How about your knowledge of yourself? Which sense do you use to** observe **your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions? Touch, sight, smell, taste or hearing? Which sense do you use to interpret your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions?

You give the impression that you are a body without a mind, i.e.** mindless!**

I already asked you this… we directly experience our mind and our body. For everything else we rely on our senses.

 

[tonyrey]

I already asked you this… we directly experience our mind and our body. For everything else we rely on our senses.

Aha! So empirical knowledge - which is limited to probability - is dependent on our **direct knowledge **of ourselves - which is our primary datum and sole certainty…

 

[R_Daneel]

Aha! So empirical knowledge - which is limited to probability - is dependent on our **direct knowledge **of ourselves - which is our primary datum and sole certainty…

What is your point? There is a remark to be made here. The senses and their interaction with reality is also direct information. The conclusion we infer based upon that direct information is definitely dependent on our internal, accumulated knowledge. What of it? We are capable of drawing correct conclusions, which are verified (not proven!) against the external reality, or we can make incorrect conclusions, which usually carry dire consequences. One can disregard the accumulated and verified body of empirical knowledge only at one’s peril. The “proof” of the pudding is that it is edible. No amount of speculation will make pebbles nutritious.

Another remark. Rats do not have analytical, abstract knowledge - as far as we know. Yet, they observe other rats eating poison (and die), they make some kind of inferences from those observations, and learn not to touch poison themselves. Little children behave the same way. They learn from experience.

 

[R_Daneel]

Aha! So empirical knowledge - which is limited to probability…

This part needs some remarks, too. You speak of “probability” as something “inferior”. Suppose you have access to the result of series of die-rollings. You have no direct access to the die itself.

The results are your only “tool” to make inferences of the dots on the sides of the die. Suppose you receive a sequence of “6, 6, ,6,… 6” - say a hundred times. Based upon this hard data, you can draw two possible inferences: 1) all the sides of the die have 6 dots on them; and 2) there are some sides, which do not have 6 dots on them. (For the sake of simplicity we assume that the die does not have a piece of lead imbedded in it.)

If you set up the hypothesis that the die only contains sides with six dots, you can make a prediction that the next roll will also be a six. The next roll is indeed a six. This result will substantiate or **verify **or **confirm **your hypothesis. However, that is not a proof of your hypothesis. It is indeed possible that the die does contain at least one side which does not have six dots on it. The probability is getting lower and lower every time a six is reported.

You can also make a hypothesis that the die has at least one side with a different number of dots on it. You make a prediction that the next roll will not be a six. However, a six is reported, and that weakens your hypothesis.

At some point we can make a conclusion that the die has six dots on all six sides. It will never be “hard-proven”, unless you can personally examine the die and see for yourself. Nevertheless, somewhat sloppily we can declare that the die is uniform, and has only six dots on each side. For all practical purposes we “proved” our hypothesis. But truly, the word “prove” should not be used here. The word to be used should be “substantiate”, “verify”, “confirm”, etc…

In practice, we usually have no way to personally examine the die itself. We must draw inferences based upon the results of the experiments. But this is not “inferior”, as long as we keep in mind that it is theoretically possible that the result is “tainted”, the die indeed “may” have 6 different sides, and we just happened to be “lucky”.

The word “prove” should be reserved to the exact (abstract) sciences, where one can use deductive logic to show that the hypothesis follows logically from the axioms. It is unfortunate that the usage is not always proper, and thus allows sloppy propositions to be made. Such sloppy propositions are acceptable in everyday parlance, but inexcusable in a philosophical conversation.

 

[tonyrey]

Aha! So empirical knowledge - which is limited to probability - is dependent on our direct knowledge of ourselves - which is our primary datum and sole certainty…

Only the perceptions received **via **the senses are direct information. No one interprets that information in precisely the same way as another person.

The conclusion we infer based upon that direct information is definitely dependent on our internal, accumulated knowledge. What of it?

That the existence of our minds is an incontrovertible fact whereas every physical object is a provisional mental construct which may be modified in the light of future discoveries.

We are capable of drawing correct conclusions, which are verified (not proven!) against the external reality, or we can make incorrect conclusions, which usually carry dire consequences. One can disregard the accumulated and verified body of empirical knowledge only at one’s peril. The “proof” of the pudding is that it is edible. No amount of speculation will make pebbles nutritious.

No one is denying the existence of external objects. The success of science is ample evidence of the value of empirical evidence but it is also evidence of **the power of the mind **without which science would not exist…

Another remark. Rats do not have analytical, abstract knowledge - as far as we know. Yet, they observe other rats eating poison (and die), they make some kind of inferences from those observations, and learn not to touch poison themselves. Little children behave the same way. They learn from experience.

No one is denying that rats have intelligence. The fact that both we and they learn from experience does not alter the primacy of self-knowledge nor its significance. The way we think and feel - and what we choose - is ultimately more important than anything else.

 

[tonyrey]

This part needs some remarks, too. You speak of “probability” as something “inferior”. Suppose you have access to the result of series of die-rollings. You have no direct access to the die itself.

Inferred knowledge is obviously inferior to direct knowledge. We have no direct access to anything but our stream of consciousness…

In practice, we usually have no way to personally examine the die itself. We must draw** inferences** based upon the results of the experiments. But this is not “inferior”, as long as we keep in mind that it is theoretically possible that the result is “tainted”, the die indeed “may” have 6 different sides, and we just happened to be “lucky”.

It is inferior because there is always the possibility of error where human beings with finite intelligence are concerned

The word “prove” should be reserved to the exact (abstract) sciences, where one can use deductive logic to show that the hypothesis follows logically from the axioms. It is unfortunate that the usage is not always proper, and thus allows sloppy propositions to be made. Such sloppy propositions are acceptable in everyday parlance, but inexcusable in a philosophical conversation.

I have not used the word “prove” in any of my posts related to the OP.

 

[AlbertBall]

Very good posts Daneel, you hit that nail on the head with this…

“you would be within your rights to demand actual, physical evidence (evidence and proof are NOT the same!) for such a claim. When such an evidence is not forthcoming, it is rational and reasonable to reject the claim”

I personally like to go with empiricism, as in scientific… “In the philosophy of science, empiricism 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.”

My question would be when it comes to understanding the cosmos, do the religious concede that there is no method that comes close to scientific empiricism?

I.E. When god apparently was HERE on earth. People thought that the world was flat and the center of the universe, they had zero idea what the stars are, zero idea what humans are and how we come to be, zero idea the about the size and age of the cosmos, in short we pretty much knew nothing about the cosmos.

Compare that to now, and what scientific empiricism has revealed. I don’t see how anyone can deny that empiricism, especially scientific empiricism, is the it is the ultimate source of knowledge.

 

[R_Daneel]

Only the perceptions received **via **the senses are direct information. No one interprets that information in precisely the same way as another person.

I disagree with the first sentence and agree with the second. How do you differentiate between the signal and its perception?

That the existence of our minds is an incontrovertible fact whereas every physical object is a provisional mental construct which may be modified in the light of future discoveries.

Not the **existence **of the object, but the **properties **of it. One cannot rationally maintain the concept that we are only “brains in vats”.

No one is denying the existence of external objects. The success of science is ample evidence of the value of empirical evidence but it is also evidence of **the power of the mind **without which science would not exist…

Well, here we have 100% agreement. Especially since you now contradict your previous proposition, where you said that the existence of external objects is not an “incontrovertible fact”.

No one is denying that rats have intelligence. The fact that both we and they learn from experience does not alter the primacy of self-knowledge nor its significance. The way we think and feel - and what we choose - is ultimately more important than anything else.

Rats have no self-knowledge. Small children have no self-knowledge. Even some adults have no self-knowledge. Yet they all experience things, and learn from them. If they don’t learn their life will be cut short.

Inferred knowledge is obviously inferior to direct knowledge. We have no direct access to anything but our stream of consciousness…

Now you deny the objective existence of the external world again. Which one will it be? And, as a matter of fact, we do not have direct access to our stream of consciousness. Most of our thought process happens in the sub-conscious. And this fact can be demonstrated.

It is inferior because there is always the possibility of error where human beings with finite intelligence are concerned

Contradicted by your own assertion that we have direct access to our own mental constructs. Can we be wrong in assuming that we have consciousness? If we cannot, then there is at least one thing, where we are “infallible”.

I have not used the word “prove” in any of my posts related to the OP.

It was a generic remark, not pertaining to you, personally.

 

[ahumbleservent]

I just love reading all your intellectual comments. It is beautiful to see how well we can make our own truths seem real and obvious and try to force them on others! I am learning from all your comments on things that I don’t completly understand but one thing keeps popping in mind is “when two people are arguing on who is right, which one is the fool?” Nobody believes in miracles, well I guess we are all going to h_ll because then Jesus never came down to save us from sin, that definetly is no miracle for us, throw away the scriptures because none of it makes sense but we are on a catholic forum discussing or should I say arguing over what knowledge we have learned but where did all this come from anyway, oh yeah revolution not God! Scripture never proves anything unless it is practiced. I’m sorry for interrupting this but I hear more arguing than good conversation. I thank the good Lord for any miracles in my life of whatever senses (haha) of what any intelligent human can or cannot prove, my faith is what guides me not my intellect, my intellect helps me to see God guidance! Walk by faith not by sight

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Generic dictionaries are hardly the best way of finding the meaning of words.

are you kidding us? did you just say dictionaries arent the best way to find the meaning of words?

:bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

dictionaries give a formal definition of words. encylopedias have an article concerning a subject. they do no offer formal definitions of individual words.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: “Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.” You see it does not claim that it is the ONLY source, it is the ultimate source. Therefore there is no contradiction at all.

it also says, just a little further down.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#1.2

Empiricists endorse the following claim for some subject area.

The Empiricism Thesis:** We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.**

and

The Empiricism thesis does not entail that we have empirical knowledge. It entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all, by experience.

and

The full-fledged empiricist about our knowledge of the external world replies that, when it comes to the nature of the world beyond our own minds, experience is our sole source of information. Reason might inform us of the relations among our ideas, but those ideas themselves can only be gained, and any truths about the external reality they represent can only be known, on the basis of sense experience.

funny, but your own source disagrees with you.

it also isnt a dictionary.

that said however, this attempt to play word games doesnt change what the actual definition of empiricism, is.

to wit:

if i say the** ‘ultimate’ **source of a ‘snickers bar’ is the mars company, then that means the **only ** source of snickers.

they dont come from general motors, verizon, or the lollipop guild. they come ultimately and only from the mars company.

so, yes, there is a huge logical contradiction. even when we use a source that you cited.

“Logic” makes no claims, humans do. “Empiricism” does not make claims either. Humans do. And empiricists do not deny the abstract sciences, and they do NOT discard the true statements of mathematics, just because they cannot be verified empirically.

then why do you discard the true statements of metaphysics? you keep saying you accept the abstract sciences. yet when it comes to metaphysical claims. you dont. but you never justify that position.

So why not discard your incorrect definition, and start to argue based upon the correct one? You still may bring up some objection pertaining to empiricism - maybe. But don’t try to sweep it under the rug by stipulating a strawman.

as i just demostrated, yet again, we are using the correct definition for the subject. you are not. in fact your own source of authority that you cited, contradicts your position.

so the question becomes, why dont you admit the logical contradiction and conform your arguments as such?

Your definition of empiricism is incorrect.

obviously it was not.

But that does not let you off hook in the case of “spiritual” claims. First, I showed you that every one of your claims is ultimately based upon some sensory perception. Revelations (perceived or otherwise) are sensory based. Miracles (perceived or otherwise) are sensory based. The scripture is a physical book. The Church is the physical collection of human beings. All your claims of “spiritual” are the result of some sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

your talking about revelation. not “spiritual”, where i assume you mean the technical metaphysical term “supernatural” which merely means immaterial, regardless of any “spirituality”, as opposed to the technical term of “natural” which merely means material, again withotu regard to “spirituality”

Shall we start a childish game of chanting “I do, you don’t” - “No, I do and you don’t”? I gave you the correct definition of empiricism above.

no, you didnt. as i demonstrated using the very authority you cited.

which means you cant reject its authority now.

If you are interested in going on based upon that definition, fine. If you wish to stick to the incorrect definition, I am not interested. Your choice.

i have proven the correct definition several times now. if the correct definition is important to you, then it is obviously ours and we should use it.

you are serious about using the correct definitionn arent you?

*when are you going to adress post #12?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My question would be when it comes to understanding the cosmos, do the religious concede that there is no method that comes close to scientific empiricism?

as long as its you are only refering to the physically observable universe, then sure, the inductive scientific method is a great toolset. it doesnt offer conclusive proof, but it yields results of great utility. cars, medicine, airplanes, etc.

the problem is that most people, other than mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers, dont know that the scientific method only speaks on subjects that are physically observable.

hence the large number of atheists who dont know that the empirical claim, is a logical contradiction and therefore base there atheism on the logical equivalent of 2+2=5

its just a matter of a poor educational system.

I.E. When god apparently was HERE on earth. People thought that the world was flat and the center of the universe, they had zero idea what the stars are, zero idea what humans are and how we come to be, zero idea the about the size and age of the cosmos, in short we pretty much knew nothing about the cosmos.

every time we fire up a particle accelerator, our fundamental understanding of the universe changes. we have no way of knowing that our understanding of the universe is much better today, then it was then. we have developed some very utilitarian knowledge, but knowing how a system works in some situations, is much differrent than a complete understanding of the fundamental nature of the system.

Compare that to now, and what scientific empiricism has revealed. I don’t see how anyone can deny that empiricism, especially scientific empiricism, is the it is the ultimate source of knowledge.

we can deny it, because when empiricism makes the claim that the senses are the only source of knowledge, we know this is a logical contradiction. on the order of 2+2=5.

if you are not convinced by a violation of the formal rules of logic.

then.

history is full of empirically sucessful and unsuccesful theories, that we know to be false regardless of how well they function from a utility standpoint.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories#Superseded_theories

Superseded theories
[edit] Biology
Maternal impression –
Miasma theory of disease –.
Preformationism – .
Recapitulation theory –
Spontaneous generation –
Telegony (pregnancy) –[edit]

Chemistry
Classical elements –
Caloric theory
Phlogiston theory – Part of Dalton’s law
Vital essence theory
[edit]

Physics
Emission theory of vision –
Aristotelian theory of gravity –
Aristotelian physics – discredited by Alhacen, al-Biruni, Avicenna, Avempace, al-Baghdadi, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton
Luminiferous aether –
Caloric theory –
“Purely electrostatic” theories of the generation of voltage differences.
Emitter theory –
Progression of atomic theory
Plum pudding model of the atom –
Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbitted by electrons.
Bohr model with quantized orbits

Astronomy and cosmology
Ptolemaic system –
Copernican system –
Newtonian gravity –
Ether theory
Steady State Theory
[edit]

Geography and climate
Flat Earth theory.
Hollow Earth theory
The Open Polar Sea,
Rain follows the plow – [edit]

Geology
Continental drift was superseded by plate tectonics
Expanding Earth theory was superseded by subduction
Catastrophism was largely replaced by uniformitarianism

Theory of the four bodily humours –
Eclectic Medicine – .
Physiognomy,
[edit]

Obsolete branches of enquiry
Alchemy, which led to the development of chemistry – alchemy was discredited by al-Kindi, al-Biruni, Avicenna and Ibn Khaldun
Astrology, which led to the development of astronomy – astrology was discredited by al-Farabi, Alhacen, al-Biruni, Avicenna and Averroes
Phrenology is considered a pseudoscience
Numerology (as distinct from number theory) is considered a pseudoscience
[edit]

Theories now considered to be incomplete
Here are theories that are no longer considered the most complete representation of reality, but are still useful in particular domains or under certain conditions. For some theories a more complete model is known, but in practical use the coarser approximation provides good results with much less calculation.

Atomic theory initially proposed that Atoms were indivisible, but now it is known that they are composed of subatomic particles.
Nuclei disintegrate at high energy.
Heliocentric universe theory is still used in the coordinate system of celestial mechanics.
Newtonian mechanics was extended by Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics. It is still the standard tool in engineering and physics at atomic or larger scales and velocities not approaching the speed of light.
Classical electrodynamics approximates quantum electrodynamics.
Bohr model of the atom was extended by the quantum mechanical model of the atom.
Newton’s sine-square law for the force of a fluid on a body is no longer considered useful at low speeds, though it has found application in hypersonic flow.

the history of “scientific empiricism” can be shown to be full of holes, and that is yet another reason we can deny that it is the ultimate source of knowledge.

you cant prove that every theory we now believe, wont be superseded at some point in the future. nor can you prove that we will ever acheive knowledge that cannot be superceded by new information.

thats a couple reasons why “scientific empiricism” is not the ultimate source of knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

Only the perceptions received via the senses are direct information. No one interprets that information in precisely the same way as another person.

How else do we get direct information from the external world? By telepathy?

How do you differentiate between the signal and its perception?

The light waves received by the retina and the sound waves **received **by the ear drum are distinct from the nerve impulses and their interpretation by the brain.

The existence of our minds is an incontrovertible fact whereas every physical object is a provisional mental construct which may be modified in the light of future discoveries.

Not the existence of the object, but the properties of it.

Do you mean the existence of the object is an incontrovertible fact? If so please explain how you know for certain that a particular object exists?

One cannot rationally maintain the concept that we are only “brains in vats”.

Who said we are? No one is denying the existence of external objects. The success of science is ample evidence of the value of empirical evidence but it is also evidence of the power of the mind without which science would not exist…

Well, here we have 100% agreement. Especially since you now contradict your previous proposition, where you said that the existence of external objects is not an “incontrovertible fact”.

It is not an incontrovertible fact like logical and mathematical truths (solipsism is logically possible) but the degree of probability that external objects exist is so high that it can be ignored.

Rats have no self-knowledge. Small children have no self-knowledge. Even some adults have no self-knowledge. Yet they all experience things, and learn from them. If they don’t learn their life will be cut short.

The absence of self-knowledge in rats, children and imbeciles does not alter the fact that self-knowledge is the basis of all rational activity. Rats, children and imbeciles are not responsible for the success of science!

Now you deny the objective existence of the external world again.

False! Not to have direct access to the external world is not to deny that it exists…

And, as a matter of fact, we do not have direct access to our stream of consciousness. Most of our thought process happens in the sub-conscious. And this fact can be demonstrated.

You are contradicting yourself! “**Most **of our thought process” implies that we are conscious of **some **of our thought processes. We have **direct access **to our stream of consciousness - and we can also discover much of what occurs subconsciously…

There is always the possibility of error where human beings with finite intelligence are concerned.

Contradicted by your own assertion that we have direct access to our own mental constructs. Can we be wrong in assuming that we have consciousness? If we cannot, then there is at least one thing, where we are “infallible”.

In normal circumstanceswe are infallible with regard to what we are thinking and feeling but not when we are under the influence of such factors as alcohol, drugs, hypnosis or mental disorders like schizophrenia. It is still a fact that direct knowledge of ourselves is superior to indirect knowledge of external objects…

 

[Image_of_God]

Generic dictionaries are hardly the best way of finding the meaning of words. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: “Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.” You see it does not claim that it is the ONLY source, it is the ultimate source. Therefore there is no contradiction at all.

This is also from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

It entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all, by experience. Empiricists may assert, as some do for certain subjects, that the rationalists are correct to claim that experience cannot give us knowledge. The conclusion they draw from this rationalist lesson is not that we gain knowledge by indispensable reason, but that we do not know at all.

It’s not much different from what we’ve been saying. If an empiricist believes that some knowledge is not gained by the senses, then they do not believe in pure empiricism. Their philosophy is mixed with other philosophies. The idea given by the Standford Encyclopedia does not at all conflict with the definitions that warpspeedpetey has provided.

“Logic” makes no claims, humans do. “Empiricism” does not make claims either. Humans do. And empiricists do not deny the abstract sciences, and they do NOT discard the true statements of mathematics, just because they cannot be verified empirically. So why not discard your incorrect definition, and start to argue based upon the correct one? You still may bring up some objection pertaining to empiricism - maybe. But don’t try to sweep it under the rug by stipulating a strawman.

“Logic” is not a philosophy; “empiricism” is. “Logic” is not a belief system; “empiricism” is. People who follow empiricism (empiricists) do make certain claims because of the belief system they have. Logic is not something one can necessarily follow, but logicism is.

I hold fast that my definition is not incorrect. The dictionaries and even the encyclopedia have concurred with it.

Your definition of empiricism is incorrect. But that does not let you off hook in the case of “spiritual” claims. First, I showed you that every one of your claims is ultimately based upon some sensory perception. Revelations (perceived or otherwise) are sensory based. Miracles (perceived or otherwise) are sensory based. The scripture is a physical book. The Church is the physical collection of human beings. All your claims of “spiritual” are the result of some sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

Yes, revelations are partially empirical, but not completely. I come to believe in something because I have heard it from someone. Yet, I have never seen, heard, tasted, felt or smelt that something. I have heard *about * it. But I have not beheld it with my senses. Therefore, my belief in it is not entirely empirical, if at all. The same thing is with miracles. I believe the miracles of Jesus, though I have never beheld them with my senses. This is called faith.

Oh, the good old claim pertaining to history. The past **does not exist **any more. Your claims of “spiritual” nature supposedly do exist today. So your analogy is false. If something does not exist and therefore it is inaccessible to the senses, then there is no other way to gain “knowledge” about it, except relying of some first/second/third/etc… hand testimony. But the first hand testimony does claim (either reliably or otherwise) that it directly experienced the event in question. So even for the claims of history the way to gain “knowledge” about it - is to rely on some sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. How does one measure the reliability of the testimony is a different question.

My good friend, you misunderstand the commonality between my analogy and the topic at hand. No analogy is perfect and there will always be errors. But there is a point of agreement which I hope will enlighten you to my view. Empiricism believes that knowledge is gained through the senses. But if my senses have never beheld a historical event, how do I know it to be true? The person who wrote the document which sites the historical event might have lied. But it is because of reason and intuition that I believe that he hasn’t lied. There is no material proof that he hasn’t lied. It could be said that in a certain sense, my belief in that historical event is an act of faith.

Shall we start a childish game of chanting “I do, you don’t” - “No, I do and you don’t”? I gave you the correct definition of empiricism above. If you are interested in going on based upon that definition, fine. If you wish to stick to the incorrect definition, I am not interested. Your choice.

You don’t have to be interested. But I have shown you that even the encyclopedia you quoted agrees with the aforementioned definition.

 

[Image_of_God]

I just love reading all your intellectual comments. It is beautiful to see how well we can make our own truths seem real and obvious and try to force them on others! I am learning from all your comments on things that I don’t completly understand but one thing keeps popping in mind is “when two people are arguing on who is right, which one is the fool?” Nobody believes in miracles, well I guess we are all going to h_ll because then Jesus never came down to save us from sin, that definetly is no miracle for us, throw away the scriptures because none of it makes sense but we are on a catholic forum discussing or should I say arguing over what knowledge we have learned but where did all this come from anyway, oh yeah revolution not God! Scripture never proves anything unless it is practiced. I’m sorry for interrupting this but I hear more arguing than good conversation. I thank the good Lord for any miracles in my life of whatever senses (haha) of what any intelligent human can or cannot prove, my faith is what guides me not my intellect, my intellect helps me to see God guidance! Walk by faith not by sight

Some of us are here to defend the Faith which you profess. Not all of us disregard the miracles of Christ. It would be good if you prayed for us rather than look down on us. I mean this with great kindness.