Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?

[inocente]

How is this helpful? It provide little to no information on whether the information present in Peter’s post was correct, or not.

Peter said my statement that “a priori knowledge does not exist, all knowledge is experiential” was “self-defeating, like the claim “All statements are false””, so it seems he never realized that I didn’t come up with that idea myself and a whole bunch of philosophers have argued for empiricism down the ages.

Of course they don’t agree with each other, or with bunches of rationalist and idealist and et cetera philosophers, but Peter and anyone else can Google empiricism and get all the info they want.

 

[inocente]

It is not clear to me that all or even any of your list of philosophers would agree that knowledge comes only from experience. It may be true that empirical knowledge comes only from experience, but that is not your claim.

Adding the word “only” makes a huge difference to your statement about empiricism. While it may be true that empiricism holds that knowledge can be derived via empirical means, that is not sufficient to establish empirical absolutism by implying that all other means to knowledge are thereby rendered impotent. This is another example of your slippery logic.

This little addition of “only” is reminiscent of Luther’s not so minor addition of the word “alone” to revise Scripture according to his own rendering of what salvation means.

I guess empiricism and induction might seem slippery and demonic when they’re new to someone.

But it’s all I’ve been saying on this thread - did you forget that earlier I quoted Newton from his General Scholium, were he argued against Descartes and a priori knowledge?

Mixing rationalism with empiricism is a fudge. The rationalist claims that knowledge is innate or intuitive are really just claims that our nature and intuitions evolved out of our forebears’ sense experience.

This made our nature and intuitions very fallible, as shown by philosophers never agreeing on anything. But we can overcome our defects by being aware of them, and using evidence to keep us on the straight and narrow. This means all truth is provisional, nothing can be absolutely certain, and while that may sound slippery and demonic it has the singular advantage that it works.

 

[inocente]

At least a few on your list of “empirical” philosophers would claim that experience does not give us knowledge in the true sense of the word and they accept that knowledge in this true sense is impossible for us because empirical or sensory means are not sufficient for producing knowledge properly understood.

Others on your list would agree that empirical means offer possible sources for knowledge, but would also argue that these are not sufficient nor even necessary for knowledge.

Listing philosophers that are in some way linked to empiricism from a Wikipedia page is not sufficient to show that each of them claim empiricism is the only means to knowledge. It takes some familiarity with the history of philosophy to put their position regarding empiricism in perspective.

The rationalist claim is basically that (a) there is innate knowledge and (b) it’s superior to experiential knowledge. Claim (a) just says that we have adaptive traits which came out of the sense experiences of our ancestors, but it’s not really knowledge, sometimes it works for us others times not, which doesn’t do much for claim (b).

 

[inocente]

The ordering of your list is suspect. See:

It’s not suspect, I just wanted a list for you and that page was the first hit on Google, I just cut and paste it and then removed names that seemed a bit esoteric.

But I praise your use of evidence rather than reason alone.

Note the word “associated” with, which is far from implicating each of them as staunch empiricists. And, again, the most adamantly empiricist of the group would not subscribe to the idea that true “knowledge” is even possible, but would rather insist that we cannot have anything approaching certainty, which is what “knowing” entails.

You’re very forgetful, don’t you remember me saying several times that ordinary people don’t need proof, we just go with whatever works until a better idea turns up, and then we’ll go with that.

In other words we don’t care a fig about putative True Knowledge[sup]®[/sup].

*It is not clear to me which of us needs to do a little more reading.

I would suggest this site as a little more informative of what empiricism actually entails:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/*

Yes, I´ve always liked the Stanford site, but none of this is new to me and as you may have gathered on this thread, knowing which philosopher disagreed with which other philosopher is not one of my hobbies.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I
Mixing rationalism with empiricism is a fudge. The rationalist claims that knowledge is innate or intuitive are really just claims that our nature and intuitions evolved out of our forebears’ sense experience.

This is another inconsistency on your part because you have argued before that direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit is an option, in which case inspiration (intuition) is, for you, an alternative means of gaining knowledge or certainty about reality,

Furthermore, a rationalist need not accept your claim that knowledge is merely accumulated experience. A rationalist would claim that reason provides a verifiable form for knowledge and experience provides at least part of the content. Without reason to provide the means by which to make sense of experiences, experiences themselves would remain disconnected episodes devoid of meaning.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, I´ve always liked the Stanford site, but none of this is new to me and as you may have gathered on this thread, knowing which philosopher disagreed with which other philosopher is not one of my hobbies.

Which is an interesting admission coming from someone who advised the following:

In philosophical circles the statement that knowledge comes only from experience is called empiricism.

I’ll wait while you read up on it.

There was an implication here that you have indeed “read up on it” but that I had not. Yet, now you are admitting you really haven’t “read up on it” but merely Googled and copy-pasted what would appear to be the entirety of your “knowledge” on the subject.

 

[inocente]

This is another inconsistency on your part because you have argued before that direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit is an option, in which case inspiration (intuition) is, for you, an alternative means of gaining knowledge or certainty about reality,

For me baptism in the Spirit was utterly experiential. If the Spirit is just a set of a priori intuitions, wouldn’t non-Christians also have the Spirit? Why then would Christ have needed to send the Spirit?

Furthermore, a rationalist need not accept your claim that knowledge is merely accumulated experience. A rationalist would claim that reason provides a verifiable form for knowledge and experience provides at least part of the content. Without reason to provide the means by which to make sense of experiences, experiences themselves would remain disconnected episodes devoid of meaning.

Yes, that’s how some rationalists see it, although you’ll have to argue with tonyrey about verification (post #333). But then idealists see it differently again, some go so far as saying the world vanishes altogether when you’re not experiencing it. Philosophers are very consistent at not being consistent.

 

[inocente]

There was an implication here that you have indeed “read up on it” but that I had not. Yet, now you are admitting you really haven’t “read up on it” but merely Googled and copy-pasted what would appear to be the entirety of your “knowledge” on the subject.

What do you mean “admitting it?” I wanted a list of empiricists for you and don’t remember them all. Tried to help you and get accused of lying.

No good deed goes unpunished.

My education was oriented towards science from age twelve, I don’t need to read encyclopedia articles on empiricism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For me baptism in the Spirit was utterly experiential. If the Spirit is just a set of a priori intuitions, wouldn’t non-Christians also have the Spirit? Why then would Christ have needed to send the Spirit?

You could make precisely the same claim about the truth existing “a priori.” Wouldn’t non-Christians also have access to the truth? Why would Christ have needed to send the Spirit of Truth?

Are you arguing that no transcendent truth exists independently of you thinking it? The Holy Spirit makes it up on the spot just for you?

Christ sent the Holy Spirit as an Advocate and Guide because our muddled state makes it difficult for us to find the truth. This does assume there is truth and that knowledge of the truth is possible for us. This assumes our minds are capable of apprehending the truth, of knowing the truth, but that we need a little help getting there. It also assumes that truth is more than mere experience.

Yes, that’s how some rationalists see it, although you’ll have to argue with tonyrey about verification (post #333). But then idealists see it differently again, some go so far as saying the world vanishes altogether when you’re not experiencing it. Philosophers are very consistent at not being consistent.

Pointing out the verifiable limits of empirical knowledge is not the same as arguing against it. Saying there is nothing that logically precludes that the world could simply disappear when you are not experiencing it, is not making a claim that it actually does disappear. It is pointing out a gap in how we “know” the world and how certain we are about that knowledge.

Making such a claim leads to further reasoning about how we can be certain about our experiences. I find this no different, in principle, to what scientists do when they look for evidential holes in theories. It is doing business, whether in science or philosophy, with due diligence. Having a logical problem with an argument need not entail that one disagrees with the conclusion, but merely that you cannot “get there from here” even while the contentious conclusion can be admitted as the likely best one.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What do you mean “admitting it?” I wanted a list of empiricists for you and don’t remember them all. Tried to help you and get accused of lying.

No good deed goes unpunished.

My education was oriented towards science from age twelve, I don’t need to read encyclopedia articles on empiricism.

You did tacitly claim that your level of reading on empiricism was beyond mine and that I should engage in further reading because, clearly, you had more knowledge on the subject. Now you admit to a rather limited exposure to the philosophical writings on empiricism. Sounds like backpedaling to me. Okay it wasn’t lying, it was taking literary license.

 

[inocente]

You could make precisely the same claim about the truth existing “a priori.” Wouldn’t non-Christians also have access to the truth? Why would Christ have needed to send the Spirit of Truth?

That would be the view of an idealist who believes knowledge exists independently on some abstract Platonic plane. I’m not an idealist which is why I called it True Knowledge[sup]®[/sup].

*Are you arguing that no transcendent truth exists independently of you thinking it? The Holy Spirit makes it up on the spot just for you? *

Independent of what? Truth is usually defined as that which is in accordance with fact or reality, i.e. it is a statement about someone or something and as such cannot exist independently of its subject.

Christ sent the Holy Spirit as an Advocate and Guide because our muddled state makes it difficult for us to find the truth. This does assume there is truth and that knowledge of the truth is possible for us. This assumes our minds are capable of apprehending the truth, of knowing the truth, but that we need a little help getting there. It also assumes that truth is more than mere experience.

When the Spirit prompts me I don’t ask for absolute logical proof, maybe others do.

Pointing out the verifiable limits of empirical knowledge is not the same as arguing against it. Saying there is nothing that logically precludes that the world could simply disappear when you are not experiencing it, is not making a claim that it actually does disappear. It is pointing out a gap in how we “know” the world and how certain we are about that knowledge.

According to him [Plato] the visible world is simply a copy of a supersensible, intelligible, ideal world, and consequently “things” are but the impress stamped on reality by that which is of a higher, spiritual nature. - oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Idealism

But I don’t know much about idealism except there are a plethora of views, starting with ancient Hindus (?) or possibly earlier.

 

[inocente]

You did tacitly claim that your level of reading on empiricism was beyond mine and that I should engage in further reading because, clearly, you had more knowledge on the subject. Now you admit to a rather limited exposure to the philosophical writings on empiricism. Sounds like backpedaling to me. Okay it wasn’t lying, it was taking literary license.

Oh come on, don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous to use your retraction as an opportunity to make more insults? :coffeeread:

It was clear from your post #324 that you know little of empiricism and its ways or otherwise after all the posts on this thread you’d have connected it with what I was saying. No big deal, none of us know everything about everything, but it’s not my problem if your ego is bruised.

Google has lots of pics of cute puppies if it helps.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh come on, don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous to use your retraction as an opportunity to make more insults? :coffeeread:

It was clear from your post #324 that you know little of empiricism and its ways or otherwise after all the posts on this thread you’d have connected it with what I was saying. No big deal, none of us know everything about everything, but it’s not my problem if your ego is bruised.

Google has lots of pics of cute puppies if it helps.

Being oblivious concerning valid points is not the same as being immune to them.

 

[tonyrey]

*I’d have thought love is highly irrational.

No response…

And it’s highly unreasonable of God to love us but He does all the same.

It’s highly unreasonable to think it’s highly unreasonable of God to love us considering we are His children for whom He died. It amounts to believing He was unreasonable to create us in the first place knowing some of us would reject Him.

To think God is unreasonable in any respect is a further reflection of Luther’s irrationalism. God’s kingdom is a kingdom of truth not Unreason.

No response…

 

[Peter_Plato]

It was clear from your post #324 that you know little of empiricism and its ways or otherwise after all the posts on this thread you’d have connected it with what I was saying. No big deal, none of us know everything about everything, but it’s not my problem if your ego is bruised.

This from someone who admitted he hasn’t read empirical, or, for that matter, many philosophers at all, enough to distinguish their varying positions. And clearly not enough to distinguish a self-contradictory and illogical position (all knowledge is empirical) from a meaningful one.

None of the empirical philosophers you listed would take your position that all knowledge is empirical.

 

[inocente]

No response…

No response…

I’m not interested in off-topic posts. So sue me.

 

[inocente]

This from someone who admitted he hasn’t read empirical, or, for that matter, many philosophers at all, enough to distinguish their varying positions. And clearly not enough to distinguish a self-contradictory and illogical position (all knowledge is empirical) from a meaningful one.

None of the empirical philosophers you listed would take your position that all knowledge is empirical.

I never admitting any such thing, but it’s great that just a few days after first hearing of empiricism you’re now a world expert, speed reading must be a very useful skill.

So what did you think of Locke’s Concerning Human Understanding then?

I grant that if there were any ideas to be found imprinted on the minds of men, we have reason to expect it should be the notion of his Maker, as a mark God set on his own workmanship, to mind man of his dependence and duty; and that herein should appear the first instances of human knowledge. But how late is it before any such notion is discoverable in children? And when we find it there, how much more does it resemble the opinion and notion of the teacher, than represent the true God? - gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10615/pg10615.html

The concept of no a priori knowledge does tend to grab one warmly by the throat, but while you may flatter yourself, no, you’re not the first to think it slippery and demonic and I’m not the first to be called illogical, people were getting called a lot worst a long time before we were born.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I never admitting any such thing, but it’s great that just a few days after first hearing of empiricism you’re now a world expert, speed reading must be a very useful skill.

So what did you think of Locke’s Concerning Human Understanding then?

I grant that if there were any ideas to be found imprinted on the minds of men, we have reason to expect it should be the notion of his Maker, as a mark God set on his own workmanship, to mind man of his dependence and duty; and that herein should appear the first instances of human knowledge. But how late is it before any such notion is discoverable in children? And when we find it there, how much more does it resemble the opinion and notion of the teacher, than represent the true God? - gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10615/pg10615.html

The concept of no a priori knowledge does tend to grab one warmly by the throat, but while you may flatter yourself, no, you’re not the first to think it slippery and demonic and I’m not the first to be called illogical, people were getting called a lot worst a long time before we were born.

I have no idea to what your last paragraph refers, nor to what you are actually getting at. It just seems confused. I do agree that the way you go about presenting your arguments is indeed slippery, but you seem to be arguing at the same time that having “no a priori knowledge” is “slippery and demonic” and yet you believe that notion to be true and have argued for it in spite of a professed belief in God. As if God is quite content to have left us with vacant minds that are susceptible to being swayed by slippery and demonic notions and that any such proclivity is built into God’s plan rather than as a result of the darkening of the human mind as a fallout from the fall of Adam and Eve.

Notice that Locke changes the word “knowledge” to “opinion and notion” when he identifies the source of “undertanding” in human minds. Locke is, even here, claiming that true “knowledge” which could have been legitimately sourced in God, can no longer make a claim to being knowledge because it cannot secure that kind of certainty. Again, Locke would not agree with you that knowledge can be experientially derived because he would argue, as he does here, that “notions” which derive from experience cannot be properly called “knowledge” due to lack of certainty. He would argue that our notions and opinions are the result of building upon the experiences of others before us (teachers in the wide sense), but he stops short of calling any of these notions and opinions, “knowledge” in the accepted sense. You have no problem taking that step by claiming “all knowledge is experiential.” Clearly Locke and company understood what it takes to truly “know” something to be true. You, on the other hand, are willing to accept mere “opinion and notions” as knowledge when you make the claim that “all knowledge is experiential.”

 

[inocente]

I have no idea to what your last paragraph refers, nor to what you are actually getting at. It just seems confused. I do agree that the way you go about presenting your arguments is indeed slippery, but you seem to be arguing at the same time that having “no a priori knowledge” is “slippery and demonic” and yet you believe that notion to be true and have argued for it in spite of a professed belief in God. As if God is quite content to have left us with vacant minds that are susceptible to being swayed by slippery and demonic notions and that any such proclivity is built into God’s plan rather than as a result of the darkening of the human mind as a fallout from the fall of Adam and Eve.

I’ve been saying “slippery and demonic” not because I think it is but because you think it is. When you get into it, you’ll find everything to do with “no a priori knowledge” is, to you, slippery because when you try out a new way of looking at the world for the first time it does your head in. Eventually when it starts to sink in, it won’t seem slippery any more.

Notice that Locke changes the word “knowledge” to “opinion and notion” when he identifies the source of “undertanding” in human minds. Locke is, even here, claiming that true “knowledge” which could have been legitimately sourced in God, can no longer make a claim to being knowledge because it cannot secure that kind of certainty. Again, Locke would not agree with you that knowledge can be experientially derived because he would argue, as he does here, that “notions” which derive from experience cannot be properly called “knowledge” due to lack of certainty. He would argue that our notions and opinions are the result of building upon the experiences of others before us (teachers in the wide sense), but he stops short of calling any of these notions and opinions, “knowledge” in the accepted sense. You have no problem taking that step by claiming “all knowledge is experiential.” Clearly Locke and company understood what it takes to truly “know” something to be true. You, on the other hand, are willing to accept mere “opinion and notions” as knowledge when you make the claim that “all knowledge is experiential.”

Hmm. I think you’re doing the same as you did with Romans, just taking what you want to hear from a couple of lines. Locke’s essay is around 600 pages long (I think it’s all there in the Gutenberg online version I linked, or you can get it in paperback or hardback).

You’ll need to read a lot more of it and roll it over in your head to understand what he’s saying.

 

[adawgj]

“Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life”-Immanuel Kant