Rationalism v. empiricism

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:09 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:08 pm
You don't know what is logic. There is no possible rational conversation with with you. You systematically misrepresent what people say. It's just a waste of time. You're just a nuisance.
EB
But I do know what logic is. You even recognized my expertise in logic in the past. Are you now going back on your word?

Remember when I proved to you my expertise in logic by contradicting the "law" of identity? Exactly as you asked me to do.
Logik wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:51 pm
(.....)
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:09 pm
It's just a waste of time. You're just a nuisance.
If you are dogmatic about logic, then indeed - I am a nuisance. How much more evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

Do you even care about evidence, or do you outright reject the scientific method?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:14 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:22 pm
While love is not something that can be empirically demonstrated the commonality of the experience means that it can still be
discussed between multiple minds . Even when an experience is being discussed that is unique to a particular mind other minds
can still learn about it by acquiring knowledge from the experienced mind
Yes and that's a crucial point. This in fact applies to all empirical sciences. It's only because we all have the same kind of subjective experience that we can agree on basic facts such as that there is a tree and only one tree in my garden.
The essential point is to recognise that all scientific claim always require some prior facts and ultimately subjective facts. Subjectivity cannot be dispense with, however hard we try.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:15 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:09 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:08 pm
You don't know what is logic. There is no possible rational conversation with with you. You systematically misrepresent what people say. It's just a waste of time. You're just a nuisance.
EB
But I do know what logic is. You even recognized my expertise in logic in the past. Are you now going back on your word?

Remember when I proved to you my expertise in logic by contradicting the "law" of identity? Exactly as you asked me to do.
Logik wrote:
Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:51 pm
(.....)
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:09 pm
It's just a waste of time. You're just a nuisance.
If you are dogmatic about logic, then indeed - I am a nuisance. How much more evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

Do you even care about evidence, or do you outright reject the scientific method?
You don't have any evidence. You always misrepresent. You're a waste of time.
EB

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:21 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
As in anything there are different shades of grey when it comes to rationalism but I did make clear what I meant by rationalism :
Rationalism requires instead that the proof of your claim be an observation of your own mind

Given my assumption rationalism requires the observation of your own mind
As such there is a clear distinction with the idea of empiricism requiring observation of the material world
There is a distinction between rationalism and empiricism but they also share a commonality :
Because all knowledge claims have to be processed by the mind regardless of anything else

I would however question your definition of rationalism here :
No first person subjective claim can be rational if proof is required because proof does not apply in such a scenario
Proof is by definition the remit of deductive systems such as mathematics and syllogisms not that of individual minds

Therefore this cannot be said : Rationalism requires that the proof of your claim be an observation of your own mind
This can be said : Rationalism requires that your claim be as close as possible an objective observation of your own mind

I say objective because if the mental state of your mind is compromised in any significant way then rational assessment is not possible
So just being able to determine an observation of your mind does not automatically mean that said observation will actually be rational
The mind is perfectly capable of irrationality just as much and so a distinction between the two has to be established - objective observation

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:26 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:15 pm
You don't have any evidence. You always misrepresent. You're a waste of time.
You really are very, very confused. All of those links (that you don't read) are evidence. They are commonly known as references amongst scientists. If you've ever bothered to read any scientific publications you would know that.

First you accused me of failing to understand your position, then you accuse me of misrepresenting it. How could I misrepresent something I don't even understand? Would you care to demonstrate to us how that works?

Go ahead and misrepresent a grobmunf rolegfunkel.

commonsense
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:40 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:40 pm
commonsense wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:20 pm
Whether these are material things or not makes a significant difference to the legitimacy of my claims (see Skepdick’s post).
The "legitimacy of claims" is a misnomer in the context of an individual mind. All the problems arise in the context of "us". Where two minds are communicating.

You claim that you experience love. Could you ever doubt that claim? Only other minds can.

Sure, you can't describe that experience but that's just because language sucks.
I had in mind my claims that love and the others are immaterial. I think now, after reading your post about these, that they are not truly immaterial.

commonsense
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:49 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:44 pm
commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:31 am
I’m just saying that materialism and rationalism are more different than in degree only. They are certainly different in kind. Just read a little bit of Wikipedia’s discussion on rationalism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
I don't follow links. If you can't explain your point yourself, so be it.
EB
I cannot define rationalism as well as Wikipedia can. If you would rather not read a little bit of background, you’re only missing something you don’t need, or want, to see.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:09 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:21 pm
There is a distinction between rationalism and empiricism but they also share a commonality :
Because all knowledge claims have to be processed by the mind regardless of anything else
Sure, but why "knowledge claims"?
Knowledge claims are not necessary to knowledge. I know I am in pain irrespective of any knowledge claim. I know I am in pain irrespective of what other people may think.
Empiricism is dependent on the mind for reasoning about propositions, but also and more fundamentally, for knowing the facts of our subjective experience on which all our beliefs about the material world are founded. Subjective experience seems necessary for the observation of the material world.
Rationalism is also dependent on subjective experience but not on what we take to be the fact of the material world.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:21 pm
I would however question your definition of rationalism here :
No first person subjective claim can be rational if proof is required because proof does not apply in such a scenario
Proof is by definition the remit of deductive systems such as mathematics and syllogisms not that of individual minds
No. You are being influenced by the notion of proof in mathematics and the sciences. But the notion of proof is much more general than that.
Proof
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
The proof that I am in pain is the pain itself and I don't need any other proof or argument to be compelled to accept that I am in pain, and this irrespective of whatever other people may think.
What would be irrational in accepting that you are in pain when you are in pain?
Rationality is logic plus facts. Facts may be the subjective evidence which is only available to you, such as that you are in pain. Logic is obviously necessary as soon as we reason from basic facts but accepting subjective facts such as that you are in pain doesn't require to infer anything, and therefore doesn't require logic.
Walking in the street requires you to negotiate you way through obstacles. No formal reasoning is required and yet it is clearly a rational process. People who cross the street without paying attention to cars are not behaving in a rational manner.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:21 pm
Therefore this cannot be said : Rationalism requires that the proof of your claim be an observation of your own mind
This can be said : Rationalism requires that your claim be as close as possible an objective observation of your own mind
The notion of objectivity implies a collective consensus on what is the case. It will be rational to abide by this consensus whenever you don't have any evidence contradicting it. It is a fact of life that the consensus is contradicted by individuals who acts on the basis of the evidence which is initially only available to them. I'm sure it was rational for Einstein to become convinced that Special Relativity was correct even when he was still the only person in the whole universe to know it. Consensus be damned.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:21 pm
I say objective because if the mental state of your mind is compromised in any significant way then rational assessment is not possible
So just being able to determine an observation of your mind does not automatically mean that said observation will actually be rational
The mind is perfectly capable of irrationality just as much and so a distinction between the two has to be established - objective observation
But the consensus on what is objectively the case can be just as wrong and probabilities here don't help because we are unable to assess them in each case.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:18 am

commonsense wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:49 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:44 pm
I don't follow links. If you can't explain your point yourself, so be it.
I cannot define rationalism as well as Wikipedia can. If you would rather not read a little bit of background, you’re only missing something you don’t need, or want, to see.
Links are for the lazy. A link is a way of discharging yourself of the responsibility to explain yourself and justify your views.
I don't need you to support your claims with Wikipedia links. If I think your claim is dodgy, I can ask you to justify it and you can do that by quoting the part of the Wiki page that's relevant.
Wikipedia doesn't define Rationalism. Here are examples of definitions:
Rationalism
1. Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.
2. Philosophy The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.
That's all we need to begin with. We can go into more details whenever required.
EB

Walker
Posts: 6817
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Walker » Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:00 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:34 pm
The difference between rationalism and empiricism is in the method of proof.
Rats
https://patch.com/maryland/baltimore/ba ... gain-orkin

In the twisted rationality of the Left, if you accurately say that a rat-infested city is infested with rats, based on empiricism, you must be called a racist.

Of course, that's just a deflection from the truth.

btw: those cities on the list are run by Democrats.

commonsense
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:40 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:00 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:34 pm
The difference between rationalism and empiricism is in the method of proof.
Rats
https://patch.com/maryland/baltimore/ba ... gain-orkin

In the twisted rationality of the Left, if you accurately say that a rat-infested city is infested with rats, based on empiricism, you must be called a racist.

Of course, that's just a deflection from the truth.

btw: those cities on the list are run by Democrats.
Rat-ionalism! LOL

commonsense
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:19 pm

Can we say that introspection is a form of observation?

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Sculptor » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:30 pm

commonsense wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:19 pm
Can we say that introspection is a form of observation?
No.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Sculptor » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:31 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:00 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:34 pm
The difference between rationalism and empiricism is in the method of proof.
Rats
https://patch.com/maryland/baltimore/ba ... gain-orkin

In the twisted rationality of the Left, if you accurately say that a rat-infested city is infested with rats, based on empiricism, you must be called a racist.

Of course, that's just a deflection from the truth.

btw: those cities on the list are run by Democrats.
You are an idiot.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:39 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:00 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:34 pm
The difference between rationalism and empiricism is in the method of proof.
Rats
https://patch.com/maryland/baltimore/ba ... gain-orkin
In the twisted rationality of the Left, if you accurately say that a rat-infested city is infested with rats, based on empiricism, you must be called a racist.
Of course, that's just a deflection from the truth.
btw: those cities on the list are run by Democrats.
You understand I'm French, right? Could you help me with the evidence?
For example, just to make up my mind in the rationalist way I do, I'd like to have the list of all big cities in the developed world together with their level of rat infestation in relation to the budget they have available to spend on the city.
Personally, I take Trump's sortie a priori to play on the racism of a big chunk of his electoral base. And I'm sure you would be the kind of man to find the empirical evidence if it wasn't true.
EB

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests