Re: Basic Human Rights
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:39 pm
That's not anyone's empiricism, as far as I know. Every version of empiricism you will find leaves out the most important essential of knowledge, "fact of human consciousness." It is never rejected outright, because it would be an obvious contradiction, but in all discussions, it's nature and significance is simply ignored.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pmThat's what Empiricism might be, if Empiricism were to be taken to be a comprehensive philosophy...which, in some cases, it has been. Not in mine.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:46 pm The only part I agree with is that:
the only evidence there is and the only foundation there is for any and all knowledge is the fact of human consciousness and that which human beings are directly conscious of, that is, what they see, hear, feel, smell, taste and experience internally as interoception,
Of course. That's one of the main reasons I reject empiricism. I clearly stated:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm That is to say, if "empirically" were the ONLY way to know things, rather than merely one of various ways, then that might be a problem. But it's not.
Conscious perception does not provide any knowledge whatsoever. Perception is nothing more than the direct apprehension (consciousness of) what exists, and it is what exists (what we perceive) that all knowledge is about. Perception alone cannot produce knowledge. Knowledge begins with the conscious identification of what is perceived by means of concepts, a rational process without, which there can be no knowledge. It is that aspect of human consciousness all varieties of empiricism ignore.The only evidence there is and the only foundation there is for any and all knowledge is the fact of human consciousness and that which human beings are directly conscious of.
Well, I already knew you bought into all those mystical magical sources of knowledge nonsense. If one wants to believe there is something other than the reality that one is actually conscious of as the only evidence there is and all there is to know and reason about, they must assume some other kind of existence for which there is no evidence and some method other than reasoning from evidence for knowing it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm
No.
A priori reasoning is inevitable, intuition is something we all use, and is even sometimes very telling (but it must be carefully watched), and there's no obvious reason to say revelation is implausible as well, especially if, like me, one is a Theist.
No science has been done by, "induction," since alchemy was superseded by chemistry, which happens to be the first science I mastered. Bacon was introduced in that usual nontechnical way in early grades as being the father of science because he insisted on the use of evidence and experiment (all good), until it became, "induction," (knowledge is determined by how often the same events or same series of events are observed together). which immediately revealed the absurdity of induction. Nothing is true as an explanation of anything just because some things are observed frequently related. Some of the greatest disasters in human history were caused by the belief in induction: "the river has never dried up before," "the volcano has never been known to errupt," "the water has always been safe to drink," "heavier than air human flight is impossible else someone would have flown by now." By the time they began teaching that induction was the method of science in school, I already knew how most of the chemical elements had been identified, which had absolutely nothing to do with induction. Neither induction or deduction leads directly to any knew knowledge. All new knowledge is discovered and verified by a process of observation and identification, that is, the rational process of concept formation.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm And I'll warrant it was by induction into the traditions of science that you first learned what science was yourself -- nobody learns it by inventing it first hand...at least, not since Francis Bacon.
Only you say that. I have no use for empiricism, as already explained, or any of the other so-called, "routes to knowledge," in your grab bag of mind warping methods, all excellent methods of putting over scams, religions, and ideologies, because they all leave out the one thing that protects against deception, the ruthless application of rigorous reason to all evidence which rejects all contradictions and all appeals to anything other than evidence anyone can examine.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm So there are various routes to knowledge: empiricism, sure; but also a priori, logic and reason, intuition, revelation, education, and so on.
In fact, saying that empiricism is good for some things DOES NOT imply it's the ONLY thing that's any good for anything.