Empiricism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Empiricism

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:43 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:25 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:45 pm That is true, but circular. God is basically , axiomatically, defined as cosmic order such that when a man uses empirical methods to truths that man will discover, not originate, those truths .
Is this your personal made-up definition of what a god is? What exactly is, "cosmic order?" How is it, "axiomatic?"

It sounds like you just string some words together and think they actually mean something. Must be philosophy-speak or academia-speak, both of which are only remotely related to cogent human language.
Does a scientist discover or create an empirical fact? If the empirical fact is discovered then it is part of a body of empirical fact that is a precondition for facts.

If the empirical fact originates with one or more human minds then there is no need to presume there is any order of facts that transcends human minds.

Don't be rude when you reply to me.
Rudeness is in the mind of the reader. I intended no offense, I was expressing the fact that what you wrote was, as far as I could see, absurd. It's just my opinion. You don't have to take seriously.

It's your mixing up of disparate concepts like this: "Does a scientist discover or create an empirical fact? If the empirical fact is discovered then it is part of a body of empirical fact that is a precondition for facts."

What is an, "empirical fact?" A fact is a fact. It is whatever is so whether anyone knows it is so or not. But observing a fact (empirically or otherwise), doe not all by itself provide any knowledge, scientific or any other kind. All the animals observe the same physical facts human beings do, but have no scientific understanding of them.

Science (or any correct intellectual study resulting in knowledge) is the process of using reason to identify and discover the nature of, "facts," that are observed.

There is no such thing as a, "body of empirical fact," or "precondition," for facts. You are confusing knowledge of facts with facts themselves.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Empiricism

Post by Sculptor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:41 pm Given the probabilistic nature of empiricism given a long enough timeline of events anything is possible.
no.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Empiricism

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:56 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:43 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:25 am
Is this your personal made-up definition of what a god is? What exactly is, "cosmic order?" How is it, "axiomatic?"

It sounds like you just string some words together and think they actually mean something. Must be philosophy-speak or academia-speak, both of which are only remotely related to cogent human language.
Does a scientist discover or create an empirical fact? If the empirical fact is discovered then it is part of a body of empirical fact that is a precondition for facts.

If the empirical fact originates with one or more human minds then there is no need to presume there is any order of facts that transcends human minds.

Don't be rude when you reply to me.
Rudeness is in the mind of the reader. I intended no offense, I was expressing the fact that what you wrote was, as far as I could see, absurd. It's just my opinion. You don't have to take seriously.

It's your mixing up of disparate concepts like this: "Does a scientist discover or create an empirical fact? If the empirical fact is discovered then it is part of a body of empirical fact that is a precondition for facts."

What is an, "empirical fact?" A fact is a fact. It is whatever is so whether anyone knows it is so or not. But observing a fact (empirically or otherwise), doe not all by itself provide any knowledge, scientific or any other kind. All the animals observe the same physical facts human beings do, but have no scientific understanding of them.

Science (or any correct intellectual study resulting in knowledge) is the process of using reason to identify and discover the nature of, "facts," that are observed.

There is no such thing as a, "body of empirical fact," or "precondition," for facts. You are confusing knowledge of facts with facts themselves.
If there were no human beings , never had been human beings,would there still be facts?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Empiricism

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 6:41 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:56 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:43 pm
Does a scientist discover or create an empirical fact? If the empirical fact is discovered then it is part of a body of empirical fact that is a precondition for facts.

If the empirical fact originates with one or more human minds then there is no need to presume there is any order of facts that transcends human minds.

Don't be rude when you reply to me.
Rudeness is in the mind of the reader. I intended no offense, I was expressing the fact that what you wrote was, as far as I could see, absurd. It's just my opinion. You don't have to take seriously.

It's your mixing up of disparate concepts like this: "Does a scientist discover or create an empirical fact? If the empirical fact is discovered then it is part of a body of empirical fact that is a precondition for facts."

What is an, "empirical fact?" A fact is a fact. It is whatever is so whether anyone knows it is so or not. But observing a fact (empirically or otherwise), doe not all by itself provide any knowledge, scientific or any other kind. All the animals observe the same physical facts human beings do, but have no scientific understanding of them.

Science (or any correct intellectual study resulting in knowledge) is the process of using reason to identify and discover the nature of, "facts," that are observed.

There is no such thing as a, "body of empirical fact," or "precondition," for facts. You are confusing knowledge of facts with facts themselves.
If there were no human beings , never had been human beings,would there still be facts?
Here's the problem with using words and not specifying which meaning is intended. The word, "fact," actually identifies more than one concept. From: Merriam-Webster.com
fact

1a : something that has actual existence
1b : an actual occurrence
2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3 : the quality of being actual
1a, 2b, and 3 mean, "fact," as that which science identifies and describes. Those facts are what they are whether any human is ever aware of them or knows them or not. They would be facts even if there had hypothetically never been any human beings. [With the exception, of course, that in reality many facts are the direct result of human activity and would not be if there had never been any human beings.]

2. Is what many people confuse for facts in the scientific sense. It is information about or knowledge of facts, not the facts themselves.

It is definition 2 that is most confusing because information (or evidence, or knowledge) itself may be a fact, which is also what is wrong with empiricism. Direct observation can provide evidence but not identification or explanation. The concepts for physical attributes like left and right or clockwise and counterclockwise can be seen but what left or clockwise mean cannot be identified without reason. No knowledge is possible from empirical observation alone without linguistic rational identification.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Empiricism

Post by jayjacobus »

You said, "Rudeness is in the mind of the reader. I intended no offense, I was expressing the fact that what you wrote was, as far as I could see, absurd. It's just my opinion. You don't have to take seriously."

That's rude.

Much of what your post is rude.

You are a rude person.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Empiricism

Post by Belinda »

If there were no human beings, never had been human beings, would there be

fact

1a : something that has actual existence
1b : an actual occurrence
2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3 : the quality of being actual

?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Empiricism

Post by RCSaunders »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:24 pm You said, "Rudeness is in the mind of the reader. I intended no offense, I was expressing the fact that what you wrote was, as far as I could see, absurd. It's just my opinion. You don't have to take seriously."

That's rude.

Much of what your post is rude.

You are a rude person.
Nice of you to say!
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Empiricism

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:22 am If there were no human beings, never had been human beings, would there be

fact

1a : something that has actual existence
1b : an actual occurrence
2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3 : the quality of being actual

?
I'm sorry, I really do not understand what you are asking. If the answer I provided does not explain what I mean well enough, then it doesn't.

No fact depends on human existence, except the facts that human beings do exist and those facts produced by human beings like machines, buildings, food, and medicine. The rest of the universe is what it is, independent of any human awareness, knowledge or activity--that is, every existent there is and their nature are the, "facts," of reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Empiricism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:23 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:45 pm
That is true, but circular. God is basically , axiomatically, defined as cosmic order such that when a man uses empirical methods to truths that man will discover, not originate, those truths .
Whilst the idea of God may be axiomatic to theists only, i.e. confined to theology or theism, it cannot be conflated with the empirical.
Whatever is deemed to be empirical must satisfy empirical conditions, i.e. observable and verifiable empirically.

One presumes scientists do empirical observations and experiments, and also use maths and statistics to endorse their reasoning. Any scientist can have one of two attitudes to what he discovers empirically and deductively .

One attitude is that he has discovered a truth that was 'out there'; the other attitude is that he has originated (or invented) a truth.
No scientists will make any deductive conclusion, scientists by default of the Scientific Framework can only make inductive inferences from observations [empirical].

Example, the BB or Theory of Evolution albeit not verifiable are inferred inductively based on empirical evidences and with qualifications and conditions.
Scientists will rely on maths but they do not prove any mathematical proofs.

The reasoning scientists used is only inductive [besides abductive for their hypotheses], never inductive.

Any positive claims for the existence of God is based on Pure Reason, i.e. jumping outside the domain of the empirical.

For example there are empirical squares and empirical circles but to jump [based on crude primal reason] to the conclusion there are square-circles, that is outside the realm of the empirical.
This is similar to a claim for God existence [unconditional] falsely extrapolated from various empirical evidences, e.g. the physical cosmological universe, etc.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Empiricism

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:46 am For example there are empirical squares and empirical circles but to jump [based on crude primal reason] to the conclusion there are square-circles, that is outside the realm of the empirical.
This is similar to a claim for God existence [unconditional] falsely extrapolated from various empirical evidences, e.g. the physical cosmological universe, etc.
Dude. This is not the first time (and. no doubt - it won't be the last time) that I am showing you this.

Given the definition used here and in the context of a Taxicab geometry.
There is such a thing as a square circle.

This is not subject to doubt or disagreement or Philosophical objection -the image below is a square circle.

But is it an "empirical" square circle or "non-empirical" square circle?
square-circle.png
square-circle.png (66.42 KiB) Viewed 1398 times
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Empiricism

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:53 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:22 am If there were no human beings, never had been human beings, would there be

fact

1a : something that has actual existence
1b : an actual occurrence
2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3 : the quality of being actual

?
I'm sorry, I really do not understand what you are asking. If the answer I provided does not explain what I mean well enough, then it doesn't.

No fact depends on human existence, except the facts that human beings do exist and those facts produced by human beings like machines, buildings, food, and medicine. The rest of the universe is what it is, independent of any human awareness, knowledge or activity--that is, every existent there is and their nature are the, "facts," of reality.
I disagree that no fact depends on human existence All facts depend on human existence . Your bed does not exist until it is perceived. Your glass of water does not exist until it is perceived. The Atlantic Ocean does not exist until it is perceived. A specific human body does not exist until it is perceived. The colour red does not exist until it is perceived.

You may object that that coil of rope in the dark shed that I perceived as a snake is not a snake but really is a coil of rope. It is true that perceptions harmonise, and I am not saying there is nothing 'out there' apart from perceptions. However what is 'out there' apart from perceptions is vague, and like existence according to statistical probability.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Empiricism

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:46 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:23 am
Whilst the idea of God may be axiomatic to theists only, i.e. confined to theology or theism, it cannot be conflated with the empirical.
Whatever is deemed to be empirical must satisfy empirical conditions, i.e. observable and verifiable empirically.

One presumes scientists do empirical observations and experiments, and also use maths and statistics to endorse their reasoning. Any scientist can have one of two attitudes to what he discovers empirically and deductively .

One attitude is that he has discovered a truth that was 'out there'; the other attitude is that he has originated (or invented) a truth.
No scientists will make any deductive conclusion, scientists by default of the Scientific Framework can only make inductive inferences from observations [empirical].

Example, the BB or Theory of Evolution albeit not verifiable are inferred inductively based on empirical evidences and with qualifications and conditions.
Scientists will rely on maths but they do not prove any mathematical proofs.

The reasoning scientists used is only inductive [besides abductive for their hypotheses], never inductive.

Any positive claims for the existence of God is based on Pure Reason, i.e. jumping outside the domain of the empirical.

For example there are empirical squares and empirical circles but to jump [based on crude primal reason] to the conclusion there are square-circles, that is outside the realm of the empirical.
This is similar to a claim for God existence [unconditional] falsely extrapolated from various empirical evidences, e.g. the physical cosmological universe, etc.
I did not say scientists make deductive conclusions. I said scientists use maths which is deductive so as to show that their empirical conclusions are not illogical.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Empiricism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 8:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:46 am For example there are empirical squares and empirical circles but to jump [based on crude primal reason] to the conclusion there are square-circles, that is outside the realm of the empirical.
This is similar to a claim for God existence [unconditional] falsely extrapolated from various empirical evidences, e.g. the physical cosmological universe, etc.
Dude. This is not the first time (and. no doubt - it won't be the last time) that I am showing you this.

Given the definition used here and in the context of a Taxicab geometry.
There is such a thing as a square circle.

This is not subject to doubt or disagreement or Philosophical objection -the image below is a square circle.

But is it an "empirical" square circle or "non-empirical" square circle?

square-circle.png
It is waste of time trying to be a smart alec in this case.
The principle here is that a Contradiction-in-General do not exist and cannot be real.
The intended example re square-circle in the typical sense is merely to denote such a contradiction.

A two-sided triangle is a contradiction and I can bring in 100s or 1000s of examples of other contradictions.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Empiricism

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:04 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:53 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:22 am If there were no human beings, never had been human beings, would there be

fact

1a : something that has actual existence
1b : an actual occurrence
2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3 : the quality of being actual

?
I'm sorry, I really do not understand what you are asking. If the answer I provided does not explain what I mean well enough, then it doesn't.

No fact depends on human existence, except the facts that human beings do exist and those facts produced by human beings like machines, buildings, food, and medicine. The rest of the universe is what it is, independent of any human awareness, knowledge or activity--that is, every existent there is and their nature are the, "facts," of reality.
I disagree that no fact depends on human existence All facts depend on human existence . Your bed does not exist until it is perceived. Your glass of water does not exist until it is perceived. The Atlantic Ocean does not exist until it is perceived. A specific human body does not exist until it is perceived. The colour red does not exist until it is perceived.

You may object that that coil of rope in the dark shed that I perceived as a snake is not a snake but really is a coil of rope. It is true that perceptions harmonise, and I am not saying there is nothing 'out there' apart from perceptions. However what is 'out there' apart from perceptions is vague, and like existence according to statistical probability.
I'm sorry, bur I was explaining what I mean by, "fact," not what you are or anyone else means by fact. What I mean is what it means to most people who use English, according to the dictionary, (but it would be what I mean, even if no one else did). Of course you can mean anything you like when you use the word, but if you don't mean the same thing they do, you won't be talking about the same thing.

So earlier when you accused me of being, "rude," since the words you were looking at did not even exist until you saw them, interpreted them and gave them meaning, and I did not even exist until then, to whom, exactly, were you giving advice? When I put water into the ice tray and put it into the refrigerator and later my wife takes out the ice cubes for her drink, where did they come from, since they didn't exist until she saw them?

I know it's no problem for you, apparently, but I just cannot believe things pop into and out of existence depending on my perceiving them. The things you write simply seem like nonsense to me.

"When you write, "You may object that that coil of rope in the dark shed that I perceived as a snake is not a snake but really is a coil of rope," if the rope is not a fact, how could it be a mistake to think it was snake? If, "However what is 'out there' apart from perceptions is vague, and like existence according to statistical probability." how can any statistics be established if there are no facts to actually observe and count?

And for the record, my wife is very disappointed to learn she wasted her time making the bed this morning that did not even exist until I perceived it later this evening.

And for the life of me, I cannot understand how someone who does not believe animals even exist until you perceive them could care what someone else does or does not do with or to them. It's not like they actually exist as facts, is it?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Empiricism

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote:
I'm sorry, I really do not understand what you are asking. If the answer I provided does not explain what I mean well enough, then it doesn't.

I understand well. Your stance is materialist(physicalist). I guess most people in Europe and America are materialists, I myself was, once.
No fact depends on human existence, except the facts that human beings do exist and those facts produced by human beings like machines, buildings, food, and medicine. The rest of the universe is what it is, independent of any human awareness, knowledge or activity--that is, every existent there is and their nature are the, "facts," of reality.
I do understand your theory of existence. It is common sense.



I'm sorry, bur I was explaining what I mean by, "fact," not what you are or anyone else means by fact. What I mean is what it means to most people who use English, according to the dictionary, (but it would be what I mean, even if no one else did). Of course you can mean anything you like when you use the word, but if you don't mean the same thing they do, you won't be talking about the same thing.
As I said, above, your theory is a common sense one, and the common usage of 'fact' is explained by the social theory of language.
So earlier when you accused me of being, "rude," since the words you were looking at did not even exist until you saw them, interpreted them and gave them meaning, and I did not even exist until then, to whom, exactly, were you giving advice? When I put water into the ice tray and put it into the refrigerator and later my wife takes out the ice cubes for her drink, where did they come from, since they didn't exist until she saw them?
I have a certain attitude towards you that you are a mind like my mind and that we can communicate, unlike for instance if you were a dog and could not communicate via complex symbolic media, or more importantly unlike as if you were a robot or a
zombie. These particular ice cubes are created by you, and also separately by your wife, and they carry a unique history about her and your intentions and actions, all all created by you and your wife. Spouses are a specially good example of social reality.
I know it's no problem for you, apparently, but I just cannot believe things pop into and out of existence depending on my perceiving them. The things you write simply seem like nonsense to me.

"When you write, "You may object that that coil of rope in the dark shed that I perceived as a snake is not a snake but really is a coil of rope," if the rope is not a fact, how could it be a mistake to think it was snake? If, "However what is 'out there' apart from perceptions is vague, and like existence according to statistical probability." how can any statistics be established if there are no facts to actually observe and count?
It is a problem for me as idealism (immaterialism) is not intuitive.
The coil of rope was for a brief duration a snake, for me. If I had told you there was a snake in the shed, and you believed me to be sane, there may have been a snake in the shed for you until you went to investigate. If both of us had had our lives cut off before we has a chance to investigate further, that was forever a snake in the shed, for us two. For all the other people who entered the shed and saw the coiled thing it may have been a rope. However if nobody else ever went into the shed, ever, except God, what was within was a mystery and a possibility. As you will know some apparent sheds are disguises for underground bunkers.

And for the record, my wife is very disappointed to learn she wasted her time making the bed this morning that did not even exist until I perceived it later this evening.
You and your wife seem to be normal tidy people. However there are people who do not differentiate between a made and an unmade bed, and indeed others who have no concept of 'bed'.
And for the life of me, I cannot understand how someone who does not believe animals even exist until you perceive them could care what someone else does or does not do with or to them. It's not like they actually exist as facts, is it?

They exist as sentient beings somewhat like you and me. We can even communicate with them as they recognise us as sentient beings. Please see what I wrote (above)about our attitude toward other human and other sentient beings. Sentient beings are different from things like the Atlantic Ocean , or a diamond, because sentient beings' relationships are two-way. There is nothing that says an idealist does not love the world he creates, and detest evil in the world he creates.
Post Reply