Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dark Matter]

DM:

I don't understand? Why is it "self-centred" to claim that empiricism is the sole criterion of reality? It may not be right, but self-centred? In my view, to claim that is to believe that only that which can be examined or verified by empirical evidence is real. Such a claim is reflective of one's view of reality, not the person themselves. The irony is, without evidence to the contrary it's not an unfounded claim. You need to expound on these one-liners (which you are clearly capable of), as they make you seem bias. Perhaps you could provide an example which validates the thrust of your argument.

Some here equate empiricism with positivism, and to me, it's kinda funny. On the one hand, as "empiricists," they claim is that dualism is dead. On the other hand, they also argue that the self-other dichotomy of empiricism is a legitimate assertion. Until they make up their minds where they stand, I think they can be reasonably dismissed as irrationally allied with with their "self."

[Fanman]

DM:

I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows, because you're seemingly stereotyping people based upon their views about reality, which may not necessarily be the case. I am quite sure that you wouldn't accept a claim that you're a theist and therefore a negative character trait applies to you.

Anyway, what I was hoping for, was for you to provide an example of something that is both non-empirical and real. Something which gives your argument against empiricism some traction. Don't be shy now .

Happy new year OPC users.

[Eduk]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? That is one way to question empiricism. As in there is an empirical reality of molecules bouncing around but that doesn't sound like a tree falling until you add a human to hear it. Or other listener. I mean there is a level of abstraction present which empiricism doesn't fully account for. Although it's clearly routed in empirical reality.
Or to put it another way. Is consciousness an illusion. And if not, how?
Of course unexplained doesn't mean explained, which seems to be a concept which confuses a lot of people.
I would say empiricism is not everything. I also accept reason. For example relativity had no empirical evidence when it was conceptualised, although it also was non contradictory with a lot of evidence and was eventually proven. Unlike all god theories.
Science is a philosophy. It's all the useful philosophy.

[Dark Matter]

Anyway, what I was hoping for, was for you to provide an example of something that is both non-empirical and real. Something which gives your argument against empiricism some traction. Don't be shy now .

You’re kidding, right?

[Londoner]

DM:

Anyway, what I was hoping for, was for you to provide an example of something that is both non-empirical and real. Something which gives your argument against empiricism some traction. Don't be shy now .

Happy new year OPC users.

The argument would be that any 'example of something' we give that is supposed to rest on empiricism turns out to depend on categories of understanding that are not themselves empirical. For example, I cannot give an 'example of something' without differentiating it from everything else. To do that I have to employ abstract ideas, for example 'space' (it's relative position).

So, since all our empirical experiences require an observer, i.e. us, why not go with Bishop Berkeley and declare that there are no mind-independent things at all? Since we cannot give any examples of an empirical 'something', why assume they exist?

Happy New Year to all.

[Eduk]

If you remove parts of my brain you directly effect my experience. This leads to the conclusion that all experience is ground in empiricism. That there is such a thing as reality. Of course how you get from empiricism to abstract conceptualisation of said reality I, and no one else, knows. But again not knowing something is not knowing something, please don't shove god in the nearest available gap.
Now we could consider that there is no reality. But how you get from no reality to an abstract concept of a reality which isn't there seems to me a step further than if there was a reality.
For example I experience altruism. Now some people might argue there is no such thing as altruism. This would make sense if I was pretending that I experience altruism but I don't know how you can fake conceptualise something that you can't conceptualise.

[Steve3007]

Darsham you didn't answer my question. It wasn't rhetorical.

This concept of Earth-hell, of Hell being Earth in the absence of God, left to humans, has been discussed here before, notably by a poster called Enegue. E.g. here:

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 01#p204601

Happy new year from me too.

[Fanman]

Anyway, what I was hoping for, was for you to provide an example of something that is both non-empirical and real. Something which gives your argument against empiricism some traction. Don't be shy now .

You’re kidding, right?

A little, yes. But, because you stated “Since when is empiricism the sole criterion of what is real?” I assumed that you'd discuss something that was non-empirical and real. If empiricism is not the sole criterion of what is real, in what other ways can we define reality? I know you haven't stated this, but If we are to say that abstract ideas can define reality, how are we able to know the difference between those abstractions which are real and those which are conjectures - without being able to measure/assess them empirically? I think that non-empiricism is more of an "ought" than an "is".

---

Londoner:

Isn't the basis of all experience empirical, because we (the observer) are ourselves empirical beings?

[Dark Matter]

You’re kidding, right?

A little, yes. But, because you stated “Since when is empiricism the sole criterion of what is real?” I assumed that you'd discuss something that was non-empirical and real. If empiricism is not the sole criterion of what is real, in what other ways can we define reality? I know you haven't stated this, but If we are to say that abstract ideas can define reality, how are we able to know the difference between those abstractions which are real and those which are conjectures - without being able to measure/assess them empirically? I think that non-empiricism is more of an "ought" than an "is".

I'm glad. Consciousness is such an obvious candidate that I’m surprised someone would ask for a non-empirical reality.

It’s ironic, but if empiricism has taught us anything, it is that reality is indefinite and cannot be defined.

[Darshan]

Earthellism is not simply a philosophy locating hell as the surface of earth, it is based on astrobiology and the landmark book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth." Earthellism is born from this book and the ashes of WWII in which Mankind waited to see how God would allow such evil and was also based on the concept of freewill. Earthellism challenges the concept of freewill as the explanation of evil and says that Adam Lanza's freewill was not the explanation for Sandy Hooks. It makes no sense to say his freewill negated the freewill of 20 children. Instead he was a human devil who enjoyed killing those children and those 20 children destroyed this one human devil. Similarly it took 6 million innocent men, women and children to destroy the greatest human devil, Adolph Hitler. Earthellism uses astrobiology to prove all life is recycled and locates God in our solar system very close to our planet. In the end as our Moon reunites with the dying Earth and our Sun cremates the Earth/Moon combination our God will guide us to our next solar system just like God did when our last solar system died.

[Spectrum]

A little, yes. But, because you stated “Since when is empiricism the sole criterion of what is real?” I assumed that you'd discuss something that was non-empirical and real. If empiricism is not the sole criterion of what is real, in what other ways can we define reality? I know you haven't stated this, but If we are to say that abstract ideas can define reality, how are we able to know the difference between those abstractions which are real and those which are conjectures - without being able to measure/assess them empirically? I think that non-empiricism is more of an "ought" than an "is".

I'm glad. Consciousness is such an obvious candidate that I’m surprised someone would ask for a non-empirical reality.

It’s ironic, but if empiricism has taught us anything, it is that reality is indefinite and cannot be defined.

If you google, you will note there are lots of articles on 'Empirical Consciousness.'

Empirical Elements:
"Statements and arguments depending on empirical evidence are often referred to as a posteriori ("following experience") as distinguished from a priori (preceding it)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Empirical evidence by themselves are not very credible in correspondence to reality [possibility of sense illusions]. To be credible they must be processed within a reliable Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System, and other Frameworks. Currently Scientific Knowledge is the most credible objective source of the knowledge of reality [emergent not pre-existing].

To ensure Scientific and other sources of empirical knowledge are more credible, it need to be reinforced with rationality and philosophy-proper. This is what I called empirical-rational basis of knowledge.

The empirical-rational basis of knowledge is the most reliable knowledge to realize and actualize reality. Can any one tell me another more reliable basis to understand reality than the empirical-rational basis for realizing reality.

As for a belief on an impossible God, this is merely based on faith, i.e. belief without proofs nor refined reasons. The ultimate basis for a belief in God is purely by psychological impulses driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Happy New Year 2018 to all.

[Dark Matter]

Can any one tell me another more reliable basis to understand reality than the empirical-rational basis for realizing reality.

Yeah. Not-knowing.

[Eduk]

But Spectrum what has the scientific method ever done for us?

[Londoner]

Empirical evidence by themselves are not very credible in correspondence to reality [possibility of sense illusions]. To be credible they must be processed within a reliable Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System, and other Frameworks. Currently Scientific Knowledge is the most credible objective source of the knowledge of reality [emergent not pre-existing].

To ensure Scientific and other sources of empirical knowledge are more credible, it need to be reinforced with rationality and philosophy-proper. This is what I called empirical-rational basis of knowledge.

How do you know that the particular mixture you have chosen had resulted in a better 'basis of knowledge'?

To know that you would need some meta-'basis of knowledge', that showed that your own choice of mixture was correct.

But then, how would you know your meta-'basis of knowledge' was correct? You need something to check that against. A meta-meta basis. And so on, forever.

Science is more modest. It does not claim to be a 'basis for knowledge' in that sense. It is only a particular form of description.

[SimpleGuy]

It's perhaps for him not a better basis of knowledge, but how about that persistency and control is better achieved for him. Every Node of the knowledge basis , does a control for himself about correspondence to other nodes and tries to determine by himself correctness. This is perhaps the advantage of the meta-basis of scientific knowledge Spectrum was talking about. Nobody claims that the information to get access is more detailed or even more correct. But it's more widespread and even if one node of the network fails , due to illness it doesn't collapse in it's capability to provide information. The interdependency , provides additional control of correctness of the knowledge base. I think , this is what Spectrum wants to tell us. It's not better, it's more widespread and with it it's more difficult to erase knowledge and the participants control each other in logical correctness.