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

[creation]

Yes that is correct.

I also wrote, 'Also, why are 'empirical claims' not provable, to you?'

So how about an argument supporting the claim that empirical claims are not provable?

We can't prove empirical claims because we can always turn out to be wrong. The simplest aspect of this is that we can't even know with certainty what the relationship is between phenomenal data and the way the world really happens to be.

Phenomenal data can differ from reality.

"Phenomenal data" doesn't necessarily refer to our mental experience per se, but it can refer to that, and one simple aspect of this is that we can't know with certainty what the relationship is between our mental experience and the external world, or even if there is an external world.

Well you very quickly twisted and turned my clarifying question about 'empirical claims', which you claim are not provable, into something about 'phenomenal' things.

Aside from that, we have possible perceptual problems, measurement and other instrument issues, the inherent uncertainty of inductive predictions, the fact that logic and mathematics are constructions for which there are alternate, competing/incompatible constructions possible (and that are used in various situations), and so on. We can even have (core) paradigms wrong, which would require retooling our entire conceptual background for making empirical claims.

Here's a good article about this from a scientific claims perspective: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 757ed92fb1

Note above that I'm not saying that we can't know things period. I'm saying that we can't know them with certainty, which is what "proof" implies.

Of course human beings cannot know any thing, except for one thing, with certainty.

This is well known by me. But all of this is just a complete distraction from your claim that "empirical claims are not provable".

Knowledge in general isn't certain. Again, we go by the best evidence, the best reasons for belief, but we could always turn out to be wrong.

So, why believe some thing is true, if it could turn out to be wrong anyway?

I do not believe any thing is true, for the very reason that it could turn out to be wrong. But, if you want to be believe things are true, which could turn out be to wrong, then by all means continue doing this. I really do not care. But I just do not do this.

Obviously, you cannot prove nor support your claim that "empirical claims are not provable" with an argument. So, how about you provide some "empirical claims", and then we can have a look at them and see if we can actually prove them or not? Or, would you not like to attempt this? Could this falsify your claim, and so best not be done, from your perspective?

[Terrapin Station]

Well you very quickly twisted and turned my clarifying question about 'empirical claims', which you claim are not provable, into something about 'phenomenal' things.

Reading comprehension problem on your part. I'm giving you reasons why empirical claims are not provable. We deal with phenomenal data with empirical claims. The relationship between phenomenal data and the way the world really is is an issue with empirical claims.

[Sculptor1]

When you were young, were you the type of child who would scour open fields looking for bumble bees? Today, it is much harder for kids to spot them. Researchers discovered that bumble bees are disappearing at rates "consistent with a mass extinction.". If declines continue at this pace, many insect species could vanish forever within a few decades.

"We have now entered the world's sixth mass extinction event, the biggest and most rapid global biodiversity crisis since a meteor ended the age of the dinosaurs."

Scientists agree that Earth is at the outset of a mass extinction event—only the 6th in half-a-billion years—which could drive a million species, or one-in-eight, into oblivion over the coming decades.

https://phys.org/news/2020-02-bumble-be ... chaos.html

When science is reduced to journalism it tends to loose much force of argument. If global temperatures are causing the death of the bumble bee, it would seem pretty obvious that they would simply relocate in a more northerly direction.
In North America that would mean they were able to exit much of the USA, and move to Canada. This would be generally more advantageous since they would be likely to encounter less insecticide by virtue of the fact that Canada is less developed and has better standards for the use of chemicals. I submit that insecticides are possibly the more important reason for the decline.
Since the article is not nuanced enough in its description of the means of data gathering it is not possible to tell if they have thought about this.

[Sculptor1]

We can't prove empirical claims because we can always turn out to be wrong. The simplest aspect of this is that we can't even know with certainty what the relationship is between phenomenal data and the way the world really happens to be.

Phenomenal data can differ from reality.

"Phenomenal data" doesn't necessarily refer to our mental experience per se, but it can refer to that, and one simple aspect of this is that we can't know with certainty what the relationship is between our mental experience and the external world, or even if there is an external world.

Well you very quickly twisted and turned my clarifying question about 'empirical claims', which you claim are not provable, into something about 'phenomenal' things.

Aside from that, we have possible perceptual problems, measurement and other instrument issues, the inherent uncertainty of inductive predictions, the fact that logic and mathematics are constructions for which there are alternate, competing/incompatible constructions possible (and that are used in various situations), and so on. We can even have (core) paradigms wrong, which would require retooling our entire conceptual background for making empirical claims.

Here's a good article about this from a scientific claims perspective: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 757ed92fb1

Sure this is nothing more than a clumsy exposition of the problem of induction, expressed by a person who seems unversed in philosophy or science.

Note above that I'm not saying that we can't know things period. I'm saying that we can't know them with certainty, which is what "proof" implies.

Of course human beings cannot know any thing, except for one thing, with certainty.

This is well known by me. But all of this is just a complete distraction from your claim that "empirical claims are not provable".

Knowledge in general isn't certain. Again, we go by the best evidence, the best reasons for belief, but we could always turn out to be wrong.

So, why believe some thing is true, if it could turn out to be wrong anyway?

I do not believe any thing is true, for the very reason that it could turn out to be wrong. But, if you want to be believe things are true, which could turn out be to wrong, then by all means continue doing this. I really do not care. But I just do not do this.

Obviously, you cannot prove nor support your claim that "empirical claims are not provable" with an argument. So, how about you provide some "empirical claims", and then we can have a look at them and see if we can actually prove them or not? Or, would you not like to attempt this? Could this falsify your claim, and so best not be done, from your perspective?

[Terrapin Station]

Well you very quickly twisted and turned my clarifying question about 'empirical claims', which you claim are not provable, into something about 'phenomenal' things.


Sure this is nothing more than a clumsy exposition of the problem of induction, expressed by a person who seems unversed in philosophy or science.


Of course human beings cannot know any thing, except for one thing, with certainty.

This is well known by me. But all of this is just a complete distraction from your claim that "empirical claims are not provable".



So, why believe some thing is true, if it could turn out to be wrong anyway?

I do not believe any thing is true, for the very reason that it could turn out to be wrong. But, if you want to be believe things are true, which could turn out be to wrong, then by all means continue doing this. I really do not care. But I just do not do this.

Obviously, you cannot prove nor support your claim that "empirical claims are not provable" with an argument. So, how about you provide some "empirical claims", and then we can have a look at them and see if we can actually prove them or not? Or, would you not like to attempt this? Could this falsify your claim, and so best not be done, from your perspective?

Did something get left out in your reply? (Just wondering why you quoted creation's post wholesale without commenting.)

[creation]

Well you very quickly twisted and turned my clarifying question about 'empirical claims', which you claim are not provable, into something about 'phenomenal' things.

Reading comprehension problem on your part.

Absolutely any "problem" is always on MY part.

By the way, for EVERY 'problem' there is a 'solution'. Knowing what thee solution is to every problem is also on MY part.

I'm giving you reasons why empirical claims are not provable. We deal with phenomenal data with empirical claims. The relationship between phenomenal data and the way the world really is is an issue with empirical claims.

If you cannot prove your empirical claims, then that is on YOUR part.

Laying the blame and using the excuse that you cannot prove YOUR empirical claims because of so called "phenomenal data" maybe what you do. But this is not supporting your claim with any evidence nor argument at all.

Also, is "phenomenal" the right and correct word that you really want to use?

It appears that all you are really saying here is "empirical claims are not provable" because empirical things are perceptible by the senses and the cause of them is in question anyway.

I also note that you did not provide any examples of any "empirical claims", which we could have a look at and decide for ourselves if we can prove them or not. It now appears that you believe so strongly in your belief that "empirical claims are not provable" that you actually just expect to others to just accept and believe this is true also, with the need for you to prove this claim with any actual supporting evidence at all.

To me, some empirical claims are provable, that is; once you learn and know how to prove them.

Saying that YOUR "empirical claims are not provable" is a claim, which, by definition, are you able to prove?

If yes, then provide an example of an "empirical claim", and then show that it is completely impossible for you to prove that it is true.

Or, is you just saying, "empirical claims are not provable", just an excuse so that you do not have to even attempt to back up and support your claims?

[creation]

There is also always the 'want' and 'desire' that is actually needed. Did you ever 'consider', part of empathy, that what you call a "learning disability" in another was and is just your own inability to teach properly and correctly? After all how many children really want to go to "music lessons" anyway? But you probably did not notice this, just ignored this, and would definitely now like to tell us that they definitely wanted to go to your "music lessons".

Obviously the ones that Truly 'want' to go to lessons, and 'desire' to learn more, do not have the so called "disability" to learn as others are said to have. The only disability these ones have is finding the right and proper teacher for them.

Do you have a view that cognitive or learning disabilities are a fiction or myth?

No. I see cognitive and learning disabilities all the time.

I am living with them all the time.

I have still not learned how to be heard and fully understood yet by human beings.

I, unlike most adult human beings, just refuse to accept that it is the "other" who has the cognitive and/or learning disability and not me. I say that is a very true fact that ALL human beings very quickly gain a cognitive and learning disability. I have even started going into the explanation of HOW these disabilities arise, and WHERE they come from actually, but, like most of what I write and say, goes completely unnoticed. Also, we can delve into these disabilities and look at them far more thoroughly if any one is truly interested in understanding WHERE, WHY, and HOW they have their own cognitive and learning disabilities. Anyone up for this?

[creation]

Did something get left out in your reply? (Just wondering why you quoted creation's post wholesale without commenting.)

But "sculptor1" did not quote my post wholesale without commenting at all. If you read the WHOLE post, then you would notice things like this. But, unfortunately you do not.

That post was just misquoted, which happens occasionally, and which unfortunately in this forum we are unable to edit and rectify.

What "sculptor1" wanted to say can be clearly seen in the actual words that they did write.

[Terrapin Station]

Absolutely any "problem" is always on MY part.

We'll have the detectives contact you shortly.

But this is not supporting your claim with any evidence nor argument at all.

If you're going to take the "that's not an argument" or at least "those aren't reasons" tactic, then you're going to need to specify your criteria for arguments /reasons.

[Terrapin Station]

No. I see cognitive and learning disabilities all the time.

Then why deny the reality of the issues the folks in question were dealing with?

Isn't that a bit rude towards them?

[Sculptor1]

Did something get left out in your reply? (Just wondering why you quoted creation's post wholesale without commenting.)

Sorry, yes.
It go buried in the quote nests.
I was reflecting that the Forbes article was...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 757ed92fb1

Sure this is nothing more than a clumsy exposition of the problem of induction, expressed by a person who seems unversed in philosophy or science.

[Terrapin Station]

Did something get left out in your reply? (Just wondering why you quoted creation's post wholesale without commenting.)

Sorry, yes.
It go buried in the quote nests.
I was reflecting that the Forbes article was...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 757ed92fb1

Sure this is nothing more than a clumsy exposition of the problem of induction, expressed by a person who seems unversed in philosophy or science.

But it's about a lot more than just induction and it was written by an astrophysics professor.

Do you not buy that falsificationism is a core tenet of science methodology? (Part of falsificationism is that we're not proving any claims, we're rather provisionally verifying them in lieu of falsification.)

[Sculptor1]

Sorry, yes.
It go buried in the quote nests.
I was reflecting that the Forbes article was...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 757ed92fb1

Sure this is nothing more than a clumsy exposition of the problem of induction, expressed by a person who seems unversed in philosophy or science.

But it's about a lot more than just induction and it was written by an astrophysics professor.

Do you not buy that falsificationism is a core tenet of science methodology? (Part of falsificationism is that we're not proving any claims, we're rather provisionally verifying them in lieu of falsification.)

It's not always been.
The formalisation of falsification is basically what Popper contributed to the method.
Being well aware of the induction problem, was the motivation.
Things is that before Popper science was quite happy to "prove" its hypotheses, by demonstration.
When this is about the measurement of oxygen in a flask, or showing how to blow up a pig's bladder its pretty easy.
I can well believe the article was written by an astrophysics prof, since he cannot prove anything. All his important observations have to assume uniformitarianism - which is is beyond falsification, and all his observations happened millions of year ago.
Popper, though was not insensitive to the problems of proof. And whilst he used to have fun completely destroying all Freud's so-called theories, he recognised the same problems with Darwin's natural selection. The big difference is that he gave Darwin a free pass that Freud could never enjoy.

[creation]

Absolutely any "problem" is always on MY part.

We'll have the detectives contact you shortly.

But this is not supporting your claim with any evidence nor argument at all.

If you're going to take the "that's not an argument" or at least "those aren't reasons" tactic, then you're going to need to specify your criteria for arguments /reasons.

The same criteria as yours.

[creation]

I will take that back.

The criteria I seek for arguments are sound and valid ones.

The criteria I seek for reasons are logical and reasonable ones.