Living In An Empirical World...

[seer]

Alright, it's getting a little boring around here, so... It seems to me that many people hold the belief that the only valid knowledge/truth is knowledge/truth that comes by empirical means. These folks may not frame it exactly this way, but in the end this is what it comes down to.

But this idea seems to be self-refuting. Is the belief that knowledge/truth is only valid if it is empirically verifiable - empirically verifiable itself? I don't see how it could be... So one starts with a belief or assumption that is not justifiable under their own standard. Correct?

[Xru]

This proposition is patently silly.

[seer]

This proposition is patently silly.

; )

[shunyadragon]

Alright, it's getting a little boring around here, so... It seems to me that many people hold the belief that the only valid knowledge/truth is knowledge/truth that comes by empirical means. These folks may not frame it exactly this way, but in the end this is what it comes down to.

But this idea seems to be self-refuting. Is the belief that knowledge/truth is only valid if it is empirically verifiable - empirically verifiable itself? I don't see how it could be... So one starts with a belief or assumption that is not justifiable under their own standard. Correct?

No, not correct.

I do not take the view that the 'only valid knowledge/truth is the knowledge/truth that comes by empirical means,' but the empirical means are the most reliable means of acquiring knowledge/ truth concerning the nature of our physical existence. If you can come up with a better methodology I am willing to listen, but I will not hold my breath.

The key is can you come up with an alternative?

[shunyadragon]

This proposition is patently silly.

Agree!!!

[Leonhard]

Well broadly speaking it depends on exactly what you mean by Verificationism. Some empirical approaches ran into the difficulties you gave, but I'm not sure all of them do. In fact I can think of several ways that 'Verificationism' could be verified in some sense. An example would be to show that all the knowledge that humans have developed, were gained through empirical means and the rest being analytical stuff (logic, maths, deduction, etc..) without remainder. You could also present a plausible account of how humans who were placed on the Earth could work out something akin to our worldview using only experience, without needing transcendent truth embedded in their minds before they could reason. If you could show some knowledge not gained through sense experience, then that would rule verificationism out I think, however I'm not sure how you could do that.

I think -or so psychology say- that we're born with something approximating a weak sketch of the world in our mind that we're continually improving upon as we learn more. Most ideas we start out with are wrong, but they're continuously replaced with better (less wrong) ideas as we learn more things. Personally I think what's happening is a bit of a mixture of Foundationalism and Verificationism... Veridationalism? Founcationalism? You mostly do stuff empirically, but having perhaps a couple of key starting axioms that you only update if find ways to simplify them or find that they lead to unexpected contradictions. Ever read Susan Haack's Defending Science Within Reason? Its a good simple common sense approach, that starts with human psychology and knowledge about how science actually works.

There's so many types of empiricism that I think someone will need to specify a bit more in order to bring out contradictions.

The biggest problem I have with knowledge that's not empirical is to settle how you could know about it, when you've started out excluding any way of knowing it. Philosophical arguments have to start from premises that you have to discover, but how can you test the truth of a premise that there's literally no way of verifying?

[Xru]

Originally posted by Xru This proposition is patently silly. ; )

Gutsy for you to bring it up though.

[Xru]

but the empirical means are the most reliable means of acquiring knowledge/ truth concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Once again we agree Shuny . . . however, I would only temper your correct statement to the following: " . . . but the empirical means are the most reliable means we current know of . . . [for]" acquiring knowledge/ truth concerning the nature of our physical existence.

[Xru]

Defending Science Within Reason

Thanks for the book reference . . . I'll read it.

BTW, the book reviews on amazon.com are 11 five star, 1 four star, and 2 three star. This is exceptionally good for amazon.com reviews.

[shunyadragon]

once again we agree shuny . . . However, i would only temper your correct statement to the following: " . . . But the empirical means are the most reliable means we current know of . . . [for]" acquiring knowledge/ truth concerning the nature of our physical existence.

ok