Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Any arguments against empiricism?

Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience, i.e. all philosophical analysis which gives us 'new knowledge' is really just a clarification of what knowledge was already 'given', by experience, then what are the objections? I don't think mathematics is any counter-example. Knowledge of mathematics is, to my understanding, just 'If you are going to think of numbers, then this is the system logically entailed', not an 'intuition' of facts about reality. Expanding upon logical relations, it seems quite obviously, is just realising what you already ought to know, or imagining new concepts out of the elements you already have. We never seem to create something completely new through analysis, just take what concepts are already given through experience and develop upon them, modify them, combine them, etc.
james14
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 10:34:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No one had answered, so I will do the honors.

The problem with empiricism is that we are animals. Our brains are really just a bit more developed than an ape's, and his is a bit more developed than a goldfishes . . . and so on.

Would you trust a goldfish's brain to discover truth?

We can't actually trust our brains. Thoughts are secreted by the organ we call the brain just as bile is secreted by the liver. Since it is a natural organ that has evolved through what some call chance and some call natural selection, there is no reason it must be telling is the truth. And, as there's no way to get feedback from beyond our brain, we are stuck.

Enter nihilism . . .

Soooo . . . don't kill yourself, but don't think you know it all either.
Maybe I'm a genius; maybe not.

||||?||||
||>|||||<|
|<||>||?|||
shakuntala
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:55:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

it is said
"Thoughts are secreted by the organ we call the brain just as bile is secreted by the liver"
is that observation based on empiricism?
but you said
"We can't actually trust our brains"
thus we cant trust your observation that
""Thoughts are secreted by the organ we call the brain just as bile is secreted by the liver""

thus you end in meaninglessness
oh and so does
" Enter nihilism . . ."
so where does all that meaninglessness leave you?
Subutai
Posts: 3,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:06:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Most arguments against empiricism go like this - perception can be deceiving, while reason, when done correctly, is right. A simple example on the former is that the colors we see are actually the light reflected by that object. That object could be any other color than the color we see, but it isn't the color we see. A simple example of the latter is Euclidean geometry. If we start from a few self-evident axioms (admittedly, this is where empiricists tend to attack rationalists, asking what is self-evident), we can reach conclusions of the world, which, if we are using deductive reasoning, are guaranteed to be true, so long as the reasoning is valid.

The Greek philosophers, especially Plato, abhorred perception as a means of getting information about the world. The higher world of ideas was rational.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
james14
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 8:31:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 11:55:43 PM, shakuntala wrote:

it is said
"Thoughts are secreted by the organ we call the brain just as bile is secreted by the liver"
is that observation based on empiricism?
but you said
"We can't actually trust our brains"
thus we cant trust your observation that
""Thoughts are secreted by the organ we call the brain just as bile is secreted by the liver""

thus you end in meaninglessness
oh and so does
" Enter nihilism . . ."
so where does all that meaninglessness leave you?

Good point!! That's why nihilists have traditionally killed themselves.

It DOES end in meaninglessness. But if you accept the observation and conclusion as true, you can't uphold human observation as faultless anyway.
Maybe I'm a genius; maybe not.

||||?||||
||>|||||<|
|<||>||?|||
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 9:19:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:06:37 AM, Subutai wrote:
Most arguments against empiricism go like this - perception can be deceiving, while reason, when done correctly, is right. A simple example on the former is that the colors we see are actually the light reflected by that object. That object could be any other color than the color we see, but it isn't the color we see. A simple example of the latter is Euclidean geometry. If we start from a few self-evident axioms (admittedly, this is where empiricists tend to attack rationalists, asking what is self-evident), we can reach conclusions of the world, which, if we are using deductive reasoning, are guaranteed to be true, so long as the reasoning is valid.

The Greek philosophers, especially Plato, abhorred perception as a means of getting information about the world. The higher world of ideas was rational.

I always thought empiricism was just a case of what can possibly bridge the analytical knowledge-synthetic knowledge gap. Analytic knowledge are just things we come up with starting from the axioms we use in understanding (which from the framework on what we define as 'true' or not).

Unless empiricism actually argues that axioms are only imaginable, or knowable after exposure to sense experience, then I don't see how empiricism can be 'false' per se, as it is largely just a logical framework/tool for bridging the analytic-synthetic gap.

Mmm

*opens wiki page and reads*
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:43:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 10:34:17 PM, james14 wrote:
No one had answered, so I will do the honors.

The problem with empiricism is that we are animals. Our brains are really just a bit more developed than an ape's, and his is a bit more developed than a goldfishes . . . and so on.

Would you trust a goldfish's brain to discover truth?

We can't actually trust our brains. Thoughts are secreted by the organ we call the brain just as bile is secreted by the liver. Since it is a natural organ that has evolved through what some call chance and some call natural selection, there is no reason it must be telling is the truth. And, as there's no way to get feedback from beyond our brain, we are stuck.

Enter nihilism . . .

Soooo . . . don't kill yourself, but don't think you know it all either.

How exactly is empiricism susceptible to this criticism, when it is rationalism which claims we have 'intuition' which gives us truth about the world?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:55:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:06:37 AM, Subutai wrote:
Most arguments against empiricism go like this - perception can be deceiving, while reason, when done correctly, is right. A simple example on the former is that the colors we see are actually the light reflected by that object. That object could be any other color than the color we see, but it isn't the color we see. A simple example of the latter is Euclidean geometry. If we start from a few self-evident axioms (admittedly, this is where empiricists tend to attack rationalists, asking what is self-evident), we can reach conclusions of the world, which, if we are using deductive reasoning, are guaranteed to be true, so long as the reasoning is valid.

The Greek philosophers, especially Plato, abhorred perception as a means of getting information about the world. The higher world of ideas was rational.

I don't think empiricism is necessarily susceptible to these criticisms unless you're Mill. He did propose that mathematics is a generalisation taken from our 'investigation' that putting one apple in a bucket, and then another, produces a bucket containing two apples, but sensible empiricists, I think, are not trying to make every intellectual procedure an 'empirical investigation', but are trying to give a definition of knowledge in which no new knowledge is possible unless there is some new experience. I could make some attempt to meet rationalists in the middle by saying that certain concepts are derived from experiences that you must have if you are actually conscious. So, if you have 'a thought', or a 'sense experience', any kind at all, then by simply employing logical relationships you can deduce everything about mathematics, since you could also say 'one thought'. I hope I expressed that clearly. This conforms to the empiricist theory, though in a not very 'profound' way, because it's an example of experience, even that of mere consciousness, providing the basis for deductive analysis, which of course cannot exceed, but merely clarify, what is given by the experience.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:59:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 9:19:27 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:06:37 AM, Subutai wrote:
Most arguments against empiricism go like this - perception can be deceiving, while reason, when done correctly, is right. A simple example on the former is that the colors we see are actually the light reflected by that object. That object could be any other color than the color we see, but it isn't the color we see. A simple example of the latter is Euclidean geometry. If we start from a few self-evident axioms (admittedly, this is where empiricists tend to attack rationalists, asking what is self-evident), we can reach conclusions of the world, which, if we are using deductive reasoning, are guaranteed to be true, so long as the reasoning is valid.

The Greek philosophers, especially Plato, abhorred perception as a means of getting information about the world. The higher world of ideas was rational.

I always thought empiricism was just a case of what can possibly bridge the analytical knowledge-synthetic knowledge gap. Analytic knowledge are just things we come up with starting from the axioms we use in understanding (which from the framework on what we define as 'true' or not).

Unless empiricism actually argues that axioms are only imaginable, or knowable after exposure to sense experience, then I don't see how empiricism can be 'false' per se, as it is largely just a logical framework/tool for bridging the analytic-synthetic gap.

Mmm

*opens wiki page and reads*

Hume and Ayer, assert that the bridge cannot be crossed, and Ayer that there is no such thing as 'analytic knowledge', since analytic knowledge is just a clarification of the implications what is already given by experience. Empiricism would indeed argue that axioms cannot be arrived at by 'intuition' and must be given by experience. The subject of analysis must be given by experience, basically, meaning that our knowledge never exceeds that which is given by experience.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:01:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 10:43:56 AM, james14 wrote:
They're both susceptible.

Sure.

We can't actually trust our brains. Thoughts are secreted by the organ we call the brain just as bile is secreted by the liver. Since it is a natural organ that has evolved through what some call chance and some call natural selection, there is no reason it must be telling is the truth

The problem is, you can't rationally doubt your 'rationality'. You can't use logic against itself. You can't try to conform to some standard which can never be conformed to.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:05:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 10:59:15 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:19:27 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:06:37 AM, Subutai wrote:
Most arguments against empiricism go like this - perception can be deceiving, while reason, when done correctly, is right. A simple example on the former is that the colors we see are actually the light reflected by that object. That object could be any other color than the color we see, but it isn't the color we see. A simple example of the latter is Euclidean geometry. If we start from a few self-evident axioms (admittedly, this is where empiricists tend to attack rationalists, asking what is self-evident), we can reach conclusions of the world, which, if we are using deductive reasoning, are guaranteed to be true, so long as the reasoning is valid.

The Greek philosophers, especially Plato, abhorred perception as a means of getting information about the world. The higher world of ideas was rational.

I always thought empiricism was just a case of what can possibly bridge the analytical knowledge-synthetic knowledge gap. Analytic knowledge are just things we come up with starting from the axioms we use in understanding (which from the framework on what we define as 'true' or not).

Unless empiricism actually argues that axioms are only imaginable, or knowable after exposure to sense experience, then I don't see how empiricism can be 'false' per se, as it is largely just a logical framework/tool for bridging the analytic-synthetic gap.

Mmm

*opens wiki page and reads*

Hume and Ayer, assert that the bridge cannot be crossed, and Ayer that there is no such thing as 'analytic knowledge', since analytic knowledge is just a clarification of the implications what is already given by experience. Empiricism would indeed argue that axioms cannot be arrived at by 'intuition' and must be given by experience. The subject of analysis must be given by experience, basically, meaning that our knowledge never exceeds that which is given by experience.

Well.. I don't value intuition. Neither should empiricists or rationalists, it's a land mind just waiting to take your legs off.

The problem is that bare concepts, such as mathematical constructs, or logical systems, so not require any real-world 'content'. So even though pragmatically, it may be the case that *we* cannot come to analytic knowledge without first being exposed to reality, it doesn't in principle make it a predicate, since in principle axioms and analytic statements have nothing to do with reality. They aren't 'real' (unless you subscribe to platonic realism).
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:08:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:05:09 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 10:59:15 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:19:27 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:06:37 AM, Subutai wrote:
Most arguments against empiricism go like this - perception can be deceiving, while reason, when done correctly, is right. A simple example on the former is that the colors we see are actually the light reflected by that object. That object could be any other color than the color we see, but it isn't the color we see. A simple example of the latter is Euclidean geometry. If we start from a few self-evident axioms (admittedly, this is where empiricists tend to attack rationalists, asking what is self-evident), we can reach conclusions of the world, which, if we are using deductive reasoning, are guaranteed to be true, so long as the reasoning is valid.

The Greek philosophers, especially Plato, abhorred perception as a means of getting information about the world. The higher world of ideas was rational.

I always thought empiricism was just a case of what can possibly bridge the analytical knowledge-synthetic knowledge gap. Analytic knowledge are just things we come up with starting from the axioms we use in understanding (which from the framework on what we define as 'true' or not).

Unless empiricism actually argues that axioms are only imaginable, or knowable after exposure to sense experience, then I don't see how empiricism can be 'false' per se, as it is largely just a logical framework/tool for bridging the analytic-synthetic gap.

Mmm

*opens wiki page and reads*

Hume and Ayer, assert that the bridge cannot be crossed, and Ayer that there is no such thing as 'analytic knowledge', since analytic knowledge is just a clarification of the implications what is already given by experience. Empiricism would indeed argue that axioms cannot be arrived at by 'intuition' and must be given by experience. The subject of analysis must be given by experience, basically, meaning that our knowledge never exceeds that which is given by experience.

Well.. I don't value intuition. Neither should empiricists or rationalists, it's a land mind just waiting to take your legs off.

The problem is that bare concepts, such as mathematical constructs, or logical systems, so not require any real-world 'content'. So even though pragmatically, it may be the case that *we* cannot come to analytic knowledge without first being exposed to reality, it doesn't in principle make it a predicate, since in principle axioms and analytic statements have nothing to do with reality. They aren't 'real' (unless you subscribe to platonic realism).

Indeed, but I think the empiricist argument is that mathematics is an abstraction, and so does not go beyond that which is not given by experience.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:09:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience,

Which experience/set of experiences told you that? How could any experience/set of experiences possibly told you that?

http://www.debate.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:17:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, I'm not sure you are understanding rationalists correctly when they are saying some knowledge or justified belief is independent of experience.

"4. What is meant by independent in the phrase "independent of experience"?

As noted in the previous section, we take it that a belief that is "independent of experience" is based solely on understanding the proposition which is its object; all others are based on experience. But people sometimes understand "independent of experience" to mean something else. Some have taken it to mean "apart from experience". But how could there be any justification apart from experience? Don't people have to learn from experience what bachelors, crows, and knowledge are in order to be justified in believing (1a), (3a), and (11a)? These are not innate ideas that people are born with, even if there are some innate ideas. And even if we are born with some innate capacities, say, to learn a language and to reason, those capacities by themselves do not provide justification for believing any of (1a)"(14a).

It seems impossible for there to be any justification completely independent of experience. We need to distinguish the experience needed to acquire the relevant concepts involved in (1a)"(14a) and any additional experience needed to determine whether the relevant propositions that contain those concepts are true or false. To say that a person could be justified in believing any of (1a)"(14a) independent of experience means that they could be justified independent of experience beyond that which is needed to acquire the relevant concepts needed to understand those propositions. For a person to be justified in believing any of (1b)"(14b), it is also true that she must have enough experience to acquire the relevant concepts expressed in those propositions. Having those concepts is necessary for her to understand the relevant propositions, and she cannot justifiedly believe a proposition that she does not understand. However, she must also have additional experience beyond that in order to determine whether the relevant proposition is true or false, or be aware of the testimony of someone who has had the requisite additional experience. That additional experience is not required for someone to tell whether (1a)"(14a) are true or false. For someone to be a priori justified in believing some proposition is for her to be justified absent experiences beyond those required for her to acquire the relevant concepts employed in the statement of that proposition. This is sometimes described as the view that a priori justification depends only on enabling experiences, that is, the experiences a person needs in order to understand the proposition at issue.

There are two ways that someone could be justified in believing some proposition without having experiences beyond those required to acquire the relevant concepts: (1) being justified in believing the proposition on the basis of output (evidence) from a nonexperiential source (for example, on the basis of rational intuitions or insights) or (2) being entitled to accept that proposition without any output (evidence) from any source.
"

http://plato.stanford.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:23:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 10:34:17 PM, james14 wrote:
No one had answered, so I will do the honors.

The problem with empiricism is that we are animals. Our brains are really just a bit more developed than an ape's, and his is a bit more developed than a goldfishes . . . and so on.

Would you trust a goldfish's brain to discover truth?

We can't actually trust our brains. Thoughts are secreted by the organ we call the brain just as bile is secreted by the liver. Since it is a natural organ that has evolved through what some call chance and some call natural selection, there is no reason it must be telling is the truth. And, as there's no way to get feedback from beyond our brain, we are stuck.

Enter nihilism . . .

Soooo . . . don't kill yourself, but don't think you know it all either.

Your brain created these thoughts and ideas. However, according to your own thoughts and ideas, the brain cannot be trusted, but your brain created the thoughts and ideas that you cannot trust your brain. Therefore you cannot trust your own brain that you cannot trust your own brain.

Complicated isn't it?
Nolite Timere
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:37:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:09:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience,

Which experience/set of experiences told you that? How could any experience/set of experiences possibly told you that?

http://www.debate.org...

Experience doesn't tell anyone anything, but that doesn't change that deduction can only possible clarify what is already given.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:48:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:37:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:09:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience,

Which experience/set of experiences told you that? How could any experience/set of experiences possibly told you that?

http://www.debate.org...

Experience doesn't tell anyone anything, but that doesn't change that deduction can only possible clarify what is already given.

That's not empricism. Empiricism is the thought that all knowledge or justified true beliefs can get their justification from experience. If you just define it like that then it may be trivially true and even many rationalists - who ostensibly are opposed to empiricism - would agree to that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:47:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:48:26 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:37:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:09:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience,

Which experience/set of experiences told you that? How could any experience/set of experiences possibly told you that?

http://www.debate.org...

Experience doesn't tell anyone anything, but that doesn't change that deduction can only possible clarify what is already given.

That's not empricism. Empiricism is the thought that all knowledge or justified true beliefs can get their justification from experience. If you just define it like that then it may be trivially true and even many rationalists - who ostensibly are opposed to empiricism - would agree to that.

Really now? May want to call up Hume and Ayer and tell them that they're only trivially empiricists then... In any case, the trivially obvious definition of empiricism I just gave rules out 'a priori knowledge', doesn't it?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:53:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:47:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:48:26 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:37:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:09:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience,

Which experience/set of experiences told you that? How could any experience/set of experiences possibly told you that?

http://www.debate.org...

Experience doesn't tell anyone anything, but that doesn't change that deduction can only possible clarify what is already given.

That's not empricism. Empiricism is the thought that all knowledge or justified true beliefs can get their justification from experience. If you just define it like that then it may be trivially true and even many rationalists - who ostensibly are opposed to empiricism - would agree to that.

Really now? May want to call up Hume and Ayer and tell them that they're only trivially empiricists then... In any case, the trivially obvious definition of empiricism I just gave rules out 'a priori knowledge', doesn't it?

No. Not the way you defined it - which is why I said it may just be trivially true. And it depends on what you mean by "experience" and what is meant by "independent of experience" with a priori knowledge.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 7:10:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:53:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:47:39 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:48:26 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:37:02 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:09:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience,

Which experience/set of experiences told you that? How could any experience/set of experiences possibly told you that?

http://www.debate.org...

Experience doesn't tell anyone anything, but that doesn't change that deduction can only possible clarify what is already given.

That's not empricism. Empiricism is the thought that all knowledge or justified true beliefs can get their justification from experience. If you just define it like that then it may be trivially true and even many rationalists - who ostensibly are opposed to empiricism - would agree to that.

Really now? May want to call up Hume and Ayer and tell them that they're only trivially empiricists then... In any case, the trivially obvious definition of empiricism I just gave rules out 'a priori knowledge', doesn't it?

No. Not the way you defined it - which is why I said it may just be trivially true. And it depends on what you mean by "experience" and what is meant by "independent of experience" with a priori knowledge.

Well as I said, if deduction never exceeds that which is already given, then thinking about things doesn't provide any knowledge that isn't already given, and unless you think what is 'given' is given by 'rational intuition', then you're an empiricist, presumably.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 7:26:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience, i.e. all philosophical analysis which gives us 'new knowledge' is really just a clarification of what knowledge was already 'given', by experience, then what are the objections? I don't think mathematics is any counter-example. Knowledge of mathematics is, to my understanding, just 'If you are going to think of numbers, then this is the system logically entailed', not an 'intuition' of facts about reality. Expanding upon logical relations, it seems quite obviously, is just realising what you already ought to know, or imagining new concepts out of the elements you already have. We never seem to create something completely new through analysis, just take what concepts are already given through experience and develop upon them, modify them, combine them, etc.

Using logic to derive facts that are already implicit in what we know is not an empirical process. Knowledge derived in such a manner is not empirical knowledge, since it was not observed, but rather inferred from observation using logical principles i.e., the rules under which perception is meaningful and coherent. Empirical induction is to theorization what observation is to recognition: one is of no use without the other.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 7:46:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 7:26:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience, i.e. all philosophical analysis which gives us 'new knowledge' is really just a clarification of what knowledge was already 'given', by experience, then what are the objections? I don't think mathematics is any counter-example. Knowledge of mathematics is, to my understanding, just 'If you are going to think of numbers, then this is the system logically entailed', not an 'intuition' of facts about reality. Expanding upon logical relations, it seems quite obviously, is just realising what you already ought to know, or imagining new concepts out of the elements you already have. We never seem to create something completely new through analysis, just take what concepts are already given through experience and develop upon them, modify them, combine them, etc.

Using logic to derive facts that are already implicit in what we know is not an empirical process. Knowledge derived in such a manner is not empirical knowledge, since it was not observed, but rather inferred from observation using logical principles i.e., the rules under which perception is meaningful and coherent. Empirical induction is to theorization what observation is to recognition: one is of no use without the other.

If deduction merely clarifies what you already should know, then it adds absolutely nothing that was not already there. Furthermore, you can't 'observe' facts. You analyse your observations, producing facts, but facts that are nonetheless wholly contained in those observations. You don't know you're looking at a computer screen right now, or reading English, until the raw sense-data is analysed, classifying this is a screen and this writing as English.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 7:57:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 7:46:15 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 7:26:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience, i.e. all philosophical analysis which gives us 'new knowledge' is really just a clarification of what knowledge was already 'given', by experience, then what are the objections? I don't think mathematics is any counter-example. Knowledge of mathematics is, to my understanding, just 'If you are going to think of numbers, then this is the system logically entailed', not an 'intuition' of facts about reality. Expanding upon logical relations, it seems quite obviously, is just realising what you already ought to know, or imagining new concepts out of the elements you already have. We never seem to create something completely new through analysis, just take what concepts are already given through experience and develop upon them, modify them, combine them, etc.

Using logic to derive facts that are already implicit in what we know is not an empirical process. Knowledge derived in such a manner is not empirical knowledge, since it was not observed, but rather inferred from observation using logical principles i.e., the rules under which perception is meaningful and coherent. Empirical induction is to theorization what observation is to recognition: one is of no use without the other.

If deduction merely clarifies what you already should know, then it adds absolutely nothing that was not already there.

So? It turns implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge, the latter actually being useful.

Furthermore, you can't 'observe' facts. You analyse your observations, producing facts, but facts that are nonetheless wholly contained in those observations. You don't know you're looking at a computer screen right now, or reading English, until the raw sense-data is analysed, classifying this is a screen and this writing as English.

No, they aren't. The observations do not speak for themselves (which is why you can't observe facts, like you said). They represent only the immediate experience of observation and nothing beyond that.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 12:09:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 7:57:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/26/2014 7:46:15 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/26/2014 7:26:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience, i.e. all philosophical analysis which gives us 'new knowledge' is really just a clarification of what knowledge was already 'given', by experience, then what are the objections? I don't think mathematics is any counter-example. Knowledge of mathematics is, to my understanding, just 'If you are going to think of numbers, then this is the system logically entailed', not an 'intuition' of facts about reality. Expanding upon logical relations, it seems quite obviously, is just realising what you already ought to know, or imagining new concepts out of the elements you already have. We never seem to create something completely new through analysis, just take what concepts are already given through experience and develop upon them, modify them, combine them, etc.

Using logic to derive facts that are already implicit in what we know is not an empirical process. Knowledge derived in such a manner is not empirical knowledge, since it was not observed, but rather inferred from observation using logical principles i.e., the rules under which perception is meaningful and coherent. Empirical induction is to theorization what observation is to recognition: one is of no use without the other.

If deduction merely clarifies what you already should know, then it adds absolutely nothing that was not already there.

So? It turns implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge, the latter actually being useful.

Furthermore, you can't 'observe' facts. You analyse your observations, producing facts, but facts that are nonetheless wholly contained in those observations. You don't know you're looking at a computer screen right now, or reading English, until the raw sense-data is analysed, classifying this is a screen and this writing as English.

No, they aren't. The observations do not speak for themselves (which is why you can't observe facts, like you said). They represent only the immediate experience of observation and nothing beyond that.

I'm not trying to criticise analysis at all, so I don't see why you're trying to defend the importance of it. In fact I'm defending analysis since I give a justification of it; by showing that it acts as clarification, I show that its proper conclusions must be true. However, I do not show that analysis has the power to give us knowledge that was not 'already there'. I will also say, however, that philosophical problems are not 'empirical' problems, to use that term in the way commonly understood, since any experience whatsoever entails the answers, and those answers can be held as certainly true, since you could not possibly be deceived. From the observation of your consciousness alone all philosophy can be answered, but this does not seem to change that knowledge has an empirical basis. You cannot create concepts without having first been provided with the elements you employ - but philosophy deals with the elements everyone must have access to. If I fail to see how that undermines my argument, then I apologise, but it does not seem to be a tenet of empiricism that 'any experience whatsoever' is not an experience that can be analysed.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 6:57:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience, i.e. all philosophical analysis which gives us 'new knowledge' is really just a clarification of what knowledge was already 'given', by experience, then what are the objections? I don't think mathematics is any counter-example. Knowledge of mathematics is, to my understanding, just 'If you are going to think of numbers, then this is the system logically entailed', not an 'intuition' of facts about reality. Expanding upon logical relations, it seems quite obviously, is just realising what you already ought to know, or imagining new concepts out of the elements you already have. We never seem to create something completely new through analysis, just take what concepts are already given through experience and develop upon them, modify them, combine them, etc.

I recently read the Meditation IV, "Concerning Error and Falsehood" by Rene Descartes. Much like Spinoza's "Ethics" this Meditation bases it's fundamental premises on the existence of God, but it presents something that was to precede the Popperish ToK. Descartes says here that "since God cannot want to delude us, as God is an all-good being, then our innate ability to reason cannot fool us" However, he concludes that "perceptions are deceiving" and uses examples from dreams. This one of the most fundamental attack against empiricism; that sensory experience can be delusive.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 8:42:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 6:57:25 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 11/25/2014 6:35:32 PM, Wocambs wrote:
If empiricism is understood as the idea that all factual knowledge is derived from experience, i.e. all philosophical analysis which gives us 'new knowledge' is really just a clarification of what knowledge was already 'given', by experience, then what are the objections? I don't think mathematics is any counter-example. Knowledge of mathematics is, to my understanding, just 'If you are going to think of numbers, then this is the system logically entailed', not an 'intuition' of facts about reality. Expanding upon logical relations, it seems quite obviously, is just realising what you already ought to know, or imagining new concepts out of the elements you already have. We never seem to create something completely new through analysis, just take what concepts are already given through experience and develop upon them, modify them, combine them, etc.

I recently read the Meditation IV, "Concerning Error and Falsehood" by Rene Descartes. Much like Spinoza's "Ethics" this Meditation bases it's fundamental premises on the existence of God, but it presents something that was to precede the Popperish ToK. Descartes says here that "since God cannot want to delude us, as God is an all-good being, then our innate ability to reason cannot fool us" However, he concludes that "perceptions are deceiving" and uses examples from dreams. This one of the most fundamental attack against empiricism; that sensory experience can be delusive.

Not really. As far as I am aware empiricists are more skeptical about empirical knowledge than rationalists are.