Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Empiricism Is Uncivil

Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 10:17:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
...so for a while (as in ever since I can remember), I've been debating empiricists and ultimately, I still have never heard an argument that deals with the very basic problems of applying empiricism to civilization:

a) People aren't born with the ability to perpetually access, acquire, accumulate, record, and present evidence throughout their lives. For example, people aren't born with video cameras out of their eyes, microphones out of their ears, or hooked up to networks of surveillance of equipment.

b) People aren't born with access to the entirety of society/reality. The fact is people exist where they do. People are not omnipresent whether naturally speaking in overcoming physical obstacles, or socially speaking in terms of having permission to go anywhere and everywhere.

c) People aren't born in the future. Empiricism is very past-oriented in that it doesn't consider the potential of what's yet to be proven. Just because something's worked someway before doesn't mean that way is the only way things can work.

d) People aren't born in alternate timelines. Things can work simultaneously in many different ways. Merely encountering something working someway here doesn't mean this is the only way things can work.

e) Investigation isn't costless. It takes time, energy, and attention to gather evidence, time, energy, and attention which could also be used to live people's lives.

f) In a world with multiple perspectives on reality where third parties have to judge the evidence presented to come to fair and neutral judgments, evidence can lead to framing, especially when evidence is combined Occam's Razor to accommodate the previous concern on cost. People can portray things as appearing to be something that they're not by showing how they're similar to other things. Then, they can claim that further detailed investigation is ridiculously absurd.

Ultimately, when you consider these problems, you realize that empiricism leads to incivility. It leads to a society where abusers hide behind plausible deniability, where peers and authorities can engage in malicious prosecution, and people are forced to assume the risk of falling through the cracks of society unless they're willing to endure "procedural slavery", something which can carry out indefinitely throughout people's lives. People become forced to chase wrongdoers or else endure wrongdoings.

Hence, an empirical society is uncivil and must be prohibited.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 10:37:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some considerations I typically make to empiricists are the follows:

a) Natural investigations of reality aren't the same as social investigations. Civilization is artificial, not natural. We're not talking about scientific endeavors like biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.

b) Obviously, people test theories to verify how they believe things work. The problem is when people don't learn from experience this way, but rather they rationalize rules of thumb. Some people don't test their theories. Instead, they look at how reality works someway, and generalize those specific ways upon all possible ways.

c) Obviously, if you have evidence of some facts that happened in reality, it shouldn't be dismissed. The primary point at hand is understanding how people don't necessarily have evidence of facts which exist, especially from excessive difficulty. On the other hand, we shouldn't be naive and jump to conclusions. Again, evidence can lead to framing. We need to look at how evidence is gathered before assuming that evidence accurately reflects facts.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 1:02:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hence, an empirical society is uncivil and must be prohibited.
And replaced with what? One based on guesswork and prejudice?
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 2:36:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 1:02:35 AM, kp98 wrote:
Hence, an empirical society is uncivil and must be prohibited.
And replaced with what? One based on guesswork and prejudice?

Based on analyzing how and why things are done. If anything, empiricism is prejudiced. For example, it's empiricism which lead to racism because it judged people based upon the evidence of what good works races performed. It judged people based upon their skin color, ancestry, and outcomes of their civilization rather than appreciating the qualitative faculty of free will which defined their humanity.

It is likewise empiricism which lead to traditionalist ageism by focusing on the specific ways of life that were previously achieved. It insisted on learning from experience, and being closeminded to alternate lifestyles. It told people that until they achieved another way of life to be proven that they had to conform to what was already proven. People were enslaved to going along with the flow rather than being allowed to explore other ways of responsibly, feasibly, and successfully supporting themselves.

We aren't supposed to focus on the results. We're supposed to focus on the rational process. If you're looking for a replacement in advance, then you're not getting the point.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 3:01:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
By the way, it concerns me deeply that these conservative empiricists have subverted classic liberalism. You typically see this among scientific, pop cultural, and academically institutional perspectives. Before, science was regarded as meaningful because experimental design and the scientific process enabled people to regularly control how discoveries were made instead of being forced to melodramatically go along with lucky trial and error. Instead, every variable was checked to make sure we understood how things were caused. We didn't allow people to politicize scientific discovery by messing around with instruments to make it look like something was caused by something else. We didn't allow people to design experiments to test some variables before others, and then say, "This model is good enough, so everyone should have to go along with it. If you don't think so, then you have to design your own experiment. Until then, you have to go along with what our experiment has proven."

Before, pop culture was looked upon as a universal and multicultural technique that could be used to bridge people together across neighborhoods and communities. Many people aren't represented well where they live, but mass media could overcome that by giving everyone a voice even if weren't evidentally the loudest or most refined. Today, mass media works the exact opposite way. It doesn't bridge people together. It just standardizes people. It allows local establishments to work together and maintain their social status. The loudmouthed and obnoxious broadcasting of mass media inhibits people from cultivating their own culture instead.

Before, academic institutions were looked upon as refuges from empirical anti-intellectualism. The point was to appreciate free thought and enable people to figure out intelligent ways of getting things done. That way, they wouldn't just have to go along with the tried and true method of where they were from. Instead, they could figure out other ways of getting things done that were yet to be concretely proven. Today, academic institutions work the exact opposite way. On one hand, they tolerate the artistic nonsense that aristocratically elitist spoiled brats use through folk community common sense to maintain their social status while dragging alternate lifestyles down. On the other hand, they take their own specific schools of thought on how things get done, and expect you to go along with it until another way is proven.

In all of these situations, what we see is a circular self-fulfilling prophecy where manipulation of evidence, experimental design, and the environment enables corrupt wrongdoers to maintain their power while treating others as guilty before proven innocent. We see how empiricism enables people to be closed minded by seeing how things have specifically been done in the past, and generalizing everybody as having to go along with it. Difficulties are created through negligence, and people play dumb to get away with it. After the fact, others are told to overcome difficulty just to be treated with equal respect.