2
   

Is empiricism the epitome of dualism ?

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 11:11 am
@fresco,
Quote:
"Solipsism" is a non-starter for language users..."observerless worlds" is an oxymoron.


Spoken like a true solipsist, Fresco. You're saying there can be no world without an observer. Once again, the utter egocentricity of the solipsist is displayed.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 11:19 am
@fresco,
Quote:
The "laws of physics" is an incomplete work in progress involving human constructions which successfully generalize and predict human expectations.


As opposed to what? A dinosaur's "expectations?" The dinosaur can "expect" what he wants, but, whatever he expects, it won't repeal the law of gravity for him any more than it would for a human.
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 12:26 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Check out Goffman: "The Social Construction of Reality" for just one debunking of "observer independent reality". The fact that we can all agree it would be fatal to jump off a high building is "the reality" for humans with a common physiology. It is obviously not "a reality" for birds. In short "reality" may simply be a word we use for "confident consensual expectations". As one poster has put it recently, "reality" could be a concept with no referent outside of human agreement about mutual interests.


The Fact that we share the same world with other species means we share the same realities. I'm not talking about experiences individual experiences or collective for that matter or due to different physiology. Birds that fly have a physiology that allows them to take an advantage of lift, humans don't. But humans have the ability to create and imitate those experiences because of our brains and physiology to understand and learn and thus use that knowledge to develop technology that enables us to soar through the Heavens thus experiencing flight.

Again, this posting is about empiricism so we must concern ourselves with physical evidence and not rational.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 01:04 pm
@argome321,
No. This post is not about "empiricism" per se, but whether empiricism necessarily implies duality (an observer independent world). The argument I make here amounts to: what we call "evidence" (like "data") is a selective process engaged in by consensual observers.
Note for example that in research on the nature of electrons, "evidence" can be found for what were considered mutually exclusive states of "particle" and "wave". Or take the concept of "non-locality" in physics:evidence can be found of "the same particle" being in two places at once. Consider too Brian Cox's subtitle to his book on Quantum Physics...."whatever can happen, does happen".
These counter-intuitive findings clearly question the status of "observer independent evidence". As Heisenberg put it ...
Quote:
We never observe nature directly, only the results of questions we ask of nature.

....and the thesis here is that as "we" change, the question changes, and "reality" changes....which changes "we"....which changes the question... etc.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 01:10 pm
@fresco,
The Social Construction of Reality

These theories may work well with religious groups, but our senses are there for us to keep us in touch as best we could with the realty of our physical environment. the purpose of Our Brain, Our central Nervous system.

All Social constructed Realities are nothing more then one group or person forcing others by their numbers to fall in line. The have more in common with cults cults then any scientific community worth it's salt.

Social constructed realities by their very definition and nature has no choice to be anti-individualist, that would include free and independent thought.

It would be very easy to instigate and nurture a mob mentality in such settings.

The more I read about men such as Maturana I begin to understand their psychology.

If you want to see how volatile social constructs can become just look at he history of all three major religions. There are no greater examples.

The more we understand about our brains and Our Central systems, Physiology and function, with all its' chemical and electrical interactions, that mind and matter are separate seem less likely to me. That dualism is less likely.

And that is the crux of my point, it starts with our ability to be in touch with the world through our 5 senses and how well we are able to receive and perceive stimuli, how well our brains process it and disseminates that stimuli and finally what we do with it to live in the real world. Our continue existence depends on it.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 01:17 pm
@argome321,
Yes. But I am not talking about Cartesian dualism (mind/matter). That has pretty much died a death both psychologically and philosophically. I am talking about the inextricability of what we conventionally call "observer" and "observed".
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 01:29 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
No. This post is not about "empiricism" per se, but whether empiricism necessarily implies duality (an observer independent world). The argument I make here amounts to: what we call "evidence" (like "data") is a selective process engaged in by consensual observers.


Then you should change the title of your post because "Is Empiricism the Epitome of dualism" makes it seem like your eherxamining the effects of Empiricism on dualism.

I guess I am having a problem with your usage of consensual observers
Facts aren't reliant on consensus. Something is factual or not whether one discovers it or a million.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 01:41 pm
@argome321,
No. Because in the context which generated this thread, it is a response to a challenge paraphrased by the existing title.
# 5,893,450
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-1
The fact that the challenger has not as yet showed up is beside the point.

NB "fact" from facere Latin to construct or build
Assuming facts are NOT constructions is merely question begging attributed to the position call "naive realism".

Q. Is it a "fact" that there is a slight trace of pencil on page 125 of my copy of "Catch 22". If so, for whom ?
Q. Is it a "fact" there are 27 raindrops on my windshield at the moment ? If so for whom?
Q. Is the number of such "facts" potentially infinite ? If so, what does that tell you about the word "fact" ?
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 02:01 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law.. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.
Compare question of fact, question of law.
Idioms
6.
after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime:
an accessory after the fact.
7.
before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime:
an accessory before the fact.
8.
in fact, actually; really; indeed:
In fact, it was



and from the Latin to English dictionary

In Latin however, 'facere' means 'to do/make'. We get derivatives like 'factory' from it.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 02:03 pm
@argome321,
Read my Q's, and try to distinguish between lexicography, semantics and philosophy.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 02:03 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Q. Is it a "fact" that there is a slight trace of pencil on page 125 of my copy of "Catch 22". If so, for whom ?
Q. Is it a "fact" there are 27 raindrops on my windshield at the moment ? If so for whom?
Q. Is the number of such "facts" potentially infinite ? If so, what does that tell you about the word "fact" ?


Doesn't matter for whom, the fact is that it is there.
For whom is another question.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 02:07 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Read my Q's, and try to distinguish between lexicography and philosophy.


The only to be taken from your statement is that you wish to rewrite and redefine an entire language.

well, this has been fun. I'll talk to you later. I gotta run.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 02:08 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
Doesn't matter for whom


I suggest you think very carefully about that one, especially since the raindrops "fact" is no longer valid (assuming we could even have agreed how to count " the drops")
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 03:09 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
The only to be taken from your statement is that you wish to rewrite and redefine an entire language.


Exactly, Arg.

Quote:
Empiricism about a particular subject rejects the corresponding version of the Intuition/Deduction thesis and Innate Knowledge thesis. Insofar as we have knowledge in the subject, our knowledge is a posteriori, dependent upon sense experience. Empiricists also deny the implication of the corresponding Innate Concept thesis that we have innate ideas in the subject area. Sense experience is our only source of ideas...The Empiricism thesis does not entail that we have empirical knowledge. It entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all, by experience.


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Quote:
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

A rose by any other name...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 03:37 pm
@layman,
Thank you for those dated references.

Modern philosophy is not only about the questioning of "common sense", but more recently (post Wittgenstein) about our conditioning through language. You need, for example to read up on "active versus passive" perception, if you want to say anything useful at this level of analysis.

Until then I see you have found another victim on your relativity thread. A name change for you to "Ancient Mariner" (ref: Coleridge) would be appropriate don't you think ?

argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 04:04 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
I suggest you think very carefully about that one, especially since the raindrops "fact" is no longer valid (assuming we could even have agreed how to count " the drops")


I have thought about it and still the only viable conclusion is as I said prior that the only thing one can take from your statement is that you want to rewrite and redefine an entire language.

Parse your own Statement. count

Either there is a mark on that page or there isn't what ever it is being there or not becomes the fact the whom doesn't. To understand you would have to know what prompt the question.

Either there are a certain number of raindrops on the windshield or there isn't. Whether that total is zero or whatever that becomes the fact. All else is superfluous.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 04:22 pm
@argome321,
Quote:
I have thought about it and still the only viable conclusion is as I said prior that the only thing one can take from your statement is that you want to rewrite and redefine an entire language.

"One" might reach such a conclusion, but "another" might remark "nothing to do with philosophy".

Do you realize if we were both captive frogs sitting in aquarium surrounded by nutritious "dead flies" we would both starve to death because our perceptual apparatus is hard wired to detect only moving insects. " Being philosophical frogs we might wish that "food" existed here, but of course we could never "know"......Yet are humans not just bigger frogs ? Wink

layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 04:34 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Thank you for those dated references.


You're quite welcome. And you're right of course. Those are "dated." The wiki page says:

Quote:
This page was last modified on 31 January 2015, at 19:23
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 04:35 pm
@fresco,
I have one last question to ask before I leave this carousel. If you were in a cafe and you order a hamburger and when the hamburger came and you notice a rancid smell would you eat it?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 04:39 pm
@argome321,
Seriously...I might If you paid me sufficiently.
A classic paper in psychology (Green and Swets Signal Detection Theory) showed that perception could be manipulated by monetary pay-offs.
 

Related Topics

Problems With Empirical Evidence - Question by medium-density
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 08:33:30