"Solipsism" is a non-starter for language users..."observerless worlds" is an oxymoron.
The "laws of physics" is an incomplete work in progress involving human constructions which successfully generalize and predict human expectations.
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.
We never observe nature directly, only the results of questions we ask of nature.
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.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
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.
after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime:
an accessory after the fact.
before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime:
an accessory before the fact.
in fact, actually; really; indeed:
In fact, it was
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" ?
Read my Q's, and try to distinguish between lexicography and philosophy.
Doesn't matter for whom
The only to be taken from your statement is that you wish to rewrite and redefine an entire language.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for those dated references.
This page was last modified on 31 January 2015, at 19:23