Is empiricism the epitome of dualism ?

@layman,

Quote:

This WIKI page was last modified on 31 January 2015, at 19:23

By whom ? Could have been you for all we know ! Mr. Green

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

By whom ? Could have been you for all we know !

Don't you think it's high past time for YOU to go in and rewrite the entire page to show how "modern philosophy" defines "empiricism?" I somehow have the feeling that everything on that page was written AFTER Wittgenstein published his final philosophical thoughts, and yet those fools at wiki STILL have it all wrong.

You said, in response to my post, that wiki was "dated,"and that:

Quote:

Modern philosophy is not only about the questioning of "common sense", but more recently (post Wittgenstein) about our conditioning through language

.

Straighten them out!

1 Reply

@layman,

Good idea ! But I think "active perception" has already been covered. Have you checked ?
BTW Reports selected by fools are not necessarily reports written by fools.

1 Reply

@fresco,

You are in the habit of referring people to this site aren't you?:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/

As, I've already pointed out, that very site says (among other things):

Quote:

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, as an epistemological stance, has nothing to do with whether we know things. You are so anxious to "win" your argument with Olivier5 that you want to pretend otherwise. You act like your constructivist beliefs somehow redefine the whole history of philosophy, and, somehow, the meaning of terms used in philosophy.

Fraid not.

PS: Let me apologize for the suggestion that you are "pretending." The much more likely explanation is that you just don't understand what empiricism entails. It's doubtful that you know, but are "pretending" otherwise. Again, I apologize.

1 Reply

@layman,

Sorry layman I have no anxiety at all.
All the ideas I put forward on this site have been well established in the literature and have been thoroughly discussed and referenced by me both on this forum and in "live debate" with my local philosophy group at public meetings. You can spout about traditional views of "empiricism" all you like. Such "naive realism" occupies a dust gathering shelf in the philosophy section of the library. Amateur Googlers would have little inkling of that.

You on the other hand, are likely to be projecting (Freud) your own anxiety following a rebuff by physics professionals. That would explain your obsessive behavior and references to "winning" a debate. Such behavior appears to be an attempt to establish your self-integrity.

If you care to read through my lengthy posting history, you will find I have a pretty skeptical opinion about the concept of "self" (including my own). Such a position is a natural consequence of a non-dualistic position and is well known to "meditators" of various types. Therefore a facet of my self accepts "the apology" of that facet of your self which this dynamic context has temporarily evoked. And if you understand that, you know where I am coming from.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Are you presupposing that "empiricism" and "dualism" are invalid approaches to knowledge?

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

No. But the utility of those terms is limited by a concept of "knowledge" being the pursuit of "observer independent truth". If instead we consider "knowledge" as a shifting state of confidence about prediction and control of "the world" which changes as we change, then dualistic empiricism is like a static snapshot of observer vis-a-vis world. It is equivalent to the assumption that the nature of a flowing river can be completely characterized by an instantaneous description of the state of the water at a particular point. But it is incomplete since the actuality (I avoid reality) of the epistemological river should be characterized non-dualistically by the dynamic interaction of the current ( external events) and the banks (observer states which selectively define event windows). Empiricism assumes that static measurement of events is the substrate for knowledge, but fails to acknowledge the evolution of the paradigmatic scenario involved in where and when to put the observation equipment. The alternative term "constructive empiricism" goes some way in linking up those static snapshots in terms of the inclusion of observer involvement.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Thank you for providing such a detailed answer. My weakness in philosophy discussions is that I state positions without much explanatory detail.

My impression of static measurement is that it is useful in physical science but provides no significant benefit to social science.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Yes. "Social science" is generally separable from "natural science " because it is largely based on statistical data. Empirical "evidence" would then be based on "confidence levels" rather that binary truth values. Also, it is much harder to control for "observer effects" in selection and analysis of data.

But we should also bear in mind that quantum physics uses probability functions and is subject to "the uncertainty principle" which tends also to detract from the concept of empiricism.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

But we should also bear in mind that quantum physics uses probability functions and is subject to "the uncertainty principle" which tends also to detract from the concept of empiricism.

Whatever explicatory thesis QM comes up with, it is still derived from empirical observations, isn't it?

And, if it is, you're basically saying that the uncertainty principle "detracts" from itself.

I don't see how you can have it both ways.

2 Replies

@layman,

A central tenet of empiricism is that "data" is independent of a priori bias in the selection of sensory input. The uncertainty principle indicates on the contrary that a decision has to be made on the part of the observer as to which measurements to make as the collection of one can exclude the collection of the other. So rather than say that the principle was derived from empirical observation, we can say it was derived from the failure of such observation.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

...we can say it was derived from the failure of such observation.

What failed? Heisenberg simply said, as I recall, that you cannot simultaneously determine both the position and the momentum of a sub-atomic particle. That conclusion was itself reached on the basis of prolonged empirical research (the interpretation of which, of course, also necessarily relied on certain theoretical postulations).

Once again:

Quote:

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 does NOT say that everything can be known empirically. There is nothing in empiricism which has failed if I say "Experience has shown that one cannot simultaneously see what's north of you and what's south of you without a mirror."

0 Replies

@layman,

I suggest you read both of your posts, put them together, and notice that they are inconsistent. The attempted projection of your "issues" onto others has already been identified as part of your modus operandi.

I have explained why paradgms involve active selection of what constitutes "data". Insofar as such coherent paradigms are based on temporary consensus, then what constitutes data can be classified as "empirical" since "bias" and "consensus" are antithetical. The data are thus deemed to be "unbiased". But where such paradigms, like QM, allow for decision as to what qualifies as "significant data" then that tenet of empiricism becomes inapplicable.
I am arguing that "empiricism" is meaningful with respect to temporary states of agreement about what constitutes aspects/measurements of "the world", but fails to be meaningful in a long term view of epistemological progress involving successive paradigms and changes in worldviews.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

I suggest you read both of your posts, put them together, and notice that they are inconsistent.

I take it that you "noticed" that, eh? Care to explained what it is you "noticed" and how they are "inconsistent?"

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I have explained why paradgms involve active selection of what constitutes "data". Insofar as such coherent paradigms are based on temporary consensus, then what constitutes data can be classified as "empirical" since "bias" and "consensus" are antithetical. The data are thus deemed to be "unbiased". But where such paradigms, like QM, allow for decision as to what qualifies as "significant data" then that tenet of empiricism becomes inapplicable.
I am arguing that "empiricism" is meaningful with respect to temporary states of agreement about what constitutes aspects/measurements of "the world", but fails to be meaningful in a long term view of epistemological progress involving successive paradigms and changes in worldviews.

None of your arguments are new since the advent of QM. These same considerations go back to the ancient greeks. Plato wrote a dialogue, for instance, involving Socrates and Protagorus, a prominent sophist of the day, addressing such issues.

Empiricism, as a epistemological position, is generally contrasted with rationalism, which maintains that knowledge can be attained a priori. Are you trying to argue a rationalist position?

I don't think you are. But, again, you seem to be constantly using your own idiosyncratic definition "empiricism." Perhaps you should chose a different word for what you're trying to express.

1 Reply

@layman,

Not without a reference to Wittgenstein's "language games" which I have no intention of going into here.

Ah you've posted again.

Quote:

Empiricism, as a epistemological position, is generally contrasted with rationalism

Once again you are coming up with old hat analytical philosophical notions. I am not interested in such contrasts which are basically predicated on dualism.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I am not interested in such contrasts which are basically predicated on dualism.

Perhaps you should re-title your thread then. From the beginning it was apparent that you were trying to use YOUR definition of empiricism to "win" an argument.

Olivier5 simply made the point, which you now seem to be conceding, that empiricism is " basically predicated on dualism," as you now put it (which is how he put it).

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Plato wrote a dialogue, for instance, involving Socrates and Protagorus, a prominent sophist of the day...

In that dialogue, as I recall, Protagorus claimed that "man is the measure of all things."

In (partial) response, Socrates asked: "Why not say that a pig is the measure of all things?"

Good question....

1 Reply

@layman,

Once again.
"Empiricism" can be useful as term denoting a transient stage of paradigmatic agreement about "objective evidence". It has no status if it denotes only the oxymoron of an observer independent (naive realistic) view of "knowledge of the world".

Socrates was both right and wrong.
He was right that a Pig's "world" is not Man's "world". Worlds are relative to observers.
He was wrong because only consensual "language" users do "thing-ing" which is the nominal level of "measurement".

As for "the re-titling of the thread and winning", I suggest you re-title your thread as.
"The Desperation of a Realist clutching at Anti-Relativity Straws like the Ancient Mariner Clutching at Wedding Guests".

Now if you have nothing further to say about the status of the term "empiricism" I suggest you get back to your clutching activities elsewhere. I have better things to do but to feed your need for conversation per se.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

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,

Thank you for proving my point? "How did I prove your point" you may ask."

I'm glad you asked. I don't need to pay you to eat anything, but more on that scenario later.

Your answer is an admission that our sense of smell is telling us that the meat is rancid and we both understand the ramifications: the probable outcomes, even to some degree that we can calculate some possible results.

Nor would you base, on your sense of sight, would you let a total bind person chauffeur you around.
Now if one is crazy, perhaps suffering some type dementia , some form of mental illness or just doesn't care for reasons what so ever, then perhaps the person would eat that rancid meat or let a blind person drive them around.

Perhaps that person is indigent and is scrapping the garbage cans for food and comes across the rancid meat and eats it?

Yes, that would be his reality, But that is not a reality based on empiricism. That type of reality and fact is not based on one senses informing him about the environs in which he inhabits.
There is no argument that perception can be altered by many means, not just by money.That in and of itself belies the fact that what is true and what is not.
dependent on Human thought...something I said to you earlier.

Interpreting, assessing and analyzings the stimuli received from our senses are different brain functions.

Empiricism will allow both of us to hear the same piece of music. depending on how brains in their different hemispheres are developed we will be more or less keen to that music. the empiricist reality is that we hear the noise: sound. Whether we both like it is a different reality. I may like jazz you may like rock.

1 Reply

Is empiricism the epitome of dualism ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know