Empirical knowledge?

[scitsofreaky]

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I figure the lion's den is the safest bet.

'Empirical knowledge alone is true knowledge'- and where is the empirical proof for that?

It is a question that has me thinking, and I realized I don't know if there is any. But what do I know? So, what empirical evidence is there that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge?

[All Gods Fail]

Dude, you're blowing my mind!

[scitsofreaky]

Dude, you're blowing my mind!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know how you feel. While I'm not really one of those empirical or nothing people, when I read this is still messed with my mind.

Oh, and I guess I should say where I read that: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution by Ken Wilber. Wilber is a great philosopher, he shows (or attempts to show, depending on your view) the relationship between empirical and contemplative knowledge and discovery. Very thought provoking, at least for me.

[Asimov]

well I don't agree with that...

[Godless Wonder]

You guys might find this conversation interesting:

 

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-116704.html

 

PoodleLovinPessimist especially seems to have some good points.

[Skankboy]

My understanding is that empirical knowledge is recoginition of events/ideas that have been proven through repeatable demonstrations. As such, they are the most "real" because anyone has the potential to check themselves and confirm it. Thus, empirical knowledge can be seen as defined points of commonality in our shared, subjective, experiences of the world around us...

 

(now MY head hurts!)

[scitsofreaky]

well I don't agree with that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Care to elaborate?

You guys might find this conversation interesting:

 

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-116704.html

 

PoodleLovinPessimist especially seems to have some good points.

From what I skimmed, it is a very interesting discussion, thank you.

My understanding is that empirical knowledge is recoginition of events/ideas that have been proven through repeatable demonstrations. As such, they are the most "real" because anyone has the potential to check themselves and confirm it. Thus, empirical knowledge can be seen as defined points of commonality in our shared, subjective, experiences of the world around us...

How can there be degrees of "real"? Isn't something either real or not real?

[Kuroikaze]

How can there be degrees of "real"?  Isn't something either real or not real?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you could restate it in terms of degrees of certainty, while a thing itself is either real or not real. Something that can be empericly tested can theorecticly be observed by anyone. The degree of reality depends not on the thing itself, but our perception of the thing....if that makes any sense.

[scitsofreaky]

That does makes sense actually, and it is an interesting way of looking at it.

[Skankboy]

think you could restate it in terms of degrees of certainty, while a thing itself is either real or not real. Something that can be empericly tested can theorecticly be observed by anyone. The degree of reality depends not on the thing itself, but our perception of the thing....if that makes any sense.

 

Yes, "degree of certainty" is probably a better term to use. While we are confined to our own subjective experiences of reality, I would not want to imply that objective reality doesn't exist.

 

Thank you almighty Red Wizard, sometimes it takes someone else to make sense of the random crap coming out of my head...

 

[Asimov]

Care to elaborate?

How can there be degrees of "real"?  Isn't something either real or not real?

 

Well, let's define knowledge as justified true belief. I don't see any reason to define it any way.

 

The only way we can know things is to sense experience them. Since our senses our how we know the world. Intuition is still sense experience but it is under the guise of "sudden revelation". Faith is simply belief regardless of sense experience.

 

We must take it as a presupposition that we cannot know something without sense experience. Ergo there IS no empirical proof that empiricism is the only way we can know things, since it is taken as a presupposition.

 

It is a justified presupposition because you cannot demonstrate that you know something without sense experiencing it.

[Kuroikaze]

Yes, "degree of certainty" is probably a better term to use.  While we are confined to our own subjective experiences of reality, I would not want to imply that objective reality doesn't exist.

 

Thank you almighty Red Wizard, sometimes it takes someone else to make sense of the random crap coming out of my head...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

no problem.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I figure the lion's den is the safest bet.

'Empirical knowledge alone is true knowledge'- and where is the empirical proof for that?

It is a question that has me thinking, and I realized I don't know if there is any. But what do I know? So, what empirical evidence is there that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*brain goes splat*

 

Crap. I shouldn't have tried pondering that after eight hours of data entry. Lemme go find my paint scraper and a Tupperware and I'll get right back to you....

[scitsofreaky]

The only way we can know things is to sense experience them.

So if we read something, do we know it? If so, what sense(s) are involved besides vision?

Intuition is still sense experience but it is under the guise of "sudden revelation".

What sense(s) is(are) involved in intuition?

[Asimov]

So if we read something, do we know it? If so, what sense(s) are involved besides vision?

 

All of our senses are involved in obtaining facts, because our senses are the only things we have in order to interact with reality.

 

Our brains interpret everything our senses take in, thus, through epistemic systems, we obtain knowledge from our experiences.

 

What sense(s) is(are) involved in intuition?

 

I would say mostly observation, because we see so many things, but we can only consciously focus on a few of them.

 

You can test this. Watch Polar Express....show it to your mom. Ask her if she thinks anythings wrong with the people.

[Saviourmachine]

'Empirical knowledge alone is true knowledge'- and where is the empirical proof for that?

What do you mean by empirical knowledge? Knowledge that is obtained by using empirical means, or knowledge that can be proved by empirical means? What do you mean by true knowledge?

"Empirical knowledge alone is true knowledge" is a statement uttered by some person. Every statement that a person utters is according to empiricism the result of observations. So, there is of course empirical proof for it. Just take all the observations that that person had during his lifetime. IMHO the statement is only a paradox if you're already thinking "outside the box".

 

All of our senses are involved in obtaining facts, because our senses are the only things we have in order to interact with reality.

I am certainly not an empiricist. And therefore I don't agree with you. Our brain is not an observation it's a part of the physical world. There are already neurons in your brain (containing information) that didn't receive any input yet from the outer world (by observations/senses). We are no tabula rasa.

 

Above that I think that deductive reasoning can also lead us to truths. And it's in its very character to go beyond mere observation.

 

Also I think that the concepts 'observation' and 'reality' are related to semiotic concepts like sign, signifier, signified. That an 'observation' can not be coupled one by one to entities/atoms/things/acts in reality. Your approach opens the door to suggest that you can have two observations each in its own different universe. It floats ontologically.

[scitsofreaky]

IMHO the statement is only a paradox if you're already thinking "outside the box".

I agree with this statement. I was definitly "thinking outside the box" by the time I got to this statement. Wilber's point was that by saying that empirical knowledge is the only "true" (read valid) knowledge one is saying that empirical knowledge is "better" than other types of knowledge. But he argues that one cannot say somethign is better or worse empirically because those qualitative (hmm, I think that is the word I want) judgements don't exist empirically, only more and less do.

Also, I see no point in reading philosophy unless one is willing to think "outside of the box," ie outside of the way one normally thinks.

[Saviourmachine]

Wilber's point was that by saying that empirical knowledge is the only "true" (read valid) knowledge one is saying that empirical knowledge is "better" than other types of knowledge.  But he argues that one cannot say somethign is better or worse empirically because those qualitative (hmm, I think that is the word I want) judgements don't exist empirically, only more and less do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For an empiricist empirical knowledge is not only better, but it's the only real knowledge. There is no need to define a scale from better to worse.

And, I think empiricists would disagree about your suggestion that qualitative judgements are not the result of empiricism. You learned even how to judge 'right' and 'wrong' using your senses.

 

Also, I see no point in reading philosophy unless one is willing to think "outside of the box," ie outside of the way one normally thinks.

I used thinking "outside the box" in strawman sense. You have to have exactly the same axiomas/assumptions as your opponent to know where they contradict with each other. I don't understand which assumptions you make and why they are mutually exclusive

[scitsofreaky]

And, I think empiricists would disagree about your suggestion that qualitative judgements are not the result of empiricism. You learned even how to judge 'right' and 'wrong' using your senses.

It isn't really my claim, it is Ken Wilber's. I didn't have the book with me to quote it directly.

 

It is a justified presupposition because you cannot demonstrate that you know something without sense experiencing it.

I don't really agree that it is fully justified. As Saviourmachine pointed out, deductive reasoning can also lead to truths. One can only express this truth through the senses, but the truth itself was derived outside of the senses.