7 ms·
That's pretty much empiricism.
by hackeraccount 6y ago
That's pretty much empiricism.
- nerdponx 6y agoWhat do you mean by that?
- giantg2 6y agoHypothesis failed; choose new hypotheses and try them. Edit: Since I'm getting down voted I wanted to specify that empirical evidence is gained through experience. The scientific method of trying hypotheses is a way of gaining empirical evidence.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoAs explained, it’s not empiricism because it misstates/ignores empirical data which would call into question the conclusion.
- giantg2 6y agoWhat empirical data would that be? If the only way to gain empirical evidence is through experience, and the previous hypothesis failed, then you would need a new hypothesis based on that failure. The way you state it, you are implying that there exists other evidence/data which is being ignored, but the scenario doesn't actually say that such evidence exists nor that it is being misstated.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoAdding emphasis to step 2 in the comment you responded to: > X didn't work, because we didn't implement it properly or we didn't understand how to implement it properly or some unrelated situation caused it to not work properly. Empiricism would seek to learn about these failures before step 1 as mitigation and before step 3 to determine if there’s new/more understandable data to prepare more effective mitigation for a repeat experiment.
- giantg2 6y ago"Empiricism would seek to learn about these failures before step 1 ..." In the context of the discussion (politics), this occurs in debates of legislation. Whether or not it's a meritorious debate depends on the subject and partisan makeup. "... and before step 3 to determine if there’s new/more understandable data to prepare more effective mitigation for a repeat experiment." In politics, this starts over as a new bill for debate. It could also mean allocating money to investigate the issue at hand too.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoMaybe I need to emphasize the original comment’s #3? > Therefore X and anything that even kind of resembles X is no longer an acceptable solution for Y.
- giantg2 6y agoIf you have evidence to support that, it's a valid conclusion. Basically, you seem to be arguing that that conclusion is always wrong. I'm saying it could be right depending on the evidence supporting or opposing it. (ie there's no evidence that number 3 means what you say it means)
- eyelidlessness 6y agoI’m not saying the conclusion is definitely wrong, I’m saying it’s unreasonable to assume it’s correct. What I’m saying is that the premise in the syllogism you replied to is that, in the case it applies to, the conclusion is suspect due to the errors that led to it. Empiricism doesn’t stop at falsification, it also involves reconsidering assumptions and trying to identify and eliminate complicating factors.