5 ms·

I broadly agree with the points he is making, but I have a few bones to pick. First though, I appreciate his definition of science: "Science: a process that al

I broadly agree with the points he is making, but I have a few bones to pick. First though, I appreciate his definition of science: "Science: a process that allows us to understanding how the world works by careful empirical investigation supplemented by rigorous theoretical analysis and predictions that are then subject to additional empirical testing." This is well stated. However he unfortunately he later states "I would argue that there is only one kind of knowledge, at least about the real world, and that is empirical knowledge." This goes entirely too far, it seems to reject not just the existence of a priori knowledge, but also intuition derived from the shared experience of being human, knowledge derived from informal experience, etc. He's strayed into scientism; the belief that all truth is exclusively discovered through science. This is a common belief system for 'engineery-types', but it often leads people astray when they ignore and eschew qualitative analysis and focus exclusively on empirical quantitative data. This was McNamara's fallacy; he thought he could win a war by collecting enough quantitative data and crunching numbers, ignoring any consideration that didn't lend itself to numerical analysis as unscientific. He was subsequently blindsided by public sentiment in Vietnam and America, and lost the war. A few examples of knowledge that isn't empirical: Using your shared humanity to intuit what somebody else is feeling, in order to have compassion for them. Creating art that you know is aesthetically pleasing, without first performing any empirical analysis of what that even means. Knowing that all humans deserve human rights.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
elliottkember 5y ago
I think your three examples are all subjective statements, and not objective knowledge. You can't know that something is intrinsically aesthetically pleasing. You can say that a painting is aesthetically pleasing to someone (or many people) but without opinionated viewers, it cannot be described as such. Gravity, on the other hand, works even if nobody is present.
- robonerd 5y ago
  > I think your three examples are all subjective statements, and not objective knowledge. They aren't empirical knowledge, which is the point. They are nevertheless knowledge in the sense that is relative to humans. Another example: I accidentally rear-end somebody at a traffic light. He jumps out of his car hopping mad and storms towards me. I know he is angry, but how do I know that? I know that because of my qualitative assessments of the situational context and his body language. There is no objective empirical analysis going on in this situation, but nevertheless I know what's going on.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    How did you acquire that knowledge? Are you saying we are born with that knowledge? That certainly requires emperical evidence to confirm, hence the only way we can confirm this knowledge is emperical.
    - robonerd 5y ago
      > Are you saying we are born with that knowledge? Some of it, yes. Some of it seems to be encoded in our genes. It may also be culturally acquired. Furthermore, there exists a priori knowledge, without which you can throw away most of mathematics. Given a set of mathematical axioms, you can derive truths through deduction and pure reason, independent of experience. > That certainly requires empirical evidence to confirm Most people do not require such confirmations; they go about their lives without it.
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        > > Are you saying we are born with that knowledge? > Some of it, yes. Some of it seems to be encoded in our genes. How do you arrive at that conclusion? > It may also be culturally acquired. Furthermore, there exists a priori knowledge, without which you can throw away most of mathematics. Given a set of mathematical axioms, you can derive truths through deduction and pure reason, independent of experience. Yes and mathematics is not science. You can build all sort of logical constructs that have absolutely no relation to the real world. > > That certainly requires empirical evidence to confirm > Most people do not require such confirmations; they go about their lives without it. I thought we talk about acquiring knowledge? Sure lots of people do not question anything they do, but I don't think we should use that as a standard.
rayiner 5y ago
I think it's important to distinguish between empirical knowledge and other mental states or impressions, because they differ fundamentally in their reliability. This addresses a real problem that exists: people treating the work of credentialed scholars in the areas of philosophy or social commentary as disclosing "facts" similar to the work of scientists. > A few examples of knowledge that isn't empirical: Using your shared humanity to intuit what somebody else is feeling, in order to have compassion for them. Creating art that you know is aesthetically pleasing, without first performing any empirical analysis of what that even means. Knowledge based on experience and trial-and-error is still empirical--i.e. based on "sense experience." Artists paint stuff and then observe how people react to it. Farmers learn from inherited experience and their own experience with harvest cycles. That said, it's less rigorous than knowledge based on controlled experiments and theoretical closed-form analysis, so I would call it more "skill" or "experience" than "knowledge." > Knowing that all humans deserve human rights. This is the opposite of knowledge, it's a non-falsifiable belief or moral assertion.
- robonerd 5y ago
  > Knowledge based on experience and trial-and-error is still empirical--i.e. based on "sense experience." [...] Artists paint stuff and then observe how people react to it. Artists do this, that is true. But they don't exclusively do this. Artists may also develop their skill in private through introspective means. Furthermore this analysis is almost always qualitative in nature; artists or their audience assessing distinctly qualitative properties of the work.
cycomanic 5y ago
> However he unfortunately he later states "I would argue that there is only one kind of knowledge, at least about the real world, and that is empirical knowledge." You ignored the important qualifier which is "about the real world" and by real I assert he means physical world. Your examples do not in fact contradict his statement because they are not about knowledge about the real (physical) world. I also don't understand your segway to Mcnamara. The above statement certainly does not state that data by itself is knowledge, and certainly any (naturally limited) set of data is not necessarily sufficient to predict the future. However this fact does not contradict the statement that we can only confirm how the world works (i.e. acquire knowledge about the physical world) through empirical means.
Beltalowda 5y ago
Not just the Vietnam war, but a lot of political questions aren't really scientific. We can of course use science as (often good) argumentation, but fundamentally many political topics aren't scientific questions. A simple example would be to say that extra policing of certain ethnic groups would reduce crime rates. Purely empirically this might be correct, but there is a broad consensus that this is also morally wrong.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > A simple example would be to say that extra policing of certain ethnic groups would reduce crime rates. Purely empirically this might be correct, but there is a broad consensus that this is also morally wrong. Historically, the solution to that conundrum would be for each ethnic group to be responsible for policing their own. We still see traces of this in the modern notion that due process requires a trial by "a jury of one's peers". Someone's "peers" back then would've been not just any fellow citizens, but people actually sharing the same general background as the accused. Disputes between groups would've been solved peaceably, through monetary restitution and the paying of damages; but punishment was strictly an internal matter.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  Not only are such questions not scientific, but they use the same words with different meanings. This is why it is important to be clear when communicating. Morally wrong is to be opposed to what is good and virtuous. Scientifically wrong is to be demonstrably false. To your last point, it gets more interesting when the topic is "Increased police presence is necessary in geographic areas experiencing high crime rates" What does necessary mean here? What does" right" or "wrong" mean in the context of this situation? Does right or wrong change with the nature of the crimes being committed, or the nature of the people committing the crimes, or the nature of the victims? Is it right to not increasing police presence because the perpetrators are predominantly of one race, even if the victims are also of that race, as are the police themselves? How do you achieve consensus- empirically or otherwise- on such a simple statement when no two people may be using the same words the same way?
tensor 5y ago
I strongly disagree with you. He qualified "about the real world." Yes, there are other types of knowledge, even something like math might be an example, but certainly cultural, fictions, and so on. That's not what he's talking about though, nor is he saying that in the absence of empirical knowledge you shouldn't use other less rigorous information to make decisions. Also, in your example about human rights, this to me is a choice we make. It's not any sort of physical law of the universe, and as such science doesn't say anything about it.
- robonerd 5y ago
  All of human interaction and artistic expression exists in the 'real world', I think using that term to exclude everything other than simple physical phenomena is misguided at best. > nor is he saying that in the absence of empirical knowledge you shouldn't use other less rigorous information to make decisions. As I read it, he's saying that only empirical knowledge exists [at least in the context of "real world" or physical phenomena], rendering the term 'empirical knowledge' essentially redundant. How could you use non-emperical knowledge if such a thing doesn't even exist? Limiting the scope of consideration to simple physical phenomena: What about your innate intuition about the way physical objects behave? Is there no use for that? Nobody gets out a pencil and solves kinematic equations every time they try to catch a baseball. There's a great deal of utility to be found in the intuitive knowledge of how the physical world works.
  - tensor 5y ago
    He is using the dictionary definition of science: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Specifically 1. The use of the scientific method, which is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena. I'm not going to debate your incorrect assumption about his statement. To anyone who practices science it's abundantly clear what he was saying, and it is in no way saying that "intuition" or anything else somehow doesn't exist, only that these are not valid ways to knowledge about the physical world. I agree with that. Again, these other things can be useful, but they should not be confused with knowledge of the world as learned through science.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

elliottkember 5y ago

I think your three examples are all subjective statements, and not objective knowledge. You can't know that something is intrinsically aesthetically pleasing. You can say that a painting is aesthetically pleasing to someone (or many people) but without opinionated viewers, it cannot be described as such. Gravity, on the other hand, works even if nobody is present.

robonerd 5y ago
> I think your three examples are all subjective statements, and not objective knowledge. They aren't empirical knowledge, which is the point. They are nevertheless knowledge in the sense that is relative to humans. Another example: I accidentally rear-end somebody at a traffic light. He jumps out of his car hopping mad and storms towards me. I know he is angry, but how do I know that? I know that because of my qualitative assessments of the situational context and his body language. There is no objective empirical analysis going on in this situation, but nevertheless I know what's going on.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  How did you acquire that knowledge? Are you saying we are born with that knowledge? That certainly requires emperical evidence to confirm, hence the only way we can confirm this knowledge is emperical.
  - robonerd 5y ago
    > Are you saying we are born with that knowledge? Some of it, yes. Some of it seems to be encoded in our genes. It may also be culturally acquired. Furthermore, there exists a priori knowledge, without which you can throw away most of mathematics. Given a set of mathematical axioms, you can derive truths through deduction and pure reason, independent of experience. > That certainly requires empirical evidence to confirm Most people do not require such confirmations; they go about their lives without it.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      > > Are you saying we are born with that knowledge? > Some of it, yes. Some of it seems to be encoded in our genes. How do you arrive at that conclusion? > It may also be culturally acquired. Furthermore, there exists a priori knowledge, without which you can throw away most of mathematics. Given a set of mathematical axioms, you can derive truths through deduction and pure reason, independent of experience. Yes and mathematics is not science. You can build all sort of logical constructs that have absolutely no relation to the real world. > > That certainly requires empirical evidence to confirm > Most people do not require such confirmations; they go about their lives without it. I thought we talk about acquiring knowledge? Sure lots of people do not question anything they do, but I don't think we should use that as a standard.

rayiner 5y ago

I think it's important to distinguish between empirical knowledge and other mental states or impressions, because they differ fundamentally in their reliability. This addresses a real problem that exists: people treating the work of credentialed scholars in the areas of philosophy or social commentary as disclosing "facts" similar to the work of scientists. > A few examples of knowledge that isn't empirical: Using your shared humanity to intuit what somebody else is feeling, in order to have compassion for them. Creating art that you know is aesthetically pleasing, without first performing any empirical analysis of what that even means. Knowledge based on experience and trial-and-error is still empirical--i.e. based on "sense experience." Artists paint stuff and then observe how people react to it. Farmers learn from inherited experience and their own experience with harvest cycles. That said, it's less rigorous than knowledge based on controlled experiments and theoretical closed-form analysis, so I would call it more "skill" or "experience" than "knowledge." > Knowing that all humans deserve human rights. This is the opposite of knowledge, it's a non-falsifiable belief or moral assertion.

robonerd 5y ago
> Knowledge based on experience and trial-and-error is still empirical--i.e. based on "sense experience." [...] Artists paint stuff and then observe how people react to it. Artists do this, that is true. But they don't exclusively do this. Artists may also develop their skill in private through introspective means. Furthermore this analysis is almost always qualitative in nature; artists or their audience assessing distinctly qualitative properties of the work.

cycomanic 5y ago

> However he unfortunately he later states "I would argue that there is only one kind of knowledge, at least about the real world, and that is empirical knowledge." You ignored the important qualifier which is "about the real world" and by real I assert he means physical world. Your examples do not in fact contradict his statement because they are not about knowledge about the real (physical) world. I also don't understand your segway to Mcnamara. The above statement certainly does not state that data by itself is knowledge, and certainly any (naturally limited) set of data is not necessarily sufficient to predict the future. However this fact does not contradict the statement that we can only confirm how the world works (i.e. acquire knowledge about the physical world) through empirical means.

Beltalowda 5y ago

Not just the Vietnam war, but a lot of political questions aren't really scientific. We can of course use science as (often good) argumentation, but fundamentally many political topics aren't scientific questions. A simple example would be to say that extra policing of certain ethnic groups would reduce crime rates. Purely empirically this might be correct, but there is a broad consensus that this is also morally wrong.

zozbot234 5y ago
> A simple example would be to say that extra policing of certain ethnic groups would reduce crime rates. Purely empirically this might be correct, but there is a broad consensus that this is also morally wrong. Historically, the solution to that conundrum would be for each ethnic group to be responsible for policing their own. We still see traces of this in the modern notion that due process requires a trial by "a jury of one's peers". Someone's "peers" back then would've been not just any fellow citizens, but people actually sharing the same general background as the accused. Disputes between groups would've been solved peaceably, through monetary restitution and the paying of damages; but punishment was strictly an internal matter.
zdragnar 5y ago
Not only are such questions not scientific, but they use the same words with different meanings. This is why it is important to be clear when communicating. Morally wrong is to be opposed to what is good and virtuous. Scientifically wrong is to be demonstrably false. To your last point, it gets more interesting when the topic is "Increased police presence is necessary in geographic areas experiencing high crime rates" What does necessary mean here? What does" right" or "wrong" mean in the context of this situation? Does right or wrong change with the nature of the crimes being committed, or the nature of the people committing the crimes, or the nature of the victims? Is it right to not increasing police presence because the perpetrators are predominantly of one race, even if the victims are also of that race, as are the police themselves? How do you achieve consensus- empirically or otherwise- on such a simple statement when no two people may be using the same words the same way?

tensor 5y ago

I strongly disagree with you. He qualified "about the real world." Yes, there are other types of knowledge, even something like math might be an example, but certainly cultural, fictions, and so on. That's not what he's talking about though, nor is he saying that in the absence of empirical knowledge you shouldn't use other less rigorous information to make decisions. Also, in your example about human rights, this to me is a choice we make. It's not any sort of physical law of the universe, and as such science doesn't say anything about it.

robonerd 5y ago
All of human interaction and artistic expression exists in the 'real world', I think using that term to exclude everything other than simple physical phenomena is misguided at best. > nor is he saying that in the absence of empirical knowledge you shouldn't use other less rigorous information to make decisions. As I read it, he's saying that only empirical knowledge exists [at least in the context of "real world" or physical phenomena], rendering the term 'empirical knowledge' essentially redundant. How could you use non-emperical knowledge if such a thing doesn't even exist? Limiting the scope of consideration to simple physical phenomena: What about your innate intuition about the way physical objects behave? Is there no use for that? Nobody gets out a pencil and solves kinematic equations every time they try to catch a baseball. There's a great deal of utility to be found in the intuitive knowledge of how the physical world works.
- tensor 5y ago
  He is using the dictionary definition of science: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Specifically 1. The use of the scientific method, which is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena. I'm not going to debate your incorrect assumption about his statement. To anyone who practices science it's abundantly clear what he was saying, and it is in no way saying that "intuition" or anything else somehow doesn't exist, only that these are not valid ways to knowledge about the physical world. I agree with that. Again, these other things can be useful, but they should not be confused with knowledge of the world as learned through science.