4 ms·

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 ce

by tensor 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
mc32 4y ago
Indeed, the "rights of a (living) being" is something we decide upon as a species. Most of the rest of the known universe and its phenomena don't seem to observe moral rights any more than a mudslide about to swallow everything in its path. We decide that some things are moral, others immoral or ethical and unethical.

by tensor 4y ago

robonerd 4y 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 4y 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.

mc32 4y ago

Indeed, the "rights of a (living) being" is something we decide upon as a species. Most of the rest of the known universe and its phenomena don't seem to observe moral rights any more than a mudslide about to swallow everything in its path. We decide that some things are moral, others immoral or ethical and unethical.