6 ms·
I still don't understand your point. If you have some disagreement with certain philosophy of science writers, I can certainly understand, but my point is that
by scoofy 3y ago
I still don't understand your point. If you have some disagreement with certain philosophy of science writers, I can certainly understand, but my point is that philosophy is exactly the interplay of the deductive frameworks and the induction "in the trenches" as you say. The process of philosophy is the interplay between the to, as neither aspect of that dichotomy can be demonstrated it's own.
Empiricism cannot be justified without a reason-based framework, and that deductive framework is by definition arbitrary, and needs to map to empirical findings.
- lisper 3y ago> Empiricism cannot be justified without a reason-based framework Yes, it can. Empiricism can be justified empirically: it just works better than anything else humans have yet come up with.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- scoofy 3y agoThe Black Swan problem (the problem of induction) prevents empiricism (induction) from being justified on its own. You end up with solipsism (turkey problem, grue problem, etc.)
- lisper 3y agoScience does not rely on induction. Yes, I know you can find many sources that say otherwise, but they are wrong. Read this: https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Implications/dp/014027541X https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Imp... especially chapter 7.
- ants_everywhere 3y agoThis is the basis of all superstition. Our crops were doing poorly, but then I burned a chicken and now they're doing well. Let's keep burning chickens. You have to have an explanation of what counts as a valid empirical relation. And that depends on a whole lot of things worked out by philosophers and scientists. Including, for example, that you can safely ignore correlations that can't have a basis in physical laws. Or that you can write certain symbols on a blackboard and compute the probability that your correlation is worth spending more time on.
- lisper 3y agoI think we have different definitions of empiricism. Empiricism is the belief that sensory experience is necessary for knowledge, not that it is sufficient. It stands in contrast with the belief that knowledge can be justified by pure logic without reference to any sensory experience.
- wizzwizz4 3y agoMathematical knowledge can be justified by pure logic without reference to any sensory experience. Is that not knowledge? (This is an old argument.)
- lisper 3y ago> Mathematical knowledge can be justified by pure logic without reference to any sensory experience. No, I don't think it can. I challenge you to give me an example of mathematical knowledge that you can justify without reference to any sensory experience, keeping in mind that reading and hearing people talk are both sensory experiences. It doesn't even have to be math. I'll bet you can't even define the distinction between "true" and "false" without reference to sensory experience.
- ants_everywhere 3y agoYour claim was that empiricism justifies itself, I was explaining why that's not the case. Your definition is overly broad IMO. Empiricism is usually taken to be the belief that the sole source and justification of knowledge is ultimately sensory data. See e.g. Wikipedia or Britannica. It stands in contrast with rationalism sure. But more importantly in the context of your comment and the parent, empiricism also stands in contrast to the only sane POV (IMO), which is that knowledge is combination of empirical and rational sources, as pointed out for example by Kant.
- lisper 3y ago> See e.g. Wikipedia I did: "empiricism is an epistemological view which holds that true knowledge or justification comes only or primarily from sensory experience and empirical evidence." Note the phrase "or primarily". > knowledge is combination of empirical and rational sources The "or primarily" hedge is all I need to refute you (or at least to show that we are not actually in disagreement). However, rationality can itself be justified by empiricism if the Church-Turing thesis is correct, which I believe it is.
- harwoodjp 3y ago> Empiricism can be justified empirically It's so obvious you haven't engaged with the subject matter.
- lisper 3y agoHow so?
- knightoffaith 3y agoI would assume that GP is referring to the problem of induction. Basically, your reasoning seems to be circular.
- lisper 3y agoGood grief, the problem of induction was solved by Karl Popper decades ago. Do people here really not know that?
- knightoffaith 3y agoBut Popper wasn't saying that empiricism could be justified empirically, was he? In his own words, in the section on the problem of induction in The Logic of Scientific Discovery: "My own view is that the various difficulties of inductive logic here sketched are insurmountable. So also, I fear, are those inherent in the doctrine, so widely current today, that inductive inference, although not ‘strictly valid’, can attain some degree of ‘reliability’ or of ‘probability’." He then goes on to provide the (now contentious) falsification-based view of science after conceding that inductivism can't work.
- lisper 3y ago> But Popper wasn't saying that empiricism could be justified empirically, was he? No, I am saying that. Popper may have said it too, I don't know. I'm citing Popper to support my claim that science doesn't involve induction.