6 ms·

Not that it cannot be trusted but that believing it is a matter of faith. This does not mean it is less human to believe, but that it is patently human to have

Not that it cannot be trusted but that believing it is a matter of faith. This does not mean it is less human to believe, but that it is patently human to have to believe something. Do not confuse formal logic (which deals with sintax, not meaning, so it has no truth in itself) and the scientific method for which belief is utterly necessary. Trust is not a bad thing. But trust requires faith. Faith is not a bad thing. "Consensus" is not an absolute source of unerring knowledge of reality.

syncerr 13y ago
I wasn't trying to imply that an empiricist would assert anything to be wholly true. Again from the same wiki article: Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that “knowledge is based on experience” and that “knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification.”
- rz2k 13y ago
  I don't think that is what people are getting at. The precision and accuracy of an empiricist's observations can be off without violating ones faith in empiricism. However, the notion that something can happen, or that the past doesn't change, or that there are causes and effects are necessary assumptions of empiricism. Though assuming that causality is a thing seems to have worked out pretty well, you can also at least conceive a Looking Glass universe where the rules don't work the same and cause and effect are turned on their head.
weland 13y ago
This is a well-known debate which, IMO, stems from people making word mean what they want them to mean, at various moments, so that they can put up an argument. Empiricist thought means that I do not have faith in, say, Ohm's law. I have simply observed it to be true sufficiently often that I have been able to formulate a set of rules based on which I can tell when it holds and when it doesn't, and that, if I have doubts at any time, I can test it. I carry on my everyday activity being convinced that it is true as a consequence of having observed it. In a sense, yes, I can figuratively say that "I have faith in classical electromagnetism", but not because I think classical electromagnetism is infailible, but because I have observed it making good predictions. I don't have faith that it will work, I have a) proof that it worked before and b) proof that the things now are just like they were before, when it worked. If I stumble upon a case when it doesn't, I will first check my understanding of classical electromagnetism and, after making sure it's correct, I'll try to see why the prediction was incorrect and review my options about the cause of the phenomenon I am observing. Contrast this with my faith in Othin: I haven't observed him anywhere, I'm yet to see a giant and I can't really test whether he exists or not. I carry on my everyday activity being convinced that he exists, but only as a consequence of my faith. If this religious system makes a wrong prediction, I will typically review my understanding of it, but no my doubts. No giants around? Yeah, 'cause Thor HAMMERED THEM ALL!!! YEAH! No one has seen Othin in a thousand years? Well he likes to wander as a stranger, maybe they didn't know it was him. Both mechanisms can fail, of course, but I think their possible failures stem from different origins and through vastly different mechanisms.
- comice 13y ago
  starts to get complicated when you start questioning what "observed" means. Can we observe a gene? We didn't used to be able to, now we can. Was it faith before we could observe it? Can we observe an electron? Or quantum particles? What about studying distance stars, or investigating past events? And where do empiricist get to the point of deciding that observing the world is something they can rely on? I don't genuinely hold any of these sceptical world views (nobody really does, do they) - these are mostly hard to answer/explain questions I keep getting thrown at me when I end up talking to serious creationists.
  - weland 13y ago
    > Can we observe a gene? This implies that unless you can physically see it, then it's not observation. Trivial examples, such as the fact that you can tell that a door was open in a room because it's far colder than it should be and the door was the only way for cold air to get in, show that this is not generally as complicated. This is pretty much what happened with classical electromagnetism, too. I didn't pick up the example with Ohm's law just because I like it: it actually predates the discovery of the atom's structure. It made valid predictions about how things happen, based on observing only effects, not the underlying structures. They actually got much of the underlying structure wrong, but the predictions based on nothing but observed phenomenons rather than wishful thinking about ether turned out to be correct, even though their mechanism was explained about a century later. > Can we observe an electron? Or quantum particles? Actually, yes for both, we pretty much photograph them to know they exist. > And where do empiricist get to the point of deciding that observing the world is something they can rely on? They don't; or, rather, if any of them claims they do, they're full of shit IMO. For all we know, the world could indeed be an intricate illusion, in which case we're only deciphering the strange mechanism of our illusion. > I don't genuinely hold any of these sceptical world views (nobody really does, do they) - these are mostly hard to answer/explain questions I keep getting thrown at me when I end up talking to serious creationists. Yeah, I know the feeling. I've been asking myself all these questions, too, and many more, for years, since I began to seriously study philosophy. The abyss stares back at me every day :-).
leobelle 13y ago
Here come the faith bearing apologists who take believing what you see as faith, and then somehow twist that into making it ok to believe things you cannot see. Because it's all faith. When someone does this, you've encountered someone with a broken brain. Someone incapable of critical thought and meaningful dialog. Faith is not ok. Faith is a really bad way to come to conclusions. Faith is a measure of last resort. If people who believe in the supernatural had anything other than faith to cling to to validate their beliefs they would jump on it. Instead all they have is faith. All hundreds of thousands of belief systems out there with completely contradictory beliefs using the same flawed faith mechanism to live their life. You talk to Christian apologists, as an example, for any amount of time you get all kinds of nonsensical rubbish that sounds like they're validating their beliefs on eye-witness testimony from people long dead, to validate a belief that heaps and mountains of empirical evidence you yourself can verify contradict. It's like you wouldn't believe a living, breathing witness in court if their testimony contradicted a DNA result, a single piece of evidence. Yet happy feeling supernatural mumble jumbled about being able to come back from the dead because some people thousands of years ago said they saw someone come back from the dead is ok? No, that's them relying on faith. Faith is bad. You don't use it to fix real world problems. And no heuristics are not the same as faith, so don't go there. Anyway, these people will use their keyboards and talk here about all kinds of things, but you know, press them and their mental gymnastics will fall like a house of cards, exposing their flawed mental states. Empiricism doesn't require faith, and faith is a bad thing. Avoid faith whenever possible. Use a heuristic, and verify when you have the time, make sure it's sound.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Oh, wait, you are inducing quite a few things about me. And the word "heuristics" is as meaningless to real knowldge as "pincarpion", by the way. Mhhhh.
  - leobelle 13y ago
    > And the word "heuristics" is as meaningless to real knowldge as "pincarpion", by the way. And there you have it. pfortuny has declared"heuristics" in quotes and meaningless. Let's all black out that word with a felt tip marker in our dictionary. If you didn't have enough reasons to already not find pfortuny as credible, well now you have another.

syncerr 13y ago

I wasn't trying to imply that an empiricist would assert anything to be wholly true. Again from the same wiki article: Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that “knowledge is based on experience” and that “knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification.”

rz2k 13y ago
I don't think that is what people are getting at. The precision and accuracy of an empiricist's observations can be off without violating ones faith in empiricism. However, the notion that something can happen, or that the past doesn't change, or that there are causes and effects are necessary assumptions of empiricism. Though assuming that causality is a thing seems to have worked out pretty well, you can also at least conceive a Looking Glass universe where the rules don't work the same and cause and effect are turned on their head.

weland 13y ago

This is a well-known debate which, IMO, stems from people making word mean what they want them to mean, at various moments, so that they can put up an argument. Empiricist thought means that I do not have faith in, say, Ohm's law. I have simply observed it to be true sufficiently often that I have been able to formulate a set of rules based on which I can tell when it holds and when it doesn't, and that, if I have doubts at any time, I can test it. I carry on my everyday activity being convinced that it is true as a consequence of having observed it. In a sense, yes, I can figuratively say that "I have faith in classical electromagnetism", but not because I think classical electromagnetism is infailible, but because I have observed it making good predictions. I don't have faith that it will work, I have a) proof that it worked before and b) proof that the things now are just like they were before, when it worked. If I stumble upon a case when it doesn't, I will first check my understanding of classical electromagnetism and, after making sure it's correct, I'll try to see why the prediction was incorrect and review my options about the cause of the phenomenon I am observing. Contrast this with my faith in Othin: I haven't observed him anywhere, I'm yet to see a giant and I can't really test whether he exists or not. I carry on my everyday activity being convinced that he exists, but only as a consequence of my faith. If this religious system makes a wrong prediction, I will typically review my understanding of it, but no my doubts. No giants around? Yeah, 'cause Thor HAMMERED THEM ALL!!! YEAH! No one has seen Othin in a thousand years? Well he likes to wander as a stranger, maybe they didn't know it was him. Both mechanisms can fail, of course, but I think their possible failures stem from different origins and through vastly different mechanisms.

comice 13y ago
starts to get complicated when you start questioning what "observed" means. Can we observe a gene? We didn't used to be able to, now we can. Was it faith before we could observe it? Can we observe an electron? Or quantum particles? What about studying distance stars, or investigating past events? And where do empiricist get to the point of deciding that observing the world is something they can rely on? I don't genuinely hold any of these sceptical world views (nobody really does, do they) - these are mostly hard to answer/explain questions I keep getting thrown at me when I end up talking to serious creationists.
- weland 13y ago
  > Can we observe a gene? This implies that unless you can physically see it, then it's not observation. Trivial examples, such as the fact that you can tell that a door was open in a room because it's far colder than it should be and the door was the only way for cold air to get in, show that this is not generally as complicated. This is pretty much what happened with classical electromagnetism, too. I didn't pick up the example with Ohm's law just because I like it: it actually predates the discovery of the atom's structure. It made valid predictions about how things happen, based on observing only effects, not the underlying structures. They actually got much of the underlying structure wrong, but the predictions based on nothing but observed phenomenons rather than wishful thinking about ether turned out to be correct, even though their mechanism was explained about a century later. > Can we observe an electron? Or quantum particles? Actually, yes for both, we pretty much photograph them to know they exist. > And where do empiricist get to the point of deciding that observing the world is something they can rely on? They don't; or, rather, if any of them claims they do, they're full of shit IMO. For all we know, the world could indeed be an intricate illusion, in which case we're only deciphering the strange mechanism of our illusion. > I don't genuinely hold any of these sceptical world views (nobody really does, do they) - these are mostly hard to answer/explain questions I keep getting thrown at me when I end up talking to serious creationists. Yeah, I know the feeling. I've been asking myself all these questions, too, and many more, for years, since I began to seriously study philosophy. The abyss stares back at me every day :-).

leobelle 13y ago

Here come the faith bearing apologists who take believing what you see as faith, and then somehow twist that into making it ok to believe things you cannot see. Because it's all faith. When someone does this, you've encountered someone with a broken brain. Someone incapable of critical thought and meaningful dialog. Faith is not ok. Faith is a really bad way to come to conclusions. Faith is a measure of last resort. If people who believe in the supernatural had anything other than faith to cling to to validate their beliefs they would jump on it. Instead all they have is faith. All hundreds of thousands of belief systems out there with completely contradictory beliefs using the same flawed faith mechanism to live their life. You talk to Christian apologists, as an example, for any amount of time you get all kinds of nonsensical rubbish that sounds like they're validating their beliefs on eye-witness testimony from people long dead, to validate a belief that heaps and mountains of empirical evidence you yourself can verify contradict. It's like you wouldn't believe a living, breathing witness in court if their testimony contradicted a DNA result, a single piece of evidence. Yet happy feeling supernatural mumble jumbled about being able to come back from the dead because some people thousands of years ago said they saw someone come back from the dead is ok? No, that's them relying on faith. Faith is bad. You don't use it to fix real world problems. And no heuristics are not the same as faith, so don't go there. Anyway, these people will use their keyboards and talk here about all kinds of things, but you know, press them and their mental gymnastics will fall like a house of cards, exposing their flawed mental states. Empiricism doesn't require faith, and faith is a bad thing. Avoid faith whenever possible. Use a heuristic, and verify when you have the time, make sure it's sound.

pfortuny 13y ago
Oh, wait, you are inducing quite a few things about me. And the word "heuristics" is as meaningless to real knowldge as "pincarpion", by the way. Mhhhh.
- leobelle 13y ago
  > And the word "heuristics" is as meaningless to real knowldge as "pincarpion", by the way. And there you have it. pfortuny has declared"heuristics" in quotes and meaningless. Let's all black out that word with a felt tip marker in our dictionary. If you didn't have enough reasons to already not find pfortuny as credible, well now you have another.