4 ms·

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.

by 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 :-).

by weland 13y ago

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 :-).