Empiricism Supported Empirically

[Haven]

One of the most common objections by theist apologists to epistemological empiricism is that empiricism fails to meet its own standard: it can't be supported empirically, and therefore is self-refuting.

This criticism, however, is simply false -- the truth of empiricism can indeed be demonstrated empirically.

One must look no further than science -- an enterprise firmly rooted in epistemological empiricism -- to demonstrate this. Through the use of the empirically based scientific method, researchers produce useful, repeatable results, both in matters of purely theoretical importance (such as the validation of inflation) and in more practical, down-to-Earth areas (such as vaccines, cancer treatments, and air travel, among many others). Science also succeeds where non-empirical epistemic methods, including pure rationalism, postmodernism, religion, tradition, and authority, fail (when have any of these methods produced practical results on the level of science?), which gives us strong empirical warrant to prefer it to these alternatives.

Based on this, it is undeniable that empirically based epistemic procedures that work can be said to access possess pragmatic truth (p-truth for short) and thus lead individuals to pragmatic knowledge (p-knowledge).

It seems to be logically necessary that p-truth must, at the very least, closely approximate Truth (that which corresponds to reality), as the procedures that discover p-truth manipulate reality in some specific way in a predictable, consistent, and repeatable manner. It seems highly unlikely that procedures that repeatably lead to predictable, reliable results would be unrelated to the workings of reality.

This presents the possibility for individuals to obtain, with a high (but not absolute) degree of certainty, objective knowledge (o-knowledge) of Truth.

Furthermore, these successful procedures will be based on some belief about the nature of reality, and insofar as the procedures are successful and seem to mesh with one (and only one) theoretical model of reality, individuals also have some warrant to accept the underlying model as True (with a high, but not absolute, degree of certainty). Again, this is how science works, and how scientific theories (such as evolution, atomic theory, and germ theory) are supported.

The reliability and repeatable success of the scientific enterprise, and the possibility of accessing not only p-truth but also Truth through empirical means, seem to provide empirical support for epistemological empiricism, thus defeating apologists' claims that it's self-refuting.

Debate question: Has empiricism been empirically demonstrated to be true? Is empiricism self-refuting?

[Divine Insight]

Has empiricism been empirically demonstrated to be true?

In philosophy how can you determine that anything is actually true in any sort of absolute sense of reality?

It seems to me that that at best all we can say is that empiricism has been demonstrated to be historically consistent, and has never been falsified in any experiment.

That's probably as close to "truth" as we could ever hope to obtain.

Is empiricism self-refuting?

It's definitely not self-refuting. What it might potentially be is self-supporting. It could potentially be said to be 'circular' in a sense. But then what aspect reality wouldn't be? Can we even imagine any concept that would not be circular? Even a God would need to be circular (i.e. dependent upon itself for its own existence).

But it's definitely not self-refuting. Is there an argument for this claim laid out in detail anywhere? If such an argument exists it surely must have holes. How could empiricism empirically refute itself? I'd like to see the argument for this.

[instantc]

Empiricism cannot be supported empirically, for empirical support logically presupposes empiricism. Nor does the fact that it functions in terms of building things provide any indication as to it's truth value. A skitzophrenic may come up with a system that appears to him to improve his communication with aliens who have taken over the white house, but just because it works within the realm of his imagination does not mean that it has any truth value.

[Mr.Badham]

Empiricism cannot be supported empirically, for empirical support logically presupposes empiricism. Nor does the fact that it functions in terms of building things provide any indication as to it's truth value. A skitzophrenic may come up with a system that appears to him to improve his communication with aliens who have taken over the white house, but just because it works within the realm of his imagination does not mean that it has any truth value.

The question then becomes, not how does the skitsophrenic show this, but rather what makes people believe there is such a thing as skitsophrenia?

[instantc]

Empiricism cannot be supported empirically, for empirical support logically presupposes empiricism. Nor does the fact that it functions in terms of building things provide any indication as to it's truth value. A skitzophrenic may come up with a system that appears to him to improve his communication with aliens who have taken over the white house, but just because it works within the realm of his imagination does not mean that it has any truth value.

The question then becomes, not how does the skitsophrenic show this, but rather what makes people believe there is such a thing as skitsophrenia?

When a thousand people see a tree and one person doesn't, it seems rational to conclude that the one person is not perceiving reality correctly.

[bluethread]

Empiricism cannot be supported empirically, for empirical support logically presupposes empiricism. Nor does the fact that it functions in terms of building things provide any indication as to it's truth value. A skitzophrenic may come up with a system that appears to him to improve his communication with aliens who have taken over the white house, but just because it works within the realm of his imagination does not mean that it has any truth value.

The question then becomes, not how does the skitsophrenic show this, but rather what makes people believe there is such a thing as skitsophrenia?

When a thousand people see a tree and one person doesn't, it seems rational to conclude that the one person is not perceiving reality correctly.

Most people do not "sees" their own noses when both of their eyes are open, even though it is within the visual range of both eyes. Does this mean that one's nose is not there when one is alone without a mirror?

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to instantc]

What about Galileo? He saw things no one else did, and was excommunicated for it. Now everyone believes as he did.

Empiricism is not a philosophy. Empiricism is the default position. My sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing will tell me what is real.

If you think there is something true outside of those senses, I guess you'll have to explain it in a way that I can't see, smell, touch, taste or hear.

Go ahead, I dare you.

[instantc]

[Replying to instantc]

What about Galileo? He saw things no one else did, and was excommunicated for it. Now everyone believes as he did.

What I'm talking about is bunch of people staring at the same spot, some of them seeing, touching and smelling an elephant while the others don't. How do you determine who is insane and who is not? Empiricism isn't going to help you much, is it?

Empiricism is not a philosophy. Empiricism is the default position. My sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing will tell me what is real.

But in order to justify that you'd need to appeal to some other epistemology besides empiricism. As I said, empiricism does not support empiricism.

If you think there is something true outside of those senses, I guess you'll have to explain it in a way that I can't see, smell, touch, taste or hear.

Go ahead, I dare you.

It's not that I think there is something outside those senses, what I am saying is that the position of our sensory experience being the ultimate judge of reality cannot be justified empirically. Thus, one should consider ideas like foundationalism.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to instantc]

What about Galileo? He saw things no one else did, and was excommunicated for it. Now everyone believes as he did.

What I'm talking about is bunch of people staring at the same spot, some of them seeing, touching and smelling an elephant while the others don't. How do you determine who is insane and who is not? Empiricism isn't going to help you much, is it?

Empiricism is not a philosophy. Empiricism is the default position. My sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing will tell me what is real.

But in order to justify that you'd need to appeal to some other epistemology besides empiricism. As I said, empiricism does not support empiricism.

If you think there is something true outside of those senses, I guess you'll have to explain it in a way that I can't see, smell, touch, taste or hear.

Go ahead, I dare you.

It's not that I think there is something outside those senses, what I am saying is that the position of our sensory experience being the ultimate judge of reality cannot be justified empirically. Thus, one should consider ideas like foundationalism.

If you Wikipedia Foundationalism, and then click on "Justified Belief" and then click on" Experience", up comes the words "Empirical knowledge". What???

[instantc]

[Replying to instantc]

What about Galileo? He saw things no one else did, and was excommunicated for it. Now everyone believes as he did.

What I'm talking about is bunch of people staring at the same spot, some of them seeing, touching and smelling an elephant while the others don't. How do you determine who is insane and who is not? Empiricism isn't going to help you much, is it?

Empiricism is not a philosophy. Empiricism is the default position. My sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing will tell me what is real.

But in order to justify that you'd need to appeal to some other epistemology besides empiricism. As I said, empiricism does not support empiricism.

If you think there is something true outside of those senses, I guess you'll have to explain it in a way that I can't see, smell, touch, taste or hear.

Go ahead, I dare you.

It's not that I think there is something outside those senses, what I am saying is that the position of our sensory experience being the ultimate judge of reality cannot be justified empirically. Thus, one should consider ideas like foundationalism.

If you Wikipedia Foundationalism, and then click on "Justified Belief" and then click on" Experience", up comes the words "Empirical knowledge". What???

Can you elaborate on your point?