(May 23, 2016 at 7:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: I didn't ask you about your beliefs.  I asked about your knowledge.  You have no knowledge of the object I was holding, regardless.  

I know, I was careful about my language. I described knowledge in relation to belief with conditional statements (starting with "if"). If you were telling the truth about holding some object, and I took you at your word, I would have knowledge of the fact that you are holding something. I'd be careful about attacking that idea, since about 99% of what the average person knows (maybe you're a scientist and that percentage is lower) about scientific phenomena is taken on the authority of the scientists actually collecting and analyzing the data. That is not a bad thing, and it is not some attempt to sneak "faith" into the discussion. I was answering your question in the most detailed way I could. Would you prefer something like "If I trust you..."?

But I do have some knowledge about the object you were holding, as long as you keep asserting that you were holding it. Until you tell me you weren't actually holding it... I know that you could hold it, and that you did hold it. In other words... I know that it is a thing that can be held.

Quote:You have knowledge of object you were holding.

Sure

Quote:Don't be obtuse.  

Ha! Couldn't resist.

Quote:Predictably, in our empirical experiment..you had no knowledge of the object for which you did not possess sense data.  

...except for all of the sense data that you gave me... like its weight not exceeding your ability to lift... that it is sensible to human beings, etc. Sure, I don't know what it is, its color, its shape, its smell, etc., but that doesn't mean I know nothing. Let's see where you take this:

Quote:You had knowledge of the object for which you did.  Care to run that experiment a few dozen times, a few thousand, a few million? This is precisely the sort of validation described in the first response to your question..where we consider empirical and non-empirical case claims against reality. It is breath-takingly simple to do so, and similarly easy to understand.

I think you need to refine your experiment (I get what you're trying to do, but you ironically demonstrated the opposite), and narrow it down to an aspect which actually requires my physical and personal sense observation (like color). By the way, what color was the thing you held up?

Quote:In the case above, had you layed claim to any knowledge of the object I was holding (rather than, say,.,knowledge of human beings - which I'm willing to bet you might have seen once or twice in your life, btw) you'd have quickly been shown to be bullshitting us..or, perhaps, the luckiest guesser in the history of guessing.

Well, would I have been correct that it was an object you can hold?

Perhaps your understanding of empiricism is unnecessarily narrow?

(May 20, 2016 at 11:52 am)robvalue Wrote: Such a statement [the OP] could be prefaced by, "It appears reasonable to conclude that..."…Science isn't about absolute certainty, it's about obtaining models and information which are as accurate as possible, beyond reasonable doubt.

I would agree. Here are some things from common experience of nature that I find completely evident:

Some things change and only things that actually exist can make changes happen.

People can observe things in nature that could possibly be or not be since those things can be appear, change, and then cease to be.

Under specific circumstances, unthinking things that cause change regularly produce a limited range of effects.

All of the above propositions rely on common observations. Because they are evident then by definition they count as evidence. As evidence they can serve as starting points to make reasonable conclusions about the world in which we all live. And yet this is the very evidence that some atheists, like RobValue, expect everyone to ignore. It is not that knowledge of God does not follow from empirical data; but rather, some people FEAR the conclusions that could be reasonably drawn from that data.

(May 20, 2016 at 4:40 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Given that the skeptics like Hume showed that pure reason is flawed,...

Referring to Hume to support one's position is a double-edged sword. His radical skepticism undermines the intelligibility of reality and the efficacy of reason.

(May 20, 2016 at 6:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Thus, reason (or math) is on no firmer footing even -if- empiricism is taken as axiomatic or argued to -be- axiomatic.  There are no absolutes, no assurances, to be found anywhere.  Reason cannot reasonably support itself...

Spoken like a true nihilist.

(May 23, 2016 at 9:29 am)Ignorant Wrote: I know, I was careful about my language. I described knowledge in relation to belief with conditional statements (starting with "if"). If you were telling the truth about holding some object, and I took you at your word, I would have knowledge of the fact that you are holding something.

Taking me at my word is irrelevant, and you don;t know that I was telling you the truth in the first place.  Maybe I was fucking with you and didn;t have anything in my hand at all. -If only you had some sense data, eh?  The irrelevencies of your credibility have nothing to say regarding the issue we are discussing.

Quote:I'd be careful about attacking that idea, since about 99% of what the average person knows (maybe you're a scientist and that percentage is lower) about scientific phenomena is taken on the authority of the scientists actually collecting and analyzing the data. That is not a bad thing, and it is not some attempt to sneak "faith" into the discussion. I was answering your question in the most detailed way I could. Would you prefer something like "If I trust you..."?

Maybe you should make sure the hare is in the loop before you try to spring the trap?  I would prefer that you discuss knowledge, and empirical validation of empirical knowledge claims....the subject of our discussion. Provided, ofc, you are attem[pting to respond to my comments. You can talk about kittens if you like, obviously.

Quote:But I do have some knowledge about the object you were holding, as long as you keep asserting that you were holding it. Until you tell me you weren't actually holding it... I know that you could hold it, and that you did hold it. In other words... I know that it is a thing that can be held.

You do not, you don;t even know if I was holding an object, as has been made painfully obvious.  You have knowledge of human beings and what they can hold.  Shall we run a similar experiment to determine the status of -that- knowledge, it's basis and validation within empiricism?

Quote:Ha! Couldn't resist.

LOL, hi-five!

Quote:...except for all of the sense data that you gave me... like its weight not exceeding your ability to lift... that it is sensible to human beings, etc. Sure, I don't know what it is, its color, its shape, its smell, etc., but that doesn't mean I know nothing. Let's see where you take this:

I gave you none, you still don't even know whether I was holding an object in the first place.  

Quote:I think you need to refine your experiment (I get what you're trying to do, but you ironically demonstrated the opposite), and narrow it down to an aspect which actually requires my physical and personal sense observation (like color). By the way, what color was the thing you held up?

I think it worked just fine.  If I provide you with sense data, by the way, then your knowledge will still be predicate upon sense data - and thus still empirical...and can then be used as yet another case example of empirical validition, of empirical knowledge claims relative to alternatives.  I won't.  

Quote:Well, would I have been correct that it was an object you can hold?

Perhaps your understanding of empiricism is unnecessarily narrow?

Would you have been, indeed.  If you could answer that question - then perhaps you'd have had some claim to knowledge, empirical or otherwise.  I gave you the wiki link..the time to disagree was then.  I asked you if it was the position of empiricism which you were looking to understand, rather than your impositions upon it, the time to disagree was then.  It was painfully easy to provide you with what you asked for - both in explanation and in elaboration. That empiricism was not what you thought it was, and you would now plead to have your impositions included, isn't any problem of mine.

@Chad....lol, you get enough arsenic down that hole, or do you think we might want to pour in a few more scoops just to make sure the water's properly lethal? Another observation, you're really bad at identifying positions that I hold, arent you? You seem to think that I'm a great many things...the last two examples of your guessing are pretty contradictory. I mean, I could only be one or the other - right...non-contradiction and all that?

(May 23, 2016 at 10:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: You seem to think that I'm a great many things...the last two examples of your guessing are pretty contradictory.  I mean, I could only be one or the other - right...non-contradiction and all that?

I read and interpret your posts, nothing more. If you are offended by being called a nihilist then you should refrain from advocating nihilistic ideas.
such as "...no absolutes, no assurances, to be found anywhere. Reason cannot reasonably support itself..." Your words, not mine.

delete double post

(May 23, 2016 at 10:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: Taking me at my word is irrelevant, and you don;t know that I was telling you the truth in the first place.  Maybe I was fucking with you and didn;t have anything in my hand at all. -If only you had some sense data, eh?  The irrelevencies of your credibility have nothing to say regarding the issue we are discussing.

Ha! This isn't helping you. If you were indeed lying to me about holding an object, you have given me evidence that your word is not trust-worthy. You would simply be considered a poor instrument for data collection. Maybe you're lying about what you accept as true? Maybe you're not even an empiricist! Maybe you're not even a human being? Worse... maybe you're a TROLL!

But if you were indeed holding something, and you told me that you were holding something, you've given me sense information. It's not that difficult. I'm sorry it didn't fit your analogous experiment... lighten up a bit maybe? I'm not even trying to assert some other sort of knowledge (if I take you at your word, I still have to do that through my sense experience of you telling me stuff), I was just answering your question... apparently more accurately than you would have liked.

Quote:Maybe you should make sure the hare is in the loop before you try to spring the trap?  I would prefer that you discuss knowledge, and empirical validation of empirical knowledge claims....the subject of our discussion. 

I am sorry, what trap? I am trying to discuss knowledge!

Quote:You do not, you don;t even know if I was holding an object, as has been made painfully obvious.  You have knowledge of human beings and what they can hold.  Shall we run a similar experiment to determine the status of -that- knowledge, it's basis and validation within empiricism?

Ya, ha! Now I am not so sure that you were holding an object, and I'm starting to wonder why I should trust any of the data you provide me with in the future (just like we do with poorly calibrated/malfunctioning instruments in the lab). You said you were holding an object, I took that as a trustworthy premise. You should have asked "Do you know what I am holding?", and I would have to simply say "no". We can start over there if you'd like. This is what bad epistemology leads to, people!

Quote:I gave you none, you still don't even know whether I was holding an object in the first place.  

Well sure. I didn't have any reason to doubt it before. Now I have every reason to doubt it, along with any other information you provide me with.

Quote:If I provide you with sense data, by the way, then your knowledge will still be predicate upon sense data - and thus still empirical...and can then be used as yet another case example of empirical validition, of empirical knowledge claims relative to alternatives.

I would have been very willing to agree with this before had you not been so shrouded with the fact of your holding-an-object. Now, I don't trust any sense data you would provide me with, as it has previously been predicated upon lies.

If your point was that sense knowledge requires sense data (which isn't controversial or interesting), then I agree with it. Does sense knowledge require immediate and direct sense data? I hope not, or else I better hit the lab early in the morning!

Quote:If you could answer that question - then perhaps you'd have had some claim to knowledge, empirical or otherwise.

Right, that was the point of asking it. Had you told me the answer, I could have empirical knowledge of the object you were holding, without any direct empirical experience of it myself. I don't know why you wouldn't want to tell me, but, because I know human beings better every day, I also know that they do weird things like this!

Quote:I asked you if it was the position of empiricism which you were looking to understand, rather than your impositions upon it, the time to disagree was then.

Then you misunderstood me. I was looking to understand how you understood empiricism. I consider myself an empiricist, but my epistemology isn't so narrow as to exclude additional human ways to knowledge. Remember, I'm OBTUSE not narrow!

Quote:That empiricism was not what you thought it was, and you would now plead to have your impositions included, isn't any problem of mine.

Of course not! But then again, I was never confused about empiricism. I was merely confused about individual empiricist's understanding of its empirical justification. Still waiting for a coherent account of that justification. The most coherent account has been Thumpalumpagus and Ben Davis (and probably others') assertion that it is axiomatic rather than an empirically demonstrated conclusion.

“Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses.” - Aquinas. (took me a while to find the quote). An empirical approach does not automatically exclude theological speculation. Aquinas, like Aristotle before him, based their logical demonstrations on observations of nature. If observations from nature do not count as evidence, then really nothing does, and atheist critics are just arbitrarily dismissing evidence they don't like.

(May 23, 2016 at 12:16 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Ha! This isn't helping you. If you were indeed lying to me about holding an object, you have given me evidence that your word is not trust-worthy. You would simply be considered a poor instrument for data collection. Maybe you're lying about what you accept as true? Maybe you're not even an empiricist! Maybe you're not even a human being? Worse... maybe you're a TROLL!

But if you were indeed holding something, and you told me that you were holding something, you've given me sense information. It's not that difficult. I'm sorry it didn't fit your analogous experiment... lighten up a bit maybe? I'm not even trying to assert some other sort of knowledge (if I take you at your word, I still have to do that through my sense experience of you telling me stuff), I was just answering your question... apparently more accurately than you would have liked.

...........................?  Okaaaaay.   So, kittens?

Quote:I am sorry, what trap? I am trying to discuss knowledge!

:looks up:

Quote:Ya, ha! Now I am not so sure that you were holding an object, and I'm starting to wonder why I should trust any of the data you provide me with in the future (just like we do with poorly calibrated/malfunctioning instruments in the lab). You said you were holding an object, I took that as a trustworthy premise. You should have asked "Do you know what I am holding?", and I would have to simply say "no". We can start over there if you'd like. This is what bad epistemology leads to, people!

You're only -now- starting to wonder whether you should trust a claim in the absence of sense data?  Perhaps you should have been a little bit more empirical?

Quote:I would have been very willing to agree with this before had you not been so shrouded with the fact of your holding-an-object. Now, I don't trust any sense data you would provide me with, as it has previously been predicated upon lies.

If your point was that sense knowledge requires sense data (which isn't controversial or interesting), then I agree with it. Does sense knowledge require immediate and direct sense data? I hope not, or else I better hit the lab early in the morning!

My point, was to provide empirical validation for the empirical position.  I did so.  

Quote:Right, that was the point of asking it. Had you told me the answer, I could have empirical knowledge of the object you were holding, without any direct empirical experience of it myself. I don't know why you wouldn't want to tell me, but, because I know human beings better every day, I also know that they do weird things like this!

You asked for a demonstration of how the position of empiricism could be empirically validated.  Now you're prevaricating.

Quote:Then you misunderstood me. I was looking to understand how you understood empiricism. I consider myself an empiricist, but my epistemology isn't so narrow as to exclude additional human ways to knowledge. Remember, I'm OBTUSE not narrow!

The time to disagree was before -you- clarified.   If that's not what you were after, then you had the time to say so, and your objections now to some other question are irrelevant as to whether or not you have been provided with what you asked for. Some empiricist you've turned out to be, making knowledge claims in the absence of sense data. Perhaps you should reconsider what you consider yourself to be?

Quote:Of course not! But then again, I was never confused about empiricism. I was merely confused about individual empiricist's understanding of its empirical justification. Still waiting for a coherent account of that justification. The most coherent account has been Thumpalumpagus and Ben Davis (and probably others') assertion that it is axiomatic rather than an empirically demonstrated conclusion.

That you came to that conclusion from Ben's statements..the first response to your question, the point upon which I've provided you with all of this additional clarity..is probably more to do with your need to assert as much than anything else. That said, you could take it as axiomatic if you like, it will hardly make any difference as to the outcome of a comparison between empirical and non-empirical claims, eh? There will still be an easy way to empirically verify empiricism as an axiomatic position.

@Chad, Atta boy, I thought you might want to toss some more poison in the well. Care to preempt any arguments made by some other group, by reference to their shady and nefarious motives - asserted by yourself, or do you reserve that for atheists?