Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?

[Edwardo Piet]

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 - it self describes the polar opposite.  It too, ultimately, hinges upon practicality.  It's simply a way of organizing our thoughts to achieve an effect.

Yep, I agree. But reason (including math) doesn't need to prove itself... That really would be unreasonable.

2+2 being identical to 4, bachelors being unmarried and all other tautologies, both mathematical and semantical, is as sound a premise as you can get.

If someone tells me I have no proof of the truth of the premise that 2+2 is 4, that bachelors are unmarried or that existence is existent I respond to them with simply "If you think any alternative to the truth of these premises is possible then I don't know what on earth you are talking about."

2+2 being 4, bachelors being unmarried, existence being existent -- these are all things that are so absolutely 100% true and known by definition that to ask proof of them doesn't even make any sense. It's like asking to prove that A=A.

There is one kind of premise only, both mathematically and logically, that is 100% sound: And that is a premise that is a tautology/true by definition. The only way anyone can even try to disagree (and always fail) with tautologies is by equivocating: meaning they aren't actually talking about the same thing, and they aren't actually disagreeing, they are just talking about something else and thinking they are disagreeing

E.G. The only way to disagree with the statement that "All light things are light" is if one person is meaning "all light things are not dark" and the other person is meaning "all light things are not heavy" but then both people are talking about two different things, so it is not even a disagreement of logic, it is just a disagreement of semantics: A misunderstanding.

[Ignorant]

That is simply what I'd like to hear someone explain. Consider the bold proposition in the original post. Tell me how we know it's true.

Well if propositions can't be known as true unless they are verifiable, then the proposition in the OP is true because its verified by the evidence.

We can't know a  proposition to be true until we verify it, once we verify it via the evidence then it becomes know as true.

To which evidence (if any) would you point as validation of the OP proposition?

[Ignorant]

So the bold proposition in the OP is axiomatic rather than empirically verifiable?

In my view, yes.

Your mileage apparently varies?

Actually, no, I don't think mine varies. It seems to me that the OP must be axiomatic, but I'm open to hearing someone else explain why they think otherwise.

[Ignorant]

Apologies for my peevishness. The question you asked and the manner in which you asked it seemed consistent with theistic troll posts. I jumped to a conclusion.

Apology accepted! It is not fun taking heat for the conduct of internet trolls, but I completely understand the conclusion to which you jumped. It doesn't seem like there are many people on the internet who honestly just want to know what other people think. I'm not perfect with it, but I try to understand. Thanks again for the kind apology.

No, I'm talking about broad sets and meta-analysis. We have 2 sets: claimed-truths that have been empirically validated and claimed-truths that have not. If we examine the veracity of each set, we see that the preponderance of claimed-truths in the first set compare well to reality but the opposite is true of claimed-truths in the second. Consequently we can reasonably conclude that empirically validated truths are most likely to be true. Thus the proposition 'The truthfulness of all propositions must be empirically validated to count as knowledge' is empirically validated and may be considered a worthwhile axiom.

Consider what I bolded/underlined. What sort of process and comparison does this entail? Empirical? Observational? Rational?

Pleased to meet you.

Likewise!

[Ignorant]

It's annoying when catholics do this.  Here's the process:
1)  Show that not all propositions require evidence.
2)  Put forward Sky Daddy, proclaiming "Not all propositions require evidence," absolving self of the BOP.

Informally, all propositions require a reason for their acceptance.  If it's a proposition about something claimed to exist, then evidence of its existence will be required.

Here's the thing, though, and I've said it before: if the God idea depends on deep philosophy and logical trickery for its support, then God has done nothing for me lately, and can be disregarded.  The proposition that God exists is irrelevant to me if that existence doesn't matter to my life.

I have no intention of either (1) or (2). I especially agree with the bold part.

[The Grand Nudger]

To which evidence (if any) would you point as validation of the OP proposition?

The OP proposition that -you- formed (someone who actually holds the position you constrained would likely phrase it in significantly different ways)............lol?  Is there a problem with the evidence already described to you, in what..the first or second post in this thread?

[Ignorant]

The OP proposition that -you- formed (someone who actually holds the position you constrained would likely phrase it in significantly different ways)............lol?

Good point: How would you phrase it?

Is there a problem with the evidence already described to you, in what..the first or second post in this thread?

Well, are you satisfied with the evidence? Can you articulate the evidence from the first/second post (I really can't)?

[The Grand Nudger]

Good point: How would you phrase it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're angling for empirical validation of empiricism, yes?  

Well, are you satisfied with the evidence? Can you articulate the evidence from the first/second post (I really can't)?

Related to the above, am I satisfied with the evidence supporting the position of empiricism?

[Ignorant]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're angling for empirical validation of empiricism, yes?  

Sure.

Related to the above, am I satisfied with the evidence supporting the position of empiricism?

No. Are you satisfied with the evidence provided in the 1st/2nd post you referred to earlier? Then I asked if you could identify that evidence because it is rather vague to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure.

Okay...

Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I'm holding up an object, right now.  What knowledge do you have of the object I'm holding? 
Hold something up yourself.  What knowledge do you have of the object -you- are holding?  

No. Are you satisfied with the evidence provided in the 1st/2nd post you referred to earlier? Then I asked if you could identify that evidence because it is rather vague to me.

Yes.  Comparing non-empirical cases to empirical cases...empirically, as we did above, I think that you will find a trend.