Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?

[robvalue]

Useful, practical knowledge about reality has been extremely highly correlated with empirical evidence and the scientific method. That is good evidence that evidence is good.

Results obtained this way tend to converge, and improve understanding. Results obtained in "other" ways tend to diverge and don't achieve anything practical.

When evidence is used to build the premises, and not later included to test a hypothesis, that's when we get pseudo-science.

[Ignorant]

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

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

Great!

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?

If I believe you, then I have the knowledge that the object exists in such a way that a human being can hold it up, that you can hold it up, and that you are holding it up. If I don't believe you, then I have no knowledge of it at all.

Whatever I hold up, I would know that it exists, that I can hold it, that I am holding it, and any other sensory information it may offer according to whatever it may be.

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

This comparison seems is a peculiar sort of evidence. What does it mean to empirically compare a non-empirical case to an empirical case? Which cases are we talking about?

[Ignorant]

Useful, practical knowledge about reality has been extremely highly correlated with empirical evidence and the scientific method. That is good evidence that evidence is good.

Well of course it is evidence that empiricism reliably produces practical knowledge! The scientific method and its effects have been one of the greatest achievements of humanity. How did the scientific method come about? Did it fall from the sky? =)

Results obtained this way tend to converge, and improve understanding. Results obtained in "other" ways tend to diverge and don't achieve anything practical.

I agree with that. The OP asked about the idea that empiricism is the ONLY way to obtain true knowledge. Did some results of the method converge on that conclusion?

When evidence is used to build the premises, and not later included to test a hypothesis, that's when we get pseudo-science.

Can you say more about that?

[Ben Davis]

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.

Then onwards!

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

Your discussions with the better educated & seasoned philosophers on the board have teased out where I was leading: empiricism is axiomatic in the type of philosophically rational, material-naturalist worldview from which the scientific method was born. The practical results are testimony to its efficacy and validate the proposition in the OP.

[robvalue]

Well of course it is evidence that empiricism reliably produces practical knowledge! The scientific method and its effects have been one of the greatest achievements of humanity. How did the scientific method come about? Did it fall from the sky? =)

I don't know if this is a serious question of not. It came about by people trying different things and honing on in on the best available method.

I agree with that. The OP asked about the idea that empiricism is the ONLY way to obtain true knowledge. Did some results of the method converge on that conclusion?

I don't understand this question, sorry. I don't think the OP idea is accurate anyway, knowledge about abstract systems does not need empirical data.

When evidence is used to build the premises, and not later included to test a hypothesis, that's when we get pseudo-science.

Can you say more about that?

Sure. The scientific method makes observations, then makes premises based on those observations (a hypothesis), then makes testable predictions based on those premises, then goes back to reality in order to check their accuracy.

Attempts to sidestep the method by using just logical arguments, such as the cosmological argument, omit the vital prediction and testing parts. They do not validate the accuracy of their premises, they simply assume them, and in doing so assume their conclusion.

[Edwardo Piet]

The whole notion of a self-validating epistemology is silly. Circular 'knowing' does no better than circular logic.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I believe you, then I have the knowledge that the object exists in such a way that a human being can hold it up, that you can hold it up, and that you are holding it up. If I don't believe you, then I have no knowledge of it at all.

I didn't ask you about your beliefs.  I asked about your knowledge.  You have no knowledge of the object I was holding, regardless.  

Whatever I hold up, I would know that it exists, that I can hold it, that I am holding it, and any other sensory information it may offer according to whatever it may be.

You have knowledge of object you were holding.

This comparison seems is a peculiar sort of evidence. What does it mean to empirically compare a non-empirical case to an empirical case? Which cases are we talking about?

Don't be obtuse.  An empirical case would be a case where sense data is available.  A non-empirical case would be one where it is not.  Predictably, in our empirical experiment..you had no knowledge of the object for which you did not possess sense data.  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.

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"because NOT all propositions are subject to empirical validation, only some"

But not all propositions are true or count as knowledge. Name a proposition that is known to be true that is not verifiable? Then tell me how we know it's true?

The Principle of Non-Contadiction is a self-evident justified belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is no way self-evident, in context.  It is, ofc, evident. Take the common example of married bachelors. It is not by reference to the claim that there are no married bachelors or by invoking the law of non-contradiction that we establish the truth of the claim, but by description of what those terms refer.

[Ignorant]

It is no way self-evident, in context.  It is, ofc, evident.  Take the common example of married bachelors.  It is not by reference to the claim that there are no married bachelors or by invoking the law of non-contradiction that we establish the truth of the claim, but by description of what those terms refer.

That is actually the definition of self-evidence: the understanding of terms (i.e. to what they refer) makes the truth of the proposition understood as true. The "evidence" is contained within the meaning of the terms and their relation to each other... self-contained evidence... self-evidence...