The Resurrection

[Alan V]

Philosophers keep insisting the world should be logical.  Empiricists describe what they see, whether it seems to make sense or not.  That is a kind of knowledge of the world.

Empiricists describe what they see, and they know that the evidence of the senses is far from reliable. So to get to anything like science or useful engineering, "what they see" must be analyzed and interpreted through logical and theoretical frameworks. 

If you say simply that they describe what they see, and this is knowledge, you're still doing the circular logic bit. Empiricists hold that knowledge BEGINS in the evidence of the senses but if it stopped there it wouldn't be knowledge. 

As a well-known philosopher said, "Nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses." So what you're arguing here, that empiricism is the best way of knowing, is a philosophical argument. You are doing philosophy.

Actually what I was doing was pointing out that empiricism isn't circular since it is grounded in observation.  "I am sitting in my basement" is a fact (right now).  That is a kind of knowledge all by itself, philosophy aside.  So no, I was not doing philosophy when I made my statement of fact.

It is taken for granted that we simultaneously interpret as we observe.  That is how Descartes decided that the pineal gland was the seat of the soul.  He was certainly doing philosophy, but without enough information.  Interpreting is not the basis of empiricism, observation is whether we interpret it or not -- or make sense of it or not as I said above.

Yes, there are all sorts of steps after that, as you pointed out, but I was emphasizing the basis of empiricism in facts. The problem with ambiguous information is dealt with statistically, for instance, with all of the ambiguities included. After all, ambiguities are also facts.

One of the problems is that philosophers always want the facts to be more definite and conclusive than they really are. So of course they think other people are doing the same thing, people like empiricists and materialists. I think they are projecting when they accuse us of overreaching.

[Angrboda]

Empiricists describe what they see, and they know that the evidence of the senses is far from reliable. So to get to anything like science or useful engineering, "what they see" must be analyzed and interpreted through logical and theoretical frameworks. 

If you say simply that they describe what they see, and this is knowledge, you're still doing the circular logic bit. Empiricists hold that knowledge BEGINS in the evidence of the senses but if it stopped there it wouldn't be knowledge. 

As a well-known philosopher said, "Nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses." So what you're arguing here, that empiricism is the best way of knowing, is a philosophical argument. You are doing philosophy.

Actually what I was doing was pointing out that empiricism isn't circular since it is grounded in observation.  "I am sitting in my basement" is a fact (right now).  That is a kind of knowledge all by itself, philosophy aside.  So no, I was not doing philosophy when I made my statement of fact.

It is taken for granted that we simultaneously interpret as we observe.  That is how Descartes decided that the pituitary gland was the seat of the soul.  He was certainly doing philosophy, but without enough information.  Interpreting is not the basis of empiricism, observation is, whether we interpret it or not -- or make sense of it or not as I said above.

Grounded in observation is worth nothing unless empiricism is entirely grounded in observation. Beliefs about what is or isn't knowledge are philosophical by their very nature. You could be sitting in your basement, or you could be hallucinating, or you could be dreaming. Observation by itself isn't knowledge except in the most colloquial sense of the word. It's not even information. True and false perceptions may appear to consciousness to be the same, so the act of perception doesn't become knowledge all by itself. You seem to be of the opinion that there's some bright line between having an opinion about observation and "doing philosophy." There isn't. They are just different forms of the same thing. And the former is typically just an inferior version of the latter.

[The Grand Nudger]

At the dawn of christianity we're explicitly told by credible christian authorities that the magic and spells and wonders were exactly why they believed that the story was true. To borrow from the same feeling expressed in so many ot psalms, "who, but a god?". That god was capable of the technologically impossible not just in practice but in principle was central to it's identity as god, as christian theology and theologians then understood divinity and their world.

[Alan V]

Grounded in observation is worth nothing unless empiricism is entirely grounded in observation.  Beliefs about what is or isn't knowledge are philosophical by their very nature.  You could be sitting in your basement, or you could be hallucinating, or you could be dreaming.  Observation by itself isn't knowledge except in the most colloquial sense of the word.  It's not even information.  True and false perceptions may appear to consciousness to be the same, so the act of perception doesn't become knowledge all by itself.  You seem to be of the opinion that there's some bright line between having an opinion about observation and "doing philosophy."  There isn't.  They are just different forms of the same thing.  And the former is typically just an inferior version of the latter.

What you say may be true of philosophers, but it is not true of empiricists and materialists, who define knowledge more in terms of probabilities rather than certainties.

[Angrboda]

At the dawn of christianity we're explicitly told by credible christian authorities that the magic and spells and wonders were exactly why they believed that the story was true.  To borrow from the same feeling expressed in so many ot psalms, "who, but a god?".   That god was capable of the technologically impossible not just in practice but in principle was central to it's identity as god, as christian theology and theologians then understood divinity and their world.

And?

[Angrboda]

Grounded in observation is worth nothing unless empiricism is entirely grounded in observation.  Beliefs about what is or isn't knowledge are philosophical by their very nature.  You could be sitting in your basement, or you could be hallucinating, or you could be dreaming.  Observation by itself isn't knowledge except in the most colloquial sense of the word.  It's not even information.  True and false perceptions may appear to consciousness to be the same, so the act of perception doesn't become knowledge all by itself.  You seem to be of the opinion that there's some bright line between having an opinion about observation and "doing philosophy."  There isn't.  They are just different forms of the same thing.  And the former is typically just an inferior version of the latter.

What you say may be true of philosophers, but it is not true of empiricists and materialists, who define knowledge more in terms of probabilities rather than certainties.

What in God's name does this have to do with anything? There is no bright line separating the two. You're just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

Many philosophers are or were empiricists or materialists. You're introducing a false dichotomy.

[The Grand Nudger]

As in and then, or relevance to the overall discussion? And then materialism happened. They were already rationalists and empiricists....or we can charitably grant that they were attempting those practices...but they also happened to be spiritualists. To the overall discussion, it shows the pointlessness of arguing over whether or not materialism is true or is well evidenced. In any christian assertion it is false in principle. Thus an example of technological possibility is not informative with respect to the capabilities or limitations..if there are any, of spiritual possibility.

[Angrboda]

As in and then, or relevance to the overall discussion?  And then materialism happened.  They were already rationalists and empiricists....or we can charitably grant that they were attempting those practices...but they also happened to be spiritualists.  To the overall discussion, it shows the pointlessness of arguing over whether or not materialism is true or is well evidenced.  In any christian assertion it is false in principle.  Thus an example of technological possibility is not informative with respect to the capabilities or limitations..if there are any, of spiritual possibility.

Again with the appeal to ignorance. Christianity may be the context here, but if your argument only holds relative to this specific context and not more generally, then it's not a good argument. And no, reasonable people don't disagree that invalid arguments are bad arguments. Reasonable people generally agree on that when they understand it to be the question.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not a good argument for what? I think it's pretty good at explaining why technological events or possibilities don't speak to or improve a claim of spiritual events or possibilities. Both parties know that they're not the same or even similar things. That the spiritualists now find themselves looking for materialist grounding is, I think, instructive as to the success of materialism in the development of western philosophy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It is empirically evident that this thread is no longer about The Resurrection.

Boru