Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

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

:looks up:

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?

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.  

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.

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?

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?