(June 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm)eric209 Wrote: I am going to individually address your claims
I think there is a fundamental problem with any approach that states that there must be at least some doubt in any empirical statement.
A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. The validity of any statement always depends upon further experience and observation. In order to build a more complex body of knowledge from these direct observations, we must make use of induction, also known as indirect empirical knowledge. We never have a empiricall statement we can say is unequivocally true. We only have theories that have stood the test of time.
When I give an empirical truth you defeat it with an abstract example.
I would not have defeated it if it was unequivocally true. My example was intended not to defeat you but to show you the value of empirical data. It has a value but it is not 100%. Nothing empirical is ever beyond doubt.
This due to a contradiction: If everything is in someway doubtful, then why not doubt this very phrase? It seems self defeating!!
This is a false equivocation on your part. Certain things are highly doubtful while other things are so infinitesimally doubtful they do not require consideration or notice.
However, let us take your supposition that the real world we perceive, absolutely everything, is just a mirage in a machine in a real world. Then it becomes impossible to estimate the probability of this machine existing. Imagine what the beings in this world would decide based upon their empirical measurements . They would deduce that such a machine did not exist or that it was highly improbable. In this world, however, the probability that the machine exists is 100%!!
Now you seemed to totally have glossed over the point i was making. There is always a possibility that something that was empirical observed will be due to our limitations in observing or sensing. A non hypothetically example if you will...
When our understanding of the world was much less then it is now men believed the world to be flat. They based this on empirical data that everywhere they looked it seemed rather flat. This continues to be an empirical statement. This statement was not proven untrue until someone observed with instruments finer then our own senses. This contradiction makes the statement false. There are still people that believe the world is flat and our instruments are wrong. This is an example of a highly unlikely statement.
Diffidus:
[i] This due to a contradiction: If everything is in someway doubtful, then why not doubt this very phrase? It seems self defeating!!
This is a false equivocation on your part. Certain things are highly doubtful while other things are so infinitesimally doubtful they do not require consideration or notice.[/i]
No - there was no error in the logic - which is why I used the word 'someway'.
Now you seemed to totally have glossed over the point i was making. There is always a possibility that something that was empirical observed will be due to our limitations in observing or sensing. A non hypothetically example if you will...
When our understanding of the world was much less then it is now men believed the world to be flat. They based this on empirical data that everywhere they looked it seemed rather flat. This continues to be an empirical statement. This statement was not proven untrue until someone observed with instruments finer then our own senses. This contradiction makes the statement false. There are still people that believe the world is flat and our instruments are wrong. This is an example of a highly unlikely statement.
Yet the fact is world was not flat. My central point is how do you know from empirical observation what the probability of an un-measured quantity such as the 'flatness of the earth' actually is. Your assumption is that, at any moment in history, if you cannot measure a phenomena directly then there is only a small probability that such a phenomena exists. My contention is that history shows the complete reverse. If we knew we were close to the edge of all knowledge, then and only then, may we state with any confidence, that certain proposed phenomena (that we currently cannot measure) have a low probability of existence. But we do not know where on this scale we are and, therefore, just like the flat earth 'high probabilities' of the past we must acknowledge our ignorance and refrain from making bold statements.
Empirical knowledge can only be used to defeat a proposition such as, 'Is the Earth flat?' when a measurement exists which refutes it.
With a statement such as, ' Does God exist'? we currently have no measurement which demonstrates this, and so we cannot be certain on its probability unless we adopt a 'flat earth' mentality.
Finally, although empirical knowledge is important, it is not the only source of truth. Much of science is not based upon empirical measurement it is based upon models which derive their knowledge from more abstract and intuitive sources. A statement such as, the earth is smaller than the universe that contains it, is absolutely true and, as such, is a form of knowledge that should not be ignored. We can only utter statements about 'things in the world'. Whether the statements are true, depend on our reasoning which may or may not employ empirical data. I think relying completely on empirical data is a false representation of the Human condition. What I mean by this is most aptly exemplified by Albert Einstein, who when asked if everything could be empirically represented, he replied, 'yes it could. But what use would it be? It would be like representing a Beethoven Symphony as an air pressure curve'
