RE: An Essay about Atheism in Latin
October 31, 2019 at 7:02 am
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2019 at 7:41 am by The Grand Nudger.)
If you know it, you can show it. If you can't, you strongly believe it, and it may even be true....but you don't know it. OFC this matter of definition can be empirically validated.
Do people who lack empirical validation get an answer right at a rate greater than chance or a control group that -does- possess empirical validation? Is there a requirement that a proposition be sound for any conclusion that follows to be true and therefore count as knowledge?
No and yes, respectively, and it's not difficult to empirically test for that. Even the act of looking up definitions is an empirical test. The only "non emperical" way that people get to right answers is by flat out guessing....but it's difficult to assert that past sense experience isn't informing a current guess, too.
Whether empiricism can be empirically validated is kindof a softball question. Yeah, it can, and has been. Cognitive science is a thing. One has to wonder why that would matter, though. Most systems meet their own self created and self serving requirements, regardless of their truth content or suitability to be called knowledge. Meanwhile, the world is full of creatures that lack any mechanism for rationality, and yet they possess some form of cognition and at least appear to know true things. Like where dinner is at, lol.
The dispute between empiricists and rationalists made more sense when we knew less about ourselves and other life. You can go ahead and empirically validate that proposition too, yourself. In contemporary philosophy, there is no necessary dichotomy between the two. A person can be both an empiricist and a rationalist, insisting that the two are complimentary rather than contradictory. Accepting that the contents of our minds are filled by sense experience, and that our rational faculty provides information about the relationships between those contents. Knowledge, in the sense that philosophy discusses knowledge, requires them both.
That's the value of science. Generating sound propositions to play with...and yes...this proposition is also subject to empirical validation.
Do people who lack empirical validation get an answer right at a rate greater than chance or a control group that -does- possess empirical validation? Is there a requirement that a proposition be sound for any conclusion that follows to be true and therefore count as knowledge?
No and yes, respectively, and it's not difficult to empirically test for that. Even the act of looking up definitions is an empirical test. The only "non emperical" way that people get to right answers is by flat out guessing....but it's difficult to assert that past sense experience isn't informing a current guess, too.
Whether empiricism can be empirically validated is kindof a softball question. Yeah, it can, and has been. Cognitive science is a thing. One has to wonder why that would matter, though. Most systems meet their own self created and self serving requirements, regardless of their truth content or suitability to be called knowledge. Meanwhile, the world is full of creatures that lack any mechanism for rationality, and yet they possess some form of cognition and at least appear to know true things. Like where dinner is at, lol.
The dispute between empiricists and rationalists made more sense when we knew less about ourselves and other life. You can go ahead and empirically validate that proposition too, yourself. In contemporary philosophy, there is no necessary dichotomy between the two. A person can be both an empiricist and a rationalist, insisting that the two are complimentary rather than contradictory. Accepting that the contents of our minds are filled by sense experience, and that our rational faculty provides information about the relationships between those contents. Knowledge, in the sense that philosophy discusses knowledge, requires them both.
That's the value of science. Generating sound propositions to play with...and yes...this proposition is also subject to empirical validation.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
