Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?

[Faith No More]

Given that the skeptics like Hume showed that pure reason is flawed, I don't think it's all that important for a philosophy to be self-validating.  The true measurement of a philosophy is how functional it turns out to be.  Besides, every philosophy is going to have make axiomatic assumptions that it cannot validate, either empirically or philosophically.  Again, we determine the validity of those axioms by how functional they are.  That empiricism has led to unprecedented levels of knowledge that no other philosophy can come close to reaching speaks volumes to its functionality.

And the more we learn about the human mind, the more we understand how flawed it is at parsing reality, and it has become clear that the conclusions that our minds reach need some sort of validation.  The only way to do that is through empirical observation.

The only time I ever hear anyone argue against empiricism is if that person has made conclusions that cannot be validated empirically.  Why is that?

[Ignorant]

...The only time I ever hear anyone argue against empiricism is if that person has made conclusions that cannot be validated empirically.  Why is that?

I have no idea. You'll have to ask someone who is arguing against empiricism.

Thanks for your other thoughts. They bring up a new sort of validation, "functionalism". Some might call it pragmatism. Do you think that is included in the idea of empirical validation, or is it some other sort of validation?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ The OP.

Absolute knowledge is not possible outside of mathematical proof and logical proof by contradiction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Logical proofs are conditional, by their very nature -as- conditional statements, even proofs by contradiction. Depending on what you are referring to with the term absolute knowledge - even logic may not suffice.

"If, and, then" are the often unspoken beginnings of premises, assertions, and conclusions....and the underlying and similarly unspoken conditional...is that we even have the rules right to begin with. We have, in the past, found that we did not.

[Mr.wizard]

"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?

That is simply what I'd like to hear someone explain. Consider the bold proposition in the original post. Tell me how we know it's true.

Well if propositions can't be known as true unless they are verifiable, then the proposition in the OP is true because its verified by the evidence.

We can't know a  proposition to be true until we verify it, once we verify it via the evidence then it becomes know as true.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think we have to accept certain premises as axiomatic in order to function.

So the bold proposition in the OP is axiomatic rather than empirically verifiable?

In my view, yes.

Your mileage apparently varies?

[Edwardo Piet]

Logical proofs are conditional, by their very nature -as- conditional statements, even proofs by contradiction.  Depending on what you are referring to with the term absolute knowledge - even logic may not suffice.

"If, and, then" are the often unspoken beginnings of premises, assertions, and conclusions....and the underlying and similarly unspoken conditional...is that we even have the rules right to begin with.  We have, in the past, found that we did not.

All very true but the same applies to mathematics. 2+2=4 because 2 and 2 and 4 are actually the same thing. 2+2 is 'proven' to equal to 4 only if you also agree that an unmarried person is equal to a bachelor is 'proven'

Numbers are labels just like definitions are and definitions add up just like numbers do when they are tautological.

Mathematics and logic are ultimately absolute. We can't prove WHY 2+2 is 4 but we also can't prove WHY an unmarried person is a bachelor.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thus, reason (or math) is on no firmer footing even -if- empiricism is taken as axiomatic or argued to -be- axiomatic.  There are no absolutes, no assurances, to be found anywhere. Reason cannot reasonably support itself - it self describes the polar opposite.  It too, ultimately, hinges upon practicality. It's simply a way of organizing our thoughts to achieve an effect.

[Ben Davis]

Are original questions the only sort of questions welcome on this site? If so, let me know and I won't return (I am quite sure any question I [edit: would] have has been asked before).

Apologies for my peevishness. The question you asked and the manner in which you asked it seemed consistent with theistic troll posts. I jumped to a conclusion.

As to your response: What you describe does not seem like empirical validation of the original proposition. Rather, it seems like empirical validation of particular truths.

No, I'm talking about broad sets and meta-analysis. We have 2 sets: claimed-truths that have been empirically validated and claimed-truths that have not. If we examine the veracity of each set, we see that the preponderance of claimed-truths in the first set compare well to reality but the opposite is true of claimed-truths in the second. Consequently we can reasonably conclude that empirically validated truths are most likely to be true. Thus the proposition 'The truthfulness of all propositions must be empirically validated to count as knowledge' is empirically validated and may be considered a worthwhile axiom.

I haven't interacted with you yet on these forums. I just want to know what you think about these things. I am not presenting an argument.

Pleased to meet you.

[bennyboy]

It's annoying when catholics do this. Here's the process:
1) Show that not all propositions require evidence.
2) Put forward Sky Daddy, proclaiming "Not all propositions require evidence," absolving self of the BOP.

Informally, all propositions require a reason for their acceptance. If it's a proposition about something claimed to exist, then evidence of its existence will be required.

Here's the thing, though, and I've said it before: if the God idea depends on deep philosophy and logical trickery for its support, then God has done nothing for me lately, and can be disregarded. The proposition that God exists is irrelevant to me if that existence doesn't matter to my life.