Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 25, 2016 at 10:01 am
(May 25, 2016 at 2:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Yes, the differences come about because mathematics creates precise abstract logical systems, whereas most claims of knowledge about reality are tentative and probabilistic.
I like the qualifier "most". I can agree that knowledge claims about reality follow from a posteriori observations. So my question to you is this. Do you dispute any of the common observations about reality I previously mentioned and why?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-43125-po...pid1282133
Posts: 8272
Threads: 47
Joined: September 12, 2015
Reputation:
42
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 26, 2016 at 5:41 am
(May 20, 2016 at 5:02 am)Ignorant Wrote: Consider the proposition:
"The truthfulness of all propositions must be empirically validated to count as knowledge."
If the above proposition is known as true, then it must be (as a proposition) subject to empirical validation. <= Is that the case?
If it is the case, how was it empirically validated?
If it does not require empirical validation, AND it is known to be true, then there seems to be a proposition (that one) whose truthfulness is known without empirical validation.
If that is true, then the original proposition is false (because NOT all propositions are subject to empirical validation, only some)
What do we think?
Because it is an axiom, not an argument. The principle of empirical validation has been so successful for determining accuracy in so msny fields that the truth of the axion has been established beyond doubt.
And, as Ben pointed out already, the empirical evidence is its utility in every other field.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Posts: 2281
Threads: 16
Joined: January 17, 2010
Reputation:
69
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 26, 2016 at 6:18 am
(May 26, 2016 at 5:41 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: And, as Ben pointed out already, the empirical evidence is its utility in every other field.
Est ergo est. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Sum ergo sum
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 26, 2016 at 8:46 am
(May 26, 2016 at 5:41 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Because it is an axiom, not an argument. Technically, it is not an axiom because the counterfactual (not all propositions must be empirically verified) could be true. As an first principle it is self-refuting. It's actually an initial premise. While it serves as a good guide for doing natural science, it is worthless for establishing metaphysical claims such at the nature of being-as-such.
Posts: 2281
Threads: 16
Joined: January 17, 2010
Reputation:
69
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 26, 2016 at 9:50 am
(May 26, 2016 at 8:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Technically, it is not an axiom because the counterfactual (not all propositions must be empirically verified) could be true. As an first principle it is self-refuting. It's actually an initial premise. While it serves as a good guide for doing natural science, it is worthless for establishing metaphysical claims such at the nature of being-as-such.
Not quite, Chad. The counterfactual statement would be 'The truthfulness of all propositions must not be empirically validated to count as knowledge'. As a statement, the individual words make sense but as a whole, it sentence has only grammatic veracity 
Consequently, the proposition can be held as axiomatic.
Sum ergo sum
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 26, 2016 at 1:06 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2016 at 1:10 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(May 26, 2016 at 9:50 am)Ben Davis Wrote: (May 26, 2016 at 8:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Technically, it is not an axiom because the counterfactual (not all propositions must be empirically verified) could be true. As an first principle it is self-refuting. It's actually an initial premise. While it serves as a good guide for doing natural science, it is worthless for establishing metaphysical claims such at the nature of being-as-such.
Not quite, Chad. The counterfactual statement would be 'The truthfulness of all propositions must not be empirically validated to count as knowledge'. As a statement, the individual words make sense but as a whole, it sentence has only grammatic veracity
Consequently, the proposition can be held as axiomatic.
That's a disingenuous change because you are trading on the ambiguity of 'must'. In the original proposition 'must' means the same 'need'. Skeptics are claiming that people need to empirically verify something to know if it is true. That's not a self-evident statement. because it could be possible that there are some propositions that don't need to be verified to know they are true. We already have an example of one: the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Since the PNC requires no empirical verification, the other original proposition is false.
Posts: 67189
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 26, 2016 at 2:13 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2016 at 2:27 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The pnc -depends- upon empirical verification........................as a knowledge claim. This is the empirical position. It is by acknowledgement of the referant, by what is -evident- that the pnc is established, to begin with. You've commented upon this yourself.
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!
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Are suggesting that the validity of the PNC is contingently true because there is a remote possibility for someone to observe something that both is and is not in exactly the same way at the same time? What kind of absurd universe do you live in?
Posts: 67189
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 26, 2016 at 4:03 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2016 at 4:26 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Nope, and I live in the same universe you do....you know that, so why ask...other than to provide a demonstration of the accuracy of what I just said? You implied that we had different empirical data sets, that we live in different universes, or must...this was your criticism of the empirical foundation of knowledge claims?
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!
Posts: 2281
Threads: 16
Joined: January 17, 2010
Reputation:
69
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2016 at 7:50 pm by Ben Davis.)
(May 26, 2016 at 1:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (May 26, 2016 at 9:50 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Not quite, Chad. The counterfactual statement would be 'The truthfulness of all propositions must not be empirically validated to count as knowledge'. As a statement, the individual words make sense but as a whole, it sentence has only grammatic veracity
Consequently, the proposition can be held as axiomatic.
That's a disingenuous change because you are trading on the ambiguity of 'must'. In the original proposition 'must' means the same 'need'. Not at all. Ignoring for a moment that you're trying to move the goalposts by altering the word 'must' to 'need' (a contrivance, if I've ever seen one), that would simply make the counter-statement 'The truthfulness of all propositions need not be empirically validated to count as knowledge'. 'Must' meaning 'essential' and 'need' meaning 'necessary' are both equal and absolute qualifiers. It changes nothing.
Quote:Skeptics are claiming that people need to empirically verify something to know if it is true. That's not a self-evident statement. because it could be possible that there are some propositions that don't need to be verified to know they are true. We already have an example of one: the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Since the PNC requires no empirical verification, the other original proposition is false.
The PNC is derived from observations of reality! It couldn't be more empirical if it tried! Logical statements are descriptors not prescriptors. I'll leave you to find a proposition that doesn't require verification to ascertain veracity. Good luck with that.
*shakes head
Sum ergo sum
|
