Posts: 708
Threads: 8
Joined: February 22, 2015
Reputation:
14
Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 5:02 am
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2016 at 5:02 am by Ignorant.)
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?
Posts: 2281
Threads: 16
Joined: January 17, 2010
Reputation:
69
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 5:43 am
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2016 at 5:44 am by Ben Davis.)
(May 20, 2016 at 5:02 am)Ignorant Wrote:
What do we think?
I think 'Oh no, not this again!'.
It's very simple: we compare 'truths' that are empirically validated with one that are not then hold the results up against reality to see which remain true. Tadaaa! Empirical validation of the proposition.
Sometimes I think theists think that no-one's thought of this stuff already...
Sum ergo sum
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 11:52 am
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2016 at 11:56 am by robvalue.)
Such a statement could be prefaced by, "It appears reasonable to conclude that..."
Science isn't about absolute certainty, it's about obtaining models and information which are as accurate as possible, beyond reasonable doubt.
And indeed, putting it into practice quickly shows its wisdom. When people claim to know things but have no evidence, they come a cropper. Or rather, it's not useful to anyone else if it can't be demonstrated.
I'm not entirely sure how "empirically" is being used here, but in abstract systems propositions can be true without needing any reference to reality. They need only conform to the rules of the system.
Posts: 30974
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 11:57 am
Wow, I've never seen that argument before.
/s
Posts: 1494
Threads: 0
Joined: July 26, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 1:28 pm
"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?
Posts: 708
Threads: 8
Joined: February 22, 2015
Reputation:
14
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 4:18 pm
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2016 at 4:29 pm by Ignorant.)
(May 20, 2016 at 5:43 am)Ben Davis Wrote: It's very simple: we compare 'truths' that are empirically validated with one that are not then hold the results up against reality to see which remain true. Tadaaa! Empirical validation of the proposition.
Sometimes I think theists think that no-one's thought of this stuff already...
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).
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.
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.
Posts: 23039
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 4:20 pm
I think we have to accept certain premises as axiomatic in order to function.
Posts: 708
Threads: 8
Joined: February 22, 2015
Reputation:
14
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 4:23 pm
(May 20, 2016 at 11:52 am)robvalue Wrote: Such a statement could be prefaced by, "It appears reasonable to conclude that..."
Science isn't about absolute certainty, it's about obtaining models and information which are as accurate as possible, beyond reasonable doubt.
And indeed, putting it into practice quickly shows its wisdom. When people claim to know things but have no evidence, they come a cropper. Or rather, it's not useful to anyone else if it can't be demonstrated.
I'm not entirely sure how "empirically" is being used here, but in abstract systems propositions can be true without needing any reference to reality. They need only conform to the rules of the system.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. It seems like you don't agree with the original proposition, as stated. My question is directed more at the epistemology of the original proposition than it is as the teleology or aim of science. Is the epistemology represented in the original proposition (even if we add your suggested clause) merely supposed (assumed)? Or does it derive from some empirical investigation itself?
Posts: 708
Threads: 8
Joined: February 22, 2015
Reputation:
14
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 4:26 pm
(May 20, 2016 at 1:28 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: "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.
Posts: 708
Threads: 8
Joined: February 22, 2015
Reputation:
14
RE: Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?
May 20, 2016 at 4:26 pm
(May 20, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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?
|
