I haven't claimed you said that "metaphysics provides knowledge", but your statement that

the final outcome of empiricism is some possible understanding of things — whollyrolling

seemed to imply that this "possible understanding of things" will be some "ultimate" understanding of things as metaphysics has for much of the history of philosophy purported to be.

If that is not what you want to say, then what is it that you think we are arguing about? Try closer reading; it will help you avoid wasting your own and others' time.

you can't pretend that any of the things I've listed did not come from empirical research and development. — whollyrolling

Economics, psychotherapy, meditation, popular music? The issue here is science as a worldview, not technology. As far I know the Chinese were more technologically advanced in the 10th Century than Europe in the 16th, but they had nothing we would recognize as science in the modern sense.

I have never said that experience is any kind of magic ingredient, and I have never said that science is based on individual experience. I'm not sure where you're even coming from, are you okay?

If by saying that I need to read things more closely, you mean you're admitting that you didn't read my commentary prior to attacking it, and I've read and written in good form, then we agree.

The final outcome of empiricism is some possible understanding of things, — whollyrolling

What is wrong with this statement, what's unclear about it?

Let me make it more clear, let me spell it out: the final outcome of philosophy is its origin. The final outcome of empiricism is separate from its origin.

Everything that has been determined about our surroundings has been through empiricism. Please feel free to explain what philosophy has done for humanity apart from its isolation of wealth as the epitome of knowledge. — whollyrolling

But what has been determined? Why are all the same questions still being asked?

Phenomenology is a direct response to the critical errors of empiricism. It identified the biggest error which is failing to introduce movement and transition into logic. It has no concept of mediation, so it is unable synthesize the terms of immediacy. As such it becomes fixed on the dialectic of immediacy and maroons itself in reflection and understanding.

And, philosophy has done nothing for humanity but get it lost in speculation. But philosophy promises nothing, in fact from the beginning, Plato posited the uselessness of philosophy.

Yes, a key point that is often ignored or glossed over by empiricists is that they are basing their positivism regarding the metaphysical provenance of science on nothing more than personal preference for a mechanistic worldview; and if they rightly try to eliminate the latter, they will indeed be left with, as you say, "absolute doubt or solipsism", since there is no way to get from an empirically eliminativist paradigm to the fullness of human experience. — Janus

Excellent point!

If by saying that I need to read things more closely, you mean you're admitting that you didn't read my commentary prior to attacking it, and I've read and written in good form, then we agree. — whollyrolling

Why would my statement about your lack of close reading be meant to apply to me? You're doing it (or not doing it) again!

I read your commentary which was only a few lines, and I fairly criticized it for being a groundless assertion and asked you to provide grounds for it, which you have so far failed to do.

The same questions aren't being asked within empiricism. Very different questions are being asked, and progress is evident. The same questions are being asked within philosophy because philosophy is a refusal of evidence. It's defiant and nurtures socially inhospitable and ill-compassioned tendencies.

But it isn't groundless, so everything you said was emptiness and a failure. You can't just arbitrarily pull a vacuous argument out of your ass and expect it to hold weight under scrutiny.

The same questions are being asked within philosophy because philosophy is a refusal of evidence. It's defiant and nurtures socially inhospitable and ill-compassioned tendencies. — whollyrolling

If you have no respect for philosophy, why are you participating here? You should let off the brake, and get whollyrolling away to some other more suitable location.

It isn't goundless he asserts, and yet apparently cannot say what the grounds are. That's not very helpful for the discussion; it's a shame you apparently cannot see that.

I respect some of what's called philosophy, and philosophy by definition fits what I'm practicing here. If you don't like what I'm saying, then argue against it.

If you want me to argue against something, then provide something for me to argue against. How many times do you need that to be explained to you?

As many times as it takes for you to present something other than a snapshot of your ignorance. You haven't presented a reasonable argument against empiricism, so let's start there.

I proposed that it's possible for empiricism to find some answers and that it's impossible for metaphysics to find any answers, and you chimed in with responses empty of meaning and off the mark. We could start there too.

I have never said that experience is any kind of magic ingredient, and I have never said that science is based on individual experience. — whollyrolling

Just remind us of the meaning of ‘empiricism’ again? The dictionary says ‘the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses’. So I’m pointing out, animals have senses but they’re obviously incapable of language and rational thought. So I claim that science relies on an innate ability unique to humans, which therefore can’t be described solely in terms of ‘empiricism’.

But then, of course, if you’re satisfied that the technological mastery we’ve gained through science is self-sufficient and provides all the answers then indeed philosophy is a waste of time.

The same questions aren't being asked within empiricism. — whollyrolling

Ok, then tell me how empiricism solved the problem of induction.

You aren't using a reliable dictionary, what is that, Oxford?

Sorry, but that is the definition of ‘empiricism’ in any dictionary. What I’m doing is obliging you to think through the implications of what you’re saying.

It isn't the definition in the dictionary I just looked at. What I found was use of the scientific method, not the perspective of the senses of the individual.

Well, spell it out. What is ‘your’ definition?

This is my last reply if you fail to engage relevantly. Where have I said anything against empiricism? And why will you not provide an argument to support your contentions? Remember it was you first responded to what I had said, while also distorting it and failing to give any relevant argument. Are you just here seeking attention?

I just said there is a dictionary definition. This is not about my definition, it is about objectively defining a word, and one of the few places to do so is the Merriam Webster because some dictionaries seem to have reestablished the meanings of words in alignment with their political principles.

I already quoted it, you might be blind, and for that I don't envy you.

From Miriam Webster:

Definition of empiricism
1a : a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory
2a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences
b : a tenet arrived at empirically
3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience

whollyrolling is rolling into a hole.

I don't think he'll be able to escape.

So where from that definition have you derived individual experience? Observation and experiment. "A former school". The natural sciences. Knowledge originates in experience, where does it say personal experience without external influence, individual perception, perspective?

You are humiliating yourself.

Demonstrate to me where anyone has shown reliable empirical data in the form of a subjective assertion based solely on their senses with no peer review.

I'm drawing attention to the implications of 'empiricism'. John Locke's 'tabula rasa' - that we are born 'a blank slate' onto which all the knowledge we possess is 'inscribed by experience'. But this is extended in modern scientific method in another direction, namely, that only data derived from empirical experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data, provide the source of authentic knowledge. It is expressed crudely in positivist terms as 'anything that can be known, can be known by means of science'. That seems to be about your position in any of the debates that I've seen you contribute to. If it's not, then by all means set us straight.

We are not born a blank slate though, obviously. We have billions of years of genetic coding inside us. Your grammar is terrible. If you believe that I deem science as the be all and end all, then you clearly misunderstood my statement that with science "some understanding" might be possible. You're taking words and rearranging them, I suppose.

You're seeing in words what you want to see and pressing square pegs through round holes with a sledgehammer.

Try thinking objectively. You're throwing the whole conversation out of context to fit your desire to be correct about something you doubt.

↪Merkwurdichliebe

You are humiliating yourself. — whollyrolling

I never skip a chance to humiliate myself, especially if it means ragdolling and flambaying a meaty sap like you.

You have so many empty words. What does that even mean, that you know you're wrong and you want to bring everyone down with you? I'm not sure what you're really saying. It seems like a contradiction.

We are not born a blank slate though, obviously. — whollyrolling

Someone has no clue what empiricism is.