I find the idea of an ‘English language philosophy’ amusing, as if philosophical ideas were chauvinistic, or unfit for translation.the crown jewel of English-language philosophy — Srap Tasmaner
Rejecting empiricism completely would do this (at least I think so) but if empiricism means, for example, one can only get knoweldge via experience, say, then one could reject that point without losing the ability to criticize. I think. Also we need to specify, I think, which empiricism.Rejecting empiricism means effectively rejecting criticism, — Pfhorrest
you may also be conflating two sense of the word empiricism — Pantagruel
And yes, I am all for empiricism. When combined with rationalism, it makes for good science. — Olivier5
It's not the traditional philosophy of empiricism that prevails, it's more like the actual use of empiricism that survives. And good so. But of course, everything that has good effects has it's drawbacks too.How many times must empiricism be killed? Why won't it stay dead?
It's the Chuck Norris of philosophies! You can't kill that. — Srap Tasmaner
I didn't define "empiricism" so everyone could put their own spin on it. I can't tell what your spin is. — Srap Tasmaner
I would define empiricism as the view that the correct way of adjudicating differences of opinion about what is or isn’t real is comparison to our empirical experiences. — Pfhorrest
My reasons are that empirical observation springs from reason, is framed by reason, and comes back to reason when analysed. So when blended with a fair dose of rationalism, empiricism makes sense. When it doesn’t make sense is when it claims to be the sole fount of knowledge, as others have pointed at.And yes, I am all for empiricism. When combined with rationalism, it makes for good science.
— Olivier5
That sounds to me like you have something to say that for reasons I can't fathom you've chosen not to say. — Srap Tasmaner
So how do you see the theory-ladenness of observation playing out when settling an empirical dispute? — Srap Tasmaner
So do you see an individual, even if she's not aware of it, as essentially doing science all the time? That is, as having a working theory that produces predictions and directs the acquisition of new data via sense experience? Is that the force of "springs from"? — Srap Tasmaner
Let's define an empiricism -- not the empiricism, but one of many: human beings use concepts, but they are born with no conceptual apparatus at all; therefore, a human being must be able to construct a conceptual apparatus out of the only material she has, her individual sense experience; some of this may occur naturally, through "association", say, and some of this construction is done by the use of reason, which may be inborn but only provides the tools to construct a conceptual framework, not the framework itself. — Srap Tasmaner
So do you see an individual, even if she's not aware of it, as essentially doing science all the time? That is, as having a working theory that produces predictions and directs the acquisition of new data via sense experience? — Srap Tasmaner
And in the second quote I'm thinking of those types of models. But "System 1 is a machine for jumping to conclusions." That's a funny kind of science, isn't it? — Srap Tasmaner
we don't really know what's going on in that subconscious mind. I suspect that what we perceive as an instantaneous jump to a conclusion may have extensive experience and analysis underlying it. — flaco
That implies that the competing theoretical frameworks overlap, right? — Srap Tasmaner
I'm not sure what you mean by that. — Pfhorrest
But that lack of transparency doesn't sound much like science either. Remember a couple years ago when Donald Hoffman was pushing that "desktop" metaphor? He was arguing that this subconscious is systematically lying, because evolution would have selected for rapid threat identification and against accurate perception. Whatever the merits of his position, people can tell different stories about what's going on in the black box, and different evolutionary psychology stories about why. Do we need a way to assess these stories? What would that be? — Srap Tasmaner
Now what about the part we're aware of? Is it conceivable there is something like an old school blank slate empiricist agent that we experience consciously as feeding us a complete conceptual framework, already assembled, such that we might as well have been born with it? — Srap Tasmaner
20 minute TED talk — flaco
For me, that would be science. Formulating models. Doing experiments. And then arguing about the results with lots of people with different black boxes. Hoping for transcendence. — flaco
And you and Pfhorrest both end up talking about resolving disputes, though Quine's model on its own has that classic me-alone-figuring-out-the-world feel. — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.