Magnetism refutes Empiricism

Arcane Sandwich

Question: Do magnetic phenomena refute the Empiricist claim that an ordinary object (such as a magnet) is nothing more than a bundle of perceptible qualities corresponding to the five human senses?

Why you should care about the question
David Hume famously suggested that there is nothing more to an ordinary object, such as an apple, than what we can be perceive with our five senses. The apple is simply a bundle of qualities. It has colors, it makes a certain sound when I munch on it, it has a fragrant aroma, it has a sweet taste, and it feels solid to the touch. But there is no philosophical substance or res extensa underneath, so to speak, supporting those qualities. The apple just is those qualities. However, if we consider magnets instead of apples, things are different. Two magnets can attract or repel each other, depending on their orientation. I cannot perceive their magnetic properties in an empirical way, since I don't have a sixth sense (a magnetic sense, if you will) that gives me any sort of empirical information about the phenomenon of magnetism. Yet magnetism is real. Therefore, magnetism is both real and non-empirical. This being the case, the existence of magnets are a counter-example to Empiricism, which means that Empiricism is false.

Thesis

My argument against Empiricism is structurally similar to Korman's arguments from counter-examples:

Universalism seems to conflict with our intuitive judgment that the front halves of trout and the back halves of turkeys do not compose anything. Put another way, universalism seems to be open to fairly obvious counterexamples. Here is an argument from counterexamples against universalism:

(CX1) If universalism is true, then there are trout-turkeys.
(CX2) There are no trout-turkeys.
(CX3) So universalism is false.

Similar arguments may be lodged against other revisionary theses. The various forms of eliminativism wrongly imply that there are no statues; plenitudinism wrongly implies that there are incars; the doctrine of arbitrary undetached parts wrongly implies that there are leg complements; and so forth. — Daniel Z. Korman

With this in mind, here is my argument against Empiricism:

(AE1) If Empiricism is true, then magnetism can be perceived by human beings.
(AE2) Magnetism cannot be perceived by human beings.
(AE3) So, Empiricism is false.

Some folks might want to raise the following objection here: magnetism is part of electromagnetism, and this can be perceived, since light is electromagnetic, and light can be perceived.
My reply to that possible objection: in speaking of magnetism and not electromagnetism, I'm referring to the phenomena of attraction and repulsion involving two ordinary magnets. That, unlike light, cannot be perceived. And yet it's just as real as light is (precisely because both magnetism and light are parts of electromagnetism). In other words, light (electricity, actually) is the empirical, perceptible part of electromagnetism, while magnetism is the non-empirical, imperceptible part of electromagnetism.

Lead in
Feel free to disagree, dear reader.

wonderer1

(AE1) If Empiricism is true, then magnetism can be perceived by human beings. — Arcane Sandwich

1. You seem to be attacking an archaic/straw version of empiricism, by stipulating that some sort of 'direct sensing' of properties must be available to humans for empiricism to stand up to scrutiny.

2. I have many ways of detecting the presence of a magnetic field. A simple one is just to hold a magnet near a piece of iron, in which case I will sense the force of attraction between the magnet and the iron.

Arcane Sandwich

1. You seem to be attacking an archaic/straw version of empiricism, by stipulating that some sort of 'direct sensing' of properties must be available to humans for empiricism to stand up to scrutiny. — wonderer1

If you accuse me of strawmannig, then you're accusing me of charlatanry, hence sophistry, and therefore you are assuming ill intent on my behalf, and that goes against the Forum guidelines. I have flagged your post for the consideration of the mods and administrators of this website.

Types of posters who are welcome here:

Those with a genuine interest in/curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions (i.e. intelligent, interested and charitable posters). — Site Guidelines

2. I have many ways of detecting the presence of a magnetic field. A simple one is just to hold a magnet near a piece of iron, in which case I will sense the force of attraction between the magnet and the iron. — wonderer1

False. You do not sense the force of attraction in that case, you simply feel an increasingly solid sensation, in a tactile sense.

Try again, without accusing me of strawmanning.

wonderer1

If you accuse me of strawmannig, then you're accusing me of charlatanry, hence sophistry, and therefore you are assuming ill intent on my behalf... — Arcane Sandwich

No I'm not assuming ill intent. Ignorance on your part seems a simple enough explanation.

False. You do not sense the force of attraction in that case, you simply feel an increasingly solid sensation, in a tactile sense. — Arcane Sandwich

The bolded portion seems an odd way of expressing whatever you may be trying to express. Have you actually done the experiment?

In any case, yes I have a tactile sensation of the attraction between the magnet and the iron.

It seems to me it would be more productive for you to actually address my points than to whine to the moderators, but whatever floats your boat.

Arcane Sandwich

No I'm not assuming ill intent. Ignorance on your part seems a simple enough explanation. — wonderer1

Assuming ignorance on my part also goes against the Forum guidelines, since it goes against the rule that says this:

those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading — Site Guidelines

By assuming ignorance on my part, you're not willing to give me a fair reading as your interlocutor. Therefore, I have flagged your most recent post as well, for the consideration of the moderators and administrators of The Philosophy Forum.

Arcane Sandwich

The bolded portion seems an odd way of expressing whatever you may be trying to express. Have you actually done the experiment? — wonderer1

Yes, I have done the experiment, many times. And you can do the exact same experiment. Anyone can. That's what makes it scientific.

(Edited)

Arcane Sandwich

In any case, yes I have a tactile sensation of the attraction between the magnet and the iron. — wonderer1

No, you don't. No one does. You have the tactile sensation of the magnet, and the tactile sensation of the iron. You don't have the tactile sensation of the attraction between them.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Arcane Sandwich

↪tim wood

Or maybe one could treat apples and magnets differently, from a metaphysical point of view. Perhaps the apple is nothing more than a bundle of perceptible qualities. Perhaps the magnet is a bundle of perceptible qualities and imperceptible qualities. Neither claim involves or entails claiming that there are philosophical substances supporting those qualities, not in the apple's case, and neither in the magnet's case.

wonderer1

By assuming ignorance on my part, you're not willing to give me a fair reading as your interlocutor. — Arcane Sandwich

I provided you with an opportunity to show that you weren't ignorant in relevant ways with my first response to you. Unfortunately it seems that you weren't able to take advantage of the opportunity.

DifferentiatingEgg

...a child sliding down a plastic slide often has their hair stand on end... pretty sure it's detectable? You're basically playing "peek-a-boo" with magnetism and saying "empiricism doesn't exist" when you're not directly observing magnetism...

Arcane Sandwich

I provided you with an opportunity to show that you weren't ignorant in relevant ways with my first response to you. — wonderer1

That's off-topic. This thread isn't about proving my non-ignorance to you (besides, why would I even want to prove a negative in this case?

Unfortunately it seems that you weren't able to take advantage of the opportunity. — wonderer1

Who cares? My alleged ignorance is not the topic of this thread.

You've been reported for trolling.

wonderer1

You bolded that portion yourself in your
, I simply formatted the quote in order to respect that. Because unlike you, I am indeed being charitable towards your intentions. e I will sense the
— previous comment — Arcane Sandwich

I don't know what you are trying to say there, or who you are suggesting that you were quoting.

Arcane Sandwich

...a child sliding down a plastic slide often has their hair stand on end... pretty sure it's detectable? You're basically playing "peek-a-boo" with magnetism and saying "empiricism doesn't exist" when you're not directly observing it... — DifferentiatingEgg

Choose a premise and deny it, or I'm reporting you for trolling.

Arcane Sandwich

You bolded that portion yourself in your
, I simply formatted the quote in order to respect that. Because unlike you, I am indeed being charitable towards your intentions. e I will sense the
— previous comment — Arcane Sandwich

I don't know what you are trying to say there, or who you are suggesting that you were quoting. — wonderer1

Which is why I edited my original comment. Again, you've been reported for breaking the forum guidelines, since you are not being charitable towards my intentions.

DifferentiatingEgg

↪Arcane Sandwich

pretty logical to assume since I said we can observe it Im attacking AE1... dork.

Arcane Sandwich

↪Arcane Sandwich
pretty logical to assume since I said we can observe it Im attacking AE1 — DifferentiatingEgg

Then you should have said so.

... dork. — DifferentiatingEgg

You've been reported for trolling.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Arcane Sandwich

You would need a reason to do so. — tim wood

The reason has already been stated: one of them (the apple) only has perceptible qualities, while the other one (the magnet) has both perceptible and imperceptible qualities.

If you're on about refuting "philosophical substance," you're about 250 years too late. — tim wood

No, I'm not on about refuting "philosophical substances". I believe that they are real. Empiricism is wrong, because it's open to counter-examples, such as the case of magnets.

But also yours is a fallacy of false alternatives and amphiboly. — tim wood

I understand the amphibologies (of concepts) as Kant defines them. How about you? Let's see if we're on the same page, here.

You haven't defined "apple," and maybe as to what it is, there are other possibilities. — tim wood

Of course there are other possibilities to what it is. We're getting there, through this discussion. Have a bit more patience. Just a request.

fdrake

@DifferentiatingEgg @Arcane Sandwich Neither of you is gaining anything from this exchange, so stop it.

Arcane Sandwich

↪fdrake

Ok, I'll comply with your request.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Arcane Sandwich

The difficulty with this is the need to be rigorously exact as to what exactly you're referring to. An apple - your apple - what exactly is it, where exactly is it? — tim wood

What is it, exactly? It's an ordinary object. Generally speaking. It's also a fruit, specifically speaking. It's also a physical object, again generally speaking. It's also something that you can buy at the supermarket, again specifically speaking. Etc.

Where is it, exactly? Well, there's one on my kitchen table, as well as a few others.

And how do you know that one thing only has perceptible qualities and the other both perceptible and imperceptible qualities — tim wood

Well, I think that ordinary magnetic phenomena show that magnets have real, albeit imperceptible, qualities. We simply intuit this fact. We have access to it, in an intellectual way. Yes, you read that right: it's intellectual intuition, something that Kant didn't believe in. More precisely, does the mind have such a faculty? Kant says "no", Meillassoux says "yes". Who do I agree with? It's hard to say. I suppose the answer is neither. The way I understand intellectual intuition is different from how Kant understands it, and it's also different to how Meillassoux understands it. My notion, or concept, of intellectual intuition is similar to Korman's.

Actually, what is an imperceptible quality? — tim wood

It would be an essential quality, as opposed to (or distinct from) an accidental quality.

There's a good chance the dispute - such as it is - arises from confusion, resolved or at least refined in careful definition. — tim wood

Sure, why not.

Not to say that definitions resolve all problems - pace all older Australians - but they make the way easier. — tim wood

Yeah I'mma (I am going to) let you in on a secret, mate. Australians in general aren't very good philosophers. I mean, the best that Australia has produced (so far) in philosophical terms is Australian Realism. And it's not a very good philosophy, compared to British Empiricism in the manner of Locke, or Scottish Common Sense Realism, in the manner of the Scottish Enlightment.

Arcane Sandwich

No, I'm not on about refuting "philosophical substances". I believe that they are real. — Arcane Sandwich

Great! Real is a qualification. And presumably common to all things that are. What sort of real thing, then, would it be? — tim wood

It's not common to all things that are. Basilisks are, since they are something (i.e., they are fictional creatures), and yet they're not real.

As to what sort of real thing they would be (the philosophical substances), they would be something like ordinary objects.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Arcane Sandwich

And yet, since anything and everything you might say, think, or cognise about it is or is informed by your perception, you cannot, have not, said anything about it itself. Calling it an ordinary object won't do, not least because it leads to the questions, how do you know? and what is an ordinary object? — tim wood

Well, see the SEP entry on Ordinary Objects, since it answers those textbook questions about the metaphysics of ordinary objects. I'll quote the opening paragraph:

Our everyday experiences present us with a wide array of objects: dogs and cats, tables and chairs, trees and their branches, and so forth. These sorts of ordinary objects may seem fairly unproblematic in comparison to entities like numbers, propositions, tropes, holes, points of space, and moments of time. Yet, on closer inspection, they are at least as puzzling, if not more so. — Daniel Z. Korman

And by this do you mean that philosophical substances are a many, at least as many as there are ordinary objects? — tim wood

That sounds like reasonable thing to say, even though I never thought about it that way. Sure, why not?

Or that ordinary objects are a one, being all the same? — tim wood

No, I'm quite sure there's many of them: my kitchen table, apples, computers, etc.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Arcane Sandwich

Perhaps try reading your own citation — tim wood

I've read it many times, tim. I've also read Korman's book about it, and most of his articles as well. I've also been exchanging emails with Dan for years.

at least make clear to me why you cited it? — tim wood

Because you're asking textbook questions, that's why. This thread is not for discussing textbook questions about the metaphysics of ordinary objects.

If each "ordinary object" is a distinct philosophical substance, then what distinguishes object from substance? — tim wood

They are the same thing, tim. Nothing distinguishes them, precisely because they're not different sorts of things.

If objects share substance, — tim wood

They don't.

how are such objects distinguished? — tim wood

Again, you're asking a textbook question. There are better uses of my time.

Fire Ologist

2. I have many ways of detecting the presence of a magnetic field. A simple one is just to hold a magnet near a piece of iron, in which case I will sense the force of attraction between the magnet and the iron. — wonderer1

I was going to say the same thing. But I've already been reported for trolling and for assuming ill-intent. Welcome to the club!

I disagree that "Magnetism cannot be perceived by human beings."

It's kind of too late - we perceived something empirical enough to distinguish "magnetism".

I'm referring to the phenomena of attraction and repulsion involving two ordinary magnets. — Arcane Sandwich

What isn't empirical about the above reference?

We need light to see objects attract and repulse - all we ever see is light, we never see anything else. But we can still distinguish magnetic attractions and repulsions from kinetic ones.

When magnets are placed near each other, we see them move. We can rule out all kinds of movers, and we are left with the visual perception of magnetic forces.

We can close our eyes and hold two magnets near each other we feel the force of magnetism. Arcane, you called this "increasingly solid sensation" - why not call this magnetism that is being perceived, as opposed to "increasingly solid sensation?"

We could let two magnets collide and probably measure something repeatable about the forces by using the sound of the collision. Certain decibels equate to certain size objects of certain types of materials at certain distances apart and we can might estimate magnetic fields ... or call it increasingly loud collisions.

Yet magnetism is real. Therefore, magnetism is both real and non-empirical. This being the case, the existence of magnets are a counter-example to Empiricism, which means that Empiricism is false. — Arcane Sandwich

Are you saying that because we can't sense it, it is not empirical, but because we somehow know about it, it is still "real"? Shouldn't you make it more clear what you mean by "real magnetism" versus "empirical piece of iron" in order to clarify how "empiricism is false"?

Banno

(AE2) Magnetism cannot be perceived by human beings. — Arcane Sandwich

Demonstrably, AE2 is wrong.

Janus

We need light to see objects attract and repulse - all we ever see is light, we never see anything else. — Fire Ologist

I think that's not quite correct. All we ever see is not light, but due to light. We see objects on account of the light that reflects from them. We cannot see light itself. Our eyes are affected by light, but that effect is pre-cognitive, and I don't think it can rightly be counted as "seeing" because we cannot be conscious of the effect of light except when we look at its source or at a reflecting object.

Magnetism refutes Empiricism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions