This part of your posts lacks substance.
— Arcane Sandwich
Not at all. You appear to claim that geologists know something about a place they cannot perceive. Indeed they cannot see it directly or go there directly, but they do perceive what machines record, and that's what their conclusions are based upon. — tim wood

What do you think of van Fraassen work? He's an Empiricist.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

How would you propose doing any experiment on no information, no data, nothing being perceived? — tim wood

You do what's called in the literature "an exploratory investigation".

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

what troll?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I'm just trying to gather some information about you, so that I can communicate better with you.

Thanks. Geology was a big interest many years ago - I should do some reading thereabouts.

The OP appears to be playing on a misguided understanding of "perceive". I'm not seeing much by way of significant argument.

The OP appears to be playing on a misguided understanding of "perceive". I'm not seeing much by way of significant argument. — Banno

You're welcome to suggest fixes and improvements to it, should you choose to do so.

The machine makes the particles travel at near-light speed until they collide. How can that not be interacting? There is also the recording, that's true. In any case you get information and this like all sign systems is in place of something, something that is not perceived: the collision and the particles.It doesn't matter if a person has to read the information (even a picture with information) . The point is that when he reads it he is not perceiving what the information refers to.

:100: :fire: :clap:

No problem. I'm glad to agree with you.

You express yourself in a way that seems, quite frankly, foreign to my own ways of self-expression. Yet it seems to me that we more or less agree, here, if anywhere.

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? — Arcane Sandwich

No, because instruments, such as magnets, extend the human senses.

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. — Arcane Sandwich

That is much more Berkeley than Hume. True, Berkeley called himself empiricist, but I think that particular claim is more characteristic of Berkeley.

What do you think of van Fraassen work? He's an Empiricist. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm familiar with him, but I don't *think* he would endorse the statement you're attributing to empiricists.

Thank you for your contribution, Wayfarer, and for taking the time to do so. It is much appreciated.

What are your thoughts on bishop Berkeley? I believe that he was an idealist as well as an Empiricist. You seem to disagree.

He was indeed an empiricist, as well as idealist. Hume was an empiricist, but I don't believe he was an idealist. Indeed Berkeley is often said to have made explicit what was implied by Hume, but which Hume himself never spelled out. Berkeley was subject of the recent thread I refute it thus!

:victory:

Don't empiricists believe that knowledge comes from experience rather than reason alone? Hence even if there were no observable qualities of the objects movements were perceived, if it came from experience, then it would still be perception and knowledge. Hume didn't deny the movement of the billiard balls and existence force when expounding his cause and effect theory.

It doesn't mean empiricists are wrong. It means that some qualities of the objects are outside of human sense such as radio waves and magnetic force itself.

Sure, that could be the case. I think you understand Empiricism better than me, Corvus, so I don't think that I'm able to disagree with you in that sense.

:pray: :blush: No, Arcane. You are too modest. I am just a casual reader of philosophy. You are a professional metaphysician. We just see things from different perspectives sometimes.

Let's just say that I'm a bit more interested in metaphysics than in epistemology, how about that? It sounds like a good compromise (at least to my ear, figuratively speaking, of course).

Yes, that could well be the case. Everyone has different interest on the different subjects in philosophy. Also you are an excellent logician.

My skills as a logician are quite limited, unfortunately. I simply don't have enough time in the 24 hours of the day to do both logic and metaphysics. If I have to choose, then I choose metaphysics. Logic is very dear to my heart, though. Especially first-order predicate logic, and propositional logic. I don't have much use for second-order and higher-order logics. Set theory does interest me, though. Category theory is also something that interests me.

Getting back to the empiricists, Hume is known to have denied idea of self, because he couldn't find the impression of self. He said, there is no corresponding impression or idea of self, and when tries to find the idea of self, he can only find a bundle of perception. Therefore the idea of self doesn't exist. Due to the point, he is branded as a sceptic as well as empiricist.
What does it tell you? Empirical thoughts can easily lead to extreme skepticism. Sometimes reason need to intervene to empirical way of thinking.

I am just a learner of Logic. I believe that Logic is very important subject in philosophy, although some argue logic is not philosophy. Logic is the engine of all philosophical arguments.

Yes, I agree.

That's an interesting way of conceptualizing what Logic is.

I mean, at least we Bridge over our mutual dislike at "Ministry."

Ok, sure. I like the metal band Ministry. I have no interest in "Ministry" in the religious sense, and I have no interest in "Ministry" in the bureaucratic sense either.

Moving on.

The Earth has two magnetic poles: The North Pole, and the South Pole. There is no West Pole, even though there's a Western Hemisphere, and there is no East Pole, even though there's an Eastern Hemisphere.

Furthermore, there is a Southern Hemisphere, and a Northern Hemisphere.

Four Hemispheres, Two Magnetic Poles.

The Earth, having more or less the shape of a sphere (approximately, at least), has a non-Euclidean surface. This is trivial, since any Euclidean sphere (a three-dimensional geometric object) has a non-Euclidean surface (a two-dimensional, geometric object).

In fact, the very word "Geometry" means "Geo" (Earth) and "metry" (as in, metrics).

However, Geometry today is not limited to the branch of Applied Mathematics that serves Physics. Geometry is first and foremost a purely Mathematical branch, it has nothing to do with Physics. In that sense, it's a formal branch of a formal science.

The simplest Geometric object is .

A point, in the mathematical sense, is a geometric object that has zero spatial dimensions. If a sphere is 3D, and if a surface is 2D, and if a line is 1D, then a point is 0D.

A line is a segment between two points. It is a continuum, since it is infinitely divisible into points. Every line is a geometric object that has one spatial dimension. A line is a hyper-point.

A surface is a geometric area between two lines. An surface is a hyper-line. A surface may be defined as a plane.

A solid is a geometric object that has three spatial dimensions.

The Earth is a four-dimensional object, since it is not only spatial (being a 3D geometric object), it is also temporal (being a 1D geometric object).

Space itself is a 3D geometric object, while time itself is a 1D geometric object.