Empirical.

[Qdeathstar]

empirical - (as defined by the national institute of health)

based on experience or observational information and not necessarily on proven scientific data

empirical- (as definded by dictionary.com)

(1)
Empiric \Em*pir"ic\, Empirical \Em*pir"ic*al\, a. 1. Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience; depending upon the observation of phenomena; versed in experiments.

(2)

Depending upon experience or observation alone, without due regard to science and theory;


______________________________________


/me ponders


Without any regard to science, or its laws, isnt empiricalism rubbish. If your depending of experience or observation a long, observation and experience is very, very, very, subjective. Not do menchion that chemicals can alter your perceptions and observations of things.

[Dante Hicks]

Not all observations are subjective.

[Qdeathstar]

even if your state-of-mind is altered?

[Leshy]

I have two words to describe this thread: "Oh god."

[Dante Hicks]

Not if you're talking about (say) computer recorded temperatures or something along those lines. But it's hardly a concern is it? This is why you'd have more than one scientist (again, say) to check data in certain contexts.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Leshy

I have two words to describe this thread: "Oh god."

Mark wins special a special bonus prize if he can avoid posting in this thread.

I doubt he will win such a prize though.

[Qdeathstar]

yeah im fine with that. But, by the same token, EVERYTHING doesnt have to be proven empericly, without regard to scientific thought. Thats retarted. really. Especially when not only to people go on about Empiricalism, but then also tout that you have to be objective as well. Objectivity and Empiricalism dont work together that well, after a certain point of simplicity.

[queball]

You can take reasonable precautions to ensure that you aren't on LSD while looking at cell structure or whatever. Popper talks about science being intersubjective, and I think most epistemology would agree. A professor can increase his knowledge of not being on drugs by asking his peers or students or journal editors or whatever.

[Qdeathstar]

for example their are some things that cant be proved empirically, but can mathematicly. There are somethings you cant observe. For Example black holes and dark matter/dark energy are un-observable by their nature. However, we can measure them mathematically and prove they are there.

[KraKto$is8]

Originally Posted by Leshy

I have two words to describe this thread: "Oh god."

[Dante Hicks]

I don't think empiricists are anti-maths.

Besides, I thought we could (theoretically, I've no idea if we have) observe the effects of black holes?

[Qdeathstar]

empiricallism wont let you theoretically do anything.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

for example their are some things that cant be proved empirically, but can mathematicly. There are somethings you cant observe. For Example black holes and dark matter/dark energy are un-observable by their nature. However, we can measure them mathematically and prove they are there.

Within strict empiricism, the idea is that even if a postulated object cant be 'directly observed' (leaving aside the ambiguity and possible meaninglessness of that phrase), it can still be valid in 'empirical' propositions as long as the effect it is proposed to have on measurements is clearly defined. An object of this form (ie unobservable) is classed as a theoretical object, and 'correspondence rules' are set up to define it purely in terms of observables.

For instance, its valid to talk about black holes existing, as long as you define black holes in terms of empirical measurements, or at least provide rules by which they can be reduced to purely observational data (for example black holes would be empirically defined by "that which causes stars to move X in an unexpected direction when nothing else is present to affect their orbit in that way " or whatever ), but it would be invalid to postlate entities whose observational effects are fundamentally unmeasureable and dont affect experiments (eg you couldnt say there are red holes in the sky which have no effect on anything and dont affect the outcome of any measurement, as then their existence would be unverifiable, and 'meaningless' according to strict empiricism).

Strong empiricism of this sort has largely been abandoned though, due to many problems with it emerging in the latter half of the 20th century. Theres no real problem free description of 'empiricism', and no rigid boundaries that seperate empirical statements from non-empirical ones. Fuzzy boundaries are sufficient for some purposes though, but in practice it often seems to be "a scientific theory is one which a lot of scientists agree with".

[Qdeathstar]

All im saying that that just because you cant prove something empirically, that doesnt mean that it is wrong. And that observation is often subjective. Ei,

Murder is Wrong
President Bush is a good president

[Leshy]

Those aren't observations. Those are opinions.

[Nodrog]

"Murder is wrong' is pretty meaningless without first putting forward a moral framework in which to evaluate the claim.

eg

"An action is wrong if it initiates force against another" <---- (partial) definition of the word 'wrong'
"Murder involves an initiation of force" <----follows from definition of murder
"Therefore murder is wrong" <----conclusion of argument.


"President Bush is a good president" is an empirical statement, as long as you define the word 'good'. What are you going to use to judge him other than the actions he has performed of which you have empirical evidence?

eg:

"A good president does not pander to special interest groups, increase spending, ignore the Constitution, institute protectionist policies and fail to improve civil rights" <-- (partial) definition of 'good president'
"President Bush has pandered to special interest groups, increased spending, ignored the Constition, instituted protectionist policies and hasnt improved civil rights" <---- empirical observation
"Therefore President Bush is not a good president" <--- conclusion of arguement.

[Qdeathstar]

now your saying that president bush is not a good president.

But, if i defined a good president to be

One that leads and doesnt follow
One whose beliefs rely on faith and god.
and One who isnt afraid of doing something politically damaging, if it is the right thing to do.

President bush leads and doesnt fallow, his believes rely on faith and god, and he was done several things, such as the war in iraq and now trying to ban gay marriages, because it is the right thing to do

therefore he is a good president

But MrL stresses impiricallism, and objectivity.

An opinion could be a fact eventually. And opinions are based on observation right? So i dont know what your getting at leshy :-/. So i'd like to know how impiricallism and objectivity fit 2gether.

[Qdeathstar]

(oh lets not get into a conversation about whether president bush is a good president or not, it was just an example)

[Qdeathstar]

and impiricallism also suggests that just because you can prove something mathematically, its meaning less unless you can prove it through your senses. And thats rediculous

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

An opinion could be a fact eventually. And opinions are based on observation right? So i dont know what your getting at leshy :-/. So i'd like to know how impiricallism and objectivity fit 2gether.

An opinion is by it's very nature subjective and as such does not correspond with empiricalism. You're somehow thinking that the "Bush is a good president" is somehow an empirical statement, whether that is just your opinion, based on empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

and impiricallism also suggests that just because you can prove something mathematically, its meaning less unless you can prove it through your senses. And thats rediculous

If I prove mathematically that one in every million air molecules moves at a millionth of a mile per hour faster than other air molecules at the exact same temperature, but it has no effect that we can view, that's pretty useless. Is it not?

[Qdeathstar]

thats very useful in predicting the weather, and determine where our climate as a whole is going.

[Qdeathstar]

an emperical statement is something that can be proved through observation. I have set the criterea for beng a good president, Then i obeserved those traits in president bush. Therefore President bush is a good president. No?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

now your saying that president bush is not a good president.
.

Then we;re both using different definitions of the word 'good'. Both statements are still true empirically though. If you were to say "A good president is one that wears a yellow hat, Bush wears a yellow hat, so bush is a good president" then you would be empirically and objectively wrong.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

and impiricallism also suggests that just because you can prove something mathematically, its meaning less unless you can prove it through your senses. And thats rediculous

No it doesnt. Mathematical truth has always been a debateable point within most philosophies, and empiricalism is no different. Some have claimed that mathematical truth is actually empirical (eg we know 2 + 2 = 4 because we have repeatedly observed 2 objects being placed next to 2 objects giving 4), whereas others claim that mathematical 'truths' are true simply because we define them to be so (ie 2 + 2 = 4 because 4 is defined as the sum of 2 and 2). There are various other theories as well, but no empiricalist has ever rejected mathematical truth, as far as I know.

I'd advise you to read A J Ayer's Language Truth and Logic if youre actually interested in this, he provides a decent empiricalist outline of mathematical truth in that (albeit one I disagree with).

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

an emperical statement is something that can be proved through observation. I have set the criterea for beng a good president, Then i obeserved those traits in president bush. Therefore President bush is a good president. No?

A definition is a short hand way of saying something - you have to replace the 'shorthand' with what it actually means when evaluating a sentence it is contained it. When you say :"Bush is a good president", what you actually mean is "Bush is a good leader/whatever". When I say "Bush is a good president", I mean "Bush cares about civil liberties and isnt a socialist in disguise". Although we are saying the same english sentence, we are meaning very different things. Your statement is empircally true, mine is empircally false.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

No it doesnt. Mathematical truth has always been a debateable point within most philosophies, and empiricalism is no different. Some have claimed that mathematical truth is actually empirical (eg we know 2 + 2 = 4 because we have repeatedly observed 2 objects being placed next to 2 objects giving 4), whereas others claim that mathematical 'truths' are true simply because we define them to be so (ie 2 + 2 = 4 because 4 is defined as the sum of 2 and 2). There are various other theories as well, but no empiricalist has ever rejected mathematical truth, as far as I know.

It'd be interesting if someone claimed that all truths are subjective in this sense but that the concept of maths subjectively appears the same to all human beings/intelligent beings/animals (can animals count?) etc

Of course most philosophy is just digging yourself a hole and attempting to get out by reaching china, while using a rather blunt toothpick to dig.

[Qdeathstar]

im talking about maths more complex than addition Nodrog. Maths the explain planetarion motion, prove darkmatter, ect.


pps Thanks for the info about the book, will see if its at the library.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

im talking about maths more complex than addition Nodrog. Maths the explain planetarion motion, prove darkmatter, ect.

All of mathematics is reducible to arithmetic; how do you think a computer can do advanced maths? You can do almost any possible mathematical calculation using an arbitrarily large amount of NOR or NAND logic gates. Im going to bed now but I'll try and post a link for you tomorrow.

[Qdeathstar]

anti-dirivatives, functions and derivatives arent. Graphing isnt. (especially manipulation off graphing).

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

anti-dirivatives, functions and derivatives arent. Graphing isnt. (especially manipulation off graphing).

Yes they are.

Think about it; it is possible to do all of these things on a computer. All a computer can (essentially) do is add and multiply numbers.

[Qdeathstar]

Id lubb to see that. Biannary isnt really math. ex 1001001001110