What's wrong with Empiricism? All meaningful information is empirical

What's wrong with Empiricism? All meaningful information is empirical.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Define meaningful

meaningful to whom, lad?

There's no logic or reason behind it, it's just assumed to be true. There's nothing behind it. It's like belief in a God, it's taken to be true based on faith.

see photo
If knowledge has no empirical reference, it's mere conjecture.
I base on faith that there is an empirical reality? Son I wouldn't exist without an empirical reality.

This is the literature board, you fucking retard.

You're right, I probably should have posted on Veeky Forums instead. My bad senpai.

>I base on faith that there is an empirical reality? Son I wouldn't exist without an empirical reality.
Well, empiricism isn't universally accepted under one definition, is it? I thought you were talking about the doctrine that most/all of our knowledge comes from sense experience. This is assumed, because our senses could very well be deceiving us.

Can you define what you mean exactly w/ "there is an empirical reality"?

What is the nature of it? what do you mean by "empirical?

While it has a fine metaphysical foundation, too many empiricists set themselves up against intelligent thought and reasoning for me to take them seriously.

Well, I would say that there is a reality, and its existence is homogeneous with respect to objects within the world, and my subjective conception of it. So, I would say that if I claim to exist, I am claiming I am aware of myself in a way that I am aware of another object within reality. The relation of my subject to objects within the world (and therefore other subjects) is what derives information about the world. My senses are the bridge of that dualism, which is really a quasi-dualism. Therefore all information that doesn't derive itself from relation to this reality is at best conjecture.

This is my conception of empiricism. Does this match up with your conception?

>is homogeneous with respect to objects within the world, and my subjective conception of it
>and my subjective conception of it
>subjective conception of it
>subjective

Ay, there's the rub.

>you think subjectivity is non-physical

>All meaningful information is empirical

And there's the rub: "meaning" isn't an empirically verifiable phenomenon.

>having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose
Math isn't empirical. Math satisfies this definition of meaningfulness.

Right but where is the evidence that there is a reality? Or that it is homogeneous with the objects within the world?

All you have is speculation and conjecture as well.

Empiricism is a very effective method of generating models within certain degrees of accuracy, but there is no logical reason why an empirical model is closer to the 'true' nature of reality than any other model.

Plato explored this idea in his allegory of the cave, and this was once widely recognised by scientists such as Planck/Heisenberg/Einstein, all of whom to varying degrees conceded that faith is the cornerstone of science. But once science grew more industrialised as a process and began to generate greater profits it became economically more feasibly to teach people only the pertinent aspect of science that equips them to be gears within a larger corporate operation.

Very few people today still learn Philosophy and Science to tertiary degrees (masters in both).

Homie, knowledge derived from sense experience does not guarantee a real, sensuous world behind those perceptions. What you're describing is not empiricism, but realism.

What I'm saying is people are easily deluded. Senses can trick you. Subjectivity has no worth, subjectivity is inherently delusion.

I think everything is physical, by the way.

"All meaningful information is empirical." isnt empirical, nice job, retard

Precisely. Meaningful would be a classification of concrete information about the world. So while the concept itself isn't empirical, it is a condition of the mind. It is meaningful as far as we think it is, that is, a physiological process develops the notion of meaning out of itself.

To the extent mathematics fails to refer to empirical reality, it is meaningless. I'm also a Constructivist.

>Right but where is the evidence that there is a reality?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

>All you have is speculation and conjecture as well.
Nope.

>there is no logical reason why an empirical model is closer to the 'true' nature of reality than any other model.
To the extent your models apparently argue there isn't even a reality to get 'closer' to, I'd argue that my framework is preferable.

>Homie, knowledge derived from sense experience does not guarantee a real, sensuous world behind those perceptions. What you're describing is not empiricism, but realism.

We cannot derive information about reality without sense experience. It simply cannot happen. That is what I'm claiming.

>What I'm saying is people are easily deluded. Senses can trick you. Subjectivity has no worth, subjectivity is inherently delusion.
I agree. Subjectivity can often be wrong, but only on further comparison with more sense-knowledge. Would you disagree?

fuck accidentally forgot to quote others, your replies ends after the third quote

here:

>only on further comparison with more sense-knowledge
Is the comparison done by the senses, or are you prepared to stop pretending you aren't a rationalist?

actually, I'm probably some kind of crypto-Kantian, as it seems that I can only use those kind of arguments to argue in my own bait thread. kek

>I'm also a Constructivist.
Why? Classical mathematics is more empirically useful.

/thread

Classical mechanics is extremely useful. From my understanding all Constructivism can keep classical mechanics, but it frames things a little differently e.g. removes use of the excluded middle, in order to stay true to its roots. This more of a Veeky Forums topic than lit or philosophy, however; and I move more out of my own domain of knowledge the more it is discussed.

Don't listen to , who probably came from reddit and doesn't understand anything. Philosophy is a perfectly fine thing to discuss here. It's actually in the rules.

Some anons here are confusing empiricism with rationalism.

Empiricism is epistemology, rationalism is ontology.

Empiricism is simply using the senses to attain information. Empiricism also recognizes that our senses are limited and can be fooled, so skepticism is the main mode of empiricism.