Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misunderstanding Empiricism
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 1 of 5 (430595)
10-26-2007 8:48 AM


I've been shocked by the content of some of the debate in the past few weeks. Maybe people are getting carried away by rhetoric, but many of the most respected debaters here seem to have been suggesting that science is the only way we can acquire trustworthy knowledge about the world.
What started as a defence of scepticism, in debates with LindaLou, seems to have turned into an argument claiming that most our ways of acquiring knowledge about the world are untrustworthy and that only science provides the holy path to truth.
I want to challenge this argument; but before I begin, let me make clear where I stand, before anyone starts arguing with me under false assumptions.
I don't believe in the supernatural, or ESP, or ghosts. My aim in making this argument is not to defend belief in things that don't have any basis in reality, but to clear up a misunderstanding about empiricism, and point out some of the limitations of using scientific research as an aid to making decisions in life.
So to begin...
Empiricism
Empiricism is a philosophical theory about how we acquire knowledge. It makes the following claims:
1. That we can only acquire knowledge through the senses, and by reflection on the primary impressions of sense;
2. That our knowledge of the external world can never be certain, because it is based on reasoning from past experience rather than on the intrinsic properties of things. Any contrary future experience would prove our assumptions false;
3. That, instead of having certainty, we assess the likelihood of something or other being the case by judging whether it is more or less probable based on our previous experience.
(It is important to note that empiricism stands opposed, not to personal experience or anecdote, but to rationalism and revelation, i.e. to the notions that one can acquire certainty about the external world through reason or revelation.)
Personal experience and anecdote
Now, in the thread Sequel Thread to Holistic Doctors and Medicine, a lurker would have been justified in concluding that most of the pro-science debaters on that thread were making the following two claims:
1. That it was possible to acquire certainty or near-certainty about controversial medical issues by reading scientific literature;
2. That allowing yourself to be swayed by personal experience or by anecdote would in some way be 'unempirical'.
Both of these claims, I would argue, are false.
The first because science doesn't provide certainty even when the concensus of opinion leans heavily one way, and in the case of controversial medical issues scientific opinion may be divided, or scientifc evidence may be inconclusive.
The second because personal experience and anecdote are evidence. Personal experience, in fact, is the biggest chunk of evidence we have, and it's only through personal experience that we filter the evidence or opinion we receive from the scientific community.
Reaching Concensus and Making Decisions
I think a lot of the confusion and misunderstanding on this issue has arisen because the pro-science debaters are conflating four different things:
1. The scientific method (as an ideal way of doing science);
2. The way science is done in reality;
3. The way the scientific community reaches a concensus;
4. The way an individual comes to a decision (for example, on whether to give their child the MMR jab).
As this post is already getting very long, I'll leave that observation without further comment. I'm sure I'll have to come back and defend it .
Edited by JavaMan, : No reason given.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminQuetzal, posted 10-26-2007 10:14 AM JavaMan has replied

AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 5 (430603)
10-26-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-26-2007 8:48 AM


Hi Java. I very much like this OP. I have no hesitation about promoting it as it stands. However, have you considered that the substance of these remarks might also fit into the thread On the Philosophy of, well, Philosophy? If you think it would lose something of what you want to discuss on that thread, I'll be happy to promote it as is.
Is It Science? good enough for you as a stand alone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-26-2007 8:48 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by JavaMan, posted 10-26-2007 11:34 AM AdminQuetzal has replied

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 3 of 5 (430621)
10-26-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminQuetzal
10-26-2007 10:14 AM


Is It Science? good enough for you as a stand alone?
Yes, I think so.
However, have you considered that the substance of these remarks might also fit into the thread On the Philosophy of, well, Philosophy?
Yes, they are overlapping. But it's a more general question I'm trying to address here. Although you might find me dropping into your thread as well .

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminQuetzal, posted 10-26-2007 10:14 AM AdminQuetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminQuetzal, posted 10-26-2007 11:52 AM JavaMan has not replied

AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (430624)
10-26-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by JavaMan
10-26-2007 11:34 AM


My pleasure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JavaMan, posted 10-26-2007 11:34 AM JavaMan has not replied

AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 5 (430627)
10-26-2007 11:52 AM


Thread copied to the Misunderstanding Empiricism thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024