mark24:
Empirical is data derived via our senses, regardless of whether they agree with our internal coherence, whatever that is, or not.
No wonder you can't understand what I am saying. Your using a different definition. I hadn't bothered to look it up myself until now.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=empirical
em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4 : of or relating to empiricism
Well, now I see your point. I am afraid that this is one of those rare occasions when we're both right.
You're using definition 1.
And I am using definition 2.
So who will be the impartial and objective judge between us?
Since the 4th def. is
'of or relating to empericism', let's look at that one; and in particular, the 2nd of the 3 definitions for 'empericism' which is the closest to your context (the natural sciences).
Empiricism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
2 a : the practice of relying on 'observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically
So in terms of natural science, 'the emperical' is arrived at (as I said) by coherence between observation
and experiment. As I explained to 'Sidelined', the test (experiment) is ultimately one of coherence. It seeks to find out if we have agreement between the parties being tested?
If we only saw with our eyes, what would we
say about it?
The fact is, two people often
see the same thing, and come to different conclusions or theories about
what it is...
The most coherent theory wins, because logic is the only impartial and objective judge, and is the primary foundational assumption for 'science' to begin with. To be scientific is ultimately to be logical (at least that is what the definition should be).
Your eyes are a tool for your mind with which to interpret reality. The cannot interpret it for you. You must think...
"...Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true.
It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained eveything else in the whole universe but which made it imposssible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been arrived at by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed it's own credentials. It would be an argument which proved no argument was sound -a proof that there are no such thing as proofs- which is nonsense."
(C.S. Lewis 'Miracles', chap 3 'The cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism' pgs 21, 22)
The only proof of anything is ultimately 'logical coherence' surrounding the observation of the entity. Fortunately, we have a physical universe with which to use as mirror to test our hypotheses. But the physical universe cannot speak other than of it's imminently logical and elegant structure. For we have no other means of engaging it.
You forget that you are yourself a part of the structure. Therefore you cannot rely
only upon your experience within it to verify
objectively where you are. You're in a prejudicial position by definition. You must get outside of the box and test your assumptions.
Now Emannuel Kant said this was not possible... but how can he know without having gone outside to see?
It is an inevitable difficulty, and lewis captures it with straightforward grace.
My apologies if
I am not so agile as he...
We cannot trust our senses if they leave us in a position of logical incoherence. The physical world proves itself to be logical. We expect ourselves (and especially others) to be logical.
Which brings me to a fascinating quote. Pay close attention to the bold section.
"The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data, for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Watson D.M.S. / Adaptation, Nature, No. 3119, Vol. 124, August 10, 1929, pp.231-234)
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
