Rob:
Quantifiable? ie. mathematical?
Measurable. Math applies, obviously.
Sensory: We see a red shift in the spectra of stars.
Quantifiable: We measure the amount of red shift.
We now have quantifiable sensory data. We watch for more red shift, measure more amounts, and build up a body of data. We look for pattens. We make predictions based on the patterns we discern, then look at more stars to see how the predictions turn out. And so it goes.
That's empiricism.
Well of course... one cannot rely on his senses to tell him his senses are valid. It must be tested by good reasoning (ie. mathematical / logical thinking).
One does not measure the amount of red shift in stars to 'tell him his senses are valid.' One does it so one can be precise in talking to others. This helps ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing.
Instead of a scientist saying 'I thought that star looked kind of orangey when I looked at the charts. What do you think? Does it look orangey to you?', followed by a long discussion about how to define 'orangey', the scientist can simply say 'This star shows X amount of shift into the red end of the spectrum.' The other scientist can then observe the star and see if she finds the same thing. If she does, the amount of correspondence can be measured. If she does not, the amount of difference can be measured. Either way, you get more data--more
quantifiable sensory data. And so it goes.
So it is not accurate to say, as you do, that one confirms sensory data simply by 'applying logic.' One confirms sensory data in no small part by making sure others notice the same thing.
Which brings us to an important way to test, empirically, whether your 'senses are valid.' One makes sure others get the same data when they use
their senses. That's why precise terms are needed and measurements are so important. Another test is to make falsifiable predictions based on what one senses, then get everybody looking.
Those are the methods of empiricism.
You are trying to say philosophy and empiricism are 'the same thing.' They aren't.
In the first place, philosophy does not begin from 'mathematical observations' as you say. It begins from axioms. (See posts by
jar.)
Philosophy regularly applies its logic to premises empiricism cannot confirm.
The two are thus not the same, despite your wish to have it so.
An example of philosophy's approach would be, say, a discussion of whether God is caused or uncaused. One starts from an axiom--'God exists'--that has nothing to do with 'mathematical observation' or quantifiable sensory data. Given that premise, one applies logic.
It's possible, I suppose to make fine case for either point of view. The result would be a logically
valid argument.
But validity and truth are not the same thing. A perfectly valid argument about causes or lack of causes does not obligate God to exist if he doesn't. It does not prove his existence if he does.
All philosophy asks of quantifiable sensory data is that any philosophical argument put forward not contradict it.
Clearly, the methods of philosophy are
not those of empiricism.
Until you have designed a test for God, measured God, shown us your math, let us replicate the results, and made falsifiable predictions everyone can test, they remain two distinct ways of going about things.
Call it math, call it philosophy, call it sensory. The point is we are all seeking logical (philosophical) coherence between the physical world, our experiences of it, and logic.
All you have said here is that philosophy and science are two ways we try to understand the world around us, and that both use logic. You have
not demonstrated that the two are 'the same thing.' That conclusion does not logically follow from the statement.
You are eager to point out the characteristics the two share. On that basis you jumble terms. But you fail to address the ways in which the two differ.
Those differences are substantial. To overlook them is foolish and, for the purposes of making your argument, logically unsound.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : making sure the word 'shift' gets an S.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Archer
All species are transitional.
™ Version 4.2
