One's Own Theory

Well, why does any belief have to have empirical evidence for it to be true?And if that is true, wouldn't it actually render almost all of humanity's cultural and moral beliefs invalid?Why does any piece of knowledge or cultural or moral belief/philosophy have to have an academic study before something can be considered valid?

quote:

---

What do you mean by "cultural and moral beliefs"?

---

An example of cultural and moral beliefs would be that children must be protected trumps the right of individuals, or within American political parties, the existence of partisan politics.From Free Dictionary the meaning of Partisan politics (for those who wish me to define partisan politics)partisan 1 (prt-zn)
n.
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.In which case I mean definition 1.

quote:

---

Because without evidence, it cannot be distinguished from made up shit.

---

So would a saying like "Racism exists" just be made up shit? Why would evidence be needed to show that it exists?And what would be the evidence need to show that it exists?

quote:

---

How can we determine what is true and what is false if not through empirical evidence?

---

Well, let's take something like say patriotism. We can take a claim like "there are people who are very loyal to their country".So, why would this need empirical evidence to be true?

quote:

---

Ok. Not sure what to say about this one.

---

Yes this one is a tough one because it contains both cultural beliefs and moral beliefs at the same time. Not all cultures believes this way.In contrast, some Muslim countries marry their girls off at the age of fifteen through arranged marriages and see nothing wrong with it and don't see it as abuse while child advocates (in America at least) would more than likely call it child abuse and want to take the child away.

quote:

---

Because else it would be a lie, or indistinguishable from it. But since some people are very loyal to their country, I don't see a problem here.

---

The problem is with the statement of:In order for something to be true it must have empirical evidence to support it.If this Wiki is correct on what Empirical evidence is:

quote:

---

Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer.

---

Then wouldn't it be impossible to determine that some people are very loyal to their country? And if it's impossible to determine it, then wouldn't that mean it can not be true?

quote:

---

Can you think of any bit of knowledge that is based on belief alone?

---

Well, first you'd have to define knowledge.For me there's personal knowledge from experience as well as book knowledge or education.But the thing is sometimes personal knowledge can be just a belief.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to give me another example.

---

A theist who can't understand that an atheist has a lack of belief in God so he calls them all agnostic because that's what he or she knows.Does that work?

quote:

---

We could make this more empirical. We could set up a test where someone was offered one of two choices. They could have 100 dollars or denounce their country. Only the interviewer would be privy to each individual's choice and their identity would be kept private so there are no social ramifications. People who forgo personal gain in order to not disparage their country would be considered loyal.

---

I'm not sure that would be empirical, because when there are no ramification to an action many people will choose to do what is convenient.For example, because internet discussion forums offer anonymity, many posters will not have manners and not treat other posters with respect. When you're talking to somebody face to face, you risk a ramification of if you have a dissenting opinion somebody might take it personally and use physical violence against that person.There was also a famous test that bore this out. I can't remember the proper name of it, but it had people who would apply electrical shock to people if they were told to do so. However, it wasn't real electricity and the person hooked up to the machine receiving the "shock" was acting in a lot of pain. The people were told that there wouldn't repercussions if they used this device to discipline somebody for giving a wrong answer.The object of the test was to determine why people follow a tyrannical government and allow things like genocide to happen.The result was that when the people were told they would not receive any repercussions, they were more willing to apply the electricity at very high and almost fatal levels.Edited by Tram law, : added a quote

So it is only actions that define a person?