|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misunderstanding Empiricism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
JavaMan writes:
Well, that's the whole point of science. We don't actually "prove" anything. But we try to make it as certain as we possibly can. Will there always be uncertainty in the result? Yes, of course. But ask yourself this question. Would you rather see the certainty and uncertainty as is explored carefully and repeatably in scientific studies or would you rather have the certainty from someone's personal experience?
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.
I don't think anyone was trying to claim that experience and anecdote are not evidence. What we try to tell people is that for the most parts experiences and anecdotes by the average person is untrustworthy, not because he is dishonest but because he is not properly trained. I do a lot of programming. My father, on the other hand, has trouble turning on a computer. Whose experience and anecdote do you trust more in regard to protramming? Mine or my father's? Apply the same concept to scientific studies. Which side do you trust more? Just some people out there or real scientists making real efforts to make repeatable studies and repeatable results?
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.
I'm one of those who believe that science really is the only way we can acquire trustworthy knowledge about the world. Why? Because it's the discipline that is involved. I spent some years working in biology research labs and some years working in programming research. I can tell you this much. It's rigorous stuff. At every turn, there was always someone checking my results and someone else checking his findings. I've had to write reports after reports after reports, each with huge chunks of data attached to it. Can we sometimes trust our own personal experience and anecdotes to acquire information? Sure, nothing is stopping us from doing it. But should we trust them more than scientific studies? I say no. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
JavaMan, I don't know how on Earth you were able to interpret crashfrog's quote you quoted the way you interpreted it.
Let me answer your questions in crash's own words from the quote.
you writes:
Personal experience is our only route to knowledge, surely. What else could there be? Isn't that one of the fundamental claims of empiricism?crashfrog writes: Personal experience, obviously, is the most immediate source of knowledge we possess. Nonetheless, it is not an end to knowledge - it is rather the first step on a path that, ultimately, should end with a more verifiable means of gaining knowledge. you writes:
How could anyone function in the world if our personal experience weren't, in the main, to be trusted?crashfrog writes: Our own experiences in isolation are simply not to be trusted - as everyone who's ever dreamed must surely understand. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
JavaMan writes:
So Percy and I have slight a difference of opinion. I don't disagree with anything you say, although I would just note the following: I personally don't trust my personal experience at all unless it can be verified by at least another person. While I haven't experienced any hallucination yet, I have heard plenty of cases (my aunt works in an insane institution). Percy thinks that there are other trustworthy approaches to attaining accurate knowledge of the world. I personally can't think of any, but the important thing is we both agree that the scientific method seems to be the best approach to any kind of natural phenomenon. Again, what's your point? Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I'm not upset. I just want to know what your point was. Let me give you an example of what you sound like right now.
Person A: I like dogs.Person B: I like dogs, especially poodles. Person C quoting A and B:
A: I like dogs. B: I like dogs, especially poodles. Person A: What's your point?Person C: Why are you upset? Person A: I'm not upset. I just don't get your point. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Again, I'm not upset. I just don't understand why you quoted Percy's and my statements.
We essentially agreed with each other except for a very minor point. The minor point is he included everyday common sense things like determining whether the street light is red or green when he said there are other ways to accurately acquire knowledge beside the scientific method. I, on the other hand, felt it was so bleedingly obvious about the light thing and therefore didn't consider it at all. When I mentioned the acquisition of knowledge and that the scientific method is the only way we could accurately acquire knowledge, I was refering more to phenomena that are not so bleedingly obvious. For example, electromagnetism and why a compass always pointed north. Try using religion to explain the compass and you'll see what I mean. So, again, why did you quote both of us? Were you trying to make a point that we didn't agree each other? Were you aiming more for the lurkers? What was your point? Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
nator writes:
I am reminded of the couple of scientists that supposedly discovered a way to induce cold fusion. After the ordeal, they couldn't even sell used cars. An academic scientist who falsifies data and is caught (which will probably happen as soon as someone tries to replicate their work) will, quite literally, end their career. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Percy writes:
This post was composed 3 years ago. I think it deserves honorable mention in light of the news of the discovery of Neanderthal genes in non-African populations that everyone has been talking about. If you don't know what I'm talking about, google is your friend. One of the characteristics of a pseudoscience is that it stays at the same state of progress for years and years, decades even. Here are some examples from science and pseudo-science: Computers: Babbage's computing machine, WW-II computing machines, Eniac, IBM/360, Intel 8080, Pentium. ESP: no progress Astronomy: Galileo's telescope, Lick Observatory, Mount Palomar, Hubble. UFOs: no progress Space exploration: balloons, Sputnik, Telstar, Mercury missions, Apollo moon landing, space shuttle, space station. Bigfoot: no progress Medicine: early surgery, germ theory of disease, anesthesia, vaccines, antibiotics, modern surgery, joint replacements, organ transplants. Faith healers: no progress Straight chiropractic (subluxation theory): no progressBecause of the lack of progress in the pseudosciences, "research" from decades ago is as "relevant" today as it was then, and one of the common qualities observed from advocates of pseudoscience is citing very old "research". One of the most visible tell tale signs (or is it tale tell?) of pseudoscience is of its complete lack of progress. On the one hand, research continues to make progress in the field of evolutionary genetics. Scientists, through collecting thousands of samples across wide ranges of gene pools over years, have found that homosapes and neanderthals did indeed interbreed. Non-Africans carry around 1-4% of neanderthal genes. And on the other hand, we have ID genetics researchers who have made absolutely no progress at all in the last 30 years. They have not published a single thing that's new.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024