Naive empiricism.

[Hugo Holbling]

I should like to challenge Yahzi to stop insulting me and accept a formal debate on his form of empiricism, given at some length here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1303242#post1303242). In accordance with his comments there, i propose that he defend the proposition "empiricism is not decisively undermined by the theory-ladenness of terms", while i shall oppose. The point of doing this is so that mischaracterisations will be disallowed.

[Cancer]

i'd like a specific example of a term which is so theory laden that it defeats the empiricist position. seems absurd.

or perhaps recommend an essay that gives an overview of the problem.

[Hugo Holbling]

The best paper to look at, if you can locate a copy, is Feyerabend's Das Problem der Existenz theoretischer Entitäten, which deals with sense-datum theories quite nicely. Churchland's A Deeper Unity is a neurocomputational look at the same thing. Otherwise you can try the many treatments of this question in the literature, of which a reasonable overview may be found here (http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Philosophy/UG/Studyguide/phil%20sci.html).

"Experience" is the term you are looking for, btw.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
I should like to challenge Yahzi to stop insulting me and accept a formal debate on his form of empiricism, given at some length here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1303242#post1303242). In accordance with his comments there, i propose that he defend the proposition "empiricism is not decisively undermined by the theory-ladenness of terms", while i shall oppose. The point of doing this is so that mischaracterisations will be disallowed.
I enter this debate with considerable reluctance because I don't actually think I disagree with Hugo. But I can't say for certain, because Hugo seems outraged at my misrepresentation of his position without actually explaining what his position is.

Hugo seems to have taken exception to my claim that getting beaten to death with a baseball bat escapes all metaphysical, philosophical concerns about reality.

Given that a person can be beaten to death while unconscious, I don't understand where "terms" or "theory" even come into the picture.

Perhaps Hugo could explain what he finds unacceptable about this statement: "It is rational to assume the real world exists." Then I might be in a better position to defend myself.

Edit: a correction: it is not so much that Hugo needs to explain his entire position, but rather his interjection into my argument with seebs. Given that I am arguing with seebs over whether immaterial, intangible, untestable objects can be said to exist, one could possibly understand my failure to grasp what Hugo's objection is.

[Yahzi]

Another possible solution: perhaps Hugo could explain why the the (alleged) weaknesses of empiricism justifiy believing in anything you want.

Seebs takes the position that because empiricism is "undermined," therefore he can believe in anything he likes.

Is it necessary for me to oppose Hugo's "undermining" to defeat seebs? Is it possible for me to concede that empiricism has some formal difficulties without therefore surrending all ability to determine between rational and irrational?

[The AntiChris]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Seebs takes the position that because empiricism is "undermined," therefore he can believe in anything he likes. No he doesn't. (At least not explicitly ;)).

He simply takes the position that "because empiricism is 'undermined,'" any attempt to characterise his position as "unproven" or "without rational merit" is equally 'undermined'.

However, what seebs consistently avoids, is meeting, head-on, any criticism that his position fails to assist us in our endeavours to distinguish between crackpot theories and those that are worthy of our serious consideration.

It's basically a defensive stance designed to render his own beliefs immune from rational scrutiny.

Chris

[seebs]

Huh?

I have never denied the possibility or utility of ways to deal with crackpot theories; I just claim that Yahzi's proposed system can't do it in a logically consistent way.

[The AntiChris]

Originally posted by seebs
Huh?

I have never denied the possibility or utility of ways to deal with crackpot theories; I just claim that Yahzi's proposed system can't do it in a logically consistent way. No, I didn't say (or suggest) that you'd denied that a distinction could be made.

I'm simply saying that you've consistently avoided responding to adequately, in my opinion, the accusation (possibly only implied, but I'm in no doubt that you understood the tacit implication) that the defence of your own beliefs could, quite plausibly, be utilised in defense of any crackpot belief arising out of a claimed "personal revelation".

Chris

[seebs]

Hmm. I guess I was too busy pointing out that I never said the Easter Bunny made sense to get around to discussing the general rules I use. Interesting point, and one worth thinking about. A thread will have to be started.

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Perhaps Hugo could explain what he finds unacceptable about this statement: "It is rational to assume the real world exists." Then I might be in a better position to defend myself.

Since this is not the point at issue, i shall not.

Edit: a correction: it is not so much that Hugo needs to explain his entire position, but rather his interjection into my argument with seebs.

I do not need to explain why i joined a discussion; on the other hand, you might care to explain why you felt it necessary to insult me as a result, lest i make a formal complaint on the matter.

Another possible solution: perhaps Hugo could explain why the the (alleged) weaknesses of empiricism justifiy believing in anything you want.

Since i did not make this claim and it does not follow from my remarks, i shall not. I am not interested in mischaracterisations.

Is it possible for me to concede that empiricism has some formal difficulties without therefore surrending all ability to determine between rational and irrational?

Of course it is. However, you stated:

The only possible option to empiricism is solipism, which is so ridiculous that it need not be discussed.

The strong empiricism you have advocated was left behind very many years ago and is defeated by the theory-ladenness of observation terms. If you agree with this then we could instead debate the claim that no other options than empiricism or solipsism exist. Either debate will be over very quickly, since the results are trivial. If you would rather not enter a debate i could send you references to check and perhaps learn from. Another point to note is that in addition to the other options you assert do not exist there are many different forms of empiricism. Your approach is too simplistic.

If you intend to make questionable philosophical points in a discussion i am entitled to join in and dispute them without necessarily holding an opinion on the main issue. If the interjection is too far off-topic then the moderators may split the thread. An alternative to being called to a formal debate would be to take in my criticisms and try to argue in a more sophisticated fashion, or otherwise to cease insulting those who disagree with you and speculating on their motivations.

From the EoG thread:

Ok, I will concede that I have no idea what you are talking about.

In that case, it appears unwise to participate in a formal debate and to respond by insulting me.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
I do not need to explain why i joined a discussion; on the other hand, you might care to explain why you felt it necessary to insult me as a result, lest i make a formal complaint on the matter.
I see. So, the issue is, while I was arguing with seebs, I said something that tickled your particular bugbear. In response, you decided to point out how wrong I was, without bothering to care what impact that would have on the argument.

You don't actually agree with seebs, you just disagree with me, and felt like pointing that out. Somehow it didn't seem important to you to also point out that your disagreement with my position did not actually support seebs' position.

And then, when I suggested that you come out of your Ivory Tower, you took that as an insult.

Here's the thing, Hugo: I an concerned about significance. Perhaps my explanation of empiricism is too simple for you: but before you object to it, perhaps you would like to consider if it is significantly inaccurate for the purposes to which I am putting it to. Given the difficulty seebs and I have had on establishing basic issues, my resort to simplicity is not incomprehensible.

If the net result of our debate is that seebs is still wrong for all the reasons I said he was wrong, then your objection can be dismissed as nit-picking.

So before I even consider debating what ever it is you are so wired about, how about you tell me how it affects seebs' position, or my arguments against his position.

The strong empiricism you have advocated was left behind very many years ago and is defeated by the theory-ladenness of observation terms.
And this means what? Does this mean it is irrational to believe in reality? Does this mean fantasy is indistinguishable from reality?

You keep saying this, but you won't tell me what it means. What is the significance of your statement?

If all you are making is a statement about the weakness of formal systems, then I have already agreed to that. Reality is more than just a formal system. We agree on this, yes?

What we disagree on is what the significance of your statement means. Please explain to me how your position differs from the position of "reality is real, and you just have to deal with it."

If you intend to make questionable philosophical points in a discussion i am entitled to join in and dispute them without necessarily holding an opinion on the main issue.
If you intend to nit-pick without consideration of how it affects the discussion at large, you should be prepared to be dismissed as irrelevant.

Really, Hugo, is that such a shocker?

But this brings us around to the real question: you don't have an opinion on the main issue. I know you'll say I'm misrepresenting you once again (it's hard not to when you go to such lengths to avoid stating your position), but this sure sounds to me like you agree with seebs that reality can't be known. Why don't you explain to me how it is you can not have an opinion on whether reality is real or not? Is that really the kind of issue one is allowed to be agnostic about?

Are you interested in debating the real issue, or do you just want credit for your philosophical erudition? I never challenged the latter: but I do think it would be more impressive if you could do more than just challenge individual statements. It would be more impressive if you could show how your philosophical knowledge afftected the issue at hand.

Heck, I might learn something from that.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by seebs
Hmm. I guess I was too busy pointing out that I never said the Easter Bunny made sense to get around to discussing the general rules I use. Interesting point, and one worth thinking about. A thread will have to be started.
Actually, you did at one point discuss the general rules you used. You described it as "matching the world I live in."

My question was, how is that different than empiricism?

That is, empiricism as I defined it early on: the naive, simplistic, hard empiricism that says if your skull is crushed by a baseball bat, you die. I acknowledge that my version of empiricism is metaphysically unsound: that's not the point.

The point is it's the same methodology that seebs uses. Unsound or not, we all resort to the same method in the end. That's a given. That is inescapable. As I have argued all along, its inescapability justifies the fact that none of us can escape it. The real question here is, are we entitled to accept methodologies that are unsound and escapable?

I might agree with you seebs, that we are unjustified in endorsing hard empiricism - if I could. But I can't. I can pretend to, I can make all manner of abstract arguments about it, I might even talk myself into something stupid like letting you hit me with a bat. But the consequences will be the same as if I held the naive position all along.

The inescapablity of hard empiricism does not mean it is true. But it does mean we can stop arguing about it, because none of us can honestly act as if it isn't true. We have to act as if it is true in all cases except for purely abstract debate (see, Hugo, here's my Ivory Tower again: it is not an insult, but an appeal to practicality).

[seebs]

There's a suitable thread for this issue over in Philosophy; if you'd like to follow up on the question there, I think that'd be more appropriate than us continuing to argue in Hugo's proposed debate thread. I even attempted to summarize the Basebal Bat Test, since I think it's an interesting one.

[Hugo Holbling]

Given that you are unwilling to apologise for your inappropriate (and moderated) conduct and continue to speculate on my motives, i have nothing further to say on this matter.

I again apologise to Nightshade.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

No need to apologize, Hugo --- and don't apologize for apologizing! ;)

Originally posted by seebs
There's a suitable thread for this issue over in Philosophy; if you'd like to follow up on the question there, I think that'd be more appropriate than us continuing to argue in Hugo's proposed debate thread. I even attempted to summarize the Basebal Bat Test, since I think it's an interesting one.

Actually, I don't mind if this subject is discussed here. As long as the goal of the discussion is hammer out positions for a potential formal debate. Before a formal debate gets underway on a subject like this, it is best to have the positions clearly communicated and understood by both parties. That's one goal of the FD(CS) forum.

I think this goal is quite important in this case since we're dealing with more abstract philosophical notions rather than something more concrete like an Age of the Earth creation/evolution debate. If Yahzi does not understand seebs' or Hugo's position sufficiently, then the formal debate can be confused and unproductive.

Anyways, I'd be happy to see a formal debate on this issue. :) seebs, Hugo, and Yahzi, I'd recommend summarizing your argument for/against positivism/empiricism in clear premises and a conclusion and perhaps include an example or analogy that helps to clarify it. Who knows, you all may end up agreeing with each other and there may be no need for a formal debate after all.

Jason

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
Given that you are unwilling to apologise for your inappropriate (and moderated) conduct and continue to speculate on my motives, i have nothing further to say on this matter.
I did not speculate on your motives. As for an apology, I rejected the notion that I ever insulted you. I realize you took my comment about an Ivory Tower as an insult, but I did not intend it that way, as I said above.

For your part, you have failed to explain how your delicate sensiblities are warranted. You did not add to the conversation. Stepping in long enough to demolish an argument, and then professing indifference to how that affects the outcome of the debate, is either sabotage or nit-picking.

And since that moment you have steadfastly refused to offer any meaningful contribution.

Here's a clue, Hugo. If you don't want to discuss the topic of a thread, don't post in it. If your only goal is to troll various threads until you find someone you can siphon off into a debate about your particular bugbear, well, frankly, I think I was more than polite.

Again: I do not object to your input on the matter. I even respect your knowledge of the matter. But I do object to your failing to show how your position matters to the conversation at hand.


Edit: Perhaps this post verges on motivational speculation. But I cannot conceal my ire at someone who claims superiour knowledge but begs off actually explaining it in a relevant way.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Nightshade
summarizing your argument for/against positivism/empiricism in clear premises and a conclusion
Empiricism: the observation of reality.
Reality: that which exists independent of observation.

My position is that reality really does exist, and it is foolish to pretend we can even doubt this. Human beings are constructed in such a way that the assumption of reality is not only necessary, but inescapable. The baseball bat to the head is deadly regardless of your philosophical position. To put it another way: humans assume empiricism, even when that assumption is unobservable. We can't help it. It (our assumption of empiricism) is part of reality.

I reject all theories that involve empricism + something else (such as the Matrix) based on Occam's Razor. I assert that reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth, and that empiricism is non-formal system for exploring reality. I assert that limiting yourself to established rules of rationality is how you maintain the status of being rational. I assert that rationality itself does not need to be formally supported, for two reasons: 1) it is informally supported by empiricism, and 2) it is inescapable. Endorsing irrationality only allows for continued survival as long as the irrationality is bounded by rationality (example: freedom of religion is bounded by secular law, which prevents religious people from waging religous war, executing heretics, etc. Another example: you can be irrational as much as you want, right up until the point you starve to death). Hence, we see that irrationality can only continue to exist if it is supported, maintained, and bounded by rationality. This leads us back to the conclusion that rationality is inescapable.

Since I consider empiricism to be an informal system, I am unconcerned about its formal lack of support. My point is not that you can logically, formally support empiricism: it is that you can rationally support empiricism (as seebs has said elsewhere, he thinks you can achieve rationality without restricting yourself to the purely logical). My point is that the inablity of formal systems to derive empiricism is a weakness of formal systems, not a weakness of empiricism. I take empiricism as primary to formal systems, because formal systems are not inescapable.

Finally, I think that if something is indistinguishable from false, it is false. I think that distinguishablity comes from empirical observation. Therefore, claims that cannot be tested (i.e. cannot be observed) are indistinguishable from false. That doesn't mean they are necessarily false, it just means they are in effect false. And since empiricism is the root of all truth, then effect matters. It is irrational and a violation of Occam's Razor to postulate truths that don't matter.

My ultimate point is that if you don't believe in reality, you are irrational. And nobody wants to be irrational.

Well, nobody involved in this discussion, at least.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Thank you for the summary, Yahzi. If Hugo (or seebs or anyone else) wishes to oppose your argument (after one of them outlines his perspective on the issue) a formal debate then could be quite interesting.

Also, to all potential debate participants, please try to keep the decorum here civil and especially within a formal debate if that ends up happening. The standards for decorum have somewhat higher expectations in the formal debate fora than the regular fora.

Jason

[ms tree]

Truly, I have burned myself on a hot iron. It hurt & it blistered. I have also burned myself in other ways. I have seen other people get burned & it appeared to hurt them.
My fireplace has a fire burning in it. I am quite sure that if I put my unprotected hand in that fire it would hurt. I don't have to do it to know that. I can use (& do use) empirical evidence, observation & a rational mind to come to that conclusion. If I choose to ignore the evidence & my rational thinking then I could choose the irrational path of putting my hand in the fire to prove to myself it is hot.
Furthermore, I will not let my grandchild put his hand in the fire. Rational? For his sake I hope so.
At 2 years old he already knows what HOT! is. In fact, he is so proficient at using his rational mind he knows if the outside of the oven is hot he shouldn't touch it. I know this because he tells me, "Hot! Hurt D!" & he pulls away from it. Now, perhaps I am wrong & he is just mimicing me. However, he is capable of distinqushing many different types of items that are hot & I have not told him this about every single one every single time. Rationally, I assume this means he has learned what HOT! is & that he can avoid hurting himself by using his own empirical evidence to determine whether to touch something - whether he sees fire or feels heat. So, not only has he learned by experience & observation, he is able to make predictions based on that information & act accordingly. And he isn't a rocket scienitist - yet!
Informal? Seems so. He doesn't know about scientific theories or that he is already using a methodology to know about his world - he just does it. And now I can light the oven when he is in the house & bake him cookies. Heck, he has even learned he has to wait for the cookies to cool before snatching one off the plate!
I agree with Yahzi. Whether one admits it or not - we all use our rational minds to some extent, some more than others & some to a greater extent than others - or we get burned.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi ms tree,

It's probably best take up this issue in the Philosophy (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=64) forum. Unless, of course, you wish to propose a formal debate on the issue.

In any case, Hugo has indicated that he does not wish to participate in a formal debate, so I'll be closing this thread.

Jason