The Rational Empiricist's Dilemma

[bluethread]

I am what I think,
And I think that I see,
And I think what I see is fact.
So, I test what I see,
By what I think,
But what I see is not what I think, in fact.

What I see is what I use,
And what I use makes me think,
That the thing that I think is fact.
So, I name what I think,
And that name that use,
Excludes what is not named from fact.

Now, I do not believe,
What I see, think, or name,
Because, if I believe, that's not fact.
But how does one see, think, or name,
If one does not believe,
For seeing is believing, in fact.



Question: Is this a true characterization of rational empiricism and how can the rational empiricist define reality without belief?

[Divine Insight]

Question: Is this a true characterization of rational empiricism and how can the rational empiricist define reality without belief?

I think you are confusing a Rational Empiricist with a Theist.

A Theist is convinced that they know "Truth".

A Rational Empiricist takes everything they experience with a grain of salt and they remain skeptical of all conclusions. However, they do see more value in rational conclusions than in irrational conclusions.

What you seem to be thinking is that a Rational Empiricist believes that they know truth.

Although, you can be easily forgiven for having made this mistake because there are some things that a Rational Empiricist can know. For example, they can recognize when ancient superstitious myths of jealous angry Gods are clearly self-contradictory and cannot possibly be a reflection of any actual supernatural deities.

So there are some things that a Rational Empiricist can know.

Consider also that every theist is convinced that their favorite theology is true while the theology of all other theists is either false, or grossly mistaken.

It should be crystal clear that theists know nothing. But they sure have convinced themselves that they know everything. And everyone else has it all wrong. Even other theists of disagreeing demoninations, sects, and factions of their own favorite mythology (or theology if you insist).

They have convinced themselves that only they know the "truth".

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

Traditionally, in philosophy, rationalism is contrasted with empiricism, in that rationalism is the thinking that all knowledge is ultimately derived a priori from reason, and empiricism is the thinking that all knowledge is ultimately derived a posteriori from data provided by the senses.

Rational empiricism seems to be the attempt to resolve and combine these opposite approaches to epistemology, and is a welcome development, I think. If rational empiricism is 'the logical integration of the evidence of one's senses into the mind's model of reality and the resulting evaluations, conclusions and decisions of which the ultimate purpose is to maximize one's lifetime happiness' then I am not at all sure where you think the dilemma might lie.

It may be of interest to you also to consider the tripartite definition of knowledge; that it is justified, true belief. As the English philosopher AJ Ayer put it, Agent A knows Proposition P if:

A believes that P
P is true
A has the right to believe that P.

Thus, A only knows that P if A believes that P. If A does not believe that P, A does not know that P.

eg., If it is dark outside, but I do not believe that, I do not know that it is dark outside. If I do believe it, and have some good reason to believe it, such as that I am looking through a window, only then can I be said to know it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

It should be crystal clear that theists know nothing...

...They have convinced themselves that only they know the "truth".

Since Paul's first letter to the Corinthians* Christians have seen faith, hope and love as the three graces on which the religion is grounded amongst believers. And this is through experience, not unproven guesswork. Admittedly that experience, like all individual experience, is subjective. And so faith, derived out of that subjectivity, will never be proven beyond all possible doubt in this life.

Nevertheless, when all that have that experience attest to it, and none that have it, deny it, only those that have not the experience, then one is entitled to start thinking that something real is going on, here. Even someone blind since birth, and seeing only darkness, is likely to admit that colour is a real phenomenon, despite the fact that only others have ever experienced it.

Knowledge, in science, particularly the social sciences, is often ascribed a 'degree of confidence'. At what point does information carrying a high degree of confidence become knowledge? At what point does a low degree of confidence indicate that information is not knowledge?

Faith is not just a 'nice' or 'good' or 'congenial' idea: there is very considerable evidence that the Christian faith reflects reality, both in the convergent testimonies and the altruistic activities of Christians. That is; provided one does not simply dismiss it all as a set of misguided personal idiosyncrasies that have persisted down history by accident.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*1 Corinthians 13:13 KJV

[Divine Insight]

It should be crystal clear that theists know nothing...

...They have convinced themselves that only they know the "truth".

Since Paul's first letter to the Corinthians* Christians have seen faith, hope and love as the three graces on which the religion is grounded amongst believers. And this is through experience, not unproven guesswork. Admittedly that experience, like all individual experience, is subjective. And so faith, derived out of that subjectivity, will never be proven beyond all possible doubt in this life.

Nevertheless, when all that have that experience attest to it, and none that have it, deny it, only those that have not the experience, then one is entitled to start thinking that something real is going on, here. Even someone blind since birth, and seeing only darkness, is likely to admit that colour is a real phenomenon, despite the fact that only others have ever experienced it.

Knowledge, in science, particularly the social sciences, is often ascribed a 'degree of confidence'. At what point does information carrying a high degree of confidence become knowledge? At what point does a low degree of confidence indicate that information is not knowledge?

Faith is not just a 'nice' or 'good' or 'congenial' idea: there is very considerable evidence that the Christian faith reflects reality, both in the convergent testimonies and the altruistic activities of Christians. That is; provided one does not simply dismiss it all as a set of misguided personal idiosyncrasies that have persisted down history by accident.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*1 Corinthians 13:13 KJV

But what you are talking about here is nothing more than an ideology. I wouldn't even begin to question the reality of such a group ideology. But that doesn't make Yahweh and Christ real supernatural entities.

Moreover, even many secularists have faith, hope and love. So that's hardly something that Christians can claim any copyright or patent on. In fact, if you insist that the "hope" part includes a hope for a supernatural afterlife, perhaps you can rule out secularists, but then you'd still need to rule in all other religious faiths.

[2ndRateMind]

But what you are talking about here is nothing more than an ideology.

Ah well. With all due respect ( ) that is where you are quite wrong. I do not deny that there ideological aspects to Christianity, just as there are to all religions. But, more than being a rational matter of the head, Christianity is also an emotional matter of the heart, and the two integrate perfectly into a total 'way of being'. But, you won't understand that unless and until you are touched by the Holy Spirit. And, if and when you are, you will realise that you have not explained Christianity by calling it 'nothing more than an ideology', only explained it away.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

Question: Is this a true characterization of rational empiricism and how can the rational empiricist define reality without belief?

I think you are confusing a Rational Empiricist with a Theist.

A Theist is convinced that they know "Truth".

I said nothing about theism or "truth". Please, limit yourself to the nature of belief in defining reality for the rational empiricist.

A Rational Empiricist takes everything they experience with a grain of salt and they remain skeptical of all conclusions. However, they do see more value in rational conclusions than in irrational conclusions.

On what basis do they see more value in rational conclusions than in irrational conclusions?

What you seem to be thinking is that a Rational Empiricist believes that they know truth.

Although, you can be easily forgiven for having made this mistake because there are some things that a Rational Empiricist can know. For example, they can recognize when ancient superstitious myths of jealous angry Gods are clearly self-contradictory and cannot possibly be a reflection of any actual supernatural deities.

Let's not speculate on what one another is thinking. Rather let us address the questions and statements that are being presented.

So there are some things that a Rational Empiricist can know.

Like what specifically?

Consider also that every theist is convinced that their favorite theology is true while the theology of all other theists is either false, or grossly mistaken.

It should be crystal clear that theists know nothing. But they sure have convinced themselves that they know everything. And everyone else has it all wrong. Even other theists of disagreeing demoninations, sects, and factions of their own favorite mythology (or theology if you insist).

They have convinced themselves that only they know the "truth".

What does this have to do with the question of the nature of belief in defining reality for the rational empiricist?

To 2nd Rate Mind
But what you are talking about here is nothing more than an ideology. I wouldn't even begin to question the reality of such a group ideology. But that doesn't make Yahweh and Christ real supernatural entities.

This is an oxymoron. You claim that you would not question the reality of a group, but then immediately do just that. Please, do not turn this thread into a discussion of specific tenets of a given philosophy, unless such tenets speak to the nature of belief in defining reality for the rational empiricist.

Moreover, even many secularists have faith, hope and love. So that's hardly something that Christians can claim any copyright or patent on. In fact, if you insist that the "hope" part includes a hope for a supernatural afterlife, perhaps you can rule out secularists, but then you'd still need to rule in all other religious faiths.

Posters are free to rule out anything that does not address the topic of the thread. 2nd rate mind said nothing of "hope for a supernatural afterlife". Also, it is you who interjected theism into the thread. Please, stop introducing unrelated topics and limit your self to addressing the issue of the nature of belief in defining reality for the rational empiricist.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

Traditionally, in philosophy, rationalism is contrasted with empiricism, in that rationalism is the thinking that all knowledge is ultimately derived a priori from reason, and empiricism is the thinking that all knowledge is ultimately derived a posteriori from data provided by the senses.

Thank you for directly addressing the topic. As with all philosophies one can see them as absolute for the purposes of contrast, or use one to modify the other to more clearly define one's personal philosophy. That is what I think has occurred in the modern era with regard to rationalism and empiricism. Aristotle is arguably the first rational empiricist as contrasted with Plato, who was the rational mystic. So, what I am doing is examining the modern iterations of the Aristotelian world view.

Rational empiricism seems to be the attempt to resolve and combine these opposite approaches to epistemology, and is a welcome development, I think. If rational empiricism is 'the logical integration of the evidence of one's senses into the mind's model of reality and the resulting evaluations, conclusions and decisions of which the ultimate purpose is to maximize one's lifetime happiness' then I am not at all sure where you think the dilemma might lie.

The dilemma does not lie in the use of empiricism as a basis for rational thought but the conflation of the two as sufficient to establish fact. Your concluding judgement appears to be one of emotional utility rather than empirical fact. It may be gratifying to maximize one's lifetime happiness' and the mystic is able to do so, via belief. However, modern rational empiricism claims to value fact and denies belief. So, the question is how such a one can establish fact without belief, especially since, as the OP poem eludes, utility precedes reason physiologically.

It may be of interest to you also to consider the tripartite definition of knowledge; that it is justified, true belief. As the English philosopher AJ Ayer put it, Agent A knows Proposition P if:

A believes that P
P is true
A has the right to believe that P.

Thus, A only knows that P if A believes that P. If A does not believe that P, A does not know that P.

eg., If it is dark outside, but I do not believe that, I do not know that it is dark outside. If I do believe it, and have some good reason to believe it, such as that I am looking through a window, only then can I be said to know it.

Ah, but that reinforces the concept of belief defining reality and preceding reason or fact. This is unacceptable to the modern rational empiricist, is it not? Your example also shows how fact is established physiologically. Before one even mentally visualizes the concept of dark, ones body prepares to interact with it via actual visual stimulation. It is only then that one defines the concept based on repeated visual stimulation. So, belief, physical activity that is not dependent upon a rational base, must needs precede reason. Regarding an empirical base, the visceral reaction is based on utility, physiologically. Therefore, for the viewer, that which does not have utility does not exist. Thus the conclusion of the poem, "Seeing is believing, in fact."

Again thank you for addressing the topic of the OP directly.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

Hmmm. I think, even our senses sometime betray us, as in the case, say, of optical illusions. And, of course, our senses are limited in range and resolution. So, I'm inclined to the view that strict empiricism is doomed from the outset. But then again, an attempt to derive all of human knowledge from reason seems an enterprise equally prone to a sparsity of success, as Descartes proved when he attempted to derive further proofs from the Cogito, and found he couldn't, without invoking an undeceitful God.

Perhaps, then, the best way forward is to integrate the two approaches, such as sometimes happens in science, when some phenomena (such as, say, the Higgs Boson, or gravity waves, or some elements of the periodic table), are predicted by theory and subsequently observed in experiment.

The American Philosopher WVO Quine thought that our world-views are 'webs of belief', a whole mix of (one hopes) mutually supporting ideas. And that it is our constant job to sort them out; to dispense with or resolve our inconsistent beliefs in favour of consistency, to dispense with or resolve our beliefs that are incoherent in favour of coherency, and all this in pursuit of a comprehensive view of the universe, that accounts for all it's phenomena. And to do that, naturally, we need integrate, rationally, our latest observations with our world views. And it is maybe in that process of integration that facts are found (Karl Popper would say, 'provisionally') to be facts, and the false is rejected.

I am not sure whether Quine would have considered himself a 'rational empiricist'; he argued against 'logical empiricism', but they seem to be quite different schools of thought. So I think he might have had some sympathy with work along the lines of the definition I provided above. Because, if we think anything about objective truths at all, it is that they are together consistent, coherent, and comprehensive.

Or we are truly lost.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

On what basis do they see more value in rational conclusions than in irrational conclusions?

Because rational conclusions are based on sound logical reasoning. Irrational conclusions are based on unsound illogical thinking.

Also if you are going to make any sort of "argument" for a particular view you have already embraced the ideals of logical reasoning. There is no sound logical reasoning for jumping to irrational conclusions.

Let's not speculate on what one another is thinking. Rather let us address the questions and statements that are being presented.

In that case, rational empiricism is the only means by which we as humans can evaluate the world. After all, what else is there? Irrational speculation?

So there are some things that a Rational Empiricist can know.

Like what specifically?

Like it's obvious that ancient religious myths were clearly the invention of men and cannot be describing any supposedly all-wise supernatural creator God.


It's not my intent to bring religions into this. But you asked what Rational Empiricists can know and this is certainly one of the many things that they can know.

What does this have to do with the question of the nature of belief in defining reality for the rational empiricist?

Because your assumption that a rational empiricist is trying to define reality is already mistaken. What a rational empiricist does is similar to the method attributed to Sherlock Holmes. They simply rule out what's obviously false, and whatever is left is the most likely candidate for truth. This does not amount to defining reality, but rather it amounts to accepting what reality reveals to us.

If we're going to discuss rational thinking shouldn't we consider all aspects of what this entails?

Moreover, even many secularists have faith, hope and love. So that's hardly something that Christians can claim any copyright or patent on. In fact, if you insist that the "hope" part includes a hope for a supernatural afterlife, perhaps you can rule out secularists, but then you'd still need to rule in all other religious faiths.

Posters are free to rule out anything that does not address the topic of the thread. 2nd rate mind said nothing of "hope for a supernatural afterlife". Also, it is you who interjected theism into the thread. Please, stop introducing unrelated topics and limit your self to addressing the issue of the nature of belief in defining reality for the rational empiricist.

Well, when a supporter of a religious paradigm actually references those scriptures by book, chapter, and verse, they can hardly complain when the claims of those scriptures are considered in a reply.

Corinthians was mentioned. Those are writings of a man named Paul who did not write rational claims. To the contrary, he wrote extremely irrational claims that were clearly based upon unverifiable superstitions.

If you are going to ask questions about Rational Empiricism you can hardly complain when things are being ruled out that a Rational Empiricist would see no evidence for.

The bottom line truly is to ask, "What else is there beyond Rational Empiricism" that could have any value? Especially if someone is seeking to discover any truths about our reality.

To 2nd Rate Mind
But what you are talking about here is nothing more than an ideology. I wouldn't even begin to question the reality of such a group ideology. But that doesn't make Yahweh and Christ real supernatural entities.

This is an oxymoron. You claim that you would not question the reality of a group, but then immediately do just that. Please, do not turn this thread into a discussion of specific tenets of a given philosophy, unless such tenets speak to the nature of belief in defining reality for the rational empiricist.

The group in question also holds that a supernatural entity exists, who makes all manner of commandments, demands, and promises about an afterlife. Let's not pretend that this isn't part of what this group holds to be true. Also, those supernatural claims are not part of an ideology, but rather they are nothing other than unverifiable superstitious beliefs. Beliefs that cannot be demonstrated to have any validity at all.

You asked how a Rational Empiricist "defines Reality". Well what they don't do, is embrace ancient superstitions for which there is no credible evidence.

Perhaps this topic validates a question being asked of the OP:

"What other method of inquiry could possibly be used to discover the truth of reality?"

In other words, what is a valid alternative to Rational Empiricism for inquiring into the true nature of reality?