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]

However, that is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. It is also not empirical, because logic is a mental construct and not an observable fact.

I totally disagree with your conclusions about logic. Logic is not a mental construct. Logic is really nothing more than a term we use to describe "Formalized Reasoning". And we reason based on our empirical experiences. In fact, when we discover things that don't seem to be in harmony with our empirical experiences, we often refer to them as being "unreasonable". And by that we mean that they are illogical.

Of course, upon further analysis we often find ways to make these new experiences rational (i.e. logical). There are many examples. The discovery of irrational numbers is one. Not only are they irrational because they cannot be represented as a ratio of whole numbers, but we even view them as being unreasonable, or illogical. But we have accepted them simply because we have no choice. Many people will say that irrational numbers are still not "logical" even though we are forced to accept them by our current mathematical formalism.

We tend to get used to these kinds of things and treat them as though they are logical even when this isn't really our experience.

By the way, the very concept of irrational numbers is a man-made formalism, so let's not get too lost in that. Many people falsely believe that mathematics represents some sort of absolute undeniable truth, but that's not necessarily true.

Another example was Einstein's Special Relativity. That seems illogical and unreasonable for many people. In today many people do not fully understand how it can be true. Yet we have since accepted that it is "logical" for the universe to behave in this way. We simply treat space and time as interchangeable dimensions and it all works out mathematically. So we say that it's "logical'.

We still haven't come to grips with how Quantum Mechanics can be "logically" explained. That's still a mystery to us.

So I'm not convinced that logic is a "mental construct". We change our ideas of logic based on empirical evidence as we discover new things.

Some people think that logic is carved in stone as well, but it's not.

There is also rational mysticism, non-rational empiricism, non-rational mysticism and, of course irrational mysticism. That said, I don't know what that has to do with speculating on what someone else thinks. One need not speculate. One can simply respond to what has been stated, or ask for clarification.

What people might think is basically irrelevant.

Are you aware that pure philosophy is dead?

It truly is. Stephen Hawking pointed this out, but many people don't actually believe this, or they think that perhaps Hawking was either wrong, or just offering an opinion. But it's actually true. Pure philosophical thinking based on ideas that are not confirmed by empirical evidence has already been proven to be a failed system of inquiry into reality. This is becasue it's quite possible to make assumptions that simply aren't true, and then create a whole line of reasoning based on those incorrect assumptions.

For example, there is nothing preventing a pure philosopher from imagining a universe that has always existed eternally. That's a perfect fine premise to use as a foundation for further logical reasoning. However, once the empirical evidence is in, then this idea no longer holds true.

So it's true that pure philosophy is dead. It has already been demonstrated that we can imagining many different possibilities that simply have nothing at all to do with our reality.

In fact, consider the discovery of Quantum Mechanics itself. There would be no reason for a pure philosopher to arrive at a quantum universe. They could have just kept going with the good-old Newtonian Classical physics. It was the empirical evidence of the ultraviolet catastrophe that forced us to discover quantum mechanics.

Without the empirical evidence we could have continued to imagine a purely classical Newtonian world. We would have no reason to think otherwise.

If you think that non-empirical thought could ever lead you to any truths about our reality, then you are simply behind the times. There's just no other way to put it.

Pure Philosophy without the empirical sciences is dead. Truly.

If it is not your intention to bring religion into this, then there will be no need to justify or rebut the tenets. All we need do here is examine how such a thing, as an example, can be obvious. Of course, in the current context obvious would mean self-evident, since it should not require any effort to discover. So, how is such a thing self-evident to the Rational Empiricist? What is the empirical stimuli that makes it so?

Because the Biblical Canon is self-contradictory. That makes its contradictions "self-evident".

It shouldn't take a Rational Empiricist to recognize self-contradictory stories.

This is something that anyone should be able to see. I simply point out that even a Rational Empiricist can see this. There are things that we can know because they are self-evident.

How does the RE establish something as "obviously false"? Physiologically, we rule out everything that is not useful. How can one be sure that one is not excluding something as "obviously false", based on simply not finding it useful? What makes something empirically false?

Something that is filled with self-contradictions is "obviously false".

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not it might be useful to anyone. That's not even a consideration.

That was in response to your comment regarding theism. 2nd Rate is not complaining. I am. Please do not use this thread on Rational Empiricism as a sounding board for bashing theism. That is clearly off topic.

Hey, I was responding to 2nd Rate's post #4 where Corinthians was mentioned. And also I believe he mentioned Christians and "believers".

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.

So don't point the finger at me for bringing up religious ideas. I simply respond to the subjects other people introduce.

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.

No, that is not the question. That is the fallacy of ignorance. Though deduction is a useful tool, the requirement that a philosophy not be examined until all alternatives have been exhausted is absurd. When that argument is used to require a specific alternative be thoroughly examined is a diversion at best.

I disagree. I think it's a valid question to ask what other method of inquiry would be credible or valid.

What would replace empiricism? Stephen Hawking (as many others) have already explained why pure philosophy without scientific empiricism can never lead us to truth. And we have seen this historically because perfectly valid philosophical ideas have turned out to simply be wrong. How do we know they are wrong? Because of empirical evidence. That's how.

Without empirical evidence we would have no reason to think that the earth goes around the Sun. We could have just accepted the ancient idea that the earth is the center of our universe. Without empirical evidence there would be no way to refute that idea.

Same is true with the idea that the world is flat. Had we not empirically discovered that it's a sphere what would stop us from thinking it is flat?

Empiricism is simply the only way to go. History has shown us that pure philosophical ideas, while useful for ideas, cannot be trusted as a means of determining truth.

So asking what other methods of inquiry there are, seems to me to be a quite valid question and certainly not a diversion.

If you have no answer for what method of inquiry could replace empiricism, then you have no point.

"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?

Are you arguing that theism is the answer to the Rational Empiricist's dilemma? This seems hardly likely, since everything you have posted opposes that view. So, it appears that you are attempting to change the topic of the thread by introducing a straw man argument. If you wish to examine another question, please create another thread. This is a thread about Rational Empiricism and not specific kinds of theism.

Rational Empiricists have no "dilemma". That's your false accusation against them.

All I'm saying is that if you have a problem with rational empiricism then you need to propose a better method of inquiry into the nature of reality.

Until you do that, then all you are doing is complaining about something when you have nothing better to offer to replace it.

[bluethread]

However, that is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. It is also not empirical, because logic is a mental construct and not an observable fact.

I totally disagree with your conclusions about logic. Logic is not a mental construct. Logic is really nothing more than a term we use to describe "Formalized Reasoning". And we reason based on our empirical experiences. In fact, when we discover things that don't seem to be in harmony with our empirical experiences, we often refer to them as being "unreasonable". And by that we mean that they are illogical.

When one encounters two conflicting stimuli, one does not necessarily refer to it as "unreasonable". One becomes agitated. One then can choose to resolve that conflict by any number of means. The Rational Empiricist chooses to apply the mental construct known as "Formalized Reasoning". The three may seem instantaneous, but the order is well established. Stimuli first go to the brain stem, where there is a visceral reaction. Such reactions are then evaluated by the emotional and rational parts of the brain, and each then processes the response, with the emotional having the greater influence. Only then does the rational name the stimuli. Until this later step the stimuli is recognized in a utilitarian fashion.

Of course, upon further analysis we often find ways to make these new experiences rational (i.e. logical). There are many examples. The discovery of irrational numbers is one. Not only are they irrational because they cannot be represented as a ratio of whole numbers, but we even view them as being unreasonable, or illogical. But we have accepted them simply because we have no choice. Many people will say that irrational numbers are still not "logical" even though we are forced to accept them by our current mathematical formalism.

One clearly does have a choice. One can choose not to accept that mental construct. The rationalist chooses to as a matter of belief, not immutable fact.

We tend to get used to these kinds of things and treat them as though they are logical even when this isn't really our experience.

They are treated "as though they are logical", even when they are directly related to empirical stimuli. As I stated above, nothing is logical until it is placed by the rational brain into the mental construct of "Formalized Reasoning".

By the way, the very concept of irrational numbers is a man-made formalism, so let's not get too lost in that. Many people falsely believe that mathematics represents some sort of absolute undeniable truth, but that's not necessarily true.

That is exactly what I am saying. Reason is a mental construct.

So I'm not convinced that logic is a "mental construct". We change our ideas of logic based on empirical evidence as we discover new things.

Some people think that logic is carved in stone as well, but it's not.

That is precisely how a mental construct works. It names and sorts visceral responses to empirical stimuli to facilitate utilitarian purposes and communication.

There is also rational mysticism, non-rational empiricism, non-rational mysticism and, of course irrational mysticism. That said, I don't know what that has to do with speculating on what someone else thinks. One need not speculate. One can simply respond to what has been stated, or ask for clarification.

What people might think is basically irrelevant.

Then stop speculating about what I think and address the topic of the thread or ask for clarification.

Are you aware that pure philosophy is dead?

It truly is. Stephen Hawking pointed this out, but many people don't actually believe this, or they think that perhaps Hawking was either wrong, or just offering an opinion. But it's actually true. Pure philosophical thinking based on ideas that are not confirmed by empirical evidence has already been proven to be a failed system of inquiry into reality. This is because it's quite possible to make assumptions that simply aren't true, and then create a whole line of reasoning based on those incorrect assumptions.

What constitutes "empirical evidence" and what makes it true?

For example, there is nothing preventing a pure philosopher from imagining a universe that has always existed eternally. That's a perfect fine premise to use as a foundation for further logical reasoning. However, once the empirical evidence is in, then this idea no longer holds true.

So it's true that pure philosophy is dead. It has already been demonstrated that we can imagining many different possibilities that simply have nothing at all to do with our reality.

Then, let's try imagining the possibilities proposed by Rational Empiricists and see if they are any different, shall we?

If you think that non-empirical thought could ever lead you to any truths about our reality, then you are simply behind the times. There's just no other way to put it.

I have not made any such claim on this thread. All I am asking is what constitutes empirical "fact" and what is it that makes it so.

If it is not your intention to bring religion into this, then there will be no need to justify or rebut the tenets. All we need do here is examine how such a thing, as an example, can be obvious. Of course, in the current context obvious would mean self-evident, since it should not require any effort to discover. So, how is such a thing self-evident to the Rational Empiricist? What is the empirical stimuli that makes it so?

Because the Biblical Canon is self-contradictory. That makes its contradictions "self-evident".

Contradictions are not self-evident. Visceral conflict might be, but contra-dictions are by definition opposing statements, and statements are mental constructs.

It shouldn't take a Rational Empiricist to recognize self-contradictory stories.

This is something that anyone should be able to see. I simply point out that even a Rational Empiricist can see this. There are things that we can know because they are self-evident.

No, but it takes reason, because they are mental constructs. They are not empirical. Even if they were not contradictory, they still would be mental constructs and therefore not self-evident.

How does the RE establish something as "obviously false"? Physiologically, we rule out everything that is not useful. How can one be sure that one is not excluding something as "obviously false", based on simply not finding it useful? What makes something empirically false?

Something that is filled with self-contradictions is "obviously false".

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not it might be useful to anyone. That's not even a consideration.

No, it is "false" according to the rules of reason. It also has everything to do with utility. A self-contradictory statement is recognized as such because that is useful in showing that it violates the rules of "Formal Reasoning". The person who does not engage in "Formal Reasoning" does not recognize it.

That was in response to your comment regarding theism. 2nd Rate is not complaining. I am. Please do not use this thread on Rational Empiricism as a sounding board for bashing theism. That is clearly off topic.

Hey, I was responding to 2nd Rate's post #4 where Corinthians was mentioned. And also I believe he mentioned Christians and "believers".

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.

So don't point the finger at me for bringing up religious ideas. I simply respond to the subjects other people introduce.

He was responding to your statement in post #2 "It should be crystal clear that theists know nothing" As I said, you introduced theism into this thread.

No, that is not the question. That is the fallacy of ignorance. Though deduction is a useful tool, the requirement that a philosophy not be examined until all alternatives have been exhausted is absurd. When that argument is used to require a specific alternative be thoroughly examined is a diversion at best.

I disagree. I think it's a valid question to ask what other method of inquiry would be credible or valid.

What would replace empiricism?............................

If you have no answer for what method of inquiry could replace empiricism, then you have no point.

Who is talking about replacing empiricism? I am not calling for the replacement for anything. I am merely asking questions regarding the nature of Rational Empiricism. Are you saying that the nature Rational Empiricism is beyond question? Are you saying that we should just accept it on blind faith?

Rational Empiricists have no "dilemma". That's your false accusation against them.

Then let's examine it and find out.

All I'm saying is that if you have a problem with rational empiricism then you need to propose a better method of inquiry into the nature of reality.

Why is that? Will reality cease to exist, if we dare to question rational empiricism?

Until you do that, then all you are doing is complaining about something when you have nothing better to offer to replace it.

So, what is wrong with that? By the way, I am not complaining about rational empiricism. I am attempting to examine it's nature. The only thing I have complained about so far is your insistence that I not do that and examine the nature of theism instead.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

Indeed, it may be that we cannot discover objective truths, only objective falsehoods. It may be that human progress towards complete objective truth is not by discovering or deducing what is true, but by the rational rejection of what cannot be true.

Best wishes, 2RM

Ah, but how does the RE determine that something can not be "true"? If by using reason, then the RE would need something that is "true" to verify that which is not "true".

Yes, I take your point. Let me give a 'for example'. If I observe that all the swans in my (European) experience are white, and induce from that all swans everywhere are white, that is quite rational, and quite empirical. But if I then travel to Australia, and observe a black swan, then I have convincingly destroyed my hitherto reliable 'fact' that all swans everywhere are white.

Mostly, it is by far easier to disprove a theory than prove it. As Einstein said 'no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.' The disproof is a 'fact'. (It is true that preposition P is not true). Yet, a disproof is not necessarily a bad thing, because knowing what is not true can be considerably more useful in the quest for what is true than knowing nothing at all.

It may well be that ruling out untruths is the best method we have for approaching objectively factual reality, provided we do that in a rational rather than ideological manner.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

...Are you aware that pure philosophy is dead?

It truly is. Stephen Hawking pointed this out, but many people don't actually believe this, or they think that perhaps Hawking was either wrong, or just offering an opinion. But it's actually true...

Actually, I don't think so. Seems to me that philosophy, so long languishing since the ancient Greeks, is just now (last 300 years) getting started again.

Take political philosophy, ethics, philosophy of science, philosophy of the mind, philosophy of religion, etc. To be sure, empirical evidence can contribute to these matters, but pure philosophy itself is about the way we think about thinking about these topics, and is not amenable to empiricism.

So, pure philosophy asks all the difficult questions that we do not know how to answer, or how to approach, or how to know we know the answer whatever the approach we adopt. When we do know these things, then the topic is no longer philosophy, just science. But, until we all are omniscient, then I suspect that philosophy will remain a valid, and controversial, field of enquiry. And, insofar as it allocates to all the other sciences their proper domain, the queen of all intellectual exercises.

Best wishes, 2RM.

PS Stephen Hawking was a physicist, not a philosopher. Physics deals almost exclusively with inanimate matter. These might, or might not, be relevant considerations.

[bluethread]

Mostly, it is by far easier to disprove a theory than prove it. As Einstein said 'no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.' The disproof is a 'fact'. (It is true that preposition P is not true). Yet, a disproof is not necessarily a bad thing, because knowing what is not true can be considerably more useful in the quest for what is true than knowing nothing at all.

The disproof may be labeled as "fact". However, the disproof and the theory to which it is related are mental constructs. What drives those constructs is utility. For the person to whom swans do not matter, the color of swans does not rise to the level of being labeled as a "fact".

A clearer example is the geometric shapes test. You no doubt pass that test with out much difficulty, because geometric shapes have utility to you. However, the isolated Aborigine fails the test, because geometric shapes have no use to him. The converse is also true. If an isolated Aborigine is presented a pile of rocks, the Aborigine can remember them quite easily, because rocks have utility for him. You on the other hand probably would fail the rock test. This is because we do not see "facts". We see utility and only after that label them as "facts".

So, when the Aborigine sees something, he is believing in it's utility, not recognizing it as "fact". It is the same with the RE. The labeling of something comes after the visceral response, which is not based on "fact". This creates a dilemma for the RE, because the RE only recognizes empirical fact and reason, both of which are mental constructs.

When we do know these things, then the topic is no longer philosophy, just science.

Your post to DI is a good apology for philosophy. However, I do not think that this statement is quite correct. To "know" is a mental construct, at least as you are using the term. A "topic" is also a mental construct. Philosophy is about developing and testing those mental constructs. Once we have developed a construct, that appears to be constantly useful, i.e. the scientific method, we then in turn label it as a "discipline". It is at this point that many make the mistake of granting scientific philosophy, i.e. "science", the credibility of the scientific method on which it is based. This is merely a continuation of the labeling the scientific method as "factual", ignoring that it is a mental construct that is acceptable only because it is useful. Thus the RE, in rejecting that which establishes a "fact", undermines it's credibility, treating it as dogma.

[John Human]

Question: [snip] how can the rational empiricist define reality without belief?

Answer: It takes faith to decide or assume that the impressions on our mind from our sense organs correspond to an objective "out-there" reality. Doubting this leadsj in the long run to insanity. Rational empiricists, as humans capable of reason and perception, must enter into this natural "belief tunnel" before they identify themselves as rational empiricists.