Originally posted by Bosse de NageTradition is a good example. If you think about it, one cannot truly say that such intergenerational knowledge is empirical in a traditional sense, in as much as it is more organic, almost evolutionary way of compiling information.
I've been following this with interest and frustration ...
It seems the key word here is 'empirical'. Palynka questions whether the scientific method is the only means of yielding what a logical positivist would consider empirical evidence. If that is the case, I would ask him what alternatives he has in mind. As a loose example, I have acupuncture ...[text shortened]... hrist'; and went into remission. Was there a causal relationship between these episodes?
Originally posted by PalynkaIf I recall correctly, Ayers' definition of empirical evidence was that it must be possible in theory to establish the veracity of a claim. How does that square with tradition?
Tradition is a good example. If you think about it, one cannot truly say that such intergenerational knowledge is empirical in a traditional sense, in as much as it is more organic, almost evolutionary way of compiling information.
2 edits
Originally posted by bjohnson407Ok, here's you address the crux of my argument and I still think there's some equivocation in what I'm trying (and failing) to say. Let me try to explain myself better.
You seem to be suggesting that all attempts to justify beliefs are equally legitimate. If you are saying that, your wrong. Those who believe, on the basis of their spirituality, that illness can be cured by prayer are wrong. Those who think it can be cured by medicine are right, and they are able to verify their claims. If knowledge were simply a matter ...[text shortened]...
I'm sorry I suggested you might be a pragmatist . I didn't know you hated lables that much.
You seem to be suggesting that all attempts to justify beliefs are equally legitimate. If you are saying that, your wrong.
To clarify, I don't think that ALL are EQUALLY legitimate. I don't think ANY that I can think of is as less error-prone as the scientific method.
If knowledge were simply a matter of playing with probabilities, then how probable is it that a cancer patients death is caused by the giant tumor in his brain and how probable is it that his death is caused by god punishing him for not praying enough?
Ok. Your example deals with metaphysics and I've been denying metaphysical explanations from the outset. Let me rephrase your example and address it.
After Hyppocrates first described tumors and cancer, treatment was based on humor theory. My claim is that THIS was also knowledge. Not truth, but knowledge. It was most definitely accepted as such at the time and any 'empirical evidence' for it was circumstantial at best! As modern medicine researched into cancer, the humor theory disappeared as the belief on the probability of the humor theory being true converged to the belief that it is zero. Is the knowledge that we have now true? Perhaps. It is certainly incomplete, so parts of it are bound to be updated. One of the things that makes science the most adequate method of accumulating knowledge, in my opinion is this denial of 'owning' the absolute truth. So why should we require flawlessness from other sources of knowledge?
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's such a blank statement, that I read it as meaningless. There are very little things that are, in theory, impossible to establish its veracity. Even metaphysics, as what mankind has considered to be metaphysical in the past has latter become the subject of science (e.g. the sun).
If I recall correctly, Ayers' definition of empirical evidence was that it must be possible in theory to establish the veracity of a claim. How does that square with tradition?
What I'm saying is that such knowledge may predate any conscious collection of such evidence.
Originally posted by PalynkaThe first thing that came into my head there was the soul's presumed experience of the world of Form, prior to incarnation and subsequent memory erasure.
What I'm saying is that such knowledge may predate any conscious collection of such evidence.
But frequently experiment only serves to confirm intuition. Visionary insights that are subsequently proven correct.
Been doing some reading on the neural activity on creative and methodical thinkers. To simplify, solutions come to the minds of the former in a flash of insight -- ready-made from the frying pan of the brain -- while the latter tend to work with evidence and probability. Yet both forms of knowledge (if that's the right word) are valid.
4 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaOk. I think I understand better now. You're concerned that other methods of gaining knowledge are being unfairly discounted when they are actually quite insightful, even if less epistemologically "sophisticated" than the scientific method.
If knowledge were simply a matter of playing with probabilities, then how probable is it that a cancer patients death is caused by the giant tumor in his brain and how probable is it that his death is caused by god punishing him for not praying enough?
Ok. Your example deals with metaphysics and I've been denying metaphysical explanations from the out the absolute truth. So why should we require flawlessness from other sources of knowledge?[/b]
Here's where I think the positivist would draw the line. It's not that all knowledge must live up to the standard of the scientific method to be knowledge, but all propositions must be, in principle, verifiable if they are to have meaning. I can meaningfully know that a back massage will relieve stress even though I can't trace the physiological reasons for that fact. And I can also meaningfully state that there is or is not life on mars. What makes these statements meaningful is that I know what it takes to prove them true or false. I might be wrong in what I'm saying, but at least I'm saying something.
What Ayer was rejecting was the kind of metaphysics that would not allow itself to be subjected to testing. Marx provides a good example here. If you accept Marx's system, then there is nothing that could possibly prove it wrong. Even the fact that communism is on the decline can be explained from within the system itself because Marx allows that the revolution could be infinitely deferred! Ayer would look at this and say that, since there is absolutely nothing that would determine the truth or falsity of the system, it is meaningless. I personally think the same can be said of alot of the free-market worshiping that goes on in the debates forum, but that's another thread.
The meaning of a proposition is its truth conditions. If it has no truth conditions or if those conditions are untestable in principle, then the proposition has no meaning.
So I think that Ayer could allow for your Hypocrates example to be meaingful knowledge up to the point when it was proven false. As for me personally I am more sympathetic than that, but I can't figure out how much so. I think that many of the things that Ayer would cite as meaningless are profoundly insightful.
For example, Ayer and his generation also had in their sights many of the poetic and allegedly "meaningless" things Heidegger said. Such as:
Language speaks
the Nothing nothings
the origin of art is Art
Originally posted by bjohnson407It's just piling turtles upon turtles. The positivist draws an artificial line, but the knowledge or justification for that line is itself subject to the rules defined by the line!
Ok. I think I understand better now. You're concerned that other methods of gaining knowledge are being unfairly discounted when they are actually quite insightful, even if less epistemologically "sophisticated" than the scientific method.
Here's where I think the positivist would draw the line. It's not that all knowledge must live up to the standard ...[text shortened]... er said. Such as:
Language speaks
the Nothing nothings
the origin of art is Art
There can be no clear cut, simply because there is no absolute knowledge.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis might be a good time mention -- I don't know, maybe you guys have seen it -- Richard Dawkins' TV show, "The Enemies of Reason." Regardless of what you think of the guy, it's fun to watch him go around bothering people.
I've been following this with interest and frustration ...
It seems the key word here is 'empirical'. Palynka questions whether the scientific method is the only means of yielding what a logical positivist would consider empirical evidence. If that is the case, I would ask him what alternatives he has in mind. As a loose example, I have acupuncture ...[text shortened]... hrist'; and went into remission. Was there a causal relationship between these episodes?
In this episode he talks about this very concept. Many who favor alternative medicine say that "the body heals itself," and I think to a larege extent, most would agree. Dawkins also suggests that people benefit from the direct personal care that they recieve when they are treated homeopathically. Perhaps there is a psychosomatic element. Either way, I think there is a value to it even if there isn't the causal connection that proponents say there is.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&safe=active&q=dawkins%20enemies&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI disagree. The absense of truth conditions is not an artificial line.
It's just piling turtles upon turtles. The positivist draws an artificial line, but the knowledge or justification for that line is itself subject to the rules defined by the line!
There can be no clear cut, simply because there is no absolute knowledge.
Originally posted by PalynkaAre you saying that it's arbitrary whether or not a proposition has truth conditions?
And so we disagree. Unless you provide an argument for your claim or a refutation of mine then we have to agree to disagree.
If so, then the counter argument is an easy one. If there are no conditions for a statements truth or falsity, then there is nothing that the statement doesn't say. And conversely, there is nothing that the statement does say. A statement without truth conditions says everything and nothing. If "my favorite blue cup is on the table" is thought to be true when my favorite blue cup is both on and not-on the table, then the statement "my favorite blue cup is on the table" means nothing.
Also, I have to admit that I don't exactly understand your argument. You seem to be saying that this way of looking at the truth is circular, and that it doesn't attain absolute knowledge. Depending on what you mean by its being circular and what you mean by absolute knowledge, the logical positivist might not be bothered by this criticism. They rejected the search for Absolute knowledge, but that doesn't mean that everything falls into relativity. We can still have standards for truth, knowledge, meaning etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI was looking at your example again, and I don't think that Hyppocrates was working from outside the logical empiricist paradigm here. Even if the empirical eveidence was only circumstantial, the claims seem more or less verifiable. Because it was verifiable, and ultimately was shown not to be correct, humor theory was meaningful, it was just incorrect.
[b]If knowledge were simply a matter of playing with probabilities, then how probable is it that a cancer patients death is caused by the giant tumor in his brain and how probable is it that his death is caused by god punishing him for not praying enough?
Ok. Your example deals with metaphysics and I've been denying metaphysical explanations from the ou the absolute truth. So why should we require flawlessness from other sources of knowledge?[/b]
You constantly berate me for trying to draw you into a metaphysical discussion, but it's metaphysics what the postivists were rejectiong and therefore metaphysics provides the best examples of non-falsifiable statements that they would have found meaningless. Primitive science may have been impossible to test at the time, but only statements that are unverifiable in principle lack meaning.
1 edit
Originally posted by bjohnson407But there you reach my point. Humor theory was not verifiable in that period of time. In my view, logical positivists sell verifiability as an absolute barrier for what can be considered knowledge TODAY. But this clearly clashes with any serious historical view and therefore there cannot exist a defined line in the sand as they try to sell it.
I was looking at your example again, and I don't think that Hyppocrates was working from outside the logical empiricist paradigm here. Even if the empirical eveidence was only circumstantial, the claims seem more or less verifiable. Because it was verifiable, and ultimately was shown not to be correct, humor theory was meaningful, it was just incorrect. ...[text shortened]... ible to test at the time, but only statements that are unverifiable in principle lack meaning.
The line must necessarily be a claim on probabilities and therefore much more "grey" than the logical positivist admits it to be.