Empiricism Rests on Flawed Logic

[PhoenixRising]

(i need to refine my articulation on this subject.. will re-post later. sorry >.<)

 

[redbaron]

Our society's emphasis on empiricism results in expectations for objective answers.

I seem to see the opposite from society in general.

The empiricist attitude is thought to be the keenest outlook for finding the truth

For finding empirical truth, yes empiricism would seem to be the, "keenest outlook".

By all means if your goal is to find a subjective truth, feel free to adopt subjectivity as the, "keenest outlook".

But it actually causes us to overlook realities that may be obvious otherwise.

Which realities are both obvious and overlooked by empiricism?

Since our perception is by nature psychological (and therefore innately subjective), how is it that empiricism holds that one's senses can properly gauge objective reality?

Actually empiricism holds the opposite - that one's senses can't properly gauge objective reality. Hence the need to use methods that don't rely on one's senses.

I think a more intelligent view of reality is one where the subjective is taken as part of the objective.

Needs context.

If one understands the way their perception encodes information, and in what ways it's subject to fallibility, wouldn't they have an advantage that might allow them to see objective reality more clearly?

The reason for empiricism in the first place. Memory is fallible. Perception is fallible. Reproducible results from experimentation is not so fallible.

 

[Base groove]

In Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Lee Smolin argues his belief that the biggest difficulty that would have to be overcome to have an all encompassing string theory + theory of quantum gravity was that all of cosmology and general relativistic space had to be reconciled with loop quantum gravity on the premise that space was discreet not continuous. Granted, the book was a little old (2001), so there's the chance it's now a scientific joke and I just don't realize it, but I'll continue. The chief difficulty was that string theories, which defined the nature of the universe at the Planck scale, were only suitably useful on a fixed-background or absolute/continuous structure of space.

I could have gotten it a bit wrong but I believe the main idea was to draw an analogy between this philosophical idea of objectivity and the irreconcilable nature of Planck-scale physics and cosmology.

 

[Cognisant]

(i need to refine my articulation on this subject.. will re-post later. sorry >.<)

Subjectivist crackpot, oops that's tautology

 

[Hadoblado]

If you do find the time to re-articulate, please do. I don't think empiricism can be successfully refuted, but I'm still keen to see people crack it. I fkn hate empiricism, it's so dull!

 

[Cognisant]

Empiricism is the basis of experimental science and experimental science is awesome!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfXX7qppbc

 

[TimeAsylums]

 

[Base groove]

I would prefer if they would use live birds instead as we could launch an empirical investigation into the effects these engines are having on the birds.

 

[PhoenixRising]

nyoo! don't derail my thread yet D: I've got my explanation like 2/3 of the way complete..

*gets distracted* oooh, did somebody say science?

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

If you do find the time to re-articulate, please do. I don't think empiricism can be successfully refuted, but I'm still keen to see people crack it. I fkn hate empiricism, it's so dull!

I don't know if you're being sarcastic but I find this to reflect my experience of empiricism. I'm not posting in an effort to refute empiricism but to point out that subjective views seem to be the wheelhouse and wellspring of new idea and thought. So in this way, it feeds in nicely to empiricism. When you digest empirical results and weigh it against your experience (subjective), it leads to interesting questions that feed into objective quests.

Findings tend to reduce and make the world smaller but when experienced, the world gets bigger. It's interesting and nice to know how the eye works but 'seeing' from the inside is greater than the sum of it's parts.

@pheonixrising, I hope you come back to this thread some day.

 

[Hadoblado]

Not sarcasm. It's much more fun to think about things than to exhaustively test them. Even Cog's snapshot of empirical awesomeness was only the 0.01% of the process that was fun to experience/watch. It's fun to hear about, and practical to have the results, but the process itself is arduous.

 

[scorpiomover]

There are 2 views of empiricism:

1) The British classical view, known as "British Empiricism", that which was investigated by thinkers like Locke, Hume, and Bacon. They realised that empirical evidence could be potentially useful. However, if pushed beyond its limits, then it would be bound to lead us to make erroneous conclusions. So they pushed the concept of empirically-based conclusions to their limits, to see where empiricism failed. From this, we get the numerous fallacies and biases that we now know can cause empirical data to lead to false conclusions.

We might describe this view as the view of an ISFJ, where empirical data is only valuable in terms of those conclusions that are clearly reliable (Si) and accurate (Ti).

2) The American and modern view, that is commonly called "empiricism" in the modern world. This was advanced by people such as the teacher of Jefferson, who used the work of Locke, Hume and Bacon, to illustrate the great power of empiricism, to solve any problem that might suggest that we cannot achieve our desires, easily, simply and quickly, by citing empirical evidence.

We might describe this view as the view of an INTJ, who has Ni (who sees only possible ways to overcome challenges) that satisfy his Fi (his personal desires and subjective values).

 

[Cognisant]

From this, we get the numerous fallacies and biases that we now know can cause empirical data to lead to false conclusions.

Such as?

Empiricism is the measurement of phenomena, the only fallacy possible in that is an incorrect measurement which is why multiple measurements are taken and cross referenced to test their accuracy.

Now theorising upon empirical evidence without verifying the theory is just not good science and that can cause false conclusions but it's wrong to say they're the direct result of empiricism itself being flawed because it's the theorising that's flawed.

It's like how I say that anyone can philosophise but to be a philosopher you have to practice the discipline of philosophy, because it's not enough to hypothesise you have to test each hypothesis with thought experiments that verify (or at least support) the accuracy of that hypothesis.

 

[Black Rose]

Empiricism implies materialism to some degree. We can know by experience what the world is as it appears through rules constituted as laws yet metaphysically how they come into existence is not only known through observation but also through intuition of a deeper reality.

http://youtu.be/t6uqDGfpJTw

 

[Cognisant]

 

[scorpiomover]

Such as?

Empiricism is the measurement of phenomena, the only fallacy possible in that is an incorrect measurement which is why multiple measurements are taken and cross referenced to test their accuracy.

Now theorising upon empirical evidence without verifying the theory is just not good science and that can cause false conclusions but it's wrong to say they're the direct result of empiricism itself being flawed because it's the theorising that's flawed.

It's like how I say that anyone can philosophise but to be a philosopher you have to practice the discipline of philosophy, because it's not enough to hypothesise you have to test each hypothesis with thought experiments that verify (or at least support) the accuracy of that hypothesis.

What is "grass"? What do your eyes see? The retinal cells in your eye just fire neural impulses upon receiving photos in the green frequency of light. All you "see" is little dots of green. You think you see "grass"?

The millions of cells in the neural clusters devoted to the sensory system, calculate, estimate and convert those little green dots into "grass". It's one of the most complex reasoning systems that we have.

What we call "grass" is actually 99% reasoning and 1% empirical measurement.

When you see a device registering a measurement, the same applies. All you see is dots. Dots mean nothing. The measurement, that is the reading of the digits on the device, is 99% reasoning and 1% empirical measurement.

We take that 99% for granted, because it's done by our subconscious. But it's in everything we do, everything we observe, everything we measure, and everything that we think.

So what? Maybe that 99% is not subject to flaws.

If they are not flawed, then we wouldn't experience optical and auditory illusions. From studies of perception, we know that illusions such as the Ames Room are extremely common. As much as 80% of Westerners experience the illusion. There are plenty more illusions that are known to be extremely common.

All of our data is interpreted by the mind, and much of that interpretation is flawed.

There is no such thing as true empirical measurement. It's all an illusion. Those things we call "empirical" are those things where our understanding and interpretation of the data is handled by the subconscious, and optical and auditory illusions show that its reasoning is often flawed.

If, however, our governments teach us that empiricism is reliable, then when corporations claim that the conclusions of a scientific study that just so happens to make us think that their products are worth buying, because they are claimed to based on empiricism, we'll just accept that at face value, and think no more about it. We won't read the study and scrutinise it for errors. So we'll be certain that those products are worth buying, and pay those corporations lots and lots of money. Aren't we lucky to have things that are based on studies that we are certain are true, that we've never actually analysed.

 

[TimeAsylums]

this reminds me of Dux's thread on Godel's Inconsistency Theorem

which was answered with

Gödel's theorem (and variations from other fields, I believe information theory contains a version) need to be taken as fact. This means that it's our fancy that something can be absolutely proved. As it turns out our Universe doesn't allow for that kind of proof for anything.

This is useful to know. For example I find debates of religion humorous, the religious would say "prove to me that god doesn't exist!" Gödel tells us that there isn't that kind of proof, for anything! What we have is evidence, and we conduct our daily life on the knowledge that enough evidence does give you the truth, it's just not Truth. In this example the overwhelming evidence is that god doesn't exist.

Think of it like Quantum Mechanics - we'd like for the sub atomic to be nice and tidy with billiard balls following deterministic paths. It doesn't - oh well, that doesn't prevent us from creating quantum computers, IC's that depend on QM, and quantum communications systems.

Likewise we'd like proof to be absolute, but that's not in the laws of this universe.

 

[Brontosaurie]

If you do find the time to re-articulate, please do. I don't think empiricism can be successfully refuted, but I'm still keen to see people crack it. I fkn hate empiricism, it's so dull!

i<3u

 

[Cognisant]

What we call "grass" is actually 99% reasoning and 1% empirical measurement.

Aside from using the word empirical wrong, you're assuming measurements are only taken in a single instance, and you're right at first glance what looks like grass could be AstroTurf or a green shag carpet but the more we look at something the more analysis our brains can do and every illusion succumbs to scrutiny eventually, y'know the only perfect replica is a duplicate.

Now empiricism is the measurement of phenomena by a standardised set of units and these standardised units enable us to make measurements all over the place and of all manner of things and collate our results into a unified pool of knowledge from which we can make astoundingly well informed guesses and if our guesses turn out to be wrong we go out and make more measurements to find out why, that is empiricism.

And you are an idiot.

 

[scorpiomover]

Aside from using the word empirical wrong, you're assuming measurements are only taken in a single instance, and you're right at first glance what looks like grass could be AstroTurf or a green shag carpet but the more we look at something the more analysis our brains can do and every illusion succumbs to scrutiny eventually, y'know the only perfect replica is a duplicate.

Now empiricism is the measurement of phenomena by a standardised set of units and these standardised units enable us to make measurements all over the place and of all manner of things and collate our results into a unified pool of knowledge from which we can make astoundingly well informed guesses and if our guesses turn out to be wrong we go out and make more measurements to find out why, that is empiricism.

And you are an idiot.

You are thinking of the American and modern view of empiricism, to wit:

2) The American and modern view, that is commonly called "empiricism" in the modern world. This was advanced by people such as the teacher of Jefferson, who used the work of Locke, Hume and Bacon, to illustrate the great power of empiricism, to solve any problem that might suggest that we cannot achieve our desires, easily, simply and quickly, by citing empirical evidence.

We might describe this view as the view of an INTJ, who has Ni (who sees only possible ways to overcome challenges) that satisfy his Fi (his personal desires and subjective values).

It's still just more of "I can do anything I want. Everything is easy. Nothing requires thought, reflection or introspection."

 

[Cognisant]

You're trying to justify your bullshit by quoting your own earlier bullshit?

Empiricism is the standardised measurement of observed phenomena, if you object to certain measurements based upon reasons to have doubt in their validity then alright fair enough, mistakes do occur and the results of many experiments have been inaccurate on account factors the experimenters didn't realise they had to account for, part of the proper application of the scientific method is seeking out, identifying and compensating for these factors so more accurate measurements can be achieved.

But to object to empiricism itself on the basis that observations aren't absolute is just fucking stupid, by rejecting empiricism you reject the foundation of all human knowledge including your own, it's complete hypocrisy, how can you assert anything if the you're rejecting the knowledge from which all assertions (including your own) are derived?

2) The American and modern view, that is commonly called "empiricism" in the modern world. This was advanced by people such as the teacher of Jefferson, who used the work of Locke, Hume and Bacon, to illustrate the great power of empiricism, to solve any problem that might suggest that we cannot achieve our desires, easily, simply and quickly, by citing empirical evidence.

The only way this argument makes any sense is if I assume you just have no idea what the word empiricism means and what you're actually rallying against is the intentional falsification of evidence by corrupt parts of the American academic establishment which would mean you're actually trying to defend empiricism from those who would seek to pervert it for their own selfish ends.

But no you're one of this subjectivists and the argument you intend to make is the same as a religious person calling the non-religious closed-minded, a complete and utter sophism, in truth it is you who wants to solve any problem that might suggest that you cannot achieve your desires, easily, simply and quickly, by sophism. By attacking the foundations of knowledge you seek to undermine the knowledge that proves your sophism wrong so that you may assert whatever nonsense you please, I can't help but wonder why you do this, what benefit is there in being so utterly wrong?

Spout all the bullshit you wish, reality remains real and you'll still be an idiot.

 

[Black Rose]

Empiricism and rationalism are not opposed but work together. It is only if you take the extreme view which was popular at the time when these concepts we being developed that impedes truth. Hume says you cannot prove time, causality or God but Kant says you can contemplate them with the rational mind.

 

[Cognisant]

Did we build clocks to worship time?
Does causality depend upon faith?
Is time hidden from us?
Does causality have an opinion?
Does time promise us salvation?
Does causality threaten us with damnation?
How does one measure god and what laws govern god's behaviour?

 

[Black Rose]

Did we build clocks to worship time?

Monks invented them to help know when to worship.

Does causality depend upon faith?

On the faith of the certainty that you have freewill of your minds causality self determination.

Is time hidden from us?

Time is subjectively experienced, when you objectify it, it is mutually assured not to exist before your birth or after your death. You become timeless.

Does causality have an opinion?

In self determination of the agents control of the environment we make it conform to our will.

Does time promise us salvation?

No, why are you focused on this issue in terms of religiosity

Does causality threaten us with damnation?

The anthropomorphization of causality in the form of religious zealot makes it inevitable that it can cause others to feel this way. Agents are not separate from causality.

How does one measure god and what laws govern god's behaviour?

How does one measure consciousness accept by havening it as self evident. If God is conscious s/he does not need to prove it as God would know it has self awareness independent of yours. God is Brahman, follows the laws of the unified field.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Science is a complex social activity imbedded in a science culture and as such, can and has to be effected by and within it's own culture: "The direction of scientific research is affected by informal influences within the culture of science itself, such as prevailing opinion on what questions are most interesting or what methods of investigation are most likely to be fruitful. Elaborate processes involving scientists themselves have been developed to decide which research proposals receive funding, and committees of scientists regularly review progress in various disciplines to recommend general priorities for funding." From http://www.project2061.org/publicat...google.com/&txtURIOld=/tools/sfaaol/chap1.htm

I have every respect for empirical studies and believe this is the best method for getting us closer to the truth (although it can never prove anything-nor can any system that we know of and that's ok. We accept that). In the spirit of empiricism, questioning and criticisms toward science should in no way constitute a rejection of it's methods. Throwing the 'baby out with the bath water' isn't the aim. There are questions and subjects that science steers away from due to those pressures in the scientific community. We can and should point those things out. Another is those scientist that hold the positivism view-the rejection of legitimate topics of inquiry based on no direct means to observe or measure. "In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic -- they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive reasoning to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesn't fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism -- the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation."

Post-positivism, in contrast is "post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of positivism. A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different. Scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are essentially the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. In everyday reasoning, we don't always proceed so carefully (although, if you think about it, when the stakes are high, even in everyday life we become much more cautious about measurement. Think of the way most responsible parents keep continuous watch over their infants, noticing details that non-parents would never detect)." And furthermore, "One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study. (This is in contrast with a subjectivist who would hold that there is no external reality -- we're each making this all up!). Positivists were also realists. The difference is that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty. Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical realist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal! Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on what's happening in reality. The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on." From, http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php

I, for one, think the post-positivism and related, critical realism, is a better paradigm.

 

[PhoenixRising]

(Sorry it took me so long to revisit this thread. I think i've managed to articulate my thoughts in a much clearer form.. so here's the original point I was going to make!)

There seems to be some confusion in the discussion so far about the definition of "empiricism". So, to quote from Google:

em·pir·i·cism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

I'm not referring to the Scientific Method in my argument, but the mindset that has resulted from the philosophy of Empiricism - that sense experience validates reality and that it is the only acceptable validation for reality. I fully believe in experimentation, it's an indispensable tool in the search for truth. It would indeed counter practicality and reason to accept scientific ideas without objective validation (as imperfect as that objective validation may be when conducted by a human experimenter).

The reality of our experience is that for many questions, there is an answer that lays in the realm of human subjectivity. While our society's emphasis on empiricism results in expectations for physically observable answers, sometimes it is impossible to decipher the reality of something through that lens of materialism. The empiricist attitude is thought to be the keenest outlook for finding the truth, but it actually causes us to overlook realities that may be obvious otherwise.

For example, people often argue about the existence of God. Empirically, there is no evidence for a tangible being that rules over the universe.. it doesn't exist from this point of view. "You can't see it, touch it or poke it with lab instruments.. and it doesn't appear to effect the process of evolution or consistency of gravity. Therefore, it doesn't exist." Someone coming from a more highly subjective point of view might say they experienced God in some form, and therefore it must exist because they perceived its existence. "I saw it and touched it.. it does appear to effect the process of evolution by directing causality in an intelligent way. Therefore, it exists."

It may seem obvious which one of these people is most correct, according to common sense. But from a strictly logical point of view, relying on a purely empirical (human senses based) philosophy to decipher what reality is doesn't necessarily lead to clear answers. There really isn't any conclusive evidence to prove that one of these people is more correct than the other, both of them are equally as subjective in their sense perception. I think, in this example, both arguments are coming from a somewhat simple-minded place. A more intelligent approach to the question of God would be not to attempt to prove/disprove of its tangible existence, but to ask "why is God a topic in human conversation?" The truth is, God does exist at least as a concept which has been born anew in many forms and in many cultures throughout history. Why not study this subjective phenomena and trace it to its origin instead of condemning the entire concept as invalid because the topic has no literal form?

I think, it is very limiting to dismiss things such as "spiritual phenomena" and questions of things such as meaning, beauty, and the soul just because they aren't phenomena that occur in a material way (at least not directly). It seems that a more holistic approach to deciphering reality would not discount human psychology and the fact that it manifests itself in "mystical" ways. An inescapable fact is that we perceive reality through the filter of the psyche: everything we see, touch and contemplate is inevitably tinged by the shape of the mind that has perceived it. It's just like understanding how to adjust the magnification when using a microscope - understanding the apparatus with which we are observing the world is important to accurate interpretation of the observation.

The problem with empiricism as it exists in today's Western culture is that it results in an obsession with the material, when we as humans are incapable of deciphering things in a truly physical, objective manner. The mind is a mechanism of abstraction, if we were to come closer to deciphering reality objectively, I think first we would need to accept this fact and come to understand how the mind effects our observation of reality in detail.

 

[PhoenixRising]

*sigh* .. looks like I've killed my own thread >.<

There are so many interesting comments I was hoping to discuss though. Perhaps I'll just post my replies to them now.. since the discussion seems to have died

@scorpionmover

All of our data is interpreted by the mind, and much of that interpretation is flawed. There is no such thing as true empirical measurement. It's all an illusion. Those things we call "empirical" are those things where our understanding and interpretation of the data is handled by the subconscious, and optical and auditory illusions show that its reasoning is often flawed.

It seems you were thinking along the same lines as I was about the flaws in the empirical perspective. Since all sense experience occurs in the mind, it is subject to the inaccuracy and bias of human thought - there is indeed no such thing as a truly objective observation. I think, as I mentioned in my above post, a more intelligent mindset would be to endeavor to understand the human psyche in as much detail as possible. If we could see how the mind effects the way we observe, then we could better filter out our bias and perhaps see a clearer picture of reality.


@TimeAsylums

Thanks for linking the thread on Godel's Inconsistency Theorem I think the concept is indeed quite related to the premise of my argument about empiricism.

Our relative, subjective view of the world is inescapable, Godel's theorem is one that blatantly points this out to us. The sort of materialist mindset that has risen from a culture based on empirical philosophy does tend to ignore this reality.

People so often demand proof without acknowledging the inaccuracy of human knowledge, or even questioning the concept of proof. I agree with Architect that it is useful to know of the premise of Godel's theorem, but I would go further to say that it is vital for a realistic understanding of the world around us.


@Cognisant

Empiricism is the standardised measurement of observed phenomena, if you object to certain measurements based upon reasons to have doubt in their validity then alright fair enough, mistakes do occur and the results of many experiments have been inaccurate on account factors the experimenters didn't realise they had to account for, part of the proper application of the scientific method is seeking out, identifying and compensating for these factors so more accurate measurements can be achieved. But to object to empiricism itself on the basis that observations aren't absolute is just fucking stupid, by rejecting empiricism you reject the foundation of all human knowledge including your own, it's complete hypocrisy, how can you assert anything if the you're rejecting the knowledge from which all assertions (including your own) are derived?

I'm curious about your definition of empiricism.. As far as I've understood it, empiricism is the philosophy that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. The empiricist mindset is one that seems to validate the existence of things solely on whether they can be perceived with the five senses. But, perhaps you have had more academic experience covering the topic of empiricism, and therefore have a more involved, accurate definition?

I do agree with you that it is irrational to disregard evidence based on the fact that it may not be absolutely accurate. As TimeAsylums pointed out, we already know that nothing can be known with complete accuracy. I think, an intelligent scientist would be aware of this obvious fact and move forward on the premise that his findings are his best approximation at the truth.


@Paradoxparadigm7

I think you've made excellent points in your replies ^^ Your second post especially resonates with my own views on scientific reasoning, and the way science is effected by science culture. I was unaware of the terms "positivism" and "post-positivism". It seems perhaps the philosophy I'm critiquing in this thread is better described as "positivism" rather than "empiricism". I do agree with you that post-positivism is a more favorable paradigm, it seems like the next step forward in actualization from positivism. It comes from a point of view that takes the reality of the human experience into account, which I think is key to a proper understanding of our observations.

 

[3ptFG]

This seems like a very thoughtful discussion. With regard to PhoenixRising's discussion of "mystical experiences" being perhaps no different from material experiences, I would suggest that the latter are more widely shared. Most of us seem to be describing very similar things when we look at grass, whereas our experiences of god are described in very different ways. Perhaps this is due to a difference in complexity, or due to the fact that religious experiences are often filtered through many layers of ideas; regardless it seems as though the broad commonality of empirical experiences allows for the communal standardization needed for science.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You can't simply posit phenomena into existence without some empirical basis somewhere.

 

[scorpiomover]

It seems you were thinking along the same lines as I was about the flaws in the empirical perspective. Since all sense experience occurs in the mind, it is subject to the inaccuracy and bias of human thought - there is indeed no such thing as a truly objective observation. I think, as I mentioned in my above post, a more intelligent mindset would be to endeavor to understand the human psyche in as much detail as possible. If we could see how the mind effects the way we observe, then we could better filter out our bias and perhaps see a clearer picture of reality.

That's how we came to develop quantum physics and relativity. Most of it appears to be a matter of thought experiments of what we could know, converted into mathematical calculations, that determined formulae for what our experimental results could tell us, and what we could physically observe.

It's turned out to be the most accurate physics that we have, billions of times more accurate than almost everything else.

 

[PhoenixRising]

This seems like a very thoughtful discussion. With regard to PhoenixRising's discussion of "mystical experiences" being perhaps no different from material experiences, I would suggest that the latter are more widely shared. Most of us seem to be describing very similar things when we look at grass, whereas our experiences of god are described in very different ways. Perhaps this is due to a difference in complexity, or due to the fact that religious experiences are often filtered through many layers of ideas; regardless it seems as though the broad commonality of empirical experiences allows for the communal standardization needed for science.

Yes, I agree that there is a difference between the perception of external and internal stimuli, and that it has a lot to do with complexity.. However, what I am attempting to point out in my explanation is that the *general* experience of things such as god is just about as widely shared as the experience of something like the visual perception of grass. In fact, if you study the symbols and meanings that appear in religious texts, you'll start to see very consistent patterns. Religion is a timeless phenomenon that has generated with the rise of each culture in the human race through all the eons we have existed. I think, the difference between god and grass is not a question of existence, but a question of form. Grass is a physical thing at some level, but I think god is entirely a psychological phenomenon. This does mean that the concept of god tends to be perceived more abstractly, because our perception of it is more highly influenced by our personal interpretation. But, I don’t think this makes the general phenomenon itself any less relevant to reality. I think that we can and should take psychological phenomena as an objective reality, just as we take the observation of a physical object as such. That's not to say we should interpret subjective content as the description of some physical reality that exists outside of the psyche, but if we see it in its proper context, as part of the phenomenon of the mind, then we can study it as a real phenomenon.

 

[Lmao_Zedong]

Empiricism uses inductive reasoning, so isn't it flawed logic pretty much by definition?

I'm not familiar with Kant but I am with Hume's Problem of Induction. Isn't causation something that has to be assumed?

Aaand my philosophy 101 knowledge is exhausted

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Central to this thread is the notion that to understand the universe is to accept that you can't know reality fully because we are anchored to our subjectivity or in other words, Idealism.
" Idealism itself is sometimes taken to be a foundational system and a reduction of everything to mental, but this is a misconception -- idealism doesn't take the objective and reduce it to subjective descriptions, it simply notes that reality independent of perception has not been shown to exist and applies Occam's razor to shave off the extra metaphysics which having a second layer of reality would involve. Those who reject idealism, on the other hand, are clearly applying reductionist and foundationalist ideas. They're unwilling to let perception be simply a coherent scheme, and are driven to reduce talk of perception to talk of a reality of objective causes independent of perception that provide the foundation for that perception (and must itself have foundations in finite solid particles). In "Things and Their Place in Theories," Willard Quine remarks "there remains the fact--a fact of science itself--that science is a conceptual bridge of our own making, linking sensory stimulation to sensory stimulation; there is no extrasensory perception." The result of this inability to find anything in the world which isn't perception is that no one can demonstrate a world independent of perception, and the only reasons for talk of a world of objective causes are the questionable beliefs in reductionism and foundationalism." From, http://articles.philosophyforums.com/links/reapproaching_idealism-6.html

I found this particularly insightful. Because we are observers and participators, we can only see mirrors of reality. "J.A. Wheeler described the result of reality depending on observers in these terms: "The universe gives birth to communicating participators. Communicating participators give meaning to the universe. With such a concept goes the endless series of receding reflections one sees in a pair of facing mirrors." To be is to be percieved, to percieve is to be... indeed, an endless series of mirrors."

 

[JimJambones]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ