Empiricism vs. Logic

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by clyde »

Kevin Solway wrote: Whatever one's own mind is - whatever one experiences - is exactly the state of one's own mind.
Kevin Solway wrote:The unconscious mind is one of the causes of mind.
HUH? Your unconscious mind that you do not experience is one of the causes of your mind that you do experience. How do you know that? And since you state that whatever you experience is your state of mind, does this mean your unconscious mind in not part of your state of mind because you don't experience your unconscious mind?
Kevin Solway wrote:You must be having a conversation with someone else. I never said anywhere that one thing does not have an effect on any other thing.

The brain and the mind may be linked in the same way as the big toe of a goalkeeper playing in a football match in small town in Spain is connected to a speck of dirt on a small planet in another galaxy. That is, the link may be extremely remote.
Maybe I am having a conversation with someone else. Let me start simply. Do you believe your mind and body have more than a remote link?

clyde
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Kevin Solway »

clyde wrote:Your unconscious mind that you do not experience is one of the causes of your mind that you do experience. How do you know that?
It is a logical necessity. Consciousness is necessarily caused by unconsciousness.
And since you state that whatever you experience is your state of mind, does this mean your unconscious mind in not part of your state of mind because you don't experience your unconscious mind?
I define my mind to be that which I experience. That which is unconscious is not experienced - by definition.
Do you believe your mind and body have more than a remote link?
It doesn't matter what I "believe". It is impossible for anyone to know to what degree the brain and mind are linked. That is one of the inherent limitations of science.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by clyde »

Kevin Solway wrote:
clyde wrote:Your unconscious mind that you do not experience is one of the causes of your mind that you do experience. How do you know that?
It is a logical necessity. Consciousness is necessarily caused by unconsciousness.
Why couldn't unconsciousness be caused by consciousness? Or perhaps they could arise simultaneously?
Kevin Solway wrote:
clyde wrote:And since you state that whatever you experience is your state of mind, does this mean your unconscious mind in not part of your state of mind because you don't experience your unconscious mind?
I define my mind to be that which I experience. That which is unconscious is not experienced - by definition.
Can you point to this unconscious which is not mind?
Kevin Solway wrote:
clyde wrote:Do you believe your mind and body have more than a remote link?
It doesn't matter what I "believe". It is impossible for anyone to know to what degree the brain and mind are linked. That is one of the inherent limitations of science.
If I step on your foot, what do you experience?

clyde
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Kevin Solway »

clyde wrote:Can you point to this unconscious which is not mind?
I already did. The cause of mind is unconscious. The words are a pointer.
Kevin Solway wrote:If I step on your foot, what do you experience?
Possibly nothing at all.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by clyde »

Kevin Solway wrote:
clyde wrote:If I step on your foot, what do you experience?
Possibly nothing at all.
Kevin, if you are going to maintain that position, I’ll quit this thread.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Kevin Solway »

clyde wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
clyde wrote:If I step on your foot, what do you experience?
Possibly nothing at all.
Kevin, if you are going to maintain that position, I’ll quit this thread.
This is a philosophy forum, not a science forum.

It is only guesswork what will happen if you tread on my foot, and that is the domain of science. Science, by its very nature, cannot tell us what is absolutely true. This is in contrast to philosophy, which can.

Apart from that, this topic is precisely about distinguishing empiricism from logic, and the empirical effects of treading on a person's feet is an empirical matter.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by divine focus »

What good is philosophy without practical application?
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Kevin Solway »

divine focus wrote:What good is philosophy without practical application?
Philosophy certainly has practical applications.

For example, philosophy tells me that science cannot tell us the absolute truth, and therefore I will not invest everything in a mere scientific truth, since it may well turn out to be wrong. That is a very practical application.
Sage
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:30 am

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Sage »

I recently read this article (http://mises.org/esandtam.asp) on praxeology by Hans Hoppe. He completely destroys the idea that economics can be based on empiricism.

From the article:
"Economic statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts."
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by divine focus »

Kevin Solway wrote:Philosophy certainly has practical applications.

For example, philosophy tells me that science cannot tell us the absolute truth, and therefore I will not invest everything in a mere scientific truth, since it may well turn out to be wrong. That is a very practical application.
This is true in terms of the scientific establishment and many of its methods, i.e., its form of logic which is belief-based, but not necessarily true in terms of personal science or personal understanding gained from experience. From experimentation and observation--the application of different conditions and the noticing of the outcomes--you can arrive at very scientific truths that may not necessarily be verifiable by anyone you are in contact with. This is the essence of practice, as well as all life on earth.

And this is to say, you cannot say, practically speaking, that you may feel nothing if someone were to step on your foot, even if that is a slight possibility. You know yourself well enough to know that you will feel something, and it requires no abstract philosophizing to know this. You may not notice the feeling, if you are oblivious enough :), but the feeling will be there in the body, nevertheless. Speaking strictly philosophically, anything is possible, but that of course would have no use practically except in very specific applications.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by divine focus »

Sage wrote:I recently read this article (http://mises.org/esandtam.asp) on praxeology by Hans Hoppe. He completely destroys the idea that economics can be based on empiricism.

From the article:
"Economic statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts."
Not exactly. From the article, paraphrasing Kant on a priori axioms:

"How do we find such axioms? Kant answers, by reflecting upon ourselves, by understanding ourselves as knowing subjects. And this fact?that the truth of a priori synthetic propositions derives ultimately from inner, reflectively produced experience?also explains why such propositions can possibly have the status of being understood as necessarily true. Observational experience can only reveal things as they happen to be; there is nothing in it that indicates why things must be the way they are. Contrary to this, however, writes Kant, our reason can understand such things as being necessarily the way they are, "which it has itself produced according to its own design." [13]"

He's using "observational experience" to mean outer observation, but he's saying that inner observation is what is required. That may be somewhat confusing as stated, since that is also an observational experience.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by mikiel »

Seems this thread is more appropriate for my last two posts in the
"Boundaries" thread (4/28), at least for the "logic" part, as including both inductive and deductive reasoning. Main point there was that deductive reasoning as classical logic is vulnerable to the "absurd premise problem, i.e., GIGO, as in computer programming.
No matter how perfect the logic, if the premise is absurd, like "there is no objective world outside the human mind" then it begs the question, what is the basis of the human mind... i.e., no bodies, brains, cosmos... and all conclusions are equally as absurd as the premise.
But once empirical observation enters the equation, especially rigorous scientific investigation as a way to validate such observations, then we can approach a more balanced epistemology of what we know and how we know it.

For instance, contrary to Kevin's stance on the mind (say, for simplicity sake, what one experiences) and the brain connection (unknowable, he claims), our bio-computer, the brain has now been mapped in exquisite detail to the extent that brain activity and exact location of that activity can be monitered in "real time" as a subject is "thinking" or remembering, including specific sensations, emotions, concepts... all of it.

If you excluded empirical science and inductive reasoning, we would all still believe the obvious but erroneous perception that sun revolves around earth.
Yes, philosophy addresses the ultimate meaning and reality of things, but science and inductive reasoning from observation is how we verify what we think we know... which deductive logic alone can not accomplish.
mikiel
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Kevin Solway »

divine focus wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:Philosophy certainly has practical applications.

For example, philosophy tells me that science cannot tell us the absolute truth, and therefore I will not invest everything in a mere scientific truth, since it may well turn out to be wrong. That is a very practical application.
This is true in terms of the scientific establishment and many of its methods, i.e., its form of logic which is belief-based, but not necessarily true in terms of personal science or personal understanding gained from experience.
I have no idea what you mean by "personal science". There is either science, which is about things which can be objectively measured, and which are verifiable by others, or there is philosophy, which is a personal thing and which concerns only one's own observations. Science is uncertain whereas philosophical, personal observations, are not. For this reason it is a mistake to confuse the two. Science is a social activity whereas philosophy is personal.
And this is to say, you cannot say, practically speaking, that you may feel nothing if someone were to step on your foot, even if that is a slight possibility. You know yourself well enough to know that you will feel something
Definitely not. I know myself well enough to know that I might feel something. I might think that it is very likely I will feel something, based on my past experience. But I also know that past experience is worthless when it comes to predicting particular future events with certainty.
, and it requires no abstract philosophizing to know this. You may not notice the feeling, if you are oblivious enough :), but the feeling will be there in the body, nevertheless.
I have to a large extent trained by body to be more in tune with my mind.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by brokenhead »

Kevin Solway wrote:I have no idea what you mean by "personal science". There is either science, which is about things which can be objectively measured, and which are verifiable by others, or there is philosophy, which is a personal thing and which concerns only one's own observations. Science is uncertain whereas philosophical, personal observations, are not. For this reason it is a mistake to confuse the two. Science is a social activity whereas philosophy is personal.
You have made this distinction before.

Yet you develop a philosophy and explicate it at length. If it is personal, and is not verifiable by others, why do you do that? Why join in at GF?

Science includes a frank admission of its own limitations, if it is good science. No lab course or theory course would presume to do otherwise. And philosophers can and do disagree. If any philosophy is complete, a disagreement on a detail by two equally qualified philosophers casts both philosophies into doubt, as logic is a chain, and we would have a contested point, a weak link. No verification, according to you, is possible, as this would be "social" and not "personal."

Your distinction is thus invalid. I may accept it as a sort of general description ("science is more like this" and "philosophy is more like that.") But even on its face, your description just doesn't feel correct. Isaac Newton was not a social person, for example, and his science was something he rather pronounced than shared. In fact, his inability to get along with the one person of his day, Leibnitz, who shared the same insights would make Newton appear to be a philosopher by your definition.

Which, of course, he was. Scientists have traditionally been philosophers. Your observed dichotomy between philosophy and science, in my view, does not historically appear until after the turn of the 20th century. What you have is an evolution away from the Royal Academy-type science to a more engineering science as the Industrial Revolution required more application-oriented science.

You are failing to take into account the existence of philosophy departments in universities all over the world. Philosophy is a living process whereby you not only examine things rigorously yourself, perhaps doing the dismantling David talks about, but where you find out what others before you have done, and others around you are doing. Ergo this web site. There are as many books filled with people's philosophy as there are filled with man's science.

Science is indeed uncertain in some respects, but these respects are necessary logically to underscore the respects in which it is relatively certain.

I agree it is a mistake to confuse science with philosophy. They are different, much like the left eye and the right eye are similar but not the same. But together they can produce results, an added dimension, that either alone cannot.
Sage
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:30 am

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Sage »

Divine Focus:
I suppose the key point is to distinguish between 1- "inner, reflectively produced experience" or "reflective cognition" and 2- "outer observation".

Reflective cognition is not an "observational experience" in the same sense as outer observation.

Hoppe says that the axioms derived from reflective cognition are self-evident because they cannot be denied without self-contradiction; by attempting to deny them one implicitly admits their truth e.g. the axiom of action - the denial of it is an act, and thus proves the axiom.

Thus, propositions derived from reflective cognition are self-evident and have axiomatic status (cannot be denied without a performative contradiction).

I don't think propositions derived empirically by outer observation and hypothesizing have the same foundation. This type would always be contingent on previous empirical knowledge. And they couldn't be said to be true- they are only not yet proven false (by possible falsifying future experiences).
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by clyde »

A monk is walking around outside and suddenly
stubs his toe. A violent pain shoots up his leg. Hopping
around in agony he thinks, “I’ve read that pain is a
void. What the hell is this?” Then suddenly he gets it.

When his teacher asks him to explain, the monk
said, “I cannot be deceived by others.”
-- from http://plumblossomzendo.myfastsite.com/

Kevin; Do you need help with understanding this? clyde
Sage
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:30 am

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Sage »

Divine Focus:
Another term for "cognitive reflection" is "introspection". This gives us a nice dichotomy: introspection vs extrospection; a priori synthetic propositions vs a posteriori analytic propositions.

Here's a shorter article on praxeology. He references heavily the article by Hoppe above. On the second page he demolishes the possibility that empiricism and historicism can be the basis for epistemology.
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060205-5.htm
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by mikiel »

I'm still interested in how y'all see the above shit about "there is no physical/external world" (I know, but I've split that hair in another thread) as different than solipsism.
And then of course, as solipsism, even if "its all in our collective mind"... what supports the mind or minds here if not actual existing bodies with brains.
Maybe a good solid answer would convince me that I dont have a body or brain either, and none of you exist after all. Just "me" creating the universe. I'm already starting to get lonely.
mikiel
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Faust »

brokenhead wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:I have no idea what you mean by "personal science". There is either science, which is about things which can be objectively measured, and which are verifiable by others, or there is philosophy, which is a personal thing and which concerns only one's own observations. Science is uncertain whereas philosophical, personal observations, are not. For this reason it is a mistake to confuse the two. Science is a social activity whereas philosophy is personal.
You have made this distinction before.

Yet you develop a philosophy and explicate it at length. If it is personal, and is not verifiable by others, why do you do that? Why join in at GF?
he doesn't want to admit that logic and philosophy is useless without it being verified by empiricism and observations. Many things are personal, such as religion, and are quite uncertain. Kevin is, as usual, irrational in being content with his own perspective and calling it "absolute" which is as irrational as calling science "social" because it tries to atleast verify things empirically. Perhaps QRS don't like the dependence of philosophy on empirical evidence. They talk of A=A and of "things" when these are taken from empirical concepts.
Amor fati
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Kevin Solway »

brokenhead wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:Science is a social activity whereas philosophy is personal.
You have made this distinction before.

Yet you develop a philosophy and explicate it at length. If it is personal, and is not verifiable by others, why do you do that? Why join in at GF?
If I were a scientist then I would be looking for others to verify my work. But as I am a philosopher I am not looking for other people to verify my work. I already know that my ideas are absolutely correct. Rather, I want other people to realize the same things that I have realized, for themselves.
If any philosophy is complete, a disagreement on a detail by two equally qualified philosophers casts both philosophies into doubt
In academic circles "complete" doesn't mean correct. It only means that they are complete within a certain context. Being "complete" doesn't mean that a philosophy has anything at all to do with reality.

You talk about "two equally qualified philosophers" and yet it is not so easy to judge how qualified two people are with regards to thinking. You certainly can't trust their academic qualifications. You can have two highly regarded philosophers disagree with each other, and yet it may be the case that neither of them has any capacity for doing philosophy.

All truly wise philosophers agree with each other on all matters.
No verification, according to you, is possible, as this would be "social" and not "personal."
That's right. It's not possible to verify that 1 +1 = 2. No amount of supporting physical evidence can absolutely prove the truth it. It is something that an individual has to understand for himself. Science can never prove anything absolutely, because it depends on sense perceptions which are untrustworthy in the sense that we may all see an apple that isn't really there.
Isaac Newton was not a social person, for example, and his science was something he rather pronounced than shared. In fact, his inability to get along with the one person of his day, Leibnitz, who shared the same insights would make Newton appear to be a philosopher by your definition.
In the old days thinkers were more multitasking than they are today, and the scientists of old commonly practiced philosophy. But in our modern times it is very rare for a scientist to also be a philosophical thinker.

But just because a person can do two different things doesn't make those two things the same.

You are failing to take into account the existence of philosophy departments in universities all over the world.
That which is practiced in university philosophy departments has no relation to philosophy. Since people like Quine, true philosophy has not existed in Western universities.
together they can produce results, an added dimension, that either alone cannot.
There is a philosophy that underlies science, but the practice of science is not philosophy.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by clyde »

Kevin Solway wrote: I already know that my ideas are absolutely correct.
WOW! Kevin is done and his every idea is absolutely correct.
Not me; I'm a 'work in progress' :-)
Sage
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:30 am

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Sage »

Faust: I think you would be very interested in those articles on praxeology I referenced above. They deal directly with the question of how knowledge is verifiable- whether by empiricism or logic or some combination of the two - introspection.
Faust wrote:the dependence of philosophy on empirical evidence.
This is exactly what the article addresses.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by brokenhead »

Kevin Solway wrote:If I were a scientist then I would be looking for others to verify my work. But as I am a philosopher I am not looking for other people to verify my work. I already know that my ideas are absolutely correct. Rather, I want other people to realize the same things that I have realized, for themselves.
And I'm sure it wouldn't hurt if the other people also realized that your ideas are absolutely correct.
You talk about "two equally qualified philosophers" and yet it is not so easy to judge how qualified two people are with regards to thinking. You certainly can't trust their academic qualifications. You can have two highly regarded philosophers disagree with each other, and yet it may be the case that neither of them has any capacity for doing philosophy.

All truly wise philosophers agree with each other on all matters.
Including what their favorite color is, no doubt.

Wait - no truly wise philosopher would have a favorite color, right?
In the old days thinkers were more multitasking than they are today, and the scientists of old commonly practiced philosophy. But in our modern times it is very rare for a scientists to also be a philosophical thinker.
This is a quaint characterization, yet it doesn't hold up. Thinkers were less multitasking in olden days, of course, because there was less abstract material to think about. Today, with information available as never before, the integration of various well-developed disciplines is not only possible, but becoming more commonplace. Up until Poincaré, it was possible to have expertise in all fields of mathematics, for example. He is often credited with being the last person to excel in all branches of mathematics of his time. There is today so much more material out there that multitasking is not a luxury, it is a necessity, and even so, no one can "know it all." It no longer falls to noblemen of independent means to devote their time to gentlemanly philosophizing. You say it is rare for scientists to be philosophical thinkers. I say too many of them are. The latter part of the 20th century witnessed an explosion of front-line physicists and information theorists grappling with fundamental epistemological and even ontological ideas.
But just because a person can do two different things doesn't make those two things the same.
Any two different things? Of course not. But these two "different" things, science and philosophy, are potentially very much the exception. It is evidently intellectually quite natural to attempt to fuse scientific expertise with philosophical acumen, as so many people find themselves doing just that. People are just trying to make sense of the world as they see it.
That which is practiced in university philosophy departments has no relation to philosophy. Since people like Quine, true philosophy has not existed in Western universities.
Spoken like a true philosopher. And you know what, Spinoza? You just might be right about that. Here is my exposure to university philosophy departments: At Cornell, where I did my undergrad studies, the philosophy department was quite well regarded. In fact, there is a survey done each year by which university professors around the world are asked to rate the best department in their particular field. Most Cornell departments were well-regarded by their peers, but one - the philosophy department - was rated number one year after year for several years running. This must have been a tremendous source of satisfaction for the Cornell philosophy department. However, one year while I was there it slipped to number two in this annual rating by peers. I remember reading in the student newspaper quotes from the department head about this, and he was most ungracious, even calling departments in other schools jealous and spiteful. I remember thinking: hey - this is the frigging philosophy department! Couldn't the guy have been more... philosophical about it?
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by mikiel »

I suggest that empiricism is not in opposition to logic as the thread title implies but creates a balance with logic.

Those who 'diss' empicism altogether will obviously dismiss this proposition... the admin. of this forum, for instance.

As I was arguing with LS in the "Boundaries" thread, one must first validate the premise before the conclusion of a logical argument can have any meaning or be considered true.

Empiicism is the way to validate the premise in any and all logic which has any relevance to "the world."

But if one such as a hard core solipsist insists that there is no "objective reality/world/cosmos"... then "its all in the mind"... yet what supports "the mind", individually or collectively?"

Solipsism, as Iv'e said has no leg to stand on, literally. No bodies. No brains. Disembodied minds denying the most obvious reality of common con-sense-us. The most ridiculous philosophy possible, yet maintained here (by the admin) as a reality so superiority to common sense that anyone arguing from the latter in general or science specifically is disregarded as a kook... and presently ignored.

I wonder if all here are zombies indoctrinated by this tripe or if there are others in agreement with this post... even lurkers too intimidated by these "geniuses" to "come out" and speak their minds. This is an invitation to do so, and I will support you in a common sense way.

I will know soon whether to "move along" and leave this little logic clique (not of course to say "cult") behind or continue in conversation here.
mikiel
(my "r" on keyboard is failing... sorry. ..six hits on the "r"s in "sorry." and two edits)
Last edited by mikiel on Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Empiricism vs. Logic

Post by Kevin Solway »

mikiel wrote:Empiricism is the way to validate the premise in any and all logic.
This is obviously false, and I don't need to measure anything to be able to say that. How can you prove empirically that a thing is itself?

And how can you prove empirically that "Empiricism is the way to validate the premise in any and all logic."
Locked