Scientific Empiricism

[Zosimus]

If a new user logged into the forum and announced that he simply knew, as a matter of innate knowledge, that Jesus was the Christ, that evolution was false, and that God had created the universe, this person would come under some serious criticism.

Those who fancy themselves witty might retort that they understand perfectly because, as a matter of innate knowledge, they "know" that Zeus created the universe. Others might argue, deride, or just roll their eyes.

All his detractors, however, would be universally united in the belief that all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism. However, the statement that all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism is problematic.

Is there a scientific experiment that we could perform to verify that all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism? So far no one has suggested that such a scientific experiment exists (much less claimed to have done it). So unless someone here can suggest such an experiment, we must confront one of two possibilities.

Either there are sources of knowledge other than scientific empiricism
or the statement "all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism" is not knowledge.

You see, claiming that you know that all knowledge comes from science is what we call a self-refuting statement. It's like saying that all generalizations are false. If the statement is true, then it's false whereas if it's false, it's false. Either way, you are forced to conclude that it cannot be true.

Alternatively, you can simply say that all knowledge comes from science without saying that you know this to be so. Rather than a statement of knowledge, this becomes a statement of faith or some kind of an initial premise. Accordingly, this premise is no more deserving of special status than the claim that the Bible is inerrant, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that Vishnu maintains the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

If a new user logged into the forum and announced that he simply knew, as a matter of innate knowledge, that Jesus was the Christ, that evolution was false, and that God had created the universe, this person would come under some serious criticism.

If a new user logged on and said that he believed that evolution was false based solely on faith and in contradiction to all of the evidence, then we would simply tip our hat and move along.

But this usually isn't the case. Rather, creationists pretend that that their claims are supported by the scientific method and by scientific evidence. It is creationists who are trying to legitimize creationism by claiming it is scientific. This isn't a question of whether science can determine truth since everyone involved already agrees that science is a good way of modeling how reality works, even if tacitly by creationists who seek the approval of science.

 

[Zosimus]

If a new user logged on and said that he believed that evolution was false based solely on faith and in contradiction to all of the evidence, then we would simply tip our hat and move along.

But this usually isn't the case. Rather, creationists pretend that that their claims are supported by the scientific method and by scientific evidence. It is creationists who are trying to legitimize creationism by claiming it is scientific. This isn't a question of whether science can determine truth since everyone involved already agrees that science is a good way of modeling how reality works, even if tacitly by creationists who seek the approval of science.

Science is not a good way of modeling how reality works.

 

[Larniavc]

Science is not a good way of modeling how reality works.

It's quite good.

It allowed my son to be treated by a doctor based on modelling of his small and large intestine.

Go science.

 

[Zosimus]

It's quite good.

It allowed my son to be treated by a doctor based on modelling of his small and large intestine.

Go science.

So before science doctors never treated anyone?

What makes you think that the treatment given by that doctor is superior to the treatment that would be had in an alternate universe in which scientific empiricism didn't exist?

What makes you think that the doctor's models of your son's small and large intestine are true as opposed to just being empirically sufficient?

 

[Loudmouth]

So before science doctors never treated anyone?

What makes you think that the treatment given by that doctor is superior to the treatment that would be had in an alternate universe in which scientific empiricism didn't exist?

What makes you think that the doctor's models of your son's small and large intestine are true as opposed to just being empirically sufficient?

When you get sick, do you go to the doctor to seek treatments that science has produced?

 

[Zosimus]

Why did you (sic) their?

In the original post, Loudmouth said:

Well a doctor is a trained and educated medical professional. Their job is to treat people who have injuries or illnesses.

The question, then, is what is the antecedent for "their"? Logically it can only be "a doctor" yet a doctor is not a there. A doctor might be a he or a she, but never a they. Loudmouth lazily constructed his sentence by referring to a single doctor. He should have said:

"Doctors are trained and educated medical professionals. Their ... "

And then their would have a valid antecedent.

 

[crjmurray]

In the original post, Loudmouth said:

Well a doctor is a trained and educated medical professional. Their job is to treat people who have injuries or illnesses.

The question, then, is what is the antecedent for "their"? Logically it can only be "a doctor" yet a doctor is not a there. A doctor might be a he or a she, but never a they. Loudmouth lazily constructed his sentence by referring to a single doctor. He should have said:

"Doctors are trained and educated medical professionals. Their ... "

And then their would have a valid antecedent.

Loudmouth didn't explain what a doctor is. I did.

 

[bhsmte]

Doctors are the third leading cause of death. Airplane crashes are not even in the top 10. Even if we assumed that all crashes were the fault of pilots, it wouldn't be even remotely comparable.

The sad thing is that when you posted that, you probably thought that your logic was sound.

The logic was very sound. Plane crashes which kill people are mostly caused by pilot error. Planes getting safely to their destination (which they do a high percentage of the time), are also due to pilots.

Doctors deal with very sick people to begin with and people will die in their care. You see, very sick people tend to die more often then otherwise healthy people.

 

[Zosimus]

The logic was very sound. Plane crashes which kill people are mostly caused by pilot error. Planes getting safely to their destination (which they do a high percentage of the time), are also due to pilots.

Doctors deal with very sick people to begin with and people will die in their care. You see, very sick people tend to die more often then otherwise healthy people.

Let me see if I understand your logic.

Since pilots often get people safely to their destinations, doctors also often cure sick people.

Is that it?

All right. Since pilots often get people safely to their destinations, ministers often save people's souls and put them on the course to eternal bliss in Valhalla.

 

[lesliedellow]

Science is not a good way of modeling how reality works.

Nobody has found a superior methodology for building models of the physical universe. The high tech world you live in is more than ample testimony to that.

 

[bhsmte]

Let me see if I understand your logic.

Since pilots often get people safely to their destinations, doctors also often cure sick people.

Is that it?

All right. Since pilots often get people safely to their destinations, ministers often save people's souls and put them on the course to eternal bliss in Valhalla.

Easy to tell whether a pilot got passengers to their destination safely.

Also quite easy to distinguish when a doctor is treating a patient and their symptoms they went to see them for have been improved.

Both of the above can be measured objectively, and it may be a bit more difficult to objectively determine what impact a minister had.

 

[lesliedellow]

So before science doctors never treated anyone?

There is no need to guess what medicine would be like without medical science, because we only have to look back a century and a half to find out.

 

[Zosimus]

Nobody has found a superior methodology for building models of the physical universe. The high tech world you live in is more than ample testimony to that.

People sailed round the world, cathedrals were constructed, astronomers mapped the heavens, doctors did brain surgery, and countless other things before the first scientist walked the Earth.

 

[Zosimus]

Easy to tell whether a pilot got passengers to their destination safely.

Also quite easy to distinguish when a doctor is treating a patient and their symptoms they went to see them for have been improved.

Both of the above can be measured objectively, and it may be a bit more difficult to objectively determine what impact a minister had.

So if someone sees a doctor, the doctor scares the evil spirits out of the person, and two days later the person feels better, then the evil-spirit-scaring procedure was effective?

Have you ever heard of things such as placebo controls, randomization, blinding, and all the other things that are done to try to reduce the error that is inherent in science?

 

[Larniavc]

So before science doctors never treated anyone?

What makes you think that the treatment given by that doctor is superior to the treatment that would be had in an alternate universe in which scientific empiricism didn't exist?

What makes you think that the doctor's models of your son's small and large intestine are true as opposed to just being empirically sufficient?

He got better.

In the alternate universe where he did not get treatment he died in agony.

I am happy my son is still alive, in the same universe I exist in.

Go science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If a new user logged into the forum and announced that he simply knew, as a matter of innate knowledge, that Jesus was the Christ, that evolution was false, and that God had created the universe, this person would come under some serious criticism.

Obviously...

Those who fancy themselves witty might retort that they understand perfectly because, as a matter of innate knowledge, they "know" that Zeus created the universe. Others might argue, deride, or just roll their eyes.

All his detractors, however, would be universally united in the belief that all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism. However, the statement that all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism is problematic.

It depends on what knowledge we are talking about.
If we are talking about knowledge on how reality works (you know... gravity, germs, plate tectonics, etc), then yes: empirical science is the way to go.

Is there a scientific experiment that we could perform to verify that all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism? So far no one has suggested that such a scientific experiment exists (much less claimed to have done it). So unless someone here can suggest such an experiment, we must confront one of two possibilities.

Science is very results based.
That science is a good method to find out how reality works is evident from it's incredible track record.

300 years of scientific investigation accomplished more then the thousands of years preceeding it.

My grandfather grew up in a time where the first means of transportation was a horse. Cars only started to show up when he was older then 10 and only the super rich had them (and you were still faster by horse).

He died in the late 90s. Imagine the world he was born in and contrast that with the world he left behind.

That difference is 100% due to science.

You see, claiming that you know that all knowledge comes from science is what we call a self-refuting statement. It's like saying that all generalizations are false. If the statement is true, then it's false whereas if it's false, it's false. Either way, you are forced to conclude that it cannot be true.

Can you point me to a single method other then science, which is at least as succesfull in explaining natural phenomena of reality?

Perhaps there is one, I don't know.
But I'm not aware of any. Are you?

Alternatively, you can simply say that all knowledge comes from science without saying that you know this to be so. Rather than a statement of knowledge, this becomes a statement of faith or some kind of an initial premise. Accordingly, this premise is no more deserving of special status than the claim that the Bible is inerrant, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that Vishnu maintains the universe.

I depend on science for knowledge about reality, not because it is flawless or whatever, but rather because it's demonstrably the best method we have to differentiate truth from fiction.

Again, you are free to point out a method with better track record, but I don't think you can.

Science is very results based. I don't need "faith" to assume it will gain us more knowledge.

I can just look at the world in 1900 and look at the world today in 2015, while realising that the differences in technology, life expectancy, etc are 100% thanks to scientific investigation.

Once more: you are free to point out a method with better track record

 

[DogmaHunter]

So before science doctors never treated anyone?

You aren't aware that there was a time, not that long ago even, when people were given an exorcism instead of anti-biotics?

What makes you think that the treatment given by that doctor is superior to the treatment that would be had in an alternate universe in which scientific empiricism didn't exist?

Eurrr... you don't need an alternate universe. You can just look at our own past before science as a method was mainstream....

Medical science minimised infant mortality to an all time low and increased life expectancy 3-fold.

You are not aware of this?

What makes you think that the doctor's models of your son's small and large intestine are true as opposed to just being empirically sufficient?

The fact that you are actually talking about a small and large intestine and don't argue that these body parts don't exist, already answers your question.

 

[Armoured]

If a new user logged into the forum and announced that he simply knew, as a matter of innate knowledge, that Jesus was the Christ, that evolution was false, and that God had created the universe, this person would come under some serious criticism.

Those who fancy themselves witty might retort that they understand perfectly because, as a matter of innate knowledge, they "know" that Zeus created the universe. Others might argue, deride, or just roll their eyes.

All his detractors, however, would be universally united in the belief that all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism. However, the statement that all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism is problematic.

Is there a scientific experiment that we could perform to verify that all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism? So far no one has suggested that such a scientific experiment exists (much less claimed to have done it). So unless someone here can suggest such an experiment, we must confront one of two possibilities.

Either there are sources of knowledge other than scientific empiricism
or the statement "all knowledge comes from scientific empiricism" is not knowledge.

You see, claiming that you know that all knowledge comes from science is what we call a self-refuting statement. It's like saying that all generalizations are false. If the statement is true, then it's false whereas if it's false, it's false. Either way, you are forced to conclude that it cannot be true.

Alternatively, you can simply say that all knowledge comes from science without saying that you know this to be so. Rather than a statement of knowledge, this becomes a statement of faith or some kind of an initial premise. Accordingly, this premise is no more deserving of special status than the claim that the Bible is inerrant, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that Vishnu maintains the universe.

You can claim to inately know something all you like. Nothing wrong with it. However, when you start expecting other people to believe what you believe based on nothing more than your inate knowledge, that's when you run into difficulties.

 

[Alithis]

If a new user logged on and said that he believed that evolution was false based solely on faith and in contradiction to all of the evidence, then we would simply tip our hat and move along.

But this usually isn't the case. Rather, creationists pretend that that their claims are supported by the scientific method and by scientific evidence. It is creationists who are trying to legitimize creationism by claiming it is scientific. This isn't a question of whether science can determine truth since everyone involved already agrees that science is a good way of modeling how reality works, even if tacitly by creationists who seek the approval of science.

usually ? glad you did not say always . as in my case i know evolution is absolutely wrong purely based on Faith In God who said so . i find the murky waters of science far to dishonest and murky for swimming in ..