We try...Kenny Login wrote:Luis - I did find that to be an amusing take on my post!
Some things here. First, avoid the religious reference. I do not have "faith" that science will do the unveiling at all, what I am saying is that if there's any methodology that will achieve it, it will be science.Although, I'm not quite sure why, for someone with an almost religious faith in science doing the job of 'unveiling', you seem to be overlooking the scientific evidence. Your post says (to me at least) that all we can do (i.e. know) comes from formulating and testing hypotheses within a positivist framework. If that were the basis of a philosophical argument, it would be dangerously close to tautological. It's also a position unsupported by the evidence.
Now, the accusation of tautological is an interesting and true one. Yes, we do have a tautology here. Because you see, if I am to say good things about this methodology of justifying things with empirical evidence, all I can do to justify this methodology is, ironically, provide empirical evidence that this kind of research program has led us to achieve monumental knowledge in such little time span. Now, we can try to work out if this tautology is actually a problem or not, and that may be an interesting discussion, but then you shoot yourself in the foot by acknowledging this very same methodology as an evidence against it:
Which is your version of having the cake and eating it. You can't have it both ways. If this methodology is not the only "game in town", then you should show this without using it. To use empiricism against itself is a paradox that I do not find evidence for, albeit your claims.It's also a position unsupported by the evidence
Yes, it's called "communication". Language. No one said that these scientific processes were absolutely "objective". Remember, that's the absolutist position, not ours. We cannot leave the "middle earth", we cannot leave our "POV". We must do all we can within our own frameworks, even any change of the framework itself must be done within the frameworks we build.Scientific research is made possible because the formation and testing of hypotheses necessitate a common protocol, a common language and common thought. As Surendra has mentioned, if you can't say something useful, or meaningful, what good is that to anyone?
What? What good is there to talk gibberish?Well, it turns out that it might still be rather good for the individual, and it might in fact be going on all the time.
Even then, we could agree, and I'd say, well poetry is good for your mental health. Well maybe maybe not, and one is free to enjoy it. Just do not call it "knowledge", and dress it with sciencey jargon and logic and then pretend as if we are speaking of "absolute truth". This is otherwise known as a "Con" or just a "Lie".
This is all empiricism.Conscious thought, and the very specialized type of conscious thought necessary to satisfy the rigorous requirements of formal research, is one activity of human beings. Developmental psychology shows that at least some human beings (little ones) discover very meaningful, valid things about themselves and the world in other ways, and preconsciously (i.e, not accessible to conscious awareness).
They aren't navel gazing at all. Clearly, you are not understanding the term. And good for you if you take children's POV as a more knowledgeable one than adults. We disagree there.If babies are guilty of navel-gazing, rather than reading peer-reviewed scientific journals or debating analytic philosophy, then that navel-gazing seems to work out pretty good for them.
Ahhh, but I've missed the evidence that such "metaphysical" thinking is "hardwired", since you yourself claimed that metaphysics itself is a very loose term. In science we do not do "loose terminology" connections to prove one's point. That's called "navel-gazing".In the example you used, if there was indeed evidence that astrological thinking was hardwired, you would need to be sure that this gave us no valuable information, and then, how to correct an 'error' of this magnitude by simply reframing the problem.
And even if it were it would prove nothing. Yes, there is no evidence that we are "hardwired" to Astrology, but we are hardwired for paranoia and solipsism. For instance, we are hardwired to think that if an event X is preceded by Y, then there's causation. We tend to prefer false positives than false negatives. People still read the horoscopes even after knowing that the stars couldn't possibly have anything to do with your life. We just can't help ourselves: it is hardwired.
It's more tautological than that. I've decided it after empirical evidence, which has some good tautological spice all over it.If you've already decided a priori that all (current and future) things will be understood empirically, then naturally metaphysics is about as useful as poetry - QED
The scientific methodology is the best.But I suspect that when you say empirically, you mean exclusively as part of scientific methodology (correct me if I'm wrong)
But here relies the paradox, you can only do this with information. What is there to observe? Data. What is data? And only with data you can ponder what data is. You can test your assumptions, your hypothesis, and see if your reasonings are bad or good. Without any data feed-backing you, you have no boundaries to guard yourself from just making shit up. Even the tools that metaphysicians are using were derived from empirical tools and "objects". They are just being used beyond their ability to discern anything...And as James has been trying to get across in this thread, in order to explore empiricism and the 'error' of metaphysics, you have to get your hands dirty on what it is to 'observe'.
Which one of those will you trust more in building knowledge?Because 2 month old babies do not observe like scientists; nor do mystics or mad men. Who out of these need correcting?
