Why are the Sciences Empirical?

[Polymath257]

So empiricism would have began as a case against religious fundamentalism? But that couldn't be stated as such maybe, because it would have been too direct, and politically incorrect perhaps?

No, it did not start that way. But it did end up being a good argument against certain aspects of religion.

 

[Cooky]

Well, an alternative is to be found in Plato. He thought that the senses are so unreliable that they cannot be used as a guide for truth. Instead, he suggested that 'sitting and thinking' was a much better approach since it would at least lead to consistency.

This is actually a position taken by many in history and even some today.

The problem, as i see it, is that mere consistency is only a minimal standard. There are many internally consistent viewpoints that are not true. How do we distinguish between them? And the answer, ultimately, is empiricism.

I think that much is lost when relying solely on the scientific method. For example, the modern 'empiricists' may tend to adopt a reductionist or "deductive" mainframe, based solely on knowledge -which results in the rejection of the unknown.

...It takes imagination to start the process of uncovering unknown areas, which is the very starting point of progress in the first place!

 

[Cooky]

No, it did not start that way. But it did end up being a good argument against certain aspects of religion.

So it started as a rejection of philosophy? How appalling!

It was the birth of scientific radicalism then. The beginning of reductionist thought in the sciences.

 

[Polymath257]

So it started as a rejection of philosophy? How appalling!

No, it was a *shift* in philosophy.

It was the birth of scientific radicalism then. The beginning of reductionist thought in the sciences.

Which lead to a HUGE increase in our scientific knowledge in a short time period as compared to the time previous that had little progress (and that was generally done by nascent empiricists).

 

[Polymath257]

I think that much is lost when relying solely on the scientific method. For example, the modern 'empiricists' may tend to adopt a reductionist or "deductive" mainframe, based solely on knowledge -which results in the rejection of the unknown.

...It takes imagination to start the process of uncovering unknown areas, which is the very starting point of progress in the first place!

I disagree that there is a rejection of the unknown. In fact, the whole point is to figure out what we currently do not know.

I would also point out that the reductionist framework has worked vary, very well. We *explore* by looking deeper into the phenomena we see.

Which 'unknown areas' would you suggest we start to investigate?

 

[Cooky]

Which 'unknown areas' would you suggest we start to investigate?

How do you explain consciousness?

&

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

...The reductionist blows both of these off.

 

[Shadow Link]

To be reckoned from a certain point, preliminary, science was used to advance the fertility of wisdom, which still leads back and beyond to a major fundamental problem which even philosophy has always encountered itself, and that is of inducing curiosity.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you explain consciousness?

&

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

...The reductionist blows both of these off.

Not that I can see. Convergent evolution is something that has been extensively investigated.

Getting a purchase on (even defining) consciousness isn't so easy, but great steps have been taken in our studies of the brain. I'd suggest the book 'Behave' by Sapolski as an intro.

 

[Cooky]

Not that I can see. Convergent evolution is something that has been extensively investigated.

Getting a purchase on (even defining) consciousness isn't so easy, but great steps have been taken in our studies of the brain. I'd suggest the book 'Behave' by Sapolski as an intro.

I disagree. But another thread would be required for going into depth on it.

 

[sealchan]

Both.

There are no sciences without empiricsts.

I would say this as follows...

Without individuals who preference the sensation function (over the intuition function which is a complimentary opposite) who in turn insisted on reality as being a demonstrably reproducible thing rather than "merely" an elegant, meaningful pattern, we would not have the sense and appreciation of the fruits and the labors of our modern, empirical science. In this way science has progressively replaced the music of the spheres with the laws of gravity.

Yet...at the same time I think that scientists and science lovers love the elegance and pattern of those discoveries that transcend practical experience and help us to realize the symmetry and beauty of the "laws" which seem to "guide all action". What is gravity exactly that it explained anything about the attraction of objects with mass toward one another? Gravity is but a name for a mystery that is, nonetheless, easily re-experiencable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again. I was talking in another level.

No you wasn't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Both.

There are no sciences without empiricsts.

There are no sciences without empiricists just as there are no religions without believers. Believers have no need of evidence, and are perfectly willing to ignore that which denies their belief, for that is the very nature of belief. Empiricists have no need for belief, but cannot deny whatever the empirical evidence shows, even if it means abandoning their theories.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Who or what conceptual endeavor is not empirical? Empiricism refers to the idea that knowledge is gain through sensual experience. In what field of endeavor is knowledge NOT being gained through sensual experience? What access do we have to existential reality that is not gained through our senses?

FIRST, science depends on predictions; if a given prediction comes out to be true then we can be relatively assured that the "knowledge we gained through sensual experience" was probably correct.

SECOND, Existentialism is defined as "a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.". Science, on the other hand, is hotly debating the subject of "freedom" and "free will"; and the evidence is certainly not leaning to the conclusion that "free will" actually exists. So throwing existentialism into the empirical realm of science is like throwing a banana into the lettuce and calling it a vegetable.

You have just listed names of scientists who share almost the same ontological stance.

Really? Newton was a devout Christian who attributed the motions of the planets to God. Darwin was also a Christian and a Creationist. Einstein was a deist who rejected the Christian deity. Lamantree was a devout Catholic; a Priest in fact.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I think that much is lost when relying solely on the scientific method. For example, the modern 'empiricists' may tend to adopt a reductionist or "deductive" mainframe, based solely on knowledge -which results in the rejection of the unknown.

...It takes imagination to start the process of uncovering unknown areas, which is the very starting point of progress in the first place!

Like Einstein, who pioneered the "thought experiment"? Who actually visualized an expanding universe? Like Darwin lacked imagination when he visualized that species might change over time?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, "If you are not comfortable steeped in ignorance, being a scientist is not for you. To be a scientist is to stand on the threshold of what is known and not known".[Not a direct quote, so please be lenient; this is the meaning behind his words].

Do you actually think that scientists sit around pouring over old data without ever asking the childish question, "How's Come?"?

Your statement clearly demonstrates a lack of appreciation and understanding of science.

 

[FooYang]

There are no sciences without empiricists just as there are no religions without believers. Believers have no need of evidence, and are perfectly willing to ignore that which denies their belief, for that is the very nature of belief. Empiricists have no need for belief, but cannot deny whatever the empirical evidence shows, even if it means abandoning their theories.

Not true, Empiricism is an epistemological dogma set to understand phenomena of a certain nature, it is in fact very much a belief and/or worldview, if you take Empiricism as an end to a means (which you seem to imply).
Empiricism is limited to all things that fit Empirically observed experience, nothing more. Empiricism is not Reality, only a small map within a tiny portion of Reality.

 

[Shia Islam]

Newton was a devout Christian who attributed the motions of the planets to God.

Just to make my point clear, i am going to give this unrealistic example: Imagine if you are to attribute the motions of the planets to God today. Which university is willing to recruit you?!

 

[Shia Islam]

No you wasn't.

No I was

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Just to make my point clear, i am going to give this unrealistic example: Imagine if you are to attribute the motions of the planets to God today. Which university is willing to recruit you?!

If such a person were able to prove the existence of the deity, then universities would be drooling to recruit such a scientist who just made the biggest, most ground breaking discovery in all of science.

If such a person were seeking a position in astronomy/astrophysics who made such a claim with no evidence to support it, he would be laughed out of the interview room, and for good reason: To make a claim, you must validate your claim with empirical, observable, testable, repeatable evidence. To think it is bigotry to reject such a claimant from this position is as ludicrous as thinking it bigotry to reject a Holocaust or Crusades denier from a position relating to Historical Studies.

If such a person were seeking a position in theology or philosophy or other fields unrelated to astronomy/astrophysics (business, economics, etc), it probably wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Shad]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

As the rationale "A book from the bronze age says so" or "the voice in my head" was a **** method that proved nothing.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Science is empirical because the sciences are the study of the natural world; and it is the best tool we have to study the natural world.