In another thread, WJM writes:
Also, when I say I must accept such a prioris in order to even hope to deliberately establish a rational worldview, that means that without such premises, reason (logic) itself breaks down into nonsense.
WJM is laying out the case for rationalism. Typically, rationalism is described as assuming innate knowledge. However, some instead assume a priori knowledge. Thanks to WJM, I now have an inkling on what might be intended by “a priori knowledge.”
The opposing philosophical position is that of empiricism, that knowledge comes through the senses. Most of those posting here (self included) seem to be empiricists, while WJM is clearly standing for some version of rationalism.
This is intended as a stub topic, to allow comments specifically addressing the rationalism vs. empiricism debate.
The trouble with WJM’s rationalist ideas, are that logic alone cannot achieve anything. Logic is used with premises. And unless the premises are derived from actual data (perceptions and scientific data), then any use of logic is just making stuff up.
I wonder if WJM has ever read any Lewis Carrol? Lots of logic-gone-weird in ALICE IN WONDERLAND and THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS…
How about, as a first wild ass approximation, I say knowledge evolves in a way analogous to biological evolution. A major function of brains is the generation, chaotically, of “hypotheses” which get tested as organisms behave and receive feedback.
Language enables more complex hypotheses, but the underlying physical substrate is not really different than that of brains incapable of language.
Yes, I agree with that.
WJM seems to believe that there is some external all encompassing notion of truth, and that the role of a person is to use logic to apply that truth. It seems to me that has the implication that humans are mindless mechanical automatons, merely applying logic to this all encompassing truth. And that would make us all zombies.
I would like WJM to explain how his ideas avoid this problem.
Good point.
In a way, it would effectively curtail our free will in some instances if we actually accepted his world-view.
I’d like to see William J Murray respond to this.
Hell, I want to see how WJM gets around GIGO!
Toronto,
We are free in the same sense that biological evolution is free. By whatever mechanism, we generate behaviors that are subject to positive and negative reinforcements, which are somewhat analogous to positive selection and purifying selection.
Higher mammals and humans can test the consequences of behavior by imagining it before acting, and imagining the consequences. That ability, which varies in degree between species and among individuals in a population, is pretty much what we call intelligence.
In biological evolution, the generation of variants is mostly un-correlated with utility. It appears to be loosely correlated in brains — that is the strongest inclinations to action seem to be along the lines of that which has been reinforced in the past — but brains have some chaotic processes that generate novel tendencies.
It is the ability to imagine novel behavior before acting that constitutes free will or the experience of free will. We can observe the conflict when there are nearly equal and opposing tendencies, but we we are blind to the mechanism that generates new stuff.
Poets and musicians call it a muse. Sometimes it’s called inspiration.
I like that thought.
That’s what prevents me from accepting the William J Murray world-view.
If I play out a scenario in my mind, I’d like to be able to choose the action that in my mind, most likely gives me the result I want.
In the “absolute good exists” world-view, you may be prevented from taking that preferred action by some pre-conceived ideal of the “popular theism of the day”.
The idea that premises must be derived from actual data is itself a premise.
Unless there something exists that is a true statement one way or another, your question about how I can “get around something” is meaningless. I can “get around it” simply by saying “I don’t have to address it” or “it seems to me it’s not really an issue.”
The process of challenging me to support my arguments “or else” my argument is “false” steals the concept that my argument is true in the first place, and that we can discern true statements & arguments from false. If “truth” is just whatever we happen to think it is, or whatever it seems to be to us, what are any of you arguing about, and what are you challenging?
Your posts refute the very position you claim to hold.
This in itself is an abstract, mental premise. Unless the input that comes in from the senses is filtered, categorized, sorted, examined, tested and arbited by a binding set of rules (abstract methodology, or logic), then one is free to sort such sensory information however they wish – however they feel like. IOW, if we don’t have a binding logical set of rules that govern how we interpret sensory input, then if it seems to me that an experience was of god, then I can say I know god exists, because I don’t have to run it through any logical criteria.
Without rationality, empiricism is wild, unfettered, and can be interpreted to mean literally anything one wishes. Empiricism and rationalism are not “opposing philosophical positions”; empiricism is either guided by rationalism, or it is not. One can hardly make an argument for something held to be non-rational … what system would arbit the argument? Guns? Majority?
All challenges to my position and arguments against my position are either rational and make challenges about the truth of a claim or inference, or they are irrational, and just seek to emotionally bias others for or against a particular position.
I don’t see the point in “arguing” with those who have already stated they don’t believe in “truth”, and embrace a non-rational version of empiricism. The only thing such a group would have to offer is rhetoric and emotional pleading, seeing as they don’t believe logic can discern true statements from false.
I think the real question is, if humans are only biological automatons programmed by physics, doing whatever is the necessary result of the accumulative input, how do beings without free will avoid GIGO?
Answer: well, they cannot. If physics programs you to spew garbage and concurrently believe it is profound, that is what will happen.
However, with free will entities, their output is not determined by the input – they are free, thus able to apply rational examination to mental processes and supervene against computational deterministic output.
Entities with free will can recognize garbage, supervene, and prevent it. Programmed entities have no capacity to supervene over a GIGO process.
Let’s not be rhetorical then and actually try and agree on one thing at a time.
In a way you are correct when you say that the logical process you have gone through has not “proven” anything at all.
You are also correct that you can use any premise you want, whether or not it is valid, in a logical construct.
The use of logic will result necessarily in the same class of output as the input.
If you use ANY non-validated input in your logic, your output will also be non-valid.
There is nothing wrong with this at all depending on what use you have of the output.
The problem arises when you try to accept the conclusion reached from non-validated inputs, as a valid output.
**********
Can we agree on this, that any logical output, can only be as “real” as the inputs?
**********
… seeing as they don’t believe logic can discern true statements from false.
The problem is that it cannot do so, except for a strictly limited class of statements; i.e., those that are strictly analytic. As soon as one makes any sort of claim involving facts about the world, then logic is capable of proving nothing.
One cannot validate the premises of one’s methodology of validation.
Logic is the only methodology that can prove anything concerning facts about the world (unless one believes rhetoric “proves” anything); otherwise, all one has is whim and feeling. One can collect information about the world, but without a proper, coherent analytical heuristic, those facts can be arranged however one wishes, to mean whatever one wants them to mean.
It’s only a premise when used in logic. More usually, it is an epistemic principle.
Without accepting that an actual truth exists, and without accepting that an actual system of validation that arbits such truth exists (the premises of which cannot be “validated” other than being inherently necessary, as one cannot validate the premises of their system of validation – it would be entirely circular), then nobody here has any reason other than rhetorical manipulation to argue with anything I’ve said.
All the arguments here directly imply that a real truth exists, and that we have the free capacity to discern such truths, even while you argue that such truths do not exist, and that we do not have the free capacity to discern them.
The form of your challenges directly contradict what you claim about truth, logic, and will. Under the subjective, empirical, non-rational perspective, my methodology would be every bit as valid as yours, yet you argue against it as if it were not, as if real truth existed, and as if it was possible for me to freely discern via logic the validity of your arguments – validity that necessarily requires premises that cannot be validated by anything other than simply accepting them as self-evidently true and necessary axiomatic principles.
Has anybody suggest that as a characterization of humans? I certainly don’t.
That’s all very well, WJM, but you did assert that “logic discerns true statements”, did you not? Either you’ve figured out how to avoid GIGO, or your assertion is bullshit; either way, the verbiage you’ve disgorged here does not constitute an explanation for how you manage to avoid GIGO. You can either pony up that explanation, or prepare to be roundly mocked. Or don’t prepare, and still get roundly mocked, I guess…
Feel free to justify your bullshit assertion that “logic discerns true statements”, WJM, as opposed to what you’re doing now, which is disgorge clouds of obfuscatory verbiage instead of addressing the point.
William J Murray,
Empiricism is a way of finding reliable statements that can serve as input or premises in reasoning. The truth of factual statements about the world is not available. Reliability is available.
I hope you never have to cross the street at a busy intersection. For it seems that there is no way acceptable to you that would allow you to inform yourself about the traffic in that intersection.
You’ll have to trust me and simply answer the questions I ask.
Are you prepared to do that?
I just did. Without libertarian free will, humans are either ultiately programmed (by physics) automatons or operate randomly – unless you’d like to posit some alternative.
Rhetoric isn’t a rebuttal.
Your challenge for me to justify my statements implies it is possible for me to use logic to prove to you that my statements about it are true. Your challenge steals the concept of that which you deny – that logic discerns true statements.
Unless, of course, you’re saying I should use rhetoric or might to convince you, which is again the implication that what I argue is true – that the only arbiter of true statements outside of logic is rhetoric or might.
I just explained it. Of course, convincing the self-admittedly irrational that reason discerns true statements is a task I will leave to someone else.
We either begin with the assumption that reason discerns true statements, or we have no means other than rhetoric (or might) to arbit any argument.
Calling it an “epistemic principle” doesn’t change the fact that it is an assumed philosophical premise. Also, you failed to address the point that epistemology is either governed by logic or it is irrational, which means that empiricism is either rational (governed by logic) or not; which means that contrary to what you said, logic and empiricism are not oppositional philosophical perspectives.
Are you arguing that empirical research should not be governed by logic? If so, what is to prevent me from interpreting information and facts in whatever way I wish?
Neil Rickert says:
Note how Neil has formulated his statement here (more or less) in the logical formula (to paraphrase): IF premises are not derived from actual data, THEN any use of logic is just making stuff up.
He has attempted to justify his view using logic. If not, then Neil is just making a bald assertion that cannot be rationally supported. This is called “stealing the concept”; Neil is using logic to justify his assertion even while denying logic can justify it.
If your explanation is “Entities with free will can recognize garbage, supervene, and prevent it. Programmed entities have no capacity to supervene over a GIGO process.”, congratulations: You’ve just destroyed your own stated position! It was, after all, your claim that “logic discerns true statements”, a claim which disregards the voluminously known and documented fact that garbage premises yield garbage conclusions. I note that your ‘explanation’ is critically dependent on the existence of something other than mere logic, something which, unlike mere logic, cannot be instantiated in ‘programmed entities’… and I also note that you’ve changed your claim without any fanfare. Where you’d formerly been making noise about how “logic discerns true statements”, now you’re making noise about how “reason discerns true statements”. To repeat: Congratulations on the self-inflicted demolition of your own claim, WJM!
No one here has answered the question: why engage in rational (logical) debate if one doesn’t believe that reason (logic) can discern true statements from false?
It appears I am (apparently) the only person here who believes that rational debate/argument (logic) can discern true statements from false. When I challenge or make cases for or against statements or arguments, the point is always to discern true statements; finding or establishing truth is the point of a rational debate.
If your arguments and challenges against any position or statement of mine are not an implicit case for which statements are “more true” – yours or mine – then why are you even arguing? Why are you even challenging what I am saying? It’s not to discern truth. What is the purpose? What is a challenge other than a de facto argument that what I am saying is “not true”, and what you are saying “is true”?
Even if you are not engaged in rational debate, but are rather employing rhetorical challenges – again, why challenge anything I say, even rhetorically, unless it is an implicit argument that one statement (position) is true, and the other is not?
If you read the original thread, free will was a part of my original necessary set of premises.
Without libertarian free will, it would be impossible to deliberately discern true statements, so the capacity to freely use logic to discern true statements is an obviously necessary corresponding 2nd premise.
Please note the irony that Cubist is attempting to use logic as an arbiter of true statements (arbiting whether or not my statements are true) after claiming that logic cannot arbit true statements because of GIGO limitations.
Either his argument is admittedly irrational (non-logical), or it also cannot escape the GIGO problem.
The fact is, logic doesn’t “discern true statements”. And it would not surprise me to learn that you actually realize this, WJM, given that you changed your tune from “logic discerns true statements” to “reason discerns true statements” in another posted message.
I’m done with you, WJM. Your… curious… attempt to construct a rational worldview based on a fallacy of Appeal to Conclusions was, for me, rather a mark against you, and this present encounter has persuaded me that there is approximately zero likelihood of there being any beneficial results of any further attempts to engage you in serious discussion. Have fun storming the castle!
If logic doesn’t discern true statements, why are you point out a supposed logical fallacy to attempt to undermine my position? If logic doesn’t discern true statements, why do you bother pointing out that I have apparently “changed my tune”, as if an inconsistency from one statement to the next undermines my argument?
Again, you attempt to use logic to make the case that my statements are not true, even while asserting that logic doesn’t discern true statements.
An “argument” doesn’t get much more self-refuting and self-contradictory than that – not that you’d care. Since in your mind logic doesn’t discern true statements, there is no problem with issuing self-refuting, self-contradictory statements. Right?
From previous thread:
While it arguable that logic is necessary to objective discernment, it certainly isn’t sufficient. You confuse it somewhat further here:
That’s not derived from reason, but are at best assumptions, or more likely, derived from your experience. You completely mangle your own point here:
By pure reason, there is no particular reason to choose any particular axiomatic system over another. There may be one parallel line or many. There is no excluded middle, or we may allow it. We choose the system appropriate to the facet of the universe we are considering. Even counting numbers are derived from experience. That’s why we count sheep.
Debates are not logical at all, they are rather very emotional. The best debaters are those that are good speakers and know how to get an audience on their side.
What I am trying to do is to get you to stop debating and instead, start talking to us.
I don’t understand why you won’t risk that.
If you are serious about discussing something, you should be open enough to have your mind changed.
You should come to the table prepared to lose your point-of-view on the subject being discussed.
I am prepared for that. If you can convince me you are right, I will accept your position.
I am not infallible and believe I can be wrong about anything.
What about you?
Are there some things you can’t be wrong about?
How is one going to determine the “appropriateness” of the system to the universe unless one determines it rationally? Whim? You are begging the question of how such “appropriateness” is determined.
Of course there is: unless one chooses an axiomatic system that sufficiently justifies one’s confidence in logic as arbiter of true statements, one cannot even justify your statement above.
It’s a good thing I never claimed it was sufficient, only that it is necessary.
Of course those claims are derived from reason as it interprets experience. It’s not “derived from experience” because experience – raw physical data – provides no set of rules or guides about how to interpret it. I could as easily interpret the data of my sense into a solipsistic perspective, or into the position that I do not exist, or that I’m just involved in a grand delusion, or any number of irrational views.
Instead, I arbit my interpretations of experience according to logical rules of inference that do not undermine the very premises necessary for such cogent, coherent interpretations.
For example, if I interpret material data to mean that “logic doesn’t discern true statements”, how on earth did I wind up with such a conclusion? Did I use logic? If so, I just refuted my own process of interpretation. My conclusion cannot be held as true, because I used logic to reach it, and logic doesn’t discern true statements.
Was that conclusion just a whim, then? Is it just an irrational, bald assertion?
There are certain necessary premises if one is going to coherently argue about anything, and believe that true statements can be discerned about self and universe. My argument in the other thread was that, in a general sense, a rational, deliberate god was a necessary corresponding premise one must adopt (with the others) in order to sufficiently ground the other necessary premises and reach rational conclusions about some fundamental, necessary problems.
IOW, that a universe is rationally discernible to humans, and that humans have the libertarian free will necessary to employ such deliberate, rational examinations, requires a grounding for not only that state of affairs, but also (which I argued in the other thread) resolves the cause-and-effect problem (uncaused cause, as first cause/sufficient cause) and satisfies the “ought from an is” problem of morality.
There is no sufficient grounding for any expectation that the universe is rationally discernible by humans other than via the premise that a rational creator deliberately made it so, explaining why such a correlation exists and simultaneously providing the source of libertarian free will – the deliberacy (free will) of the creator itself – that can be used to discern true statements.
“Chance” is not a sufficient causal premise for any view, other than that everything that occurs, even our own views, occurs by chance, and thus any argument one holds as valid they only hold it as valid by chance, not by a deliberate discernment of true statements via the rules of logic.
Toronto,
I have no desire to convince you of anything, nor do I have any desire to get an audience “on my side”. My purpose is pursuit of truth, not the pleasant warmth of consensus agreement. If I wanted the latter, I’d simply switch my position to that which is held by the majority here.
IMO, a mind that is changed by rhetoric and appeals to emotion isn’t much of a mind in the first place.
BTW, the title of the thread is misleading. I have not made a case against empiricism, because functional empiricism (how one gathers and interprets empirical data) is either arbited by logic or it is not. If it is arbited by logic, then logic is necessarily a supervening system, and one must be sure that their logical premises are consistent and sufficient – which is what my argument is about – whether or not one’s logical premises are consistent and sufficient to produce rationally coherent conclusions when applied to anything, including empirical research and theory.
You’ll never find the truth unless you actually talk to people.
I feel like I am being lectured to and no question I ask is worthy of being answered .
That’s not the way adults should relate to each other.
Yes, I am well aware that theists often make such assertions as malicious smear against non-theists. It is an example of the kind of thoroughly unChristian behavior that I have come to expect from people who call themselves Christians.
As for an alternative, check the posts on purpose in the “intentionality” category of my blog.
Sez who? Why should I care about this arbitrary, unsupported assertion of yours?
Sez who? Sez what principle? According to what worldview?
Another thread reduced to a tantrum.
Most of what passes for epistemology is made up “Just So” stories (that is to say, it is nonsense).
Much of scientific research is done outside of logic. Requiring that science be “governed by logic” would cripple science. Einstein’s relativity was contrary to Newtonian logic. Evolution is contrary to creationist logic.
If your only tool is logic, then you will never learn anything new. Logic is only capable or recirculating what is already believed.
You are posting many false statement. Presumably your own use of reason has discerned those as true. Your own posts refute your claim.
Finally!
If you don’t treat me with the subjectively derived at respect I feel I deserve, I won’t talk to you.
There is no principle and no world-view required, just our mutual agreement!
Unfortunately, I have no reason to give your unsubstantiated claims about epistemology or science any warrant, because they are not (and you do not claim them to be, apparently) rational inferences nor rational conclusions based on any coherent rational system.
They are nothing more than bald assertions rooted in nothing more than your say-so.
Your claim that my statements are false require that true statements can be discerned from false; what system are you using to make such discernments if not logic?