Reality is Inaccessible

[Terrapin Station]

Btw, you have not proven there is a really real thing existing independently out there.

How in the world can you be this far along and still not know that empirical claims are not provable? Are you just not capable or learning or what?

[Vitruvius]

Btw, you have not proven there is a really real thing existing independently out there.

How in the world can you be this far along and still not know that empirical claims are not provable? Are you just not capable or learning or what?

That's not quite correct. Empiricism is a form of proof; albeit based upon an assumption that the reality we observe exists independently of us. To assume the reality we experience - exists, is a reasonable assumption. It is possible to doubt that assumption, but to do so is not reasonable. It is skepticism. Skepticism is unreasonable doubt - i.e. "What if we're all in the Matrix?" for example. One can ask the question, and it's virtually impossible to prove we are not, but the question raises more questions than it answers, and so falls afoul of Occam's Razor, which states, 'it is vain to do with more that which can be done with fewer.'

The simplest adequate explanation is that the reality we experience via sensory perception exists independently, and consequently, your observations are empirical proof insofar as they accord with my observation of a given phenomena.

[Terrapin Station]

That's not quite correct. Empiricism is a form of proof; albeit based upon an assumption that the reality we observe exists independently of us . . .

Which is one reason that you can't prove empirical claims. If P is proved, P can't be wrong.

"Empirical claims are not provable" is a core tenet of science methodology that you should learn in science methodology or philosophy of science 101. Instead, empirical claims are provisionally verifiable in lieu of falsification.

All empirical claims are open to revision. Again, this is a core stance of the sciences.

[RCSaunders]

How in the world can you be this far along and still not know that empirical claims are not provable?

What does that mean? What would be an example of an empirical claim?

[Terrapin Station]

How in the world can you be this far along and still not know that empirical claims are not provable?

What does that mean? What would be an example of an empirical claim?

Here's a very simple explanation courtesy of http://webhome.auburn.edu/~murraba/argue.html:

"An empirical claim makes a statement about the world. For example, 'The moon is made of green cheese.' We need scientific knowledge about the world to test an empirical claim. Scientific knowledge is public information gained by careful observations and experiments. We have lots of evidence that the moon is made of rock, including the close-up observations of astronauts, so we know that the green-cheese claim is false.

Here's a more nuanced explanation, courtesy of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)

"Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law . . . Empirical evidence is essential to a posteriori knowledge or empirical knowledge, knowledge whose justification or falsification depends on experience or experiment . . . On the traditional view, evidence is empirical if it is constituted by or accessible to sensory experience. This involves experiences arising from the stimulation of the sense organs, like visual or auditory experiences.[2] But the term is often used in a wider sense including memories and introspection.[18] It is usually seen as excluding purely intellectual experiences, like rational insights or intuitions used to justify basic logical or mathematical principles.[19] The terms 'empirical' and 'observable' are closely related and sometimes used as synonyms.[20]"

It's worth reading more of both pages there, but I highlighted some basics.

[Vitruvius]

That's not quite correct. Empiricism is a form of proof; albeit based upon an assumption that the reality we observe exists independently of us . . .

Which is one reason that you can't prove empirical claims. If P is proved, P can't be wrong.

You are not hearing me. It is acknowledged that the objective existence of reality is an assumption; but a reasonable assumption - challenged only by the unreason of skeptical doubt.

"Empirical claims are not provable" is a core tenet of science methodology that you should learn in science methodology or philosophy of science 101. Instead, empirical claims are provisionally verifiable in lieu of falsification.

"Empirical claims are not provable" is a core tenet of a 400 year long religious, philosophical and political conspiracy to deny science the authority it rightfully owns as the means to establish valid knowledge of reality.

All empirical claims are open to revision. Again, this is a core stance of the sciences.

That's technically correct, but it's shallow. All scientific conclusions are held to be provisional in face of the possibility of further relevant evidence coming to light - but that's because science is rather too epistemically correct, having been attacked for 400 years as some admixture of heresy and horror show. The proof is that science works - and your philosophy simply ignores the overwhelming fact that science works, to object on skeptical grounds, that absolute proof is lacking - with the machine chugging away before your very eyes. Don't you see that you're being silly?

[RCSaunders]

All empirical claims are open to revision. Again, this is a core stance of the sciences.

NO! That is the, "core stance," of idiot philsophers who have no idea what science is and couldn't make and never have made a scientific discovery in their entire lives.

There is no, "core stance," of science. That's philosophical nonsense. There is no one method, no pre-ordained scheme by which scientific investigations and discovery must be made. [And "induction," is definitely not how science is done.]

If the philosophers were right, no science would ever have been achieved and it would still not be known (proved absolutely) that the blood circulates out from the heart to the whole body and back to the heart, that heavier than air human flight is possible, that painless surgery is possible. If the philosophers were right, we would be looking forward to revising the certainty electric lighting is possible, refrigeration is possible, sound and pictures can be transmitted electronically anywhere in the world, getting to the moon is possible, that X-rays are possible, that bacteria cause disease, that vaccination is possible, that lasers are possible.

But the philosophers have convinced most that we're just waiting for all these things to be, "falsified," because, "nothing can be proved," and, "nothing is certain," and, "everything is subject to revision," and people believe that nonsense while using their cell phones, riding in their air-conditioned automobiles based on the technology made possible by science that, "has never been proved."

[RCSaunders]

How in the world can you be this far along and still not know that empirical claims are not provable?

What does that mean? What would be an example of an empirical claim?

Here's a very simple explanation courtesy of http://webhome.auburn.edu/~murraba/argue.html:

"An empirical claim makes a statement about the world. For example, 'The moon is made of green cheese.' We need scientific knowledge about the world to test an empirical claim. Scientific knowledge is public information gained by careful observations and experiments. We have lots of evidence that the moon is made of rock, including the close-up observations of astronauts, so we know that the green-cheese claim is false.

Here's a more nuanced explanation, courtesy of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)

"Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law . . . Empirical evidence is essential to a posteriori knowledge or empirical knowledge, knowledge whose justification or falsification depends on experience or experiment . . . On the traditional view, evidence is empirical if it is constituted by or accessible to sensory experience. This involves experiences arising from the stimulation of the sense organs, like visual or auditory experiences.[2] But the term is often used in a wider sense including memories and introspection.[18] It is usually seen as excluding purely intellectual experiences, like rational insights or intuitions used to justify basic logical or mathematical principles.[19] The terms 'empirical' and 'observable' are closely related and sometimes used as synonyms.[20]"

It's worth reading more of both pages there, but I highlighted some basics.

Well that is not the answer to my question. I know what empiricism is supposed to be. I asked for an example of what you would consider empirical claim, since you said, "empirical claims are not provable?" As I suspected, you have accepted the common philosophical view of empiricism. Claims in that light probably cannot be proved.

If you had meant scientific principles, for example, your claim they are not provable would be nonsense. Only that which can be verified by evidence is true and science does not need, "proof," only verification, and then, only when there is some valid basis for question.

The evidence is the, "proof."

[Terrapin Station]

You are not hearing me. It is acknowledged that the objective existence of reality is an assumption; but a reasonable assumption -

And you're not hearing me. That we're employing assumptions make "proof" not applicable.

Once you hear that we'll move to the next part. I'm not going to keep typing the same thing over and over.

[Terrapin Station]

There is no, "core stance," of science. That's philosophical nonsense. There is no one method, no pre-ordained scheme by which scientific investigations and discovery must be made. [And "induction," is definitely not how science is done.]

Right. So on your view, there are no philosophical/ideological or methodological stances that differentiate science from anything else, such as religion, for example?

[Terrapin Station]

I asked for an example of what you would consider empirical claim,

What I cited gives an example: "The moon is made of green cheese."

Calling supporting evidence of something "proof" is a loose manner of speaking that misses what we're saying re "empirical claims are not provable."

[Vitruvius]

You are not hearing me. It is acknowledged that the objective existence of reality is an assumption; but a reasonable assumption -

And you're not hearing me. That we're employing assumptions make "proof" not applicable. Once you hear that we'll move to the next part. I'm not going to keep typing the same thing over and over.

I will type the same thing over and over rather than agree that something unreasonable is reasonable. The situation is inverted by your anti-science propaganda; to suggest that demanding absolute certainty is reasonable, and valuable - but it's not. The only value in demanding certainty beyond skeptical doubt is to cast doubt upon what can reasonably be known.

Descartes finds himself painted into a solipsistic corner by his method of doubt - and has to appeal to the goodness of God, 'who cannot be a deceiver' to save him from the oblivion of being able to know nothing other than I think, therefore I exist. How is that a valuable certainty?

In fact, there's a very great deal that can reasonably be known, to which we need to attend to secure a prosperous sustainable future. If we cannot even agree science is true - while using computers based on scientific principles, applied to create technologies that work within a causal reality, then we really are lost! If you cannot recognise truth in the functionality of the machine you are using, then your philosophy is intended to obscure rather than enlighten.

[jayjacobus]

You are not hearing me. It is acknowledged that the objective existence of reality is an assumption; but a reasonable assumption -

And you're not hearing me. That we're employing assumptions make "proof" not applicable. Once you hear that we'll move to the next part. I'm not going to keep typing the same thing over and over.

I will type the same thing over and over rather than agree that something unreasonable is reasonable. The situation is inverted by your anti-science propaganda; to suggest that demanding absolute certainty is reasonable, and valuable - but it's not. The only value in demanding certainty beyond skeptical doubt is to cast doubt upon what can reasonably be known.

Descartes finds himself painted into a solipsistic corner by his method of doubt - and has to appeal to the goodness of God, 'who cannot be a deceiver' to save him from the oblivion of being able to know nothing other than I think, therefore I exist. How is that a valuable certainty?

In fact, there's a very great deal that can reasonably be known, to which we need to attend to secure a prosperous sustainable future. If we cannot even agree science is true - while using computers based on scientific principles, applied to create technologies that work within a causal reality, then we really are lost! If you cannot recognise truth in the functionality of the machine you are using, then your philosophy is intended to obscure rather than enlighten.

Joanie Mitchell sang;

"I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life
At all"

And that's the truth for me.

[RCSaunders]

There is no, "core stance," of science. That's philosophical nonsense. There is no one method, no pre-ordained scheme by which scientific investigations and discovery must be made. [And "induction," is definitely not how science is done.]

Right. So on your view, there are no philosophical/ideological or methodological stances that differentiate science from anything else, such as religion, for example?

Since I regard the entire corpus of accepted, "philosophy," is a complete failure, I'd hardly believe philosophers are in position to define what science is, especially to differentiate between science and religion, since most philosophy is as mystical and irrational as most religions.

I don't think science actually needs to be, "defined." Real science is whatever actually discovers the nature of existence which is proved by its successful application in technology. It doesn't have to be, "called," anything.

[RCSaunders]

The situation is inverted by your anti-science propaganda; to suggest that demanding absolute certainty is reasonable, and valuable - but it's not. The only value in demanding certainty beyond skeptical doubt is to cast doubt upon what can reasonably be known.

Actually there is an almost endless number of things which one knows with certainty. You are right that certainty does not require either omniscience or infallibility. But don't let those who want to repudiate certain knowledge convince you nothing is known for certain.

Certain Knowledge [Aslo on PhilosophyNow Certain Knowledge]

Proof