The empirical method Options

[sikdragon]

I don't like the empirical method. why? because basically it says that everything humans can't explain doesn't exist. If that isn't closed minded then I don't know what is. By using the empirical method your mind does not exist. We all know that isn't true. Every living person has a mind regardless of it's health.

[Spirited Away]

Doesn't it just mean that humans must try harder to explain it before writing on concrete that something doesn't exist? Empericists are NOT quick to judge what does and doesn't exist, they would follow logical evidences to finally come to that conclusion.

How many things does the empirical method says doesn't exist exactly? I'm curious.

Now then, certain components of the empiricism is questionable, but to say that one who uses empiricism is close-minded is rather far-fetched.

Maybe you were refering to those who believe in empirical extremes, which means that one is ABSOLUTELY certain about an object's existence as oppose to those who simply believes that something exists but is not entirely too sure about it. Lets see, there is pragmatic empiricism (which I've been told is a contradiction, but there are ways to go about arguing that) and there is "pure" empiricism... so you can't really group all empiricists together and claim that they're "close-minded".

Rather harsh and problematic, don't you think, to stereotype them all?

[ComradeRed]

The empirical method says that, to prove a theory, you set up an experiment. It doesn't say that if you can't prove something, it doesn't exist -- it says that if you can't prove something, it MAY or MAY NOT exist. It's about being open-minded actually... Until you prove something, assume it can either be true OR not be true.

The empirical method is based on reality -- and that's the most important thing.

[sikdragon]

Those who do in fact use the empirical method to disprove the existance of something are indeed close minded.

Reality is based solely upon perception.

[ComradeRed]

Then you can go live in your own little (percieved) world.

If reality is preception, then nothing is really real -- therefore, you can't argue anything.

As far as we know, reality exists independent of perception.

[sikdragon]

really? It's like if a tree falls in the forest and nothing is around to hear it, does it make a noise?

[ComradeRed]

Yes it does. The tree is an entity independent of people who hear the noise. Although you can't actually percieve it, the evidence suggests that it does make the noise. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption.

Even if you argue that I can't prove the tree makes the sound, I don't have to. The argument you want me to check is: "IF a tree falls when no one is around, THEN it makes a noise." But if, as you argue, reality is perception, one cannot see if a tree falls in teh first place. Since no tree falls, the IF clause is false, therefore teh statement as a whole is true anyways.

People see different parts of reality, but in the end there is only one reality. If I throw a football in the air, I percieve it and so does everyone around me -- because it is what happened in reality.

If all reality were perception, then nobody would percieve me throwing it.

[Spirited Away]

Those who do in fact use the empirical method to disprove the existance of something are indeed close minded.

Reality is based solely upon perception.

Let us play a game:

I give you a small box, how do you find out if there's anything in it?

Are you going to try to perceive/imagine that something's there? Or maybe believe that's something's in there in hope that it exists?

No, mon ami, you would do the logical thing, and shake the damn thing to check for that something's existence. Or perhaps, you would simply open the box to see for yourself.

Believe it or not, that's using the empirical method since you are using your senses and experience to deduct that when you shake the box and something moves inside of it, there is obviously something there. Are you trying to tell me that doing so makes a person close minded?

[sikdragon]

Yes it does. The tree is an entity independent of people who hear the noise. Although you can't actually percieve it, the evidence suggests that it does make the noise. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption.

Even if you argue that I can't prove the tree makes the sound, I don't have to. The argument you want me to check is: "IF a tree falls when no one is around, THEN it makes a noise." But if, as you argue, reality is perception, one cannot see if a tree falls in teh first place. Since no tree falls, the IF clause is false, therefore teh statement as a whole is true anyways.

People see different parts of reality, but in the end there is only one reality. If I throw a football in the air, I percieve it and so does everyone around me -- because it is what happened in reality.

If all reality were perception, then nobody would percieve me throwing it.

you would.

Let us play a game:

I give you a small box, how do you find out if there's anything in it?

Are you going to try to perceive/imagine that something's there? Or maybe believe that's something's in there in hope that it exists?

No, mon ami, you would do the logical thing, and shake the damn thing to check for that something's existence. Or perhaps, you would simply open the box to see for yourself.

Believe it or not, that's using the empirical method since you are using your senses and experience to deduct that when you shake the box and something moves inside of it, there is obviously something there. Are you trying to tell me that doing so makes a person close minded?

No, let's say you gave me an invisible box. I use the empirical method and conclude nothing is there. <That is closed minded.

[Spirited Away]

No, let's say you gave me an invisible box. I use the empirical method and conclude nothing is there. <That is closed minded.

Using Empircal Method the RIGHT WAY, I would deduct that because you gave me an "invisible box" you're trying to toy with my mind/play/making a point and try to think first what you're trying to do.

Then I would proceed to ask you, "why do you want me to have an invisible box?" << which is part of deductive reasoning (using my senses and experience).

If you happen to answer: because we're going imagining/believe that there is a box, then I would comply with your game to entertain you with the idea that something's "there".

If you happen to answer: because I'm trying to prove that empericists are closed-minded, then I would say "you're going about this the wrong way".

[sikdragon]

No im not saying emericists are closed minded. Never did I say that. I said that the way people use it to disprove God's existance are more than close minded.

And the hypothetical situation was uninspiredfae gave sikdragon an invisible box. Key word hypothetical.

[Spirited Away]

No im not saying emericists are closed minded. Never did I say that. I said that the way people use it to disprove God's existance are more than close minded.

Okay, then explain how it is close-minded to use it to go about disproving God, and I will try to answer... even though I'm not much of an empiricist (or at least I don't think so).

And the hypothetical situation was uninspiredfae gave sikdragon an invisible box. Key word hypothetical.

I? Give you an invisible box? Why on earth would... never mind.

Lets say I'm a 5 year old who gave you an invisible box and ask you to play with me and being the gracious person that you are, you agreed.

After the game I ask that you give the invisible box back to me... and you show me your hand, palm flat.

I look at you and say ask, where's my box?

You say, it's right here in my palm.

What? I don't see it!

You insisted that you're handing the box to me as you speak.

I cry and said that you stole my box for yourself since it holds a wealth much akin to a king's ransom.


Now then, what would you do?

To make this clearer, the situation is that you have no box because it is imaginary, but I (a 5 year old) insisted that I handed you a box and you stole it...

[ComradeRed]

Nobody has EVER used the Empirical Method to DISPROVE the existance of God -- it can't be done. The Empirical Method says God MAY or MAY NOT exist -- you cannot PROVE or DISPROVE God. After all, how do you set up an experiment to prove or disprove God?

Also just as a note, Empricists are people who believe in Empricism, not the Empirical Method. It's an important difference -- many scientists do NOT believe in empiricism, but every scientist (barring mad) believes in the empirical method.

[Spirited Away]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up!

[sikdragon]

well this person named nobody may not have but there have been some people using the empirical method to try and disprove God.

[ComradeRed]

Where?

IT can't be done.

[sikdragon]

keyword TRY.

[ComradeRed]

So? Just because some people misuse the empirical method doesn't mean it's wrong.

Some people misuse God to try to prove that we should kill teh Jews ... does that mean God actualyl wants to kill Jews?

[sikdragon]

i said i didnt like it, i didnt say it was wrong.