Talk:Empiricism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Discussion

New discussion:

I simply wonder what the section on pragmatism is doing here. "It is a reconciliation of empiricism and rationalism." Well, many doctrines are, and, in any case, if pragmatism is, then that disqualifies it from this entry. And why is there a picure of Russell in the section about logical empiricism? Carnap would have been more suitable. /Arvid

On the varieties of ismatic experience

JA: There is a generic equivocality that occurs with almost all words ending in -ism, except for prism and maybe schism, and it is necessary to make a categorical distinction in order to forestall many fruitless controversies. There can be no coherent presentation of the different assertions that different thinkers make on these subjects until we notify the reader that these thinkers are frequently talking about very different things under the same name. The cautionary paragraph may need to be located somewhere else, and it may be necessary to create a generic article treating the generic ambiguity, but only incoherence will result from eliding the point, as I think we have ample evidence to demonstrate. Jon Awbrey 16:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: As far as citations go, there is of course a pertinent plethora of pithy Peircean paragraphs that I will look up later today. Jon Awbrey 17:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is word chopping. The focus of the article is about the philosophical beliefs and arguments who happen to share some similarities (knowledge through sense experience...though this is simplified historically as Kenosis noted) not about the linguistic pitfalls of -isms. We don't have any ample evidence to demonstrate this at all. In fact, most of -ism pages on Wikipedia do not need them, in fact most of the -ism articles on the EB, or any other encyclopedia's I know of for that matter have a cautionary note about -ism in their introductions. They are reserved for dictionaries, style guides, and articles on suffixes. --Knucmo2 17:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: I don't know what you mean by "word chopping". When words are ambiguous they need to be disambiguated before trying to proceed with clear presentations of subjects, which is why we have an entire local technology devoted to doing just that. Maybe you see the evidence differently, but when I see long-running controversies going in circles I take that as prima facie evidence that maybe an ambiguity is at the root of it. And I do know for a fact that different communities of interpretation use words like "empiricism", "rationalism", ad infinitum, in just these varieties of ways. Jon Awbrey 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Empiricism is not an ambiguous word.
2. -ism is not a word, it is a suffix.
3. None of the other -ism articles (take Communism, fascism) on Wikipedia have them nor are they in need of them for the reason they aren't really needed here.
4. They do use words in these ways but you will simply undermine the authority of what is already written about the Empiricists. For instance, if you omitted the philosophical usage, and just gave a strict scientific one, how would that relate to Locke, Hume or Berkeley? By all means write about different meanings of the word, but give it a different section.
5. The controversy between rationalism and empiricism was for a fact not to do with the -ism at the end of it whatsoever!! Indeed, the historical distinction is an anachronism when inserted into Hume's time.
6. As said, the focus of the article is about empiricism, the movement and its various adherents, not about linguistic discussion (or "word chopping" as I colloquially referred to it as). --Knucmo2 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

While I am not comfortable with reducing empiricism and rationalism to a broad polarity without further qualification of some kind, and while Jon Awbrey has spoken truth in the "ism" paragraph, I think the already existing caution in the article about oversimplification and overlap of views through the history of philosophy is more suitable to the flow of the article here...Kenosis 18:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: The test of adequacy for a hermeneutic measure is in whether it resolves the unnecessary misunderstandings. Merely saying, "Thou shalt not oversimply", is — as empirical experience exorbitantly evidences (not to be tootologous about it) — an insufficient ration of clarety. It is necessary to indicate the specific divergences in meaning that are causing the past-1-another talking phenomenon in question. Jon Awbrey 18:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I'm putting that paragraph here for now, until some agreement, and perhaps restatement of the meta-linguistic issue, can be found. It's going to be a real POV magnet unless it can be integrated and simplified. Please excuse...Kenosis

As in discussing most philosophical terms that end in "ism", it is necessary to distinguish heuristic or inclusive variants of the ism from dogmatic or reductive variants of the ism in question. The first says simply that a specific aspect of things is necessary to a competent worldview and is frequently worth concerted attention. The second says more controversially that a specific aspect of things is sufficient to a competent worldview and all other aspects can either be eliminated from consideration or else reduced to the focal aspect. 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: OG, if all you seek is an all-purpose POV-degausser, let me suggest this fine product: Lie-to-children. YGMV. Jon Awbrey 18:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would much prefer to see it as "truth-to-previously-unfamiliar" readers who by and large will not have time to analyze the barrage of new concepts unrelated to empricism, a tough enough subject as it is. While I personally almost always find your contributions fruitful for further thinking, sometimes they are extremely difficult to say to the reader in plainer English. And this one is arguably a whole separate analysis as differentiated from a basic explication of Empiricism...Kenosis 19:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: A basic explication of Camels (q.v.) requires one to explicate the fact that there are 1-hump and 2-hump camels. Jon Awbrey 19:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I gotta go for now. But tell me, which is which with regard to empricism and all the various other modalities that surround it. I think nearly the whole article is reductionist, and maybe that's all we need to say there...Kenosis 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: Look, we've already taken note of the basic ambiguity several times in recent discussions — it's the same issue that arose a while back in trying to introduce the scientific usage, which is in practice heuristic or inclusive, in addition to the Capital Letter Empiricist usage, which is eliminative or reductive. Which is why I'm a little schocked that you in particular have fogotten what a pain-in-the-foot-in-the-shoe-in-the-door it was just to get over that threshold. Now, when people write things like "Empiricism is not an ambiguous word", I can only stand aback and wait for them to find the right emoticon to hedge it with, but I should not have thought that the basic distinction would be such a news item. I initially thought that a word to the wise at the beginning was sufficient, but as I plunged deeper into the article I realized that that the word or the wisdom was not yet enough, so I simply tried to raise the height of the relief a bit. Jon Awbrey 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Jon, It seems to me that if we begin working through, on the talk page here, a reasonably brief paragraph to add to the "philosophical usage" section, it may help the article. You have roughly identified, elsewhere, a yet more central issue in the historical "debate", to wit, that the main opponents are not so much opposite polarities, and can instead be reasonably differentiated by the degree to which they are willing to tolerate speculation without referring back to the sets of observations that led to the speculations. The very idea that empiricists were not rationalists (and vice-versa) is ridiculous upon close examination--at the core of it empiricists were ultimate rationalists and every bit as speculative as Descartes, even as they proceeded (ultimately) to trash the idea of the logical validity of reason. The way you expressed it on the other talk page (Continental rationalism) is, I think, closer to a relevant point for the Empiricism article, if it can be stated succinctly and find agreement among the several editors currently involved and familiar with the instant subject matter...Kenosis 21:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC).

JA: I really think that I said it about as succinctly as I can. One could delete the "dogmatic" and "heuristic" and stick to "exclusive" and "inclusive". It is possible to say it so succinctly that the point will be missed, but that is what we have now. In a way the whole variation is contained in the "perhaps exclusively" clause, but I could see that folks were buzzing and booming by the "dangerous curve ahead" significance of that. Have a go. Jon Awbrey 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No,no. Wait a moment, folks. What is the tool that academics generally use to introduce relevant and insightful clarifications but which might interript the flow of the article and kind of distract atention if there are left in the body of the text? Think about it for a moment. It's called Footnotes!! Now that we have a seprate references section, it shouldn't be a problem at all to add a section specifically for these kinds of clarifications for those who want to know more about, e.g. the problematic nature of "isms". I'll put the para in a notes section and then check for consensus later. I'm in a different time-zone over here and you folks proabably won't see this until about 8 hours from now.--Lacatosias 09:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Runic Empiricism

JA: Morris T. Keeton (MTK), in his entry on "Empiricism" in Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy, gives no less than 9 different definitions of the term. It will no doubt amuse all concerned if I copy these out over the next few days, and perhaps give us some exercise in information-preserving synopsis. Jon Awbrey 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead! It is good however, that all of the main collaborators here this month (myself, yourself, Kenosis, and Lacatosias) seem to have a good grasp already of empiricism, which is reflected in the article. I like what has been done here so far. --Knucmo2 19:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Empiricism (Morris T. Keeton, in Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy) (1) A proproposition about the sources of knowledge: [1.1] that the sole source of knowledge is experience; or [1.2] that either no knowledge at all or [1.3] no knowledge with existential reference is possible independently of experience. Experience (q.v.) may be understood as either [1.α] all conscious content, [1.β] data of the senses only, or [1.γ] other designated content. Such empiricism may take the the form of denial that any knowledge or at least knowledge about existents can be obtained a priori (q.v.); that is, [1.a] denial that there are universal and necessary truths; [1.b] denial that there is knowledge which holds regardless of past, present, or future experience; [1.c] denial that there is instinctive, innate, or inborn knowledge; [1.d] denial that the test of truth is clarity to natural reason or self-evidence; [1.e] denial that one can gain certain knowledge by finding something the opposite of which is inconceivable; [1.f] denial that there are any necessary presuppositions of all knowledge or of anything known certainly; [1.g] denial that any truths can be established by the fact that to deny them implies their reaffirmation; or [1.h] denial that conventional or arbitrary definitions or assumptions yield knowledge.

JA: That's 1. Jon Awbrey 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Newly proposed material in intro

I have removed this from the first intro paragraph of the article and put it here. What caught my attention immediately was the first "thus"; the intro is not the place for adding up the thus's and drawing conclusions, but rather is the place to introduce. This article was controversial because of the difficulty of the concept and its myriad uses over the centuries, and this intro was cautiously consensused by a number of editors. Therefore, new material should be carefully examined in this light.....Kenosis 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"There are thus two main implications for the philosophical use of the term empiricism. Either it is used to indicate that all of knowledge is ascertained from sensory experience (thus experience is seen as constituting all the categories of knowledge); or otherwise the term is used in emphasizing the primary influence, or importance, of empirical, or experiential, knowledge over rational knowledge, ascertained purely by the workings of the mind." ... 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But, perhaps this can be worked into the article somehow if it is not there already? --Knucmo2 15:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitions are offered immediately below the infor, and this is explained at greater length in several stages of explanatory development in the article. I am also not opposed to revisiting the issue... Kenosis 15:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point about the "thus". However, it seems that this information should be in the article, as it seems to express a big distinction in empiricism. I understand that the intro was carefully produced and that any new information must be reviewed, but I found this to be very important in looking at empiricism. While Hume correlates all knowledge to sensory impressions, someone like Locke does allow for some "pure" thought, such as intuition or demonstrative deduction. Drifter 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Empiricism and sense-experience

As far as I know, empiricists have not claimed that all knowledge must be through sense-experience. Locke and Berkeley recognized the category of the will: called ideas of reflection in Locke, and "notions" in Berkeley. And Hume surely recognized the place of custom, habit, and sentiment, which are not internal. So I'd like for the statement which I flagged to be justified. Lucidish 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

tabula rasa rv

Could somebody explain the meaning of this justification for reversion? I included a mention that Locke did not use the phrase "tabula rasa", and it was eliminated, and replaced with the slightly misleading claim that he did use those words. To justify, the editor says: "The prior editor is confusing "tabula rasa" which is translated as "scraped tablet"". I can't make out what this is attempting to say.

Looking at Google, searching with the text "site:www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/locke/". Locke never used the words "scraped tablet" or "tabula rasa" in the Enquiry. He does compare the mind to the blank paper before him, in the sentence "Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas" in Book 2 Chapter 1. He does not use the phrase "tabula rasa". This is not in itself especially significant - i.e., tabula rasa is an acceptable paraphrase - but the reversion is nevertheless unjustified. So I'm wondering what exactly the editor here had in mind. Lucidish 20:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lucidish. I'm back for now, and thanks for the note. I can't find my original text of Locke's Essay right now, but going by the secondary resources of Copleston's History of Philosophy (volume V, The British Philosophers), the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Voume 2, Empiricism), and W.T. Jones's History of Western Philosophy (Book III, Hobbes to Hume), Locke used the terms "tabula rasa" and "blank tablet". So, the "other term" he used appears to have been "blank tablet"--revising accordingly. Thanks so much...Kenosis 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Heya Ken. The thing is, while this is attributed to him quite a bit in the history of the scholarship on Locke, you won't find it in a search of the primary source, the Essay, which is what's of ultimate importance. (Though perhaps he used the phrase elsewhere, in letters or such.) "White paper" is the literal phrase that Locke uses. Not that it matters a lot, of course, but we have an opportunity to get the story right where prominent secondary sources have not been precise. Lucidish 23:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The three secondary sources I gave are the best in the business, right up there with the Routledge. Fine, I'll track down the book and get back to you when I can...Kenosis 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have looked a bit farther, and managed to determine you are correct about this. My apology. The "other words" in the Essay were indeed "white paper." He states in Book II: "Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished?" The term 'tabula rasa' an already established term in that day, came through Aquinas as a Latin interpretation of an earlier Aristotlean idea. Locke does appear to use the term elsewhere in an ongoing debate with Leibniz and others; but not in the Essay. Thank you so much for the quest for accuracy here, Lucidish. I'll look a bit further when I can to track down where he does use the term "tabula rasa." Thanks again....Kenosis 01:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Lucidish, don't know if you're on site or online at present, but I've gone ahead and corrected this for now, with due credit to your efforts in clarifying the Essay's language...Kenosis 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks! Lucidish 21:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a SERIOUS problem in that the concept of "tabula rasa" is being over-used or used in a weasly fashion. There is a citation of a 2008 work "From Plato to Derrida," which is NOT an authoritative source that empiricism would allow for genetic or cognitive/structural alterations of Sense-data or Impressions. This claim has NOT been demonstrated, and any Johnny Come Latelys to the philosophy world who would like to suggest that human beings are passive receptors of information so as to justify their programming by mass propaganda need to DEMONSTRATE how Hobbes (the authoritarian that he was), Locke, and Hume, had anything in mind besides the consciousness of human beings being blank slates for the reception of sense-data; in other words we should disallow any talk of genetics or cognitive-structural alteration of sense-data in regards to these philosophers, less the reader be confused. Of course, significant cognitive research contradicts the simplistic view that human beings are a "blank slate" (twin studies, famously), centuries later, and it would be quite revisionist to project our disposition on "genetics" and cognitive science back in time on authoritative figures in the history of empiricist thought.Reasonsjester (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The a priori/a posteriori distinction and empiricism

RE "the analytic (a priori) and the synthetic (a posteriori)"
I have learnt that most empiricists (at least the British empiricists, such as Locke etc.) would reject Kant's distinction between a priori (before experieince) and a posteriori (after experience) forms of knowledge. An empiricist of the form "all knowledge is gained empircally" would outright reject any possibility for a priori knowledge. Rather, things such as mathematical propositions, thought to be a priori, would be situated in the category of analytic propositions. So, besides the fact that, according to Kant, analytic/synthetic and a priori/a posteriori distinctions are separate (and thus the parenthetical comments are inappropriate), the very idea of the a priori/aposteriori distinction would be seen to be wrong. I think there should be a specific section addressing the implications for this. Drifter 01:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC) I agree. The whole of the different threads of this inquiry go through the lens of Kant and yet he is missing. In fact how amazing it is that there is an article as long as this that doesn't even mention Kant, both here, but also in the section on Peirce, for whom Kant was a major influence.[drw, 2 June 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.2.167 (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"clarify the date ref to Hume. Average reader does not need to see 1902 attached to Hume; why are academic-style citations being used in an encylopedia? Method for footnotes)"

Hi Kenosis, see the above discussion on WP:CITE between Jon Awbrey and Lacatosias for why the footnotes are as they are. --Knucmo2 12:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the discussion. The problem here is a refusal to accept convention, and turn Wikipedia into an opportunity to write academic papers while awaiting the next publishing opportunity. The discussion went roughly as follows: Certain editor(s) did not like to have to parse through all the references while editing. Rather than follow the convention, this academic style was chosen. The problem is that it makes for more difficult work for the reader. It requires that readers familiarize themselves with the references, or scroll down to a distant place near the bottom of a very long page if they wish to refer to the reference, then scroll back up to wherever they were and find their spot again in order to continue reading. The footnote format is here for a reason: It allows the reader to just continue reading if they wish, or if they want to refer to the note, they merely link and then quickly backpage on their browser to continue reading. I have chosen not to contest this approach in this article, though seeing a secondary date attached to an 18th Century writer is a bit too much confusion for an unfamiliar reader in my estimation....Kenosis 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on that, Hume obviously was not around in the 20th century (Not in physical form anyway). --Knucmo2 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: There is no one style sheet that works for all fields and purposes. History-sensitive citation tends to use some form of "historical layering" approach. Without going that far, an easy alternative is simply to put the historical publication date after the author's name, as Peirce (1870), putting copy-in-hand data in the reference itself, for example "Reprinted, Collected Papers, 1935".

Clean slate, blank tablet, razed building, whatever

Why are editors so quick to the gun here? I get 54,000 hits for tabula-rasa blank-slate , 23,000 hits for tabula-rasa clean-slate , 12,000 for tabula-rasa white-paper, 700 for tabula-rasa blank-tablet, and a mere 2 hits for tabula-rasa razed-tablet (the last of which is the most literally accurate). ...Kenosis 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: I got 1.9 mil for the exact phrase "clean slate", and 1.2 mil for the exact phrase "blank slate", not that I'd consider the number of Google hits as measuring anything but the number of Google hits. But "clean slate" is the more accurate of the idiomatic English renditions, and is the most common in the classic literature on the subject. "Blank" connotes "burned white" or "ashen" and only came into currency with Procol Harum and the computer age. Jon Awbrey 04:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the search limited to the actual text, as I suggested. Lucidish 16:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If one doesn't hyphenate these phrases and thus instruct the engine to seek sequential uses only, there are too many variables to properly deduce much of anything that's relevant, i.e., valid. Further, the question here is not how many uses of clean-slate or blank-slate there currently are on the web, but how many uses in the context of the term "tabula rasa" that are currently on the web. Clean slate, what does that mean, starting the day with a fresh attitude?, expunging a criminal record? putting aside past grievances? That's not what the empiricists intended to say, but rather something a bit stronger. Tabula rasa was a tablet ground flat so it could be inscribed, not something that could be repeatedly erased and rewritten upon; "white paper" was not intended to mean erased paper, but fresh paper ready for inking; Clean slate is too much like "erased blackboard". ....Kenosis 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused. The issue as I have written about it in the above sections had nothing to do with iterations on the web and everything to do with what's printed in the Essay by Locke. Perhaps we're concerned with different things? Lucidish 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: I always use the advanced search option which allows for "exact phrases". On the two exact phrases "Tabula Rasa" AND "Blank Tablet" I get 1,760 hits. On the two exact phrases "Tabula Rasa" AND "Clean Slate" I get 22,600 hits. Of course, no translation is perfect, but "clean slate" has always been the more accurate and idiomatic usage. Latin laptops were not write-only. Jon Awbrey

What is important is that the spirit of Locke's idea is captured by whatever translation is used. Stanford Encyclopedia refers to it as a "blank sheet", my 1960 book on philosophy refers to it as a "blank slate", and here refers to it as a white sheet! --Knucmo2 18:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

They all capture the meaning, of course, just not the exact phrase, which was "white paper". Lucidish 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: This may just be another one of those places where our teachers have lied, er, lie-to-children'd us. Locke says "white paper" in a couple of places, but he was "razzing the establishment" doctrine on innate ideas at the time. Locke was not known for skill in Latin, and so the very phrase "tabula rasa" is either a retro-introduction, or was already current from Scholastic and just-barely-post-Scholastic sources like Descartes and Leibniz. Further research required, as they say. Jon Awbrey 21:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The term was indeed around at the time. Leibniz used it in arguing back at Locke, and Locke appears to have used the term himself in a point counterpoint exchange of the day, though I haven't had the time to track it down. Either way, they were talking about essentially the same principle...Kenosis 23:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, "whatever". All these are fairly reasonable transations of "tabula rasa". To me, "clean slate" is nonetheless the least indicative of the seriousness of the empiricist position here because it carries intersubjective moral overtones more so than the others-- but, whatever--makes little difference in the end...Kenosis 21:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google does not appear to respect the old exact-phrase method with quote-marks. It would appear that these days on the pop search engines, only hyphens will do it any longer. I've tried the advanced search options before and they still seem to mix 'em up as they please...Kenosis 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: I see no indication of that. Because Google started using fuzzy search or something a while back, you sometimes have to put a "+" in front of an item to force attention to it, but it didn't make a difference here:

http://www.google.com/advanced_search.html

JA: Then there's always Kartoo:

http://www.kartoo.com/

JA: ejoy! Jon Awbrey 21:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps worthy of note is that this discussion (or its arguable equivalent) might've taken maybe twenty years back in the 17th Century...Kenosis 02:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Magic???

What place does this have on a page about philosophical/scientific theories and ideas about the world? It seems a bit like WP:NOR to me though there is a ref cited. I believe it should be removed and placed here for discussion --Knucmo2 08:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following material and put it here for reasonable evaluation as to the possible merits of such a section for this article...Kenosis 01:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

===Empiricism and magic===

A controversial theory in the history of science is the role of the discipline of magic in the formation of the theory of empiricism. Scholars in the tradition of Aristotelianism and scholasticism had a total picture of reality based on rationalisation. One example of this kind of rationalizing is the growth of a tree. According to this scholars, a tree grows because god created it to give humans wood for building and for heating. Mathematics became popular during the Renaissance. Instead of Aristotelian and scholastic reasoning, the mathematicians wanted precise measurement. One of the most important mathematicians in antiquity was Pythagoras, who believed in magic and started a sect. Johannes Kepler, the astronomer who carefully measured reality and who was the first to think that the earth moved, was a strong believer in magic. The reason that he believed the earth moved was because he thought that the earth was alive and could move out of free will. British protestantsism was different from the dominant christian churches in the European continent. British protestants believed that humans can't comprihend reality and that god is not reason. This had the consequence that magic was possible. Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton were both alchemists. The empiricism of Francis Bacon was based on the practise of successful magicians and alchemists. The theory of gravity of Isaac Newton was based on the assumption that celestial bodies are subjucated to the same gravity as objects on earth and that gravity can be long distance. He referred to knowledge by stating that certain aspects of it are occult, unknown or mysterious and that magic could be true. For continental scholars like Leibniz and Leeuwenhoek, this was complete rubbish.....01:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnote ref: Henry, John, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science (Basingbroke 2002)....01:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Many opposers of this theory said the same. But it is part of official scientific debate. I had a literature exam about many books including this one with a professor of Leiden University and she said that this was one of the most important books about the history of science. The reason that my english is bad is because i am Dutch. The point is that science emerged from a world where most people believed in all kinds of superstition. People genuinely believed in witches performing black magic for instance. Many people across Europe, especially in Switserland and Finland, but also in England were victim of this. I can understand that it seems ridiculous, but you were not there in the 17th century. If the sources point to this direction, then historians are obliged to make the right conclusions, although the opposite should be defended as well of course. I started with mentioning that it was controversial.--Daanschr 18:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is link:[1]--Daanschr 18:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

While this may be of interest to a historian of philosophy, and might even be worth noting in a sentence or two on the motives of empiricists, the fetish that thinkers like Bacon had for the supernatural only rarely formed explicit parts of their theories. You can go to town with all the wacky things people believed in their time, but the only thing that is of central concern to this article is empiricism. I'd like to suggest perhaps a separate article. Lucidish 02:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so too. It is like conflating Newton's belief in God with his physics, something which does not necessarily add up. One of the best-known and talented empiricists, David Hume, was expressly against the idea of a supernatural and advanced several arguments against such things as miracles. As you say, that is for a different article. --Knucmo2 09:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Henry apparently is considered as a very important contibutor to the history of science. He says that the terminology and the methods that was used by magicians were taken over by Bacon and Newton, who were both alchemists. I also like to note that Hume was from a later generation. During the Enlightenment, the belief in science was very strong and people believed that science could change the whole society. Magic became considered as superstition. Hume denied everything the mind can make up. For him only the things we experience exist. This was his way of making an end to superstitions.

I am a materialist and an atheist, so the only reason for adding this information is because it is the result of important historical research.--Daanschr 12:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A possibility is to come to another way of representing this information in this article. According to henry, there were two kinds of magicians in europe. There were charlatans and serious investigators, who had successes. Both Bacon and Newton came out of the last tradition. In the western world, only the first category has remained. In modern Africa, there are still medicine-men who are serious investigators of nature. The lack of doctors, who are all going away due to the braindrain, has promted doctors who work for western development organizations to help the serious medicine-men to improve their methods. Would it help if i add this information.--Daanschr 12:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest a possible section in History of the scientific method dealing with some of the transitional stages in progressing from "magic" and "superstition" to empirical method?...Kenosis 12:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My input was about empiricism. If you don't want it in this article, then i will not try to get it somewhere else. If you don't want to place the 17th century English early scientists in their right historical perspective, because you don't like the results then so be it. I think that the argument that an event shouldn't have occured as it did very unscientific. It belongs to the same category as Poles denying Copernicus to be an ethnic German, Serbs denying that Albanians fought on their side during the battle of Kosovo and Russians denying that their country was founded by ruthless Swedish vikings.--Daanschr 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the articles Johannes Kepler, Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton. Still, i think it is wrong to discard information, because of the effect it could have. I have the impression that you try to defend science as a principle regardless of the truth. This could be a barrier for acquiring knowledge. This article only states what people said, not why they said it.--Daanschr 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Modern chemistry is chock full of what was then called alchemy and magic; difference being it is better understood. None of this has anything to do with the article on Empiricism, which is a philosophical school, both in philosophy generally and in philosophy of science. Transitional stages in advancing from "wizard behind the curtain" magic, into more exacting and openly shared empirical methods of discovery and other research, are properly the subject of one or more other articles than this one. Just because one or two authors out there uses Empiricism in this debatable way, does not change the nature of this subject, which has extremely wide consensus among philosophers and virtually all scholars outside philosophy. Today the preferred and generally accepted term for the kind of approach taken by Bacon, Newton, and others of that era, is "empirical" or "empirical method" This much is already made clear in the existing article...Kenosis 16:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is called 'empiricism'. John Henry, a serious historian, wrote a book on empiricism and magic. This (Wp:npov#Pseudoscience) is the official policy of Wikipedia, so the information may not be deleted.--Daanschr 16:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that Wp:npov#Pseudoscience is controversial itself being part of a powerplay within Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Scientific point of view. Still, we are editors of Wikipedia and i think that we should live up to the rules presented by Wikipedia.--Daanschr 16:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Daanschr is very much mistaken here. The personalities to whom Daanschr is referring are not directly relevant to the philosophy of science, but rather to the practice and method of science. Therefore they do not belong in this article, at least not without a much wider revisiting of the scope of this article. The article dealt with the relevant parsing of terminology relating to scientific use of the term at the beginning of the article, with explanation and links to the relevant articles about "empirical" and "empirical method", as well as to "scientific method" and several other articles relevant to practice.

These are extremely interesting events and personalities here, Bacon, Kepler, etc., whose work had an influence on the philosophical discussion including that of both contintental and British philosophers like Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley, Spinoza, Hume, and Kant . If there is enough material to present a balanced NPOV picture of practice, it would conceivably be justifiable. Such a move might possibly be justifiable even in light of the overwhelming majority of the literature on the subject, which refers to this as the emergence of scientific method and not empiricism (because empiricism is so strongly associated with the philosophical position that is different from the practice of empirical method). Such a restructuring of the article to include practice is not what Daanschr proposed here. Further, there are major conceptual problems and accuracy issues with the way the proposed section was framed. I do not wish to get into specifics here. The material belongs elsewhere unless it can be intgrated into a broader summary of how practice affected the philosophical position known as "Empiricism". ...Kenosis 16:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this article is not called 'Philosophy of science', but 'empiricism'. Secondly, if you want this article to be expanded with aditional information, be my guest. I think that my edit may not be deleted according to the wikipedia policy.--Daanschr 17:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the literature on "empiricism," with the existing content of the current Wikipedia article on Empiricism and with the overwhelmingly dominant usage of "empiricism" prior to imposing such judgements on the rest of the editors involved.......Kenosis 17:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The header of this discussion is called 'magic???' and my edit was deleted, so the suspision was granted to my opinion and i still believe in it. You admitted yourself that and i quote: 'Modern chemistry is chock full of what was then called alchemy and magic; difference being it is better understood.' This means that you agree with me, but not in the way i put it apparently.

In the article is this sentence to be found: 'As a historical matter, philosophical empiricism is commonly contrasted with the philosophical school of thought known as "continental rationalism" which, in very broad terms, asserts that much knowledge is attributable to reason independently of the senses. However, this contrast is today considered to be an extreme oversimplification of the issues involved, because the main continental rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz) were also advocates of the empirical "scientific method" of their day.' It is not explained what it is based upon. According to Henry it has primarily to do with theology.

It appears to me that all (early modern) empiricists are British and that Francis Bacon, the founder of (early modern) empiricism is not discussed at all. Maybe this article should be renamed into 'empiricism (philosophy)' and that i can start an article 'empiricism' considering both the philosophical meaning of empiricism and the historical development of it and i will take over all knowledge from this article of course.--Daanschr 18:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to mention it in a section on those thinkers in the history of empiricism (this article doesn't say nearly enough about Bacon et al). But it doesn't deserve its own section: magic is not a historical or mainstream part of that which is fundamental to the doctrines of the empiricists. This is a matter of relevance to the topic, nothing else. Lucidish 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have written a new piece. What do you think of it?--Daanschr 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cause and effect VS the existence of God

So how is the concept of causility or "cause and effect" more justifiable than the existence of God? Both cannot be empirically tested; you can not "experience" both with your five senses. I understand that one concept can be "believed in more" than the other; for example, you COULD say that you believe in cause and effect more than you believe in the existence of God. But you can't say, from an empiricist point of view; that you KNOW casualty or God exists. So what I'm asking is how can scientists (and empiricists) believe in the concept of "cause and effect" more than they believe in the existence of God? How is causility more justified (and therefore, more readily "assumeable") than the existence of God? You can't say you know they both exist according to Hume, if you are an empiricist, but why would anyone be an atheist (not believe in God), but assume that causility exist? 165.196.139.24 21:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A fairly extensive answer to this can be found at the Philosophy talk page, although this kind of discussion would be more appropriate at the Philosophy WikiProject talk page. Lucidish 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is empiricism equal to British empiricism?

New assertion by Srnec: Empiricism equals British empiricism. As evidence, Srnec's edit summary cites to Srnec's edit in the article on rationalism. My readings in this area indicate differently, but heck, I'm just one editor. So, for starters, maybe we can look at some established and extensively peer-reviewed encyclopedias: The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (through the 1996 Supplement) says "empiricism" goes back at least to Aristotle, and well continued to persist well beyond the last of the "British empiricists", David Hume (unless you count Bertrand Russell in as a British empiricist, which I do, in keeping with some, but not all, of the credible resources on the subject, and some don't count Russell at all--go figure). The Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 edition, Vol 4 at 480-481) says it goes back to the Greek Sophists, and that the majority of Christian philosophers in the Middle Ages were empiricists. As I recall, most of those lived on the "continent" at the time. ... Kenosis 04:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understand my assertion. Is not "British empiricism" synonymous with "empiricism" in philosophical usage (disregarding whether or not some philosophers try to differentiate the terms and give the former a stricter usage)? It does not imply that all empiricists are Brits or that only Britain developed empiricist schools. No, empiricism has existed since the dawn of time and it has existed in all places, including the continent. As far as I understood it, however, "British" is a common qualifier to differentiate it from "continental" rationalism. Rationalism was not entirely continental either, but it predominated there in the same way empiricism predominated in Britain (during the Enlightenment). It has been established, I believe, in recent discussions that "continental" is an unecessary and superfluous qualifier, but it is used regardless. Rationalism=Continental rationalism. Similarly, empiricism=British empiricism. I don't like these terms either, but they are used and I think they are used as synonyms for rationalism and empiricism. Unless, of course, we take it upon ourselves to redefine these last term so broadly as to include almost every philosopher in both schools.

This is worthy of the introduction simply by virtue of being a (near-)synonym of the title of the article (in some contexts). The history of a subject has bearing on what it is and may be proper in the opening. Srnec 04:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I argued this point in the recent discussion about integrating "continental rationalism" into the current article about "rationalism" (I argued to keep them separate articles). Integrating the two was not wholly unreasonable either, in my judgment, but will require some more work to get the article on rationalism into proper shape for the longer term. The debate between the British empiricists and continental rationalists is one of the great debates of all time, for sure. Indeed, in the future I imagine an article about that very debate might conceivably be appropriate in WP. But please, let's at least keep the article on empiricism from undue errors in classification, OK? ... Kenosis 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As there is a subsection entitled "British empiricism", it hardly seems necessary to have it in the opening, but I would stress that it is no coincidence that British empiricism redirects here. The two terms are often used synonymously in certain contexts and that should be recognised. Srnec 03:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Matrix

Question: Many credit Descartes's "I think therefore I am" to be the back bone of the movie the Matrix. However, it would seem that empiricism is more akin to what the Matrix is about, i.e., you can be a brain in a jar somewhere and not even know it because all you an know is what you perseave through your senses. It would seem that Descartes's saying should really be "I experience, therefore I am" since one cannot think without outside point of reference, at least initially. If there was no environmental perseptions, you could not think in the first place, and there would be no "I am." Thoughts? (RossF18 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Removed paragraph

I've removed the following paragraph, which was placed at the end of the article. ... Kenosis 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• A more recent integration of empiricism and elements of rationalism is found in Nicholas Maxwell's aim-oriented empiricism (AOE). According to AOE, persistent preference in physics for unified theories even though endlessly many empirically more successful disunified rivals are always available means that physics makes a persistent, highly problematic metaphysical assumption about the universe: the universe has an underlying unified dynamic structure. Once this is recognized, Maxwell argues, it becomes clear that physics needs to be construed as making a hierarchy of metaphysical assumptions concerning the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe, these assumptions becoming less and less substantial, and so less and less problematic, as one goes up the hierarchy. In this way, a framework of relatively unproblematic assumptions, and associated methods, is created within which much more substantial and problematic assumptions, and associated methods, can be criticized and improved in the light of improving scientific knowledge. There is something like positive feedback between improving scientific knowledge and improving assumptions and associated methods. Science adapts its nature to what it finds out about the nature of the universe. ... 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

This article is well written and provides an excellent overview of the historical progression of ideas relating to empiricism. My only quibble is that a Fair Use Rationale appears to be needed for the John Dewey image.

I'm putting this article on hold as it is close to GA status. However, the issue noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing. -- Johnfos 11:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why this needs GA status, as it's apparentely already passed A class review... Cheers, CP 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A-class ratings are easily overturned, as happened recently on the Nuclear power page. Also, I think some editors find a GA assessment useful before nominating for FA. cheers, Johnfos 21:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, CP 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the FUR. This article meets all the GA criteria now... Johnfos 21:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Blank slate

Under 'Early empiricism' we have the first paragraph starting...

In the 11th century, the theory of tabula rasa was developed by the Persian philosopher, Ibn Sina...

<rhetorical>Is this the same 'tabula rasa' that Aristotle mentioned in De anima more than 1,000 years before the 11th century?</rhetorical>

Any good reason why he doesn't get a mention? --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I added Aristotle to the start of the section. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

"In philosophy, empiricism means, roughly, "try it and see"."

Does anybody else have a problem with this statement? To me it doesn't seem to represent the meaning of the term at all. FireAarro (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To me "try it and see" describes Experimentalism better than Empiricism. However, going to [Experimentalism] leads you to a disambiguation page where the meaning we are after is linked to Empiricism! Empiricism is more basing knowledge on evidence. Experimentation is deliberately going out to get that evidence. --Yaris678 (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the introduction has now been changed considerably. I guess FireAarro's point has been accepted. Yaris678 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleuze and Guattari??

Why are these two included in the list of notable empiricists? And especially, why without explanation? They're clearly not part of the historical phenomenon (being French, 20th Century, and of decidedly different convictions, they don't fit into the group Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Berkeley....). Is this just a joke? Perhaps the idea is that they're successors. I would be dubious about this, in any case, but if it is so, why them and not anybody else? If there is a good reason for their presence, it should be given. As it stands, this looks decidedly misleading to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.208.157 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Empiricism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article needs some work done to retain its good article status. Issues include:

• Insufficient references
  • Second half of "Philosophical usage"
  • "Scientific usage"
  • First half of "Early empiricism"
  • Parts of "British empiricism"
  • Second half of "Logical empiricism"
  • First paragraph of "Integration of empiricism and rationalism"
• Per WP:LAYOUT, move "See also" to before "Footnotes"

Please keep this page updated with the article's progress. Gary King (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is essentially the same as when it was given GA status. I'll review its content as time permits. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but it doesn't change my review. That just means that I would probably disagree with the passing of this article as a good article. Please keep this page updated with the article's progress. Gary King (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there any updates on this? This has been open for over a week. Gary King (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This article's GA status has been reassessed. Gary King (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why the passive voice? Translated: "I, Gary King, have reassessed this article's GA status [and have unilaterally chosen to delist it]." ... Kenosis (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have chosen to delist the article because it does not meet the current good article criteria. An opportunity was given for the article to be improved, but not all of the issues were resolved. Does that help? Gary King (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit more direct ("I have chosen..." ). I still find the statement "An opportunity was given..." to require a subject, such as, for instance, "An opportunity was given by me ...", or more directly, "I gave [you people] an opportunity to improve the article..." . Etc.
..... In direct response: Given noticeably dwindling participation by knowledgeable contributors on the wiki of late, I've found myself filling a few gaps elsewhere. When I'm able to get around to go through my library and add further citations, along with some other minor tightening up, I'll try to do so, assuming of course that someone else doesn't see their way clear to it first. I will also say this: This article is already quite arguably the best summary of empiricism I've seen to date, anywhere. The parts that lack inline citations are largely uncontroversial to anyone familiar with this topic. .... Kenosis (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to your first paragraph, I don't understand why this needs to be made personal; I feel like you are trying to pull a confession out of me. I'm trying to make this entire discussion focused on the content; if you felt that my assessment was incorrect, this review page was open for anyone, including yourself, to challenge it.

In any case, it may be true that the uncited information in the article is uncontroversial to some people, but they still need citations, preferably to works written by experts of the field. And at the end of the day, the article may be submitted as a good article nomination at any time to regain that status. Gary King (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastern spirituality

There should perhaps be discussion within the article on the religious empiricism as practiced in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern spirituality in general, see for example the article theoria. ADM (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

While it is a given that Locke, Berkeley, and Hume are the most well known British Empericists I think it is a mistake not to mention Francis Bacon. The contents of his Novum Organum and its discussion on the inner constitutions of things and laws of nature really paved the way for a lot of the discussion we see in the other three philosophers. Diehl1am (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Iron Maiden

In the Iron Maiden song "Ghost of the Navigator", from the Brave New World album, the lyric "nothing's real until you feel" is repeated at regular intervals. Who would have thought Iron Maiden were such staunch empiricists? Can this be shoehorned into the article somehow? - David Thomas Hill, Bromsgrove, Worcs. 78.145.57.160 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)