Re: Empirical Beliefs & Hypothesis; Do they terminate in some beliefs that need no further justification, go on infinitely - on belief being justified by other that then need justification, or circle back upon itself in some way - constituting a sort o
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
Posted by Sevenhundred Elves on August 22, 2008, 3:29 am
Please log in for more thread options On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:05:34 -0700, John Larkin >>806e-dc4d6d752c84@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>> >>> A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all
>>> evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent >>> on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. >>> Empirical data are data that are produced by experiment or >>> observation. >>> >>> "Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both >>> the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working >>> hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this >>> sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived >>> from our experiences or observations. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical >>> >>> 1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical >>> beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose >>> justification does not depend on that of any further emperical >>> beliefs. >>> >>> 2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a >>> reason why it is likely to be true. >>> >>> 3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive >>> possession of such a reason. >>> >>> 4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he >>> believes with justification the premises from which it follows that >>> the belief is likely to be true. >>> >>> 5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least >>> one empirical premise. >>> >>> 6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends >>> on the justification of at least one other empirical belief, >>> contradicting 1. >>> >>> 7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs. >>> >>> This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of >>> any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness >>> of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress" >>> of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so >>> on: >>> >>> If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic >>> emperical beliefs, then it must either: >>> >>> (1) terminate in unjustified beleifs >>> >>> (2) go on infinitely (without circularity) >>> >>> (3) circle back upon itself in some way. >>
>>The argument goes astray with #4. If I perceive a red apple, then I believe >>the apple perceived is red. That belief is not a conclusion derived from >>any premises, but from the percept itself. Empirical beliefs are self- >>justifying; I cannot doubt that I am perceiving something red in the shape >>of an apple. I may well have doubts about what causes that percept, but I >>cannot doubt that I have it. What may be causing it is another question. >
>What causes "red" is the predominant wavelength of the light that >bounces off the apple. That can be measured and quantified, if there's >any doubt. > >There's nothing subjective about "red." I beg to differ. Colour perception is not merely an act of measuring wavelengths. Take a look at this interesting optical illusion: http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/square/ Not only colour, but even our perception of lightness/darkness is influenced by circumstances surrounding the observation: http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/chequer_board/ And here's a peculiar one: http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/disappearing_colours/ >
>You'll never get anything done if you keep getting tangled up in >fuzziness. > >John It's a fuzzy world we live in... S. | ||||
>