Examine the quotation in the first section: "Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. "
The key word here is "solely" meaning that empiricism involves the addition of observational evidence on top of other forms of analysis.
Additionally take this sentence: "Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification"
Note that falsification used here cannot exist without assuming logic is true.
True in what sense? I appreciate the rigor you're trying to bring to this discussion. Most of the points regarding logic you raise here and in your other replies on the thread have been comprehensively debunked in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
One omission is the nature of human senses and perceptions. The understanding of which eliminates whatsoever any possibility of conclusively distinguishing the statement "logic is true" from "logic appears true to us but it's actual truth status is unknowable". This is just a toy explanation and the Critique is far more comprehensive and rigorous.
> empiricism involves the addition of observational evidence on top of other forms of analysis.
That may be the case in circumstances where it's convenient and other forms of analysis serve the function of useful tools or mental aids. However empirical observation always trumps other forms of analysis when they're in conflict. Otherwise we're no longer discussing science anymore.
>"logic is true" from "logic appears true to us but it's actual truth status is unknowable".
That's just a paradox. No point in going to deep into the paradox as it's unresolvable. At best it can be "Assumed" that logic is true. Replace "assume" with "pretend" it's the same thing. Science pretends logic is true. Whether it's actually true or not is the paradox.
>That may be the case in circumstances where it's convenient and other forms of analysis serve the function of useful tools or mental aids. However empirical observation always trumps other forms of analysis when they're in conflict. Otherwise we're no longer discussing science anymore.
Sure but this can only be done in conjunction with logic. If you observe evidence and the evidence leads to a conclusion the "leading to a conclusion" is done through logic.
Another way to put it is, if logic wasn't real no observation would make sense. If I observed a pig, then pigs exist by logic. If logic wasn't real then the observation doesn't imply pigs exist. By logical analysis, An observation is therefore useless without logic.
Suffice to say at this level of analysis we can clearly conclude that Science "pretends" logic and probability are true. Getting deeper into this dives into paradoxes which are ultimately uninteresting dead ends to me because it's unresolvable.
What exactly gives you the right to do that? And why is your reason any better than a different one provided by someone else who wants to argue the opposite?
> Replace "assume" with "pretend" it's the same thing.
We've now turned science into dogma. At what point do we then need to become aware that we're pretending? Surely there comes a point where pretending costs us epistemic legitimacy. Where is that point? And what response do we offer to an interlocutor who insists the earth is flat and our logical deduction of it's spherical shape is "pretend"?
> Sure but this can only be done in conjunction with logic. If you observe evidence and the evidence leads to a conclusion the "leading to a conclusion" is done through logic.
> If I observed a pig, then pigs exist by logic. If logic wasn't real then the observation doesn't imply pigs exist.
Both of these statements are nonsensical and are debunked in the Critique of Pure Reason.
> Getting deeper into this dives into paradoxes which are ultimately uninteresting dead ends to me because it's unresolvable.
I have a feeling we're dealing with a small bit of motivated reasoning with respect to interestingness here.
>What exactly gives you the right to do that? And why is your reason any better than a different one provided by someone else who wants to argue the opposite?
Why use science if it won't work without assuming the principles it's built on are not true? We assume science is true, we established that logic cannot be established to be true. Thus if logic cannot be established to be true, then science cannot be established to be true, then why do we use science?
The only other conclusion is we "assume" science is true and therefore "assume" logic is true even though we can't truly know if it's true.
>We've now turned science into dogma. At what point do we then need to become aware that we're pretending? Surely there comes a point where pretending costs us epistemic legitimacy. Where is that point? And what response do we offer to an interlocutor who insists the earth is flat and our logical deduction of it's spherical shape is "pretend"?
I'm not a philosopher. I'm not into epistemology as I'm not even entirely sure what it is. SO if you dive into that world too deeply the argument is over because I can't argue with something I don't know about. Either you explain your points in layman terms or the argument can't proceed very far because I won't be able to understand you.
I'm just saying that "pretending" is the same thing as "assuming" We don't actually know if something is true, but we still use science as if it's true. The contradiction is what allows us to use the word "pretend" we know that it cannot be known yet we act as if it is known. Hence "pretend"
>Both of these statements are nonsensical and are debunked in the Critique of Pure Reason.
Well declaring a statement nonsensical doesn't mean anything to me without you explaining the reasoning behind your declaration. Citing a book won't really do anything for me because I haven't read the book. We're at a dead end here. Obviously I won't read the book because it's too long to read right now and obviously you won't explain the book for the same reason, so for this point the argument is over... we reached an impasse and can only agree to disagree unless you decide to explain the book to me.
>I have a feeling we're dealing with a small bit of motivated reasoning with respect to interestingness here.
I'm interested up to a point. If the point is a paradox I'm not interested in exploring the paradox. If that's the direction you're taking your argument then it's an impasse. Either way we're just debating nomenclature here.
Science involves statistics, statistics is built on top of of the theory of probability, probability is built on top of logic.
Therefore, for science to utilize statistics, it must assume probability and logic is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Examine the quotation in the first section: "Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. "
The key word here is "solely" meaning that empiricism involves the addition of observational evidence on top of other forms of analysis.
Additionally take this sentence: "Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification"
Note that falsification used here cannot exist without assuming logic is true.