From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Mon Feb 14 2005 - 06:15:11 GMT
Ron,
Scott said;
I will add that even better than not expanding the use of the word
"empirical" would have been to not use it at all. It's a SOM word, after
all, one that presupposes a split between knower and that which is known.
Ron said:
With this I would agree, along with pragmatic, realistic, idealistic . . .
pretty much all the isms, ists, and istics, but is this reasonable? We would
also have to avoid the term experience. Right?
Scott:
I don't see why it can't be used. It doesn't have the baggage that
'empirical' has. No one objects to calling, say, a vision of the Virgin Mary
an experience, regardless of how it is interpreted.
Ron said:
Can this be done? Can you completely avoid all philosophical terms?
What about the next generation of philosophers?
Scott:
I don't want to avoid all philosophic terms. I like doing philosophy, and I
see it as an activity of evaluating, challenging, and reshaping the
philosophic vocabulary. So when I say "it would be better to not use
['empirical'] at all", that is what I am doing. In this case, what I would
argue is that the validity of the MOQ does not at all rest on whether it
calls itself "empirical" or not. On the other hand, it is correct to call
itself "metaphysics", which is about as philosophical term as they get. Some
philosophers (like Rorty and many others) think that it is bad to do
metaphysics. Arguing for and against that is all part of the philosophy
game.
Ron said:
Would it not be more sensible to use the words as they reflect modern
metaphysics? - just a more radical empiricism?
Scott:
I don't know what you mean by "use the words as they reflect modern
metaphysics". There is no single "modern metaphysics". Different
metaphysical systems use different words, or use the same words differently.
That is, again, all part of the game, to justify those different usages.
Ron said:
I am wondering where any advancement would come if we kept science to the
"strict empirical scientists?"
It seems to me the problem is with the "modern day empiricists" trying to
"*limit* experience to the sensory-empiric modes."
Scott:
Well, it never was a real problem, in my opinion, at least not for long.
That is, while the logical positivists were saying "only sensory experience
counts", most everyone else was using all their experience, and logical
positivism died an early death. One of its main proponents, A.J.Ayer, later
decided that its main principle, verificationism, was itself not verifiable
empirically (in the sensory-only sense), so he gave up on it. While it had
its heyday there were a lot of aberrations, such as behaviorism, but that
too died out.
I think it is a real problem that the majority of intellectuals are secular.
But that's because I'm not :-) Regardless, I don't think "it's good because
it's empirical" (meaning sensory-empirical) is all that strong a rallying
cry any more.
Ron said:
The prior accepted "real sciences" have been flipped over on their heads.
Would you not agree?
Scott:
Not sure that I do. I don't see any "real science" changing in all this. All
the disciplines, scientific or otherwise, would be just the same whether
they are called "empirical" or not. What counts for physics and chemistry
are that experiments are reproducible, that theories are testable, and so
on. What counts for, say, economics is if the theories make good
predictions. If it works, it is good. If it doesn't, it is not good.
Ron said:
BTW, if it would rid the world of psychologists, I might agree. :o)
Scott:
Oh, I dunno. Some are helpful, some maybe not so. Though I would be leery of
a psychologist who called him- or herself "scientific".
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 14 2005 - 07:39:22 GMT