quick ? relating to def. of "empirical" - Science, Math and Philosophy Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Science, Math, and Philosophy

quick ? relating to def. of "empirical"

Post Reply Subscribe

...

01-24-2010 , 08:24 PM

cberasi

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 574

hello, im studying for a clinical research design test and just used dictionary.com to see their definition of empirical

"–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment."

I do not understand 2. If it is guided by and provable by experiments, wouldn't this necessitate the use of the scientific method as this models how the experiment will proceed? Where is my comprehension wrong?

Quote

01-24-2010 , 08:34 PM

PJA

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,230

Your complaint about the second definition is that it is not exactly the same as the first. Isn't this the entire point of having multiple definitions?

Quote

01-24-2010 , 08:43 PM

cberasi

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 574

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJA

Your complaint about the second definition is that it is not exactly the same as the first. Isn't this the entire point of having multiple definitions?

its not a complaint, im trying to figure out where I am misinterpreting the definition(s)

would it be correct to say if something is empirical this implies it does not use the scientific method as the scientific method is simply a theory set to construct a model that ultimately leads to empirical data as the plan is set in motion?

Quote

01-24-2010 , 08:55 PM

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

The point is to separate it completely from a priori or theory altogether (one can argue that that's impossible...and probably be right). So the 2nd one is trying to distinguish observation through scientific method to just observation in the absence of METHOD.

Quote

01-24-2010 , 08:59 PM

cberasi

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 574

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

got it, thank you very much. i guess i was assuming the definitions were interchangeable, thus my "stupid" ?.

Quote

01-27-2010 , 07:17 AM

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

It's much better to use "from experience" than "from observation". This way you don't have to worry about the philosophical problem of proving (or assuming) there is an observer and something he/she observes, or some hypothetical difference between the two.

It might not seem very important, but in many debates it can be very nice to know that empiricism is probably the theory of knowledge that requires the fewest assumptions, even less than solipsism.

Last edited by tame_deuces; 01-27-2010 at 07:22 AM.

Quote

01-27-2010 , 10:22 AM

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Actually...rationalism and coherentism require far less. Perception is a really difficult topic.

Quote

01-27-2010 , 10:49 AM

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Actually...rationalism and coherentism require far less. Perception is a really difficult topic.

I would actually say it is vice versa, as acknowledging experience does not imply acknowledging perception. Rationalism on the other hand has to assume there is a mind and that there is a meaningful concept called reason.

You might find a mind and find reason through experience (which does not imply that they are there, merely that you experience them), but the "base assumption" of empiricism is incredibly minimal.

Quote

01-27-2010 , 10:34 PM

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Empiricism has to assume those things too, sir.

Quote

01-28-2010 , 08:55 AM

#10

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Empiricism has to assume those things too, sir.

The only thing you need for empiricism is to experience. You don't have say anything other than that.

You might conclude there is a mind and that there is reason from your empirical observations but you never have to assume nor conclude that this somehow reflects reality, whereas rationalism has to assume a mind and that the mind possesses a trait called reason.

Personally, I think empiricism is often mistaken for sensory realism - which is probably because realism can be empiricism just like a cat can be an animal. It doesn't go the other way around however.

Quote

01-28-2010 , 06:42 PM

#11

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Yeah, because observation isn't theory laden...or doesn't require assumptions about metaphysics or the reliability of sense perception.

Quote

01-29-2010 , 05:39 AM

#12

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Yeah, because observation isn't theory laden...or doesn't require assumptions about metaphysics or the reliability of sense perception.

Experience is not observation. I'll requote my first post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Quote

01-29-2010 , 06:39 AM

#13

scorcher863

banned

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,530

Tame, couldn't you just as easily say the same about experience -- with experience you have to worry about the philosophical problem of proving there is an experiencer and something he or she is experiencing?

Quote

01-29-2010 , 06:53 AM

#14

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorcher863

I would personally say no, because you don't have to axiomatically assume there is a "he/she" or "something". You can acknowledge that these are merely what you experience and not necessarily real in any way, you can do the same for the "mind" also.

The only thing you have to acknowledge exists is the "experience of phenomena", not necessarily that there are phenomena.

I can see both what you and durka are saying however, and the logic behind it.

Quote

01-29-2010 , 07:10 AM

#15

scorcher863

banned

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,530

Ah ok, I think I see what you're saying, kinda like madnak's solipsism arguments.

Quote

01-29-2010 , 07:17 AM

#16

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorcher863

Ah ok, I think I see what you're saying, kinda like madnak's solipsism arguments.

shhhh

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...