Empiricism vs. Rationalism

[hyksos]

I fear that a large contingency of internet atheists are unaware that logic is limited. While logic is a powerful tool and a necessary skill for a disciplined mind, it is not all-powerful. Even in mathematics, we have to confront the uncomfortable fact of the existence of propositions that are true, but which cannot be proven.

These thorny problems inevitably circle back to Rationalism

Mathematical platonism has considerable philosophical significance. If the view is true, it will put great pressure on the physicalist idea that reality is exhausted by the physical. For platonism entails that reality extends far beyond the physical world and includes objects which aren’t part of the causal and spatiotemporal order studied by the physical sciences. Mathematical platonism, if true, will also put great pressure on many naturalistic theories of knowledge. For there is little doubt that we possess mathematical knowledge. The truth of mathematical platonism would therefore establish that we have knowledge of abstract (and thus causally inefficacious) objects. This would be an important discovery, which many naturalistic theories of knowledge would struggle to accommodate.

What do we mean when we say that a mathematical proposition is "true", but which we have shown cannot be proven?

[Serpent]

What do we mean when we say that a mathematical proposition is "true", but which we have shown cannot be proven?

What has that to do with unbelief in religious doctrines?

[hyksos]

This particular topic is unrelated to religious doctrines -- presuming by "religious doctrines" you mean a collection of moral codes engaged in by believers.

Having said that, if you are engaged in a debate around apologetics, and this debate/discussion centers around theological non-cognitivism , or other discussions of first causes (i.e. "Where did the universe come from?" and/or "WHy is there something rather than nothing?") The word "God" may be brought up in such a context, where "God" is an irreligious, abstract, depersonalized entity. Depending on the participants, such conceptual discussions may breach topics like

(+) Causal closure of the physical
(+) Naturalism
(+) The possibility of the existence of non-physical things.
(+) Discussions of things existing outside the universe and what does that mean.
(+) The degree to which a mathematical truth would be true in any universe. ("You cannot divide by zero.")
(+) Why does the universe follow logic?
(+) Does the universe abide by logic?
(+) What does it mean that something is true independent of it being instantiated in any universe?

The very idea that we can reason out the non-existence or existence of something using reason alone is center stage. There are entire traditions of such reasoning, extended to book length expository, what is now referred to by historians as "scholasticism".

I didn't create this thread to debate the existence of God. I titled this Empricism vs. Rationalism. In any case, I hope that answered your question.

[Serpent]

This particular topic is unrelated to religious doctrines -- presuming by "religious doctrines" you mean a collection of moral codes engaged in by believers.

Then why start it with

a large contingency of internet atheists

?
Unidentified usernames regarding whose awareness a sweeping statement is made, which is then connected, without explanation, to a statement regarding mathematics, by the word "even", which implies, but does not justify a connection. It was this implied connection I questioned.

Having said that, if you are engaged in a debate around apologetics, and this debate/discussion centers around theological non-cognitivism , or other discussions of first causes (i.e. "Where did the universe come from?" and/or "WHy is there something rather than nothing?") The word "God" may be brought up in such a context, where "God" is an irreligious, abstract, depersonalized entity.

That word may be brought up in religious apologetics, but only as the name of a specific deity.
" is an irreligious, abstract, depersonalized entity" is not a god. If it were, "God" could be a stand-in for anything we don't know, and nobody could ever tell what anybody else meant by it, so the alt-Abrahamites wouldn't know whom to stone.

I didn't create this thread to debate the existence of God. I titled this Empricism vs. Rationalism. In any case, I hope that answered your question.

Not directly. However, I have another one:
Why? What are participants, should they choose to accept the challenge, expected to debate?

[hyksos]

Then why start it with "a large contingency of internet atheists" ?

The internet atheists sneaked into this thread when a copy-pasted from another one. That was an accident of editing.

to a statement regarding mathematics, by the word "even", which implies, but does not justify a connection. It was this implied connection I questioned.

I will justify the connection now. David Hilbert, and others around him, naturally assumed that mathematics was the strongest candidate to act as a concrete foundation of all knowledge. Mathematics can identify its own axioms in a systematic way, and so we would expect that mathematics would be the first human discipline to yield to completeness. Perhaps the second discipline to yield would be physics. (Then maybe computer science). Godel destroyed the dream in math. The Halting Problem destroyed the project in computer science.

That word may be brought up in religious apologetics, but only as the name of a specific deity.
" is an irreligious, abstract, depersonalized entity" is not a god.

I understand your epistemic rule for "God" only allowable as a label to attach to a specific deity from a specific religious tradition. However, this rule has not been binding on the internet for over 20 years now. As proof that this is the case, please read the following portions of talk.origins

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html
talk.origins was an area on a part of the internet that no longer exists, called usenet which was active in the 1990s.

My 2nd item of evidence is from 1982. This was a court case in Arkansas in which the teaching of creation science would be removed from public schools there. The most interesting aspect of this court case is that the promoters of "Creation science" had to walk on a thin balancing line... they had to walk on eggshells in the court and in all paperwork submitted to court. At any moment , a single mention of the bible would cause their case to be thrown out immediately, as this would constitute an admission of teaching a religion. So they played a legal and semantic tic-tac-toe game of stripping biblical references and referring to an abstract "Creator".

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/529/1255/2354824/

Why? What are participants, should they choose to accept the challenge, expected to debate?

I have made an excursion into your question. The stated title of this forum thread is Re: Empiricism vs. Rationalism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

[Serpent]

That was an accident of editing.

OK so we can forget all about religious/unreligious debate?

David Hilbert, and others around him, naturally assumed that mathematics was the strongest candidate to act as a concrete foundation of all knowledge.

Well, a mathematician would, wouldn't he? How is that related to apologetics?

I understand your epistemic rule for "God" only allowable as a label to attach to a specific deity from a specific religious tradition. However, this rule has not been binding on the internet for over 20 years now. As proof that this is the case, please read the following portions of talk.origins

How's that relevant? The word has a definite and particular meaning that goes quite a lot farther back than the the bible, the internet, 1982 or crazy legal semantics. God capitalized means the particular god of a monotheistic religion, while god or gods refer to all deities. Not pixies, not trolls, not poltergeists, not spooks, not naiads, not Ents, not zombies, not guardian angels, and certainly not Something That Might Be Out Beyond The Universe That We Can't Know Anything About.

Oxford:
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

Would it be foolish to ask again: What is it you wish to discuss?

[hyksos]

Not pixies, not trolls, not poltergeists, not spooks, not naiads, not Ents, not zombies, not guardian angels, and certainly not Something That Might Be Out Beyond The Universe That We Can't Know Anything About.

Rationalism permits Truths Out Beyond The Universe.

Strict forms of empiricism would prohibit them as existing or being useful for any knowledge.

[Serpent]

[gods are] Not pixies, not trolls, not poltergeists, not spooks, not naiads, not Ents, not zombies, not guardian angels, and certainly not Something That Might Be Out Beyond The Universe That We Can't Know Anything About.

Rationalism permits Truths Out Beyond The Universe.

Strict forms of empiricism would prohibit them as existing or being useful for any knowledge.

Truths, eh? Then perhaps Falsehoods, too. Gods - probably not.
Anyway, if something - or Something - exists outside the universe, it's not really likely to be useful to puny little Earth-bound species. But I don't see how a puny little Earth-bound philosophical discipline can permit or prohibit it or It from existing. All that the advocates of a philosophy can do is tell other people what and how to think - but cannot compel them to accede, or even to take the philosophy seriously.

[charon]

Why do you divide sensory experience from reason? We are a unit as a human being. Life isn't only sensory, or reasoning, or intellectual, or emotional. We are all these things and more, not just one or two.

When you choose only one and put it in opposition to another it doesn't mean anything. We are a whole, living life as a whole, we're not isms. When you break down all the facets of ourselves intellectually it's merely verbal, just an amusement unrelated to how we actually are.

If you want to understand the whole of existence, which is not just our existence, then obviously it can't be done with logic alone, or with reason alone, or with the part of oneself called the intellect alone. It has to be done holistically.

[hyksos]

charon,

Running the risk of talking past each other -- when it comes to the topic of rationalism versus empiricism, the target of that topic is not introspection for me. Instead, my intended targets are modern physics, justifying the Big Bang, and maybe some issues related to Artificial Intelligence.

[charon]

Okay. Sorry, we seem to have strayed from those subjects in your discussion with Serpent!

[hyksos]

(I wrote a 9 paragraph extravaganza in this thread. The forum did not save it when I clicked Submit. I just realized it did not save it this morning. Currently scraping through my browser history to see if there is any remnants of it.)

[hyksos]

(no dice on the 9 paragraphs I wrote last night. It appears that in Firefox, half-posted replies on this forum will appear as "Post a reply" in your history. There was one saved, but it was in another thread here. In any case. I ended up at the end linking this video, which covers Rationalism.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2-k9-6H8iI

[hyksos]

( maybe I can distill my 9 paragraphs down to2. )

For the last 15 years of my life which I knew about Rationalism (aka Greek Rationalism) I walked around believing it was a philosophical system from a bygone era ; a vestigial organ of a pre-scientific time in history. I was convinced that the enlightenment had overturned Rationalism, replacing it in whole by Empiricism. I believed that all respectable philosophers and intellectuals walked the halls understanding that Rationalism is wrong, and Empiricism is correct.

Standing here today in 2021, I realize that Rationalism is still very much alive. The leveraging of truths which transcend the physical world is the human phenomenon at stake. Leveraging such truth may even be necessary to perform science at all. The discussion begins with and turns upon mathematics -- and in mathematic's relationship to the sciences.

[Serpent]

I don't understand this sentence:

The leveraging of truths which transcend the physical world is the human phenomenon at stake.

I am mystified by leverage, transcendental truths, human phenomenon, and at stake.

[hyksos]

I am mystified by leverage, transcendental truths, human phenomenon, and at stake.

Did enlightened Empiricism replace the antiquated Rationalism?

[Serpent]

I am mystified by leverage, transcendental truths, human phenomenon, and at stake.

Did enlightened Empiricism replace the antiquated Rationalism?

I don't know.
But what do those terms mean?

[hyksos]

I don't know.
But what do those terms mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2-k9-6H8iI

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2-k9-6H8iI

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

[Serpent]

That doesn't look anything like a glossary.
My problem here is that I see words strung together that don't seem to belong in the same conceptual realm, let alone the same sentence.
For example, I know what leverage is in mechanics; I have a hazy notion of what it means in finance; I have never encountered it in philosophy.

[charon]

Well, if the battle is between Empiricism as observation and experiment and Rationalism as reason, it's nice to know that presumably we can now conquer the coronavirus pandemic by reasoning with it.