Submitted by thelivingphilosophy t3_xvcjkn in philosophy
Reply to comment by corrective_action in Empiricism — the philosophy of Locke, Berkeley and Hume that argued knowledge was derived only from sensory experience (against Descartes’s Rationalists) and provided the philosophical foundation for the scientific method by thelivingphilosophy
>but the knowledge isn't generated by thinking/deducing
But.. this isn't true?
Take the black hole example for instance. It's physcially impossible to directly observe a black hole. Yet, based on the observations of the movement of material around a back hole, we can deduce it's existance, and even begin to characterize the physical laws governing how the black hole 'works' - but this is all based on indirect observation.
The same things occurs the opposite end of the scale too. For example it's impossible for biochemists to directly observe things like bond angle, bond length or the location of an electron in a bond - instead, these things are deduced (to relatively a high decree of certainty) based a combination of a bunch of indirect observation and indirect testing to confirm the theories.
The main thing to understand here is that none of your examples given here could be discovered through pure rationalism.
Descartes, for example, could not sit on his armchair and -- without any observation -- come to the conclusion of a black hole. What empiricism is saying, and what you've already said in your previous answers, is that to deductively assert the proposition of a black hole, we still need to observe 'around' the black hole, or however you want to put it.
To conclude, take observe out of your argument, and you have nothing, it must first be derived from the senses, even if that entity is not directly observable, it is inferible from previous observations of other empirical phenomena.
Observation without analysis is equally meaningless, to give one priority over the other is silly.
No, it isn't, since the claim of empiricism is that all knowledge is derived from experience. It doesn't matter what analysis is done afterwards, considering that it wouldn't exist in the first place without the sensibility picking up on raw datum from the physical world.
The experience is equally meaningless without analysis, there's an argument to be made that meaningful observations can't even exist without analysis. When you see the world that's not raw sensory input that's a picture your brain built out of it. Just because the analysis is automatic doesn't mean it's not important.
You're not even arguing against me right now. I don't deny the importance of reflection or reason. I am simply defending the claim that all knowledge is first derived from the senses.
Also, you could argue that, sensibility exists without reason, when you take a look at the animal kingdom. Whereas reason CANNOT exist without the sensibility. Imagine you're born into a world cut off from all the senses; impossible, since there would be nothing.
Thus it follows that sensibility is the independent and reason the dependant, it wholly relies on the subject to be able to perceive through sensibility.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments