Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Against Empricism - Main

Continuing from last post.

Having established that the only way to dismiss a worldview is to adopt it and check for internal consistency, let us run the numbers on empiricism:
"The only reliable basis for knowledge, the only route from subjectivity to objectivity, is to relentlessly subject a belief to doubt, then to allay the doubt (or confirm it) by gathering evidence that’s independent of one’s commitment to the belief."
We must subject this statement to itself. Where is the evidence that this is true? At best, we have only pragmatism, "It has worked in the past". By the same logic, I will live forever, since I haven't died yet. (And no, proving I will die doesn't address the point - pragmatism is not an empistemology)

There are more internal ironies:
"science as it’s commonly practiced manifestly does not make any commitment to naturalism"

"scientific theories rule out any appeal to an explanatory agency or power, whether it be God, the soul or free will, for which there is no good evidence or testable specification."
"Ruling out any appeal to a Higher Power" is naturalism. Again, where is the evidence that God is subject to test? God specifically says, "Do not put me to the test".
"we must find evidence for them outside private subjective experience, evidence that’s publicly observable by those who haven’t experienced God’s embrace"
Again, where is the evidence that "public observable evidence" is the only way of knowing? God says that He intentionally darkens those who are wise in their own eyes - blinding them to knowledge of Him.

Some choice quotes:
"there’s no epistemic space in which to construct such an alternative [as supernaturalism]"
"any deliberate departure from [empiricism] is immoral since it jeopardizes the well-being of the entire community"
"any ideological bias against the necessity for empiricism, such as faith in God’s providence, should be seen as a disqualification for public office"
Ahh, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
"To imagine that one’s worldview, whether religious or secular, is beyond disconfirmation helps to license an absolutism which brooks no dissent and countenances the demonization of those with different ideas."
Wait, didn't they just argue empiricism is beyond disconfirmation? Don't they license an absolutism which brooks no dissent and countenances demonization?

Empiricism is false under its own assumptions. It is hypocritical and self-righteous.

No comments: