The Myth Of Empirical Knowledge, Data, Evidence

In summary: If not then you may want to reevaluate your learning goals and methods. In summary, the scientific method is a methodology for acquiring knowledge based on empirical evidence that can be replicated and verified by more than one person or group.
  • #1
Royce
1,539
0
The Scientific Method is based on empirical evidence that can be duplicated and verified by more than one person or group. The operative word here is EMPIRICAL.

Empirical: that which is observed or experienced; capable of being
verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

Here “observation or experiment” are the operative words. All human observation and experience are ultimately and inevitably personal subjective perceptions of sensory input.

Our sensory organs are limited and fallible. Our instruments are limited and fallible. There is no absolutely accurate device with which we can measure the results or outcome of any experiment. There is no know absolute constant in the universe with which to measure anything with the possible exception of the speed of light, c; and, even that is an unobservable and disprovable assumption of relativity. Even if there were such a device or constant there is nothing else in the universe to measure that is absolute or constant. Everything is subject to uncertainty, relativity and subject to error and human perceptions. At best we can come up with is an acceptable statistical correlation on which to base or perceptions of objective, material, physical reality.

We say knowledge, data, evidence is empirical if it is observable, experienced, verifiable and provable or disprovable yet many closely and favorably held theories are not observable, not experiential, not provable nor disprovable. The Big Bang theory and string or superstring theory are two such theories that come immediately to mind. QM is at best an extremely accurate estimation and not supported by valid acceptable mathematical procedures as its formula and equations are “normalized” to get rid of all those pesky infinities.

The point is that every and all bits of knowledge, data, information or evidence whether garnered by experiment, observation or experience is all subject to the limits of our instruments, our senses, uncertainty, relativity and to individual human subjective perceptions. There is no such thing as scientific, objective, empirical evidence, date or knowledge. There is only human perceptions of limited data of unknown accuracy that is statistical in nature that we use to build our models of an ever changing non-absolute universe which is in indefinable part of our reality.

We guess at physical reality, the universe and call our guesses empirical evidence. This is not bad. It is the best and only thing that we can do. We must, however, realize that when we put the tag “empirical” on something that does not make it true or absolute.
It simply may mean that this is our best SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Royce, Your right there, just have a whisky, it will be OK. :approve:

So then is knowing just pure faith?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Radder said:
Royce, Your right there, just have a whiskey, it will be OK. :approve:

Thanks, I feel better already. If fact I feel like another one. :wink:

So then is knowing just pure faith?

No, knowing is knowing what you know and don't know. Knowing that the data collected or the information in books, even textbooks, or scientific papers is not Gospel, not absolute, and is little more than a statistical probability not fact or truth. I can remember a lab instructor telling us that first we have to determine how good is our data.

There is nothing that is known absolutely or with absolute certainty. We must question or reserve some little bit of doubt or skepticism. All knowledge is experiential subjective perception. Empirical knowledge is not absolute nor necessarily of any higher order of knowledge than any other kind of knowledge just because of the tags "emperical" or "scientific"; nor does emperical knowledge necessarily preclude or invalidate any other form of knowlege, data, information or experience. IMHO :approve:
 
  • #4
Royce said:
No, knowing is knowing what you know and don't know.

OK but which one is the pure faith, the knowing what you know or the what you don't know or niether?

Knowing that the data collected or the information in books, even textbooks, or scientific papers is not Gospel, not absolute, and is little more than a statistical probability not fact or truth. I can remember a lab instructor telling us that first we have to determine how good is our data.

There is nothing that is known absolutely or with absolute certainty. We must question or reserve some little bit of doubt or skepticism. All knowledge is experiential subjective perception. Empirical knowledge is not absolute nor necessarily of any higher order of knowledge than any other kind of knowledge just because of the tags "emperical" or "scientific"; nor does emperical knowledge necessarily preclude or invalidate any other form of knowlege, data, information or experience. IMHO :approve:

If your capable of taking a lot of time to fully read this, you might, add an antidote to, what you have written. It will be like sipping good old irish whiskey.
http://www.twow.net/MclOtaI.htm
:tongue2:
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Short answer, neither. Knowing is in a way the opposite of faith. If one has knowledge one does not require faith in that area. Knowledge is based on experience and understanding which of course is all subjective. The only Absolute Truth that I know in this area without going into religion is; "I am." That is not a matter of faith; nor, is it a matter of faith that I do not absolutely know anything else but must deduce it from experiential evidence. I am in the process of reading your link and will get back to your when I've finished.
 
  • #6
Royce said:
Short answer, neither. Knowing is in a way the opposite of faith. If one has knowledge one does not require faith in that area. Knowledge is based on experience and understanding which of course is all subjective. The only Absolute Truth that I know in this area without going into religion is; "I am." That is not a matter of faith; nor, is it a matter of faith that I do not absolutely know anything else but must deduce it from experiential evidence. I am in the process of reading your link and will get back to your when I've finished.

You stated a few posts ago that we can not trust anything about knowing. Faith would be the only thing left if you trust nothing? I agree with you on the "I am". But what if you used the link for testing all the rest? :rolleyes:
 

1. What is the myth of empirical knowledge?

The myth of empirical knowledge is the belief that all knowledge can be obtained through direct observation and experimentation. It assumes that data and evidence are objective and unbiased, and that they can provide definitive answers to questions about the world.

2. Why is the myth of empirical knowledge problematic?

The myth of empirical knowledge can be problematic because it overlooks the subjective nature of human perception and interpretation. It also ignores the influence of societal and cultural biases on data collection and analysis. Additionally, it assumes that all phenomena can be measured and studied, when in reality, some things may be beyond our current scientific understanding.

3. How does the myth of empirical knowledge affect scientific research?

The myth of empirical knowledge can influence the types of research questions that are asked and the methods used to answer them. It can also lead to a preference for quantitative data over qualitative data, and a prioritization of objectivity over subjectivity. This can limit the scope and depth of scientific inquiry, and may result in biased or incomplete conclusions.

4. Is there any truth to the myth of empirical knowledge?

While empirical knowledge is an important aspect of scientific research, it is not the only source of knowledge. Other forms of knowledge, such as intuition, creativity, and personal experience, can also play a role in shaping our understanding of the world. Additionally, empirical data and evidence must be interpreted and analyzed by humans, who are inherently subjective beings.

5. How can scientists overcome the myth of empirical knowledge?

To overcome the myth of empirical knowledge, scientists should recognize and acknowledge the limitations of data and evidence. They should also strive to incorporate diverse perspectives and methods in their research, and be open to exploring alternative forms of knowledge. It is important for scientists to critically examine their own biases and to continuously question and challenge traditional scientific paradigms.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
765
Replies
14
Views
842
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
974
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top