The Myth Of Empirical Knowledge, Data, Evidence

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of empirical knowledge, data, and evidence, questioning the reliability and objectivity of scientific methods and observations. Participants explore the subjective nature of knowledge and the limitations of empirical evidence in the context of scientific theories and personal perceptions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that all human observation is subjective and that empirical evidence is ultimately based on personal perceptions, which are fallible.
  • Another participant suggests that empirical knowledge is not absolute and is often based on statistical probabilities rather than definitive truths.
  • There is a discussion about whether knowing is equivalent to faith, with some participants asserting that knowledge is distinct from faith and is based on experience.
  • Participants express skepticism about the reliability of data collected in scientific contexts, emphasizing the need to question the quality of data.
  • One participant posits that the only absolute truth they recognize is the statement "I am," which is not a matter of faith but rather a self-evident realization.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of knowing versus faith, and there are multiple competing views regarding the reliability of empirical knowledge and the subjective nature of human perception.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in empirical methods, including the fallibility of sensory perception and instruments, as well as the uncertainty inherent in scientific theories.

Royce
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
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
Royce, Your right there, just have a whisky, it will be OK. :approve:

So then is knowing just pure faith?
 
Last edited:
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 knowledge, data, information or experience. IMHO :approve:
 
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 knowledge, 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
:-p
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K