I forgot the most basic and possibly most useful one: A ∧ A →B ⊢ B, i.e. the Modus Ponens, which is the workhorse of our rationality. Without it, you'd have to be lost in a world now too complicated for your brain to process.So what use is a logical truth unless some part of it is connected to reality?
Reason needs both knowledge and logic. The most usual reasoning seems to be A ∧ A →B ⊢ B, so you need logic, even if i's usually intuitive, and you need the know both that A is true and that A →B is true, which both require knowledge of the world.True
But reason is based on the accumulation of knowledge .
We don't need any knowledge to recognise logical truths.Without knowledge how would you recognise a logical truth ?
Sorry, I don't understand your post. What's an objective mind?The logical objection to empiricism is not logic so much as it is , the objective mind of the interpreter of the empirical information .
Although this hints at a logic .
Sorry, I don't understand your post. What's an objective mind?
Or are you saying that we know our own mind and we don't need an science to achieve this?
EB
OK, but then I don't understand your point: "The logical objection to empiricism is not logic so much as it is , the objective mind of the interpreter of the empirical information ."An objective mind , is a mind that sees things as they are , rather than just from a Humans perspective .
OK, but then I don't understand your point: "The logical objection to empiricism is not logic so much as it is , the objective mind of the interpreter of the empirical information ."
Why would the objective mind of this interpreter be an objection to empiricism?
EB
Because empiricism only gets you so far in understanding this Universe . The Universe is made of more than matter .
Sorry but I still don't understand your claim that "The logical objection to empiricism is not logic so much as it is , the objective mind of the interpreter of the empirical information". How is that a logical objection?! There's nothing logical about it. You have to assume a lot before it becomes an objection at all: that there are objective minds, that they really see things as they are, and that they indeed see things beyond mere matter. Further, anything these objective minds would see beyond matter would anyway also become an empirical object like matter itself. So, your assumption is no objection to empiricism.
EB
Empiricism has to do with what can be measured, not just matter.Because empiricism only gets you so far in understanding this Universe . The Universe is made of more than matter .
Empiricism has to do with what can be measured, not just matter.
Energy, health, diversity, fairness, happiness...What is measured that is not matter ?
river said: ↑
What is measured that is not matter ?
Energy, health, diversity, fairness, happiness...
I'm sure that's true but you'd need to be a little bit more specific. As it is, I don't understand what you are trying to say.Because empirical information , some people can see empirical information in a non-dogmatic way .
The mind is an empirical object.How would the mind become an empirical object ?
Measured? No.Empiricism has to do with what can be measured, not just matter.
EBEmpirical
1. derived from experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. in medicine.
3. verifiable by experience or experiment.
New
↑
Because empirical information , some people can see empirical information in a non-dogmatic way .
I'm sure that's true but you'd need to be a little bit more specific. As it is, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
A logical truth is a statement or logical expression which is necessarily true. That is to say, a logical truth could not possibly be false.
Or perhaps less metaphysically, there doesn't seem to be any conceivable logical case or situation in which we would assess the expression as being false.
Now, the mere existence of logical truths seems to be a problem for Empiricism...
Logic doesn't constrain reality. Logical truths are not statements about reality but about our representation of reality and a representation of reality may be somehow untrue of reality, in which case, things may well be possible in reality even though they look impossible within our representation of reality.My concern with that is how human beings can possibly know what is and isn't necessary or possible in reality.
Logic works on what is conceivable and it seems a fact of life that we can conceive of non-physical things, like God, our own subjective experience, and abstract things, like "natural laws", nothingness and what not.This isn't physical possibility that we're talking about either, it's... something stronger and more fundamental than that, something more metaphysical.
I don't think that we can choose the way we think. Conceivability is basic to the human perspective on life, even in everyday situations. Obviously, reality is not compelled by our conceptions. It only a limitation of our mind.Do we really want to reduce what is and isn't possible in reality to conceivability by human beings? That introduces a whole lot of variables that probably shouldn't be there. Cognitive powers, historical situation and whatnot.
Is that conceivable?Cockroaches can't conceive of Einstein's relativity. Are we supposed to think that human beings are the apex of all possible cognition and that what we can and can't conceive define the boundaries of reality itself? What if we encounter a space alien out there that stands in the same relation to us that we stand to the cockroach?
Exactly.That certainly seems to be true if we define 'empiricism' as the idea that all knowledge comes from sensory experience and try to include logic as knowledge.
At least, it shows our categories are usually bogus. What seemed a priori yesterday suddenly looks more empirical.I agree that logic and mathematics have always been the problem cases for a strict sort of empiricism.
That's what measurement means.Measured? No.
Anything you can observe, experience or experiment on is an empirical object.
No.That's what measurement means.