Epistemology 101

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:59:34 GMT

                                       Epistemology 101
                                              ----------

                                           (Positivism)

Without any way to decide the truth of empirical observations except
the absence of self contradiction, one is forced to fall back on the
idea of utility as the basis of epistemology.If one cannot judge truth
one must judge value.

Of course all sciences judge truth in terms of self contradiction, the
falsification of empirical observation through empirical observation.
However with no ability to judge truth in absolute terms, there is no
model of reality in general with which to judge empirical observations
in general without reference to other empirical observations.

This is a very tedious and cumbersome process which yields no further
indication of cause one way or the other and forces us to invalidate
empirical observations without gaining further insight as to what may
be true. In other words, it shows what is false but not what is true
of one thing in relation to others. For further insight we are forced
to rely on educated guesses rather than causation or instrumentality.

The curious thing about this is that empirical observations are
neither true nor false in themselves; they are only true or false in
relation to other things. Any empirical observation can only be taken
as true in the absence of self contradiction through other empirical
observations and we cannot otherwise know that they are false.

However we cannot know the reverse: that any empirical observation is
false without evidence of self contradiction. Consequently empirical
observers are in the enviable position of not having to prove what
they say is true or even necessarily understand what it is that they
are saying in order to assert that it is not false. Whereas naysayers
are in the rather awkward position of having to know what empiricists
are talking about is not true and why.

Strangely enough in positivism it turns out that the burden of proof
is on the negativist not the positivist.

                         (Positivist Forensic Techniques)

This means that we are faced with a negativism in science where
empiricsts do not have to prove truth but naysayers have to prove
falsity. Consider a certain forensic technique. Empiricist A asserts
observation B as not false because there is no mechanical standard of
reality in general against which to judge the truth of B. Naysayer X
wishes to argue against B but is forced to demand from A the meaning
of B. And if A recognizes what he is up against, he merely replies B
is whatever he says it is as long as B is not self contradictory. And
even if in conflict with other empirical observations, A can change B.

Naysayer X is thus stymied unless he in turn appeals to philosophy
rather than science to decide the issue. He must counter B with some
ad hoc rationale designed to exclude certain interpretations of B.

Consider the problem of mentation or the mind and mental effects
posited as causes for sentient behavior. I opine that mentation is a
cause of human behavior. And the typical materialist is immediately
driven to demand what I mean by mentation or the mind and mental
effects. Of course, I cleverly evade being pinned down so as to avoid
the numerous traps laid for the unwary by materialists on this
particular subject and simply decline to answer, recognizing that it
is the naysayer's responsibility for knowing what he is denying and
not mine for knowing what I am asserting simply because I have no way
to know what I am asserting in the absence of any universal frame of
reference for reality in mechanical terms.

In order to deny mentation, materialists have to construct a whole
series of philosophical rationales with which preclude mentation on
more or less plausible terms so they can claim contradiction of any
mentalist interpretation of behavior even in speculative terms.

Does this seem unfair? Yes I would certainly agree that it is. However
this is the way science has to be conducted in positivism with the
doctrinal absence of any definitive view of reality. Physics suffers
from this peculiar miasma almost completely and mathematics to the
extent it has no mechanical ontology to support its axioms.

The reason is that there are two kinds of processes involved: emprical
and logical. Empirical observations just represent positive judgments.
Logical inference on the other hand represent negations of positive
judgments compounded in various ways.

In effect empirical observation is the out-there and logical inference
the in-here. This is true regardless of where empirical observation
actually occurs. We could have empirical observation within the brain,
but we cannot have logical inference outside the brain or comparable
organ. The reason is that to the extent negation occurs, it is defined
and circumscribed by the mechanics of negation and to the extent
negation is not what is out-there, it must be in-here.

                                         ------------------

Let's examine certain consequences of this view of epistemology.
Without any overall view of reality that allows us to judge empirical
observation directly in positive terms, absent self contradiction, we
are forced to rely on an assumption of not false which means naysayers
are forced to provide evidence of contradiction and to provide
evidence of meaning in terms of what contradicts what.

This kind of epistemology is called positivism. Positivism knows it
cannot judge empirical observations in terms of absolute truth; so, it
relies on educated guesses and the absence of self contradiction as a
substitute for truth. And naysayers are required to produce either
absolute truth or evidence of meaning and self contradiction.

So far we are on good positivistic grounds. However, now a curious
problems emerges. How are we to judge the significance of empirical
truth? In the absence of self contradiction we are just forced to rely
on some judgment of value instead of truth. Empiricist B maintains
that such and such is true of behavior but actually bases the merit of
his claims on some form of pragmatic utility or what works instead. He
has to because as positivists everywhere understand he can't prove his
speculative observations are actually true.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Epistemology 101
    ... Without any way to decide the truth of empirical observations except ... Of course all sciences judge truth in terms of self contradiction, ... Strangely enough in positivism it turns out that the burden of proof ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Epistemology 101
    ... Without any way to decide the truth of empirical observations except ... Of course all sciences judge truth in terms of self contradiction, ... Strangely enough in positivism it turns out that the burden of proof ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 101
    ... >Lester Zick wrote: ... >> Without any way to decide the truth of empirical observations except ... >> idea of utility as the basis of epistemology.If one cannot judge truth ... >What's in yer wallet? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 101
    ... >Lester Zick wrote: ... >> Without any way to decide the truth of empirical observations except ... >> idea of utility as the basis of epistemology.If one cannot judge truth ... >What's in yer wallet? ...
    (sci.cognitive)