A priori knowledge.

The scientific method is the basis of all the sciences, it defines what scientific fact is, and it is common to see people interpretate scientific fact as being a absolute way to distinguish between real and unreal, but I propose there is logical contradictions in that interpretation, and that I will show.

We know that the scientific method, which is the basis of all the sciences, is based on empiricism. Now here is a definition of empiricism taken from wikipedia :

Empiricism is therefore the philosophical doctrine of "testing" or "experimentation," and has taken on the more specific meaning that all human knowledge ultimately comes from the senses and from experience. Empiricism denies that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience.

Take a look at the part where it says "denies that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience", this means that empiricism denies the existence of "a priori" knowledge. "A priori" knowledge is the same as innate ideas.

the term a priori is considered to mean propositional knowledge that can be had without, or "prior to", experience. It is usually contrasted with a posteriori knowledge meaning "after experience", which requires experience

Now remember that empiricism is still a "philosophical doctrine", that means it is a principle, a body of teachings or instructions that science assume as true to make use of it. Observe that a philosophical doctrine cannot be true or false by itself, it is just instructions, and we need to assume them as true or false. But to assume it as true, like it is made in empiricism means that it is an innate idea, or "a priori" knowledge, since we made an assumption. There is where the contradiction appears ; empiricism denies the existence of innate ideas, but empiricism itself is an innate idea. This contradiction appears because we always need to make an assumption, we can´t deduce everything, and empiricism is the assumption that assumptions are not valid ways to obtain knowledge(everything must be deducted in empiricism).

Another simple way to look at it :

We make use of faith, and intuition to create assumptions/premises/axioms. In other words, we need to make use of our faith and intuition to assume empiricism, which denies faith and intuition as valid ways to obtain knowledge. That is a contradiction.

But of course you are just assuming that... 😆

I believe that there are innate ideas; however, most innate ideas that are put forth by humans are tainted by personal ambitions. We have to control this selfish imagination, so we put forth the idea that experience is the basis of knowledge. This works to the better because even though we may throw away a true innate idea that comes along, we are saved from the endless Deano's in the world.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Another simple way to look at it :

We make use of faith, and intuition to create assumptions/premises/axioms. In other words, we need to make use of our faith and intuition to assume empiricism, which denies faith and intuition as valid ways to obtain knowledge. That is a contradiction.

Absolutely. But the true scientist will accept this because, frankly, sometimes we have no choice. We can still acquire reliable information through scientific method, if not necessarily valid information. Because of this, scientific method can be used to investigate nonempirical phenomena, as long as one is fair about it.

The scientician, on the other hand, is the one who will find himself cornered when he utters, "Only empirical evidence counts." To rephrase your point, there is no empirical evidence even for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts."

Originally posted by Atlantis001
The scientific method is the basis of all the sciences, it defines what scientific fact is, and it is common to see people interpretate scientific fact as being a absolute way to distinguish between real and unreal, but I propose there is logical contradictions in that interpretation, and that I will show.

We know that the scientific method, which is the basis of all the sciences, is based on empiricism. Now here is a definition of empiricism taken from wikipedia :

Take a look at the part where it says "denies that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience", this means that empiricism denies the existence of "a priori" knowledge. "A priori" knowledge is the same as innate ideas.

Now remember that empiricism is still a "philosophical doctrine", that means it is a principle, a body of teachings or instructions that science assume as true to make use of it. Observe that a philosophical doctrine cannot be true or false by itself, it is just instructions, and we need to assume them as true or false. But to assume it as true, like it is made in empiricism means that it is an innate idea, or "a priori" knowledge, since we made an assumption. There is where the contradiction appears ; empiricism denies the existence of innate ideas, but empiricism itself is an innate idea. This contradiction appears because we always need to make an assumption, we can´t deduce everything, and empiricism is the assumption that assumptions are not valid ways to obtain knowledge(everything must be deducted in empiricism).

You mean religion isn't the only thing that contradicts itself 😱

Imagine that 🙄

If Science defines itself by Method, and not by the nature of proof, there is no contradiction. Only Scientism contradicts itself.
If Religion defines itself through Compassion and not by a MGIBTYG mindset, there is no contradiction. Only Religionism contradicts itself.

With honesty of heart and mind, both Science and Religion bring knowledge and wisdom.

But with ego at the helm, you get a self-serving agenda which spells trouble.

Originally posted by Mindship
If Science defines itself by Method, and not by the nature of proof, there is no contradiction. Only Scientism contradicts itself.
If Religion defines itself through Compassion and not by a MGIBTYG mindset, there is no contradiction. Only Religionism contradicts itself.

With honesty of heart and mind, both Science and Religion bring knowledge and wisdom.

But with ego at the helm, you get a self-serving agenda which spells trouble.

All things in principal are good.

-✅

Originally posted by Mindship
Absolutely. But the true scientist will accept this because, frankly, sometimes we have no choice. We can still acquire reliable information through scientific method, if not necessarily valid information. Because of this, scientific method can be used to investigate nonempirical phenomena, as long as one is fair about it.

The scientician, on the other hand, is the one who will find himself cornered when he utters, "Only empirical evidence counts." To rephrase your point, there is no empirical evidence even for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts."

I agree, but it is rare to see a scientist who recognizes that he need to have "faith" in science, that he need to assume that the scientific method works, and that it can´t be proved it must be believed. Many never thought about this or even realized this.

I agree we can still obtain reliable information by the use of the scientific method(even if it is just an intuition), but the majority of the scientific community will not agree if you say that it was needed to use intuition and faith to make that information reliable. After all it is just our intuition that "thinks" the information is reliable.

And good way that you put it ; there is no empirical evidence that justifies "Only empirical evidence counts."

Originally posted by Wesker
Secondly, Atlantis- the problem with what you are presenting on Gödel's behalf is that it is a purely rational argument trying to explain something that is not purely rational. You are trying to single out the "pre-logic" spark or tool that allows us or forces us to accept and use reason. However, the problem with this is that logic being seemingly incomplete does not invalidate its use, nor does it demand that there be something as vague as "intuition" to fill in the gap. As I've pointed out several times before, there is nothing to apply reason to without sensory data. So that comes first. The brain processes that, and through processing data it comes to know the self, and it comes to know the basic forms of reason: by contrasting this sensory data, it comes to know identity and causal relationships. What I'm getting from you in a nutshell is that "Logic is incomplete (That it cannot validate itself, which is pretty obvious in its very nature- the sole tool of validation cannot in turn validate itself outside of itself) therefore intuition must be the tool that bridges the gap from non-knowing to using reason and achieving knowledge."

Maybe if I spent the time pouring over Gödel's work I'd be more convinced, but he's not here right now; you are. And you aren't even wavering me with what you've presented. You've argued semantics. You've failed to properly illustrate your point, and what I have grasped has been destroyed several times now by yours truly. Knowledge and reason are intertwined. You cannot have knowledge outside of reason, before it, after it, etc. without USING reason. Even when you say "Well, intuition works because we intuit that it's acceptible and thus use it", you're trying to apply a rational answer for using reason, instead of confessing that you really [b]don't know what intuition is in this case. You can not substantiate it for me. You cannot explain it using any sources. The only thing you have for me to examine is your belief that intuition exists, pre-reason. That's it. And some pseudo-half-assed explanation involving Gödel which, even for someone as awake and alert as I am, wasn't even close to getting a point across. You are not coming across "objectively". You have not provided a logical argument for me to examine that was worth examining. There is no case here, and appealing to Gödel's authority hasn't helped you because you can't even apply and show me how his theories work in this case.

Now, if you want to argue this any more (Assuming you plan to do some arguing; I'm just seeing regurgitation of the same view over and over again with nothing to work with.), make a thread in the philosophy thread.

And one last thing for you to think about: What validates intuition? And that? And the thing before that? [/B]

You talk a lot but don´t give any conclusions, I am being very objective, and you avoid my point being less objective as possible in your points, and saying that I am arguing semantically. Many argumentations of you agaisnt me are about semantics, or statements without explanation. Explain how you think as you think do not just state it. If you keep doing that it will be impossible to do argumentation here.

If you really have a point, I beg you to be objective, and do not ignore my questions. I will repost them here for you :

Do you think that "A = A" can only be know through logic reasoning ? In other words, deduced by logic ?

Do you think that only by logic reasoning, that is deduction, we can obtain knowledge ?

If you want to understand completely how Gödel´s incompleteness theorem works you should think about a major in physics, or mathematics. I can´t resume the knowledge of an entire discipline here.
What I presented to you about it is just a small glympse of what it is. You can´t discard Gödel´s theorem without any explanation, you don´t even know what it is. Gödel´s incompleteness is a FACT.

If you discard it you are saying that mathematics is wrong, and you are doing it without even knowing mathematics.

You talk a lot but don´t give any conclusions, I am being very objective, and you avoid my point being less objective as possible in your points, and saying that I am arguing semantically. Many argumentations of you agaisnt me are about semantics, or statements without explanation. Explain how you think as you think do not just state it. If you keep doing that it will be impossible to do argumentation here.

Erm... no. You are the one who was twisting the words and definitions to suit you throughout the entire Creationism thread and into this debate about knowledge. Your idea of intuition does not stick. Hell, I told my philosophy professor your argument and he agreed that intuition is a suspicious term that doesn't fit the use you're trying to use it in. When you admit that, we'll be back in objective, fair debating realm. Until then, the ball is in your court to prove up or shut up. You did make the claims.

If you really have a point, I beg you to be objective, and do not ignore my questions. I will repost them here for you :

Do you think that "A = A" can only be know through logic reasoning ? In other words, deduced by logic ?

Do you think that only by logic reasoning, that is deduction, we can obtain knowledge ?

I only said this a dozen times: first, the human mind needs outside information to process or the mind itself cannot function. So sensory data precedes pure rationalism. At this point, how we go from sensory data to reason is where the problem is- you say "intuition", I say it's how we're hardwired. Maybe it's not that different when I say it like that, but here again is your semantic failure. Intuition is subconscious prior experiences, emotions, and knowledge acting on a human mind to produce decisions that are seemingly without reason. My stance? We're made that way. Trying to evaluate a human mind before or absent of reason would be like looking at an insane person and going "He's searching for knowledge without reason." You can't understand it with the most objective mental tools we have; why bother? To conceptualize a state without reason is to imagine insanity. It's the same thing. Reason is the anchor that gives us knowledge, both of ourselves and of our world. You don't believe me? Go find a person who's been in a sensory deprivation tank for a week. Try and get them to sing happy birthday or describe their last good shit. It's not gonna happen.

If you want to understand completely how Gödel´s incompleteness theorem works you should think about a major in physics, or mathematics. I can´t resume the knowledge of an entire discipline here.
What I presented to you about it is just a small glympse of what it is. You can´t discard Gödel´s theorem without any explanation, you don´t even know what it is. Gödel´s incompleteness is a FACT.

If you discard it you are saying that mathematics is wrong, and you are doing it without even knowing mathematics.

Firstly, you claiming any mathematical theory as fact is over the top; all presented theories are considered valid until (Assuming there is) new evidence comes into play. Math is no different in that field; it's changed MANY times over the years, and it's validity as being objective is heavily questioned. But you did not present the theory clearly to me at all. I'm not asking you the entire 800 page book by the guy, but you SHOULD be able to paraphrase it better than you have if you do indeed have sufficient knowledge of it. The impression you're giving me is that you picked this term up in class and now you think you have the philosophical world by the balls, but you don't. Intuition isn't the right term; he as a professional SHOULD know this. But then again, there's a reason why mathematicians shouldn't argue in everyday language on the topic of philosophy. Obviously in this case intuition is some magic shoe-in term for "innate knowledge" or "bullshit mystical knowledge", and his abstract math theory proves it. Yes, of course.

And no, I'm not saying "mathematics is wrong" without knowing it; I'm saying that you're argument as you've presented it suffers from a serious semantic failure and from what you've told me of Gödel, his stance does too. Just because he's a bonafide math whiz doesn't mean I'm going to bow to his abstract concept that somehow neccessitates intuition be a word it's not.

Now... when you admit that intuition is an improper term and that the idea of this missing step needs SERIOUS clarification on your part, then we can continue this debate like rational people. Until you do that, you're just wasting my time.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Another simple way to look at it :

We make use of faith, and intuition to create assumptions/premises/axioms. In other words, we need to make use of our faith and intuition to assume empiricism, which denies faith and intuition as valid ways to obtain knowledge. That is a contradiction.

Hm, reading what you posted above, and I think I see your problem...

- Attacking pure empiricism. Anyone who takes philosophy knows the problem with 100% empiricism.

- Advocating pure rationalism. Anyone who takes philosophy knows the problem with 100% rationalism.

To find knowledge, you have to use both tools. Immanuel Kant covered this in his Critique of Pure Reason, but if you really want to challenge an empiricist, I suggest you read David Hume's works. And be prepared; he'll put everything you know to the test.

But the idea of "faith" and "intuition" is ridiculous. As I've said before, those concepts do not even belong in this discussion. Faith is religious in nature, unless you're using it as a shoe-in for belief. And it's pretty damn obvious to any would-be philosopher that you have to believe in knowledge to accept it. The idea of intuition doesn't fit whatsoever, as I've said countless times. By using such words, it's like you're attempting to parallel religion and reason, as you did openly in another thread. And that's the worst comparison you can make.

For the third time you avoid my questions. Is this how you do to keep your view correct, by refusing answers about it so others cannot argue agaisnt you ? Answer them, a simple yes or no will do. I will post them again :

Do you think that "A = A" can only be know through logic reasoning ? In other words, deduced by logic ?

Do you think that only by logic reasoning, that is deduction, we can obtain knowledge ?

Logical reasoning isn't limited to just deduction, Atlantis. I think you need to go take a Logic and Reason course, preferably college level. There's deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction does not give new information, since the the conclusion is limited to the terms within the premises. Induction can provide new information based on probability, but it must be based in past experiences. A is A is the most basic of deductive reasoning. To KNOW anything about A, you must know A has identity and that it exists. If you do not know A, there is no process. It cannot lead to induction which leads to new knowledge.

So to come back to your claim, "intuition" does not work. Intuition requires knowledge to make a subconscious guess in order to make a claim. Also, whether or not that claim is true or not isn't implied in the nature of intuition. You're saying to know "A is A", we would have to use intuition. But intuition BY DEFINITION would require previous knowledge of A is A! You've agreed yourself that axioms are self-evident and irreducible. So if the foundations for reasoning are axioms, then it cannot be intuition, because intuition by definition can not intuit axioms.

Or, for the laymen...

Axioms >>> Reason >>> Knowledge >>> Intuition >>> Axioms >>> Reason... etc. etc.

You stuffing intuition in there doesn't work, nor does anything that comes after it. And again, I point out that when you realize an axiom, you are using a form of logic and reasoning.

And if you're wondering how we come up with A is A again.... Look to sensory data which must be present before there can even be awareness of self.

Changing a little the questions for you then :

Do you think that "A = A" can only be know through logic reasoning ? In other words, deduced, induced or abduced by logic ?

Do you think that only by logic reasoning, that is deduction, induction or abduction, we can obtain knowledge ?

Just two more questions..

Originally posted by Wesker
A is A is the most basic of deductive reasoning.

You state that "A=A" is deduced. Deduce for me that "A=A".

And again, I point out that when you realize an axiom, you are using a form of logic and reasoning.

Which one ? Deduction , induction, or abduction ?

But intuition BY DEFINITION would require previous knowledge of A is A! You've agreed yourself that axioms are self-evident and irreducible.

Just to clarify something(not for the first time) I never said intuition
needs empirical knowledge. Attain yourself to this definition please.

Intuition = Understanding without need of reason or empirical knowledge.

Ah, I think we're suffering yet ANOTHER definition confusion here, which doesn't surprise me one bit.

Firstly, intuition does not have the definition you claim it does. Really, the idea that intuition can arise WITHOUT reason or empirical knowledge begs for proof, which you have yet to provide. So not only is the term wrong as you're using it, but the idea you're trying to convey can't be substantiated. If you tell any psychologist or well-read philosopher that intuition just sprouts out of thin air without any forethought or subconscious underlyings, they'll laugh you out of their presence.

Second, what definition of axioms are YOU using?

Whatever. Its impossible to argue with you. You will just keep avoiding the subject...

And what subject is that? Come on now... You have such faith and conviction in your stance... Let me see your best form.

the major flaw in thinking of your post is that you seem to think science presents itself as an absolute, it does not. Scientific fact is merely the best answer we can give based on prior knowledge of testing and research via the scientific method. Our science is based completely upon our knowledge......as our knowledge grows our science changes.

see Atlantis, your post would be entirely accurate if the very knowledge we base scientific fact on was claimed to be absolute.....science itself however does not deal in absolutes.

wesker.......while I love your posting and enthusiasm I would like to point something out that I'm sure you already know but probably have never given much thought to.

Really, the idea that intuition can arise WITHOUT reason or empirical knowledge begs for proof, which you have yet to provide.

instinct. it exists without reason or empirical knowledge yet cannot be explained by our science of today. animals are born with naturally adaptations for both predation and defense yet know how to use these without ever being taught, shown or learned of. Some animals are born with behavioral patterns common through the entire species that are not taught to them, shown to them or having them learned it any prior way. A good example of this is baby turtles instinctively heading for water after hatching. Another good example I will give it's own paragraph because it's something that caught my attention years ago and made me extremely curious about the nature of instinct....

A mouse that has never had an encounter with a cat will instinctively run from it. It has no prior information about the cat and knows nothing of the cat's anatomy or physiolgy....it's strong or weak points. It merely knows to run. It just so happens that running is it's only defense against a cat because cats have good eye sight and would pounce on it in a heartbeat. The same mouse encounters a snake for the first time. Without prior knowledge of the snake's anatomy or physiology it instinctively knows to freeze in place, not to move a muscle. It just so happens that snake's have horrible eye sight and detect it's prey sensing heat in motion. If the mouse were to move it would give itself away by it's motion and be killed. Somehow this mouse who knows nothing of either predator instictively knows to run from a cat but to freeze when faced by a snake. Why is that? Science can't explain it. We merely call it instinct and move on.......but what exactly is instinct? It does certainly appear to be knowledge that is attained without empirical knowledge. In your last post you've asked for proof......there is much proof on this whole mouse/cat/snake run down I just gave. It really got me thinking when I watched a documentary on the phenomena of instinct on the Discover channel a couple years ago where this very scenerio was not only discussed but also shown in video form of tests that were done in a controlled lab.