Yes. But they use that criteria to say that if it can’t be empirically verified, it is meaningless and adds nothing to human knowledge. In other words, anything that can’t be empirically verified is just imagination.
This doctrine, also known as logical positivism or simply positivism, held that all knowledge lies within the purview of science.
What I’m arguing is in the context that empirical verification should be applied in the field of science where it is meant to be applied, not to other fields like metaphysics which itself is a field of study that deals with reality that lies totally outside of empirical verification. There’s a big difference between positivism and what I’m saying.
Would you at least agree with their division between scientific and non-scientific, even if you don’t agree with their other conclusions?
That’s fine. You seem to be trying to draw a line between objective and subjective. Can you find anything in that article that could help you better define that difference?
Don’t think so. As far as I know you can’t empirically verify quantum particles. If so I don’t see how that would work as a division.
Not offhand. But a simple way to go about it would be:
Objective is anything that is independent of what someone thinks or feels.
Subjective is anything that is dependent on what someone thinks or feels.
I’ve read the article. It seems to me that I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m not a positivist, but you don’t seem to think that’s the case. Again, I’m not saying that science is the only way to epistemic discovery. So I’m not confusing science with epistemology as far as I can tell. Science is one way of “knowing”, but it’s not the only way.
I don’t know how else to say it so that you will realize that I’m not promoting positivism. Or maybe there’s something your getting at which I’m totally unaware of. If that’s the case you’ll need to elaborate more on what it is because so far it’s not been expressed in a way that I am able to grasp it.
If you mean something like do minds exist, then it would be objective in that it exists independent of whether or not someone thinks or feels it is so.
True. Nonetheless there’s no denying that minds are an objective feature of human experience independent of what someone thinks. In fact someone would have to think they don’t have a mind in order to deny that there is at least one mind that exists, which would seem like a logical contradiction to me. At the least it would seem to be incoherent.
Would apply both ways. If someone acknowledges his own mind, then it follows logically that he would have to acknowledge other minds, unless he’s a solipsist which I address below.
I’d say you’re crazy. Or, I’d say, if you die we’re all in trouble. LOL! But seriously I’d ask him to give me a good reason why I should believe what he’s saying is true. Same for the idealist.
He would simply say that all of his beliefs are consistent with his observations, and even if he cannot prove his position is right, neither can you prove your position (that other minds exist) is right without begging the question.
Oh, and I think it’s important to point out that just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. There’s really no good reason that I know of to hold to a position that goes against everything our experience is telling us is real. And the rarity of those who hold to it I think speaks for itself.
Actually no. We have direct experience of our own minds. We do not have comparable experience of other minds. We have no evidence to disprove the theory that some or all others are philosophical zombies.
Or, I’d say, if you die we’re all in trouble. LOL! But seriously I’d ask him to give me a good reason why I should believe what he’s saying is true. Same for the idealist.