Ateistiskt Forum
Ej inloggad [Logga in ]
Gä längst ner

Utskriftsvänlig version  
Författare: Ämne: Empiricism
Toffe
Ganska aktiv
***




Inlägg: 190
Registrerad: 2006-12-12
Befinner sig: Finland
Medlemmen är Offline

Humör: Reformert

[*] Inlagd 2007-9-21 kl 14:25
Empiricism


Tjenare grabbar

Hr r ett argument frn er egna Bertrand Russell. Det gller frgan om en radikal empiricism kan frse oss med kunskap verhuvudtaget:

1. Myntets form

Normalt, nr jag ser ett mynt, ser jag egentligen en elliptiskt form. Ellipsens tjocklek varierar beroende p mitt relativa frhllande till myntet. Nr ser jag myntets verkliga form?

Sllan, eller aldrig, ser jag myntet direkt ovanifrn. ven om jag gjorde det, hur kan jag veta att den "egentliga" formen r just den som avsljas nr jag tittar direkt uppifrn?

2. Myntets storlek

Storleken varierar beroende p avstndet mellan mig och myntet. Frn vilket avstnd ser jag den egentliga storleken?

Ej heller kan jag ta ett mttband, ty hur skall jag veta om mttbandet skall ligga mot myntet eller hllas en bit ifrn?

Och om mttbande visar 3 cm, vad r 3 cm? Lngden p 3 cm varierar beroende p avstndet mellan mig och de 3 cm.

3. Myntets frg

Verkar ljusare i dagsljus, mrkare i dmpar ljus. Nr ser jag den verkliga frgen?

Samma argument fr vikt, temperatur, textur (r myntet sltt eller skrovligt? Beror helt p vilken frstoring man anvnder).

Givet att allt vra sinnen frser oss med r kvaliteter som verkar vara relativa till oss och vra egna tillstnd, hur kan vi egentligen knna till ngon objektiv kvalitet hos objekten i yttervrlden?

Och om vi inte kan veta nt om objekten, hur kan vi ens sga att fysiska objekt existerar? Allt vi ngonsin har kunskap om r de kvaliteter som verkar vara relativa till oss sjlv. Vi ser aldrig ngot "objekt" som dessa kvaliteter hr till.

Ok, ni som r radikala empiricister, hur lser ni detta?

H/Toffe
Visa anvädares profil
PositivAteist
Super-moderator
*******




Inlägg: 799
Registrerad: 2005-4-12
Befinner sig: Uppsala
Medlemmen är Offline

Humör: Positiv

[*] Inlagd 2007-9-21 kl 17:42


Innan jag vet om jag rknas till de radikala empiristerna eller inte mste jag veta vad som menas med uttrycket. Hur definierar Bertrand Russell "radikal empirist" i argumenten ovan?

Tillgg: Kan du ge en referens till var Bertrand Russell stller de dr frgorna och i vilket sammanhang?

[ndrad 2007-09-21 av PositivAteist]




/PositivAteist
Legitimerad ateist ;-)
Visa anvädares profil Gä till användarens hemsida
Toffe
Ganska aktiv
***




Inlägg: 190
Registrerad: 2006-12-12
Befinner sig: Finland
Medlemmen är Offline

Humör: Reformert

[*] Inlagd 2007-9-21 kl 21:20


Citat:
Ursprugligen inlagt av PositivAteist
Innan jag vet om jag rknas till de radikala empiristerna eller inte mste jag veta vad som menas med uttrycket. Hur definierar Bertrand Russell "radikal empirist" i argumenten ovan?

Tillgg: Kan du ge en referens till var Bertrand Russell stller de dr frgorna och i vilket sammanhang?

[ndrad 2007-09-21 av PositivAteist]


Russell definierar aldrig radikal empiricist - han pongterar bara det vi kan veta frutsatt att sinnena r vr enda kunskapsklla.

Vilket r den radikala empiricismen i ett ntksal. Kunskap ggenom sinnesobservationer (enbart)

Han behandlar detta i "filosofins problem" frn 1912
Visa anvädares profil
PositivAteist
Super-moderator
*******




Inlägg: 799
Registrerad: 2005-4-12
Befinner sig: Uppsala
Medlemmen är Offline

Humör: Positiv

[*] Inlagd 2007-9-21 kl 22:57


Bertrand Russell verkar ha ngra egna lsningar p problemen:

Citat:

In this sense, it must be admitted, empiricism as a theory of knowledge has proved inadequate, though less so than any previous theory of knowledge (min kursivering). Indeed, such inadequacies as we have seemed to find in empiricism have been discovered by strict adherence to a doctrine by which empiricist philosophy has been inspired: that all human knowledge is uncertain, inexact and partial. To this doctrine we have found no limitation whatsoever." (Human Knowledge: It's Scope and Limits, 1948)


Citat:

Modern analytical empiricism, of which I have been giving an outline, differs from that of Locke, Berkeley and Hume by its incorporation of mathematics and its development of a powerful logical technique. It is thus able, in regard to certain problems, to achieve definite answers, which have the quality of science rather than of philosophy. It has the advantage , as compared with the philosophies of the system-builders, of being able to tackle its problems one at a time, instead of having to invent at one stroke a block theory of the whole universe... I have also no doubt that, by these methods, many ancient problems are completely soluble." (A History of Western Philosophy, 1945)


Fr vrigt verkar dina citat vara kritik av Locke, Berkeley och Hume:

Citat:

The empiricists - who are best represented by the Brittish philosophers Locke, Berkeley and Hume - maintained that all our knowledge is derived from experience..." (The Problems of Philosophy, 1912)




/PositivAteist
Legitimerad ateist ;-)
Visa anvädares profil Gä till användarens hemsida
PositivAteist
Super-moderator
*******




Inlägg: 799
Registrerad: 2005-4-12
Befinner sig: Uppsala
Medlemmen är Offline

Humör: Positiv

[*] Inlagd 2007-9-21 kl 23:48


Fljande citat frn Problems of Philosophy kanske kan sprida lite ljus ver din frga?

Citat:

Nothing can be known to exist except by the help of experience. That is to say, if we wish to prove that something of which we have no direct experience exists, we must have among our premisses the existence of one or more things of which we have direct experience. Our belief that the Emperor of China exists, for example, rests upon testimony, and testimony consists, in the last analysis, of sense-data seen or heard in reading or being spoken to. Rationalists believed that, from general consideration as to what must be, they could deduce the existence of this or that in the actual world. In this belief they seem to have been mistaken. All the knowledge that we can acquire a priori concerning existence seems to be hypothetical: it tells us that if one thing exists, another must exist, or, more generally, that if one proposition is true another must be true. This is exemplified by principles we have already dealt with, such as 'if this is true, and this implies that, then that is true', of 'if this and that have been repeatedly found connected, they will probably be connected in the next instance in which one of them is found'. Thus the scope and power of a priori principles is strictly limited. All knowledge that something exists must be in part dependent on experience. When anything is known immediately, its existence is known by experience alone; when anything is proved to exist, without being known immediately, both experience and a priori principles must be required in the proof. Knowledge is called empirical when it rests wholly or partly upon experience. Thus all knowledge which asserts existence is empirical, and the only a priori knowledge concerning existence is hypothetical, giving connexions among things that exist or may exist, but not giving actual existence.


Citat:

All pure mathematics is a priori, like logic. This strenuously denied by the empirical philosophers, who maintained that experience was as much the source of our knowledge of arithmetic as of our knowledge of geography. They maintained that by the repeated experience of seeing two things and two other things, and finding that altogether they made four things, we were led by induction to the conclusion that two things and two other things would always make four things altogether. If, however, this were the source of our knowledge that two and two are four we should proceed differently, in persuading ourselves of its truth, from the way in which we do actually proceed. In fact, a certain number of instances are needed to make us think of two abstractly, rather than of two coins or two books or two people, or two of any other specified kind. But as soon as we are able to divest our thoughts of irrelevant particularity, we become able to see the general principle that two and two are four; any one instance is seen to be typical and the examination of other instances becomes unnecessary.


Vad gller existensen av objekt trots att de kan upplevas p olika stt med vra sinnen s finns det kapitel (The existence of matter) i Problems of Philosophy som tar upp just detta. Tv citat:

Citat:

There is no logical impossibility in the supposition that the whole of life is a dream, in which we ourselves create all the objects that come before us. But although this is not logically impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of accounting for the facts of our own life, than the common-sense hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose action on us causes our sensations.


Citat:

Of course it is not by argument that we originally come by our belief in an independent external world. We find this belief ready in ourselves as soon as we begin to reflect: it is what may be called an instinctive belief. We should never have been led to question this belief but for the fact that, at any rate in the case of sight, it seems as if the sense-datum itself were instinctively believed to be the independent object, whereas argument shows that the object cannot be identical with the sense-datum. This discovery, however -- which is not at all paradoxical in the case of taste and smell and sound, and only slightly so in the case of touch -- leaves undiminished our instinctive belief that there are objects corresponding to our sense-data. Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties, but on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it. We may therefore admit -- though with a slight doubt derived from dreams -- that the external world does really exist, and is not wholly dependent for its existence upon our continuing to perceive it.


Fr vrigt hittar jag inte begreppet "radical empiricist" i Problems of Philosophy. Vilken sida r det s jag kan hitta det engelska begreppet som man har versatt p det sttet?




/PositivAteist
Legitimerad ateist ;-)
Visa anvädares profil Gä till användarens hemsida
PositivAteist
Super-moderator
*******




Inlägg: 799
Registrerad: 2005-4-12
Befinner sig: Uppsala
Medlemmen är Offline

Humör: Positiv

[*] Inlagd 2007-9-21 kl 23:57


Wikipedia definierar radical empiricism s hr:

Citat:

Radical empiricism is a pragmatist doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

Bara fr att undvika missfrstnd: Givet den definitionen r jag ingen radikal empiricist eftersom jag inte tror att normativa utsagor (dvs utsagor om mening och vrden) kan hrledas ur vad som r. Dremot kan det vara intressant att utreda vad det r fr problem Bertrand Russell frsker gra oss medvetna om och vilken lsning han har p problemet. Jag frsker allts varken frsvara eller angripa den radikala empiricismen, bara frst din frga och hur den eventuellt kan besvaras.




/PositivAteist
Legitimerad ateist ;-)
Visa anvädares profil Gä till användarens hemsida
Toffe
Ganska aktiv
***




Inlägg: 190
Registrerad: 2006-12-12
Befinner sig: Finland
Medlemmen är Offline

Humör: Reformert

[*] Inlagd 2007-9-22 kl 11:00


Citat:
Bara fr att undvika missfrstnd: Givet den definitionen r jag ingen radikal empiricist eftersom jag inte tror att normativa utsagor (dvs utsagor om mening och vrden) kan hrledas ur vad som r. Dremot kan det vara intressant att utreda vad det r fr problem Bertrand Russell frsker gra oss medvetna om och vilken lsning han har p problemet. Jag frsker allts varken frsvara eller angripa den radikala empiricismen, bara frst din frga och hur den eventuellt kan besvaras.


Uff... det var inte litet citerat det :)

Vi kan vl brja med definitionen av en radikal empiricist - eftersom det tydligen inte finns ngon officiell definition s menar jag en person som pstr att all kunskap kommer genom sinneserfarenheter.

Och ja, du har rtt, argumentet riktas mot empiriker av typen Locke, Berkeley etc. Men jag ser inte hur modern empiricism undviker dessa problem. Inte ens om man som Russell lgger till logik&matte.

Jag freslr ej heller radikal rationalism, som Russell nmner i frbifarten. Eller att solipsisim skulle vara ett alternativ.

Vi kan vl sga som s - det finns kunskap om yttervrlden, det frnekar vl varken du eller jag.

Men hur kan vi ga kunskap om yttervrlden om
1. Den kommer genom sinnena, och
2. det som sinnena frser oss med r relativt och beroende av vra interna tillstnd? (se mitt ppningsinlgg)
Visa anvädares profil
LinoJonle
Ganska aktiv
***




Inlägg: 92
Registrerad: 2012-8-29
Medlemmen är Offline

Humör: No Mood

[*] Inlagd 2012-9-6 kl 16:36


Terrorist Attacks Hurt Hong Kong Fair | The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks cast an inevitable shadow on the Hong Kong Jewellery and Watch Fair replica iwc held in mid-September. "Whatever we talk about here is much tinier and less important than the terrible events in the USA " stated fair manager Peter Sutton at the start of the fair's press conference before calling for a moment of silence for victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. While business was down at the fair some were surprised that it was down less than they had expected. "We were less disappointed than we thought we would be " said Avram Eshad of Gemstar in Ramat-Gan. "There are people here." The big problem was a lack of U.S. attendees. Approximately 20 exhibitors mostly from New York replica watches paypal backed out at the last minute. But Sutton noted this only amounts to 2% of the fair's 1 movado kara replica 700-plus exhibitors. "Some American exhibitors are said to be very stressed and upset and worried audemars piguet replica watches and this we totally understand " Sutton said. "It's fairly normal that 2% of exhibitors don't show up." And while figures were not available for attending buyers anecdotal evidence points to a significant drop-off in the number of American attendees. One exhibitor David Ehani of David Ehani Diamond Company in New York said "The flight from New York was empty. I've had three appointments today. None showed up." However Joseph Edwards a wholesaler from Felton Mich. said he was actually planning to spend more in light of recent events. "I'll probably get better deals this way " he said. In any case Hong Kong jewelry and diamond association heads speaking at the conference were confident that they would ride out what's ahead. "In past incidents demand picked up after a month or two omega deville swiss replica watches " said Lawrence Ma chairman Diamond Federation in Hong Kong. "Eventually we will weather all this." Most also pointed to China's entry into the World Trade Organization as a big plus for Hong Kong. The trends seemed to be small piqu diamonds in lesser quality but bigger sizes and pastel-colored gemstones. Also there seemed to be more pieces set in platinum and fewer in yellow gold.

Visa anvädares profil

  Upp till toppen

Powered by XMB 1.9.11
'XMB Forum Software' © 2001-2010 The XMB Group