Replies

Again, the brighter scientists recognize this, and the honest bright ones both recognize and acknowledge it. The rest are either dullards or dishonest, or both.

This intemperate individual is apparently incapable of arguing a point without attacking those who might possibly disagree with him. The proposition that empiricism cannot infer causality is, of course, rubbish. A two-year old infant who learns that crying brings his mother knows better.

I have not taken the time to read all the responses.

The argument should not be "Is empericism sometimes correct?" or "Is empericism mostly correct" or even "Is empericism always correct".

It is, and should be "Is empericism sufficient?"

And the answer to that seems to be no, it's not.

I love these threads because it seems to be the only refuge from alot of the triping that goes on at FR.

Those who resort to emotional pleas and derogatory comments are usually doing so because they perceive they are losing the arguments.

I'm still waiting for the mathematician at the university to use his tremendous powers and wisdom to tell me what I'm gonna have for lunch tomorrow.

The proposition that empiricism cannot infer causality is, of course, rubbish. >>>

who ever said you could not INFER anything? One may INFER any number of things and as long as you are willing to hide behind some crap like "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" you can still retain the appellative of being an "empiricist." Hell, given that kind of standard, one can "empirically" infer the existence of God, or aliens, or cosmic star goats.

Unless of course, you are able to show me an empirical proof for causality, or any other non-tangible entity, for that matter. This I would love to see...., or must I "infer" it? Just taking a moment from crying to my momma to straighten things out, ya know. Enlighten me, for I am but a youth an know nothing. How does one EMPIRICALLY demonstrate an intangible concept..., and don't give me some skatalogical nonsense about INFERRING it. That belongs to a non empirical realm, by definition.

Again, the brighter scientists recognize this, and the honest bright ones both recognize and acknowledge it. The rest are either dullards or dishonest, or both.

This intemperate individual is apparently incapable of arguing a point without attacking those who might possibly disagree with him. The proposition that empiricism cannot infer causality is, of course, rubbish. A two-year old infant who learns that crying brings his mother knows better.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This kind of stuff is precisely the stuff that brings out the vitriole that makes you complain that you are being "attacked." You OMITTED the previous paragraph which had the substantive argument, bitched and moaned that I made a sweeping and scathing generalization, compared me to a baby whining to his mommy. You did manage to say, in essence, "what you said (although I didn't say what you claimed) is not true" before signing off.

Good God, man, if THAT kind of thin skinned chicanery is your idea of a reasoned debate, no wonder you feel all offended by people "attacking" you. You are lucky they don't just laugh you out of the room. I have alot of respect for people who have a variety of different ideas than myself, whether it be on knowledge, economics, God, politics, immigration, SEC football or ACC basketball. So, back to the point, I contend that empiricism is unable to support itself by the empirical method alone, due ot the fact that it assumes universal assumptions about the nature of the cosmos that cannot be empirically verified. If you have any SUBSTANTIVE critiques of this, I am all ears. HINT: YOU ARE WRONG AND ONLY AN IDIOT FUNDAMENTALIST WOULD ARGUE THIS WAY is not quite what I had in mind as a substantive critique. If that is all you have, save it for someone it will impress.