Target Practice! (Presuppositionalist argument)

[Surlethe]

Hey everyone, here's a couple of paragraphs from a book I'm reading titled The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate by "Dr" Jason Lisle. Take a crack at it, see what you can come up with. Context: author is claiming that all facts are interpreted via worldviews, and that to decide between worldviews, you have to find which worldview is consistent and can account for "preconditions of intellegibility". Of course, the punch line is that only Biblical literalism is (a) free of contradictions and (b) explains where logic, morality, and other preconditions of intelligibility come from.

As another example, consider the philosophy of empiricism. This is the idea that all knowledge is gained through observation. Now of course I do believe that some knowledge is gained through observation -- this is perfectly consistent with Scripture. God made our senses to reliably probe the universe, and so there is nothing wrong with empirical methods. But the philosophy of empiricism goes much further than this. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is acquired by observation. Or to put it another way, observation is the ultimate standard by which all truth claims are tested. And that I do not believe. I have found, however, that many evolutionists are empiricists.

We must eventually ask the empiricist how he knows that "all knowledge is gained through observation". Clearly this is not something that the empiricist has observed (since knowledge cannot be "seen.") So then how could anyone posisbly know that empiricism itself is true, if all things are indeed known by observation? If empiricism is proved in some way other than through observation, then it refutes itself. If the empiricist's ultimate standard did happen to be true, the empiricist could never actually know that it is true; he could never prove it. And if a person's ultimate standard is uncertain, then all his other beliefs (which are based on that standard) are called into question. Empiricism destroys the possibility of actually knowing anything.

Spoiler

There are two chief problems with this argument that I see.

1. The notion that it is impossible to observe whether empirical observations consistently produce accurate predictions - i.e., to test whether empiricism is true/works. Sure, we can't know it for complete certainty, but that brings us to point 2 -
2. The black-and-white fallacy at the end of the final paragraph: who cares if we can't absolutely know something? We absolutely know only a very few things; we, however, know to within certain tolerances a great many things.

[Patrick Degan]

So he's channeling Hume. Not very original.

[Samuel]

I'd object on the grounds that knowledge refers to information about reality and the best way to understand reality is to examine it. Does he offer an alternate method?

[K. A. Pital]

What a load of bullshit. "Observation" is the first part of someone who uses the empirical method to know reality. The second part is evaluation of observations, checking their constistency, workability, et cetera. Testing and re-testing observations gives pretty definete proof of a phenomena with a high probability - a probability high enough that the opposing case would be so small as to be considered irrelevant, probability-wise.

Sure, that's not absolute knowledge, but it's the next best thing after it. There's no absolute knowledge because you can't absolutely certify an observation, but you can definetely do it with a probability so high (and everything else so irrelevant for the human life here and now) that basically it's the same thing.

Empiricism is consistent because it's only as valid as the observations are.

[Frank Hipper]

Empiricism destroys the possibility of actually knowing anything.

Certainty is anathema to scientific rigor; without knowing what he said he just said it all.

[Oskuro]

We must eventually ask the empiricist how he knows that "all knowledge is gained through observation". Clearly this is not something that the empiricist has observed (since knowledge cannot be "seen.")

Bald-faced lie. It is precisely because we have observed that all knowldege comes from observation that we can claim such a thing. Wich verifiable knowledge have we gained otherwise? It is funny how a perceived flaw in a method supposeduly calls into question all of its conclusions, yet the blatantly humongous flaw in the author's belief is completely ignored.

So, let's count: Nitpicking, Strawman, False Dilemma. Am I missing something?

[Eris]

So he's channeling Hume. Not very original.

Er, no? Hume argued that ultimately all our knowledge did come from generalisation of experience, in opposition to the rationalists who believed that there was another basis for our knowledge: pure reason. This guy would be channeling them, except with God instead of pure reason, but certainly not Hume.

[Ted C]

Sounds like it boils down to "solipsism, therefore God".

[Rye]

As another example, consider the philosophy of empiricism.

Empiricism is the philosophy that comes with the same mechanisms that can experience chocolate and sex. Empiricism > all.

This is the idea that all knowledge is gained through observation. Now of course I do believe that some knowledge is gained through observation -- this is perfectly consistent with Scripture.

That you only know about due to things you have read or heard, presumably.

God made our senses to reliably probe the universe, and so there is nothing wrong with empirical methods. But the philosophy of empiricism goes much further than this. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is acquired by observation.

Which it is. Observation, that is, experience of things external to yourself is the only means by which we can be self aware, and for information to have meaning. If you reject this, imagination is indistinguishable from knowledge and you reject your own self-awareness, you cannot distinguish real things from utter nonsensical things. In fact, you cannot learn reasoning in the first place, the very notion of causality without observing it first is impossible to come by.

Or to put it another way, observation is the ultimate standard by which all truth claims are tested. And that I do not believe.

None of those words are meaningful without sensory data in the first place. Without sensory data, I didn't even read them and this guy couldn't have written them.

We must eventually ask the empiricist how he knows that "all knowledge is gained through observation". Clearly this is not something that the empiricist has observed (since knowledge cannot be "seen.") So then how could anyone posisbly know that empiricism itself is true, if all things are indeed known by observation?

Pretty easily; the empiricist just thinks about what he knows and how much of that he could've known if he was born deaf, blind and unable to feel, smell or taste anything. Pretty straightforward, really.

If empiricism is proved in some way other than through observation, then it refutes itself. If the empiricist's ultimate standard did happen to be true, the empiricist could never actually know that it is true; he could never prove it. And if a person's ultimate standard is uncertain, then all his other beliefs (which are based on that standard) are called into question. Empiricism destroys the possibility of actually knowing anything.

Stock agnostofuck bullshit about all knowledge being absolute binary truth rather than a matter of "close enough" realistic justification. Agnostics, and this guy, are committing the fallacy of stealing the concept when they go down this route. Empiricism acknowledges the limits to human knowledge, it doesn't deny the ability to know anything at all. That's just silly. "Solving" the problem of induction or whatever by invoking an invisible magical man who dictates reality is fucking retarded, though. That's genuine solipsism, since it denies the consistency of reality; it is the imagination of an arbitrary alien where you can just make shit up and claim it as truth.

[Surlethe]

Here's another take, to feed him his own presuppositionalist medicine. Suppose he says (as he would) that the Bible is the only "ultimate standard" by which to judge truth, and that empiricism is fatally flawed. Then ask him: how does he know what the Bible says? He has read and observed it - which is to say, he has placed empiricism on the ultimate standard by which he judges the truth of claims about the Bible. Self-defeating, indeed.

[Rye]

You can do that, but it's a bit of a red herring approach. He may believe that incorporeal pigs fly, but addressing that's not refuting his attacks on empiricism.

[Darth Wong]

As another example, consider the philosophy of empiricism. This is the idea that all knowledge is gained through observation. Now of course I do believe that some knowledge is gained through observation -- this is perfectly consistent with Scripture.

He certainly doesn't wait long to telegraph his mindset, does he? Judgment of an idea by its conformance to Christian Scripture is totally unacceptable to a philosophical discussion because it relies upon an appeal to authority: a well-known logic fallacy.

God made our senses to reliably probe the universe, and so there is nothing wrong with empirical methods. But the philosophy of empiricism goes much further than this. Empiricists believe that all knowledge is acquired by observation. Or to put it another way, observation is the ultimate standard by which all truth claims are tested. And that I do not believe. I have found, however, that many evolutionists are empiricists.

Interesting. He conceded that observation produces "reliable" knowledge, and then he rejects the notion that other forms of knowledge should be considered less reliable by simply stating his opinion to the contrary, and then attacking the people who subscribe to it.

We must eventually ask the empiricist how he knows that "all knowledge is gained through observation".

That's the wrong question. The right question is to ask why other forms of knowledge should be treated as equal or superior, if we can agree that empirical observation is "reliable" and he has presented absolutely no reason to consider other forms of knowledge as equally reliable.

Clearly this is not something that the empiricist has observed (since knowledge cannot be "seen.") So then how could anyone posisbly know that empiricism itself is true, if all things are indeed known by observation?

No one is saying that empiricism has been proven true. Empiricism only says that we have no reason to believe anything other than empiricism is reliable. His argument relies upon the same basic trick used by the majority of creationist and anti-scientific arguments: creating an absurd standard of proof for scientific and empirical methods, while completely ignoring its own burden of proof.

He has conceded that empirical observations are "reliable". In order to show that empiricists are wrong about not taking other forms of knowledge seriously, he must show that those other forms of knowledge are equally reliable. He has done nothing of the sort; in fact, he has not even tried. Instead, he tries to distract your attention away from this gaping hole in his argument by putting empiricism's claim of absolute truth on trial, even though it never makes any such claim. In fact, empiricism is the only source of knowledge which admits to the presence of inaccuracy, since all empirical measurements contain uncertainty.

If empiricism is proved in some way other than through observation, then it refutes itself. If the empiricist's ultimate standard did happen to be true, the empiricist could never actually know that it is true; he could never prove it. And if a person's ultimate standard is uncertain, then all his other beliefs (which are based on that standard) are called into question. Empiricism destroys the possibility of actually knowing anything.

So he refutes the idea that we know things through empirical observation by asking how we know that we know things through empirical observation? Again, this argument relies upon the idea that any of this is claimed to be "absolute truth". It is not; empirical observation is simply known to be reliable (a claim which can be confirmed empirically, by simply noting that these observations are, in fact, consistent and repeatable). "Absolute truth" is a made-up philosophical goal which these people apply to science because they are so accustomed to falsely claiming it for themselves.

[Darth Wong]

So he's channeling Hume. Not very original.

Actually, his argument is much, much worse than Hume's argument ever was. He actually concedes up-front that empiricism produces "reliable" knowledge, and then laughably does not even attempt to explain why anything else should be considered reliable, yet he expects us to agree that empiricists are wrong to dismiss those other sources of knowledge. Why? Because empiricists cannot empirically know that empirical knowledge is reliable ... even though they can, by simply observing that it is consistent and repeatable.

Hume was much, much more clever than this clown, who gives away the ball on the first play of the game and then thinks you won't notice when he sprints across the goal line empty-handed.

Mind you, it's obviously targeted at people who really, really, really want it to be true, so they will overlook such minor niggles as the fact that his argument is completely broken.

[Jaepheth]

Isn't this argument pretty much equivalent to arguing that Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove that arithmetic is false?

The author isn't arguing that a correct worldview must be consistent as stated. They're arguing that a correct worldview must be both consistent and complete; but does not offer any reason that a worldview must be complete.

[Adrian Laguna]

No one is saying that empiricism has been proven true. Empiricism only says that we have no reason to believe anything other than empiricism is reliable.

In the 18th century some of the proponents of empiricism were saying that it could be proven true. This may not seem very relevant, but since someone had to go and besmirch the name of a certain Scotsman, I thought to point out that the statement I just quoted is his legacy. David Hume never rejected empirical thought, and his criticisms against it were not meant to discredit it, but rather to discredit the belief that absolute truth was at all an attainable goal. His conclusion was that empiricism is flawed, and that everything else is flawed worse.