"Empirical"
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,560
So, We had a discussion a while back on the definition of the term "Empirical"
I wrote the editor of Merriam-Webster:
Empirical
"originating in or based on observation or experience "
The problem I have with this definition is that certain people
interpret this to mean "one's own experience" this implies
that a person's experience of Alien abduction is
"Empirical" and therefor, based on the thesaurus "Factual".
Perhaps adding something like "corraborated by external observation"
The word "empirical" can be used in this way, so your interpretation is
entirely correct. From these people's perspective, their memories of
abduction are empirical. However, the lack of corroboration usually
prevents the stories from going much farther than anecdotal status.
Remember, many words have multiple meanings. Synonyms are words that
match each other in some fundamental element of meaning. These
elements are not the sum and total of words, only one aspect of the total set
of meanings associated with a word. Thus, two words can be listed as
synonyms, but not be completely interchangeable in all circumstances.
A situation such as you describe could be considered "empirical," since it is
based on observation. This definition you included is one sense of
"empirical." However, there are others, some of which are more closely
aligned with "factual," for example "capable of being verified or disproved by
observation or experiment." The use of "factual" generally requires the
presence of a verifiable fact, which is lacking in your example.
Daniel Brandon,
Associate Editor, Merriam-Webster Inc.
We were both right in our use of the term "empirical", except that for it to be completely synonymous with "factual" it must be corroborated by external verification.
I wrote the editor of Merriam-Webster:
Empirical
"originating in or based on observation or experience "
The problem I have with this definition is that certain people
interpret this to mean "one's own experience" this implies
that a person's experience of Alien abduction is
"Empirical" and therefor, based on the thesaurus "Factual".
Perhaps adding something like "corraborated by external observation"
The word "empirical" can be used in this way, so your interpretation is
entirely correct. From these people's perspective, their memories of
abduction are empirical. However, the lack of corroboration usually
prevents the stories from going much farther than anecdotal status.
Remember, many words have multiple meanings. Synonyms are words that
match each other in some fundamental element of meaning. These
elements are not the sum and total of words, only one aspect of the total set
of meanings associated with a word. Thus, two words can be listed as
synonyms, but not be completely interchangeable in all circumstances.
A situation such as you describe could be considered "empirical," since it is
based on observation. This definition you included is one sense of
"empirical." However, there are others, some of which are more closely
aligned with "factual," for example "capable of being verified or disproved by
observation or experiment." The use of "factual" generally requires the
presence of a verifiable fact, which is lacking in your example.
Daniel Brandon,
Associate Editor, Merriam-Webster Inc.
We were both right in our use of the term "empirical", except that for it to be completely synonymous with "factual" it must be corroborated by external verification.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
you have too much time on your hands
Yea, that's true, but it only took me five minutes.
Not only does the medical profession back up the fact that I no longer am prescribed psychiatric medications, and that I no longer seek psychiatric care, but I also have a large amount of friends and family members who openly see that I am not being obsessive-compulsive nor delusional day in and out. I've had two counsellors nudge me out of their care and back to my life beyond counselling, because it was clear that I am competent and healthy. Also any of these individuals can corroborate that I have not displayed obsessive-compulsive or bi-polar disorder issues for numerous years. Some searching on this message board alone can corroborate the basic fact of my ongoing ability to reason every day that I've posted, for over a year, in my few thousand posts. The proof on this forum is empirical and factual. Being able to reason everyday is the opposite of being psychotic. My empirical observations are very well corroborated by varying sources outside of myself. The specific empirics I speak to are quite verifiable, unlike the person claiming an alien experience--the situation that you like to use as a "comparison, where there is NOT verification.
You say here, in this thread: The Merriam-Webster guy said: Again, I point to my original words in the "hominid" thread in our original debate, where I pointed out that I understood we were both correct from the beginning:
I do appreciate you being honest enough to bring this issue into the open for resolution, especially when it entails admitting that my interpretations of the word are correct when at first you were adamant that they were not. I look forward to moving beyond this.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You were saying that your personal experience was factual. Which it is not.
The fact that you overcame your OCD and whatever other problems you had. Sure that's factual. But your experiences that "cured" you are not.
you can't do that with "i know someone who said this" or "I've met people that say this." those are case studies and anectdotal evidence.
Empirical analysis involves developing concepts, finding out ways to measure them, then testing them using statistical analysis.
As for the cure of OCD...what is it? Damn, I need to get my hands on that.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Angelica was saying she had some kind of OBE or other impossible experience that cured her OCD. I'm sure she can clarify it.
I always stand behind my personal spiritual experiences because I have experienced them. However I don't try to prove them. I frankly don't care who believes me or not. That goes for today, last week and a year ago.
In the debate on empiricism, I specifically said: "I am not talking about my thoughts and feelings. I am talking about my observable behaviours."
As far as me saying my personal experience was factual, I did and: I specifically referred to observable experiences, like when I stand up, it is factual. If I smile, it is factual. If I am held at gunpoint and I state it as so, that is factual. Go back and check. Not once did I try to "prove" a spiritual experience. I'm not surprised that you read into what I actually said, though.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
We were discussing Free-will, you argued that it must exist because of your subjective experience which is not factual. That's how the argument started. If you are saying now that your subjective experience is not factual and therefor have no argument in support of Free-will. Then fine and I fully admit that I was unaware of the non-factual use of the word Empirical.
Here is what I originally said in the free will thread: "Considering my views were developed through empirics, and the empirical data of experience and observation, it might be your own ego that is trumping empirical data presented."
Again, I don't try to prove the spiritual.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, but you are using anecdotal evidence to claim something as factual and furthermore blaiming my ego for not accepting your anecdotal evidence as fact.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
what is your theory of how she recovered then?
It sounds like her experience helped her. That doesn't mean it was real though.
I don't want to dwell on the psychosis thing, but if you look it up. A person under psychological stress, or using psychoactive drugs will have a psychotic experience, especially highly intelligent people. This sometimes results in them curing themselves and come to believe the experience was real.
It's textbook psychosis, but I'm only saying that because you asked. I don't want Angelica anymore upset with me than she already is.
i fail to see how this is any different from what she claimed. she says she was under extraordinary mental and psychological stress and pressure, had a spiritual experience, and was cured. you say she was under extraordinary mental and psychological stress and pressure, then was cured. where's the middle part? was it just magic that her mind suddenly righted itself?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's exactly where Dr. Susan Blackmore was coming from, but now she realizes that was all an illusion and now she writes books on that.
The difference is between her believing that her impossible experience was real, and her believing that her impossible experience was an illusion.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I happen to know the REAL reality--the ground state. And once you know this reality, the normal reality is quite pale in comparison. It's very easy to differentiate. So when you're sure you are not living in a "Vanilla Sky" sequel, and when you know your reality is "real" as opposed to virtual, get back to me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
then what was the reality of her impossible experience? that's what im asking. you admit that she suddenly changed. what was the cause? how did it happen? she said it was spiritual. what's your alternative (and i suppose infinitely superior) theory?
No, people that are psychotic are not living in a higher reality. They are delusional. They are admitted to psychiatric hospitals because while their mind is off in some alternate plane of existence, their physical (real) body is still here on earth acting weird.
got nothing ahnimus?
Yea, just as spiritual as smoking Salvia or consuming LSD.
During traumatic periods a person's mind disconnects from reality and quite often goes into a dream-like state. These visions can be quite lucid. This can also happen if a person is clinically ill, such is the case with Schizophrenia and Dementia.
When a person is training to be a fighter pilot. They are placed into a centrifuge for flight training. Some times at high G's the blood is drained from their brain and their minds go into a psychotic state. They come back to awareness of reality when the blood returns to their brain.
There are multiple causes of those kinds of visions.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I don't deny that the experiences are distorted by "normal" standards. I don't deny there was definitely an illness aspect to the delusions. Part of the process of healing all these years has been clearing up my cognitive distortions, so now, when I am in contact with this higher plane, it IS purely spiritual without fallout or distortion. I now have a level of consciousness that can support those experiences without illness.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Empirical epistemology
1. Of the different species of philosophy. In the first section of the Enquiry, Hume provides a rough introduction to philosophy as a whole. For Hume, philosophy can be split into two general parts: natural philosophy and the philosophy of human nature (or, as he calls it, "moral philosophy"). The latter investigates both actions and thoughts. He emphasizes in this section, by way of warning, that philosophers with nuanced thoughts will likely be cast aside in favor of those who wield rhetoric (or sophists). However, he insists, precision helps art and craft of all kinds, including the craft of philosophy. [1]
2. Of the origin of ideas. Next, Hume discusses the distinction between impressions and ideas. By "impressions", he means sensations, while by "ideas", he means memories and imaginings. According to Hume, the difference between the two is that ideas are less vivacious than impressions. Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas.
Hume accepts that ideas may be either the product of mere sensation, or of the imagination working in conjunction with sensation. (In Locke's terminology, this was known as the division between simple and complex ideas of sense). According to Hume, the creative faculty makes use of (at least) four mental operations which produce imaginings out of sense-impressions. These operations are compounding (or the addition of one idea onto another, such as a horn on a horse to create a unicorn); transposing (or the substitution of one part of a thing with the part from another, such as with the body of a man upon a horse to make a centaur); augmenting (as with the case of a giant, whose size has been augmented); and diminishing (as with Lilliputans, whose size has been diminished). [2] In a later chapter, he also mentions the operations of mixing, separating, and dividing. [3]
The missing blue shadeHowever, Hume admits that his account has one Achilles Heel: the "missing blue shade" problem. In this thought-experiment, he asks us to imagine a man who has experienced every shade of blue except for one. He predicts that this man will be able to divine the color of this particular shade of blue, despite the fact that he has never experienced it. This seems to pose a serious problem for the empirical account, though Hume brushes it aside as an exceptional case. [4]
3. Of the association of ideas. In this chapter, Hume discusses how thoughts tend to come in sequences, as in trains of thought. He explains that there are at least three kinds of associations between ideas: resemblance, contiguity in space-time, and cause-and-effect. He argues that there must be some universal principle that must account for the various sorts of connections that exist between ideas. However, he does not immediately show what this principle might be. [5]
4. Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding (in two parts).
In the first part, Hume discusses how the objects of inquiry are either "relations of ideas" or "matters of fact", which is roughly the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. The former, he tells the reader, are proved by demonstration, while the latter are given through experience. [6] In explaining how matters of fact are entirely a product of experience, he dismisses the notion that they may be arrived at through a priori reasoning. For Hume, every effect only follows its cause arbitrarily -- they are entirely distinct from one another. [7]
In part two, Hume inquires into how anyone can justifiably believe that experience yields any conclusions about the world:
"When it is asked, What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact? the proper answer seems to be, that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect. When again it is asked, What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation? it may be replied in one word, experience. But if we still carry on our sifting humor, and ask, What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? this implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication." [8]
He shows how a satisfying argument for the validity of experience can be based neither on demonstration (since "it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change") nor experience (since that would be a circular argument). [9] Here he is describing what would become known as the problem of induction.
5. Sceptical solution of these doubts (in two parts).
For Hume, we assume that experience tells us something about the world because of habit or custom, which human nature forces us to take seriously. This is also, presumably, the "principle" that organizes the connections between ideas. Indeed, one of the many famous passages of the Enquiry was on the topic of the incorrigibility of human custom. In a later chapter, he wrote:
"The great subverter of Pyrrhonism or the excessive principles of scepticism is action, and employment, and the occupations of common life. These principles may flourish and triumph in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to refute them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real objects, which actuate our passions and sentiments, are put in opposition to the more powerful principles of our nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined skeptic in the same condition as other mortals." [10]
In the second part, he provides an account of beliefs. He explains that the difference between belief and fiction is that the former produces a certain feeling of confidence which the latter doesn't. [11]
6. Of probability. This short chapter begins with the notions of probability and chance. For him, "probability" means a higher chance of occurring, and brings about a higher degree of subjective expectation in the viewer. By "chance", he means all those particular comprehensible events which the viewer considers possible in accord with their experience. However, further experience takes these equal chances, and forces the imagination to observe that certain chances arise more frequently than others. These gentle forces upon the imagination cause the viewer to have strong beliefs in outcomes. This effect may be understood as another case of custom or habit taking past experience and using it to predict the future. [12]
Through years of study, and by switching my life patterns to self-affirming healthy ones and by clearing out my cognitive distortions, I have learned to regularly access the ground potential of life in a healthy way. This means I have spiritual experiences/guidance/revelations, without illness distortions that are called "psychotic". Now they are purely revelations. And they are specifically designed for me to grow and learn and to lead me towards my purpose of helping others overcome illness. I am intuned with my purpose.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yea, except there are people that have moved beyond that stage to realize that it was all an illusion. You aren't the first one to feel that way. Pick up Dr. Susan Blackmore's books, she wrote a textbook on it called Consciousness: An Introduction. And another on Conversations with Consciousness.
Based on the principle of predeterminism, it's entirely possible for you to have revelations about the future. I've never had an OBE or anything, but I've had premonitions.
You might forget the information I provided on levels of consciousness in the free will thread, wherein they discuss how people have transcendant experiences all the time. The outcome and integration depends on whether the person integrates these experiences, and rises to the level of such transcendence in terms of stages of consciousness.
As I've said, when you see the real reality, this one pales in comparison. Maybe Dr. Blackmore had experiences with "memories and imaginings" as mentioned in Byrnzie's article. The revelations I was shown were highly complex. Since I have seen these understandings in a multidimensional way, I can explain them holistically. I can understand aspects of these subjects other people cannot, and I can explain them from numerous angles because I know them holistically. There have been "real" counterparts to all of my spiritual experiences at each stage. The spiritual is just the spiritual aspect--or the source aspect of my experiences, wherein there have been physical manifestations. Just like thoughts stem from beyond "real" and filter into this 3-d reality system, my spiritual experiences have come from further back in that emergence.
As Byrnzie's article points to: "Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas."
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yet, you can not prove beyond reasonable doubt any of your supernatural experiences. Egoism is also common in posts of this nature. Claiming that you are more enlightened than me for some metaphysical thing which you can not prove to me, lest I become the same as you, at which time it may still only be an illusion. You pose an argument that is neither provable or falsifiable and therefor I can't saying anything about it.