The problem with empiricism is that you never have all the facts. The best you can say is ” all the facts that I have lead me to think…” To conclude that you have disccovered all the facts is the arrogance of believing you are omniscient.
The problem with empiricism is that you never have all the facts. The best you can say is ” all the facts that I have lead me to think…” To conclude that you have disccovered all the facts is the arrogance of believing you are omniscient.
Joe,
Is not the Major Premise subject to:
The best you can say is ” all the facts (Observations) that I have lead me to think…”
that A Universal Intelligence is in all matter and continually gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence.
We base our deductions, OUR SCIENCE on 1 Fact (organization implies intelligence).
Empiricism/Induction – bases It’s SCIENCE on a multitude of Facts.
Arrogance can still be had. Yes? No?
David you wrote: “Joe,
Is not the Major Premise subject to:
The best you can say is ” all the facts (Observations) that I have lead me to think…”
that A Universal Intelligence is in all matter and continually gives to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence.
We base our deductions, OUR SCIENCE on 1 Fact (organization implies intelligence).”
It seems to me that our Major Premise comes from all 3 methods of perception:
1. Reasoning – the reasoning is based upon:
A. Induction based upon the empirical facts of the universe, from the atom to the far reaches of space, all scientific, observations manifest the organization of e/matter which bespeaks intelligence.
B. Deduction if you believe that universal intelligence is a creation of God.
2. Empiricism -see 1.A above.
3. Faith-based upon:
A. belief that universal intelligence is synonymous with God or,
B. see 1.B. above
The Major Premise not only is demonstrated by all the methods of perception but interrelates them. I think that is the argument called “correspondence” The only alternative is faith, a specific belief in mechanism/naturalism which seems to me to be a religion maintaining not so much that universal intelligence does not exist but that it need not exist. My belief system rejects that idea because it is based upon only one “fact”, chance which according to modern scientific mathematical methods goes beyond the realm of possibility. By analogy,if you flip a coin 1000 times you should get 500 heads and 500 tails. You could perhaps claim to get as many as 850 heads and 150 tails. If you get 1000 heads and no tails, I want to have a look at your coin.
A post adjustment:
Since empiricism is based on a multitude of facts, the arrogance is begotten with the assumption of all facts, with the facts unknown rendered non important to the outcome or results of application.
AGREED
Our singular fact (mp), is agreed upon as true, or what we call, SELF EVIDENT, and within a deductive rationalism, the deductions, by the process of logic, MUST be true.
An a priori (inductive 1st), then deductive process like, what chiropractic philosophy CONSISTS OF, if it is the WHY, and the application is NOT result based, but instead is OBJECTIVE based, produces a more truth based and in chiropractics case, a non arrogant stance from a result point of view.
But being that we present as OCors, a TRUTH OBJECTIVE, perhaps we SHOULD present OC to the public, with a more arrogant and omniscient stance? It might invite more notice, more debate, more exposure, more success, more relevance? BRING IT ON? Gulp!
I’ve been pondering this one again.
Empiricism is how we opine everyday. Whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, forming opinions or determining points of view based on too little information or even an abundance (even worse) of information but not ALL the information will lead to arrogance and omniscience. That’s what causes inflexibility, and all of the human pecking systems. It’s a double edged sword. Educated intelligence serves an important service. The world of Facts let you make decisions, good ones and bad ones, particularly when linked with emotions. Logic and Deduction, I’ll say might lead one to ADIO, humility, and the potential to receive Grace.
Man is an arrogant beast, to a fault.
Is that a. Empirical statement? Perhaps. Hmmmmmmm