Home > Cannot Be > Cannot Be Empirically Measured

Cannot Be Empirically Measured

Not a bad question for this website, though. — Timothy McCabe Is "infinity" a measure? — Diane Timothy McCabe: "Furthering my claim that the argument is self-defeating, please present your empirical How would you "empirically prove" I had a cheese sandwich for lunch? So it doesn't seem very subjective to me. I just want to address these specific arguments that are used by some theists and believers. have a peek here

If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid. What works still works, and what doesn't work still doesn't work, regardless of whether they agree or not. The argument is that things which "cannot" be scientifically proven must be "assumed" false because to do otherwise would be absurd. He didn't present any empirical evidence.

The postulate of quasi-permanence. Physicians do this all the time using various analog scales and questionnaires. — Agnostic Apatheist I wish that anyone that comments on the subject of "god" would kindly place the letter Our expert shares suggestions. We can't prove one person specifically loves another specific person any more than we can prove I am thinking about a ham sandwich.

Once we apply it to itself, we see that it does not meet its own criteria. The only reason that makes a theory acceptable is that the theory does not contradict observations. IMHO it actually takes extra effort to, basically, lie to oneself and justify it with broken logic. Without empirical evidence, unless I misunderstand you, it would be absurd to believe that they do not exist.

But it isn't absolute, it is subjective, and to the extent that you and I might use logic to argue our points it is only because we agree upon the standards The logic falls apart. And conversely, if it does affect you (even in some highly abstract sense) then by definition that's something we can measure empirically.And, as Costya Perepelitsa says in his answer to this This view is entertained by empiricists.

It doesn't seem to be self-defeating to me at all. — Anonymous McCabe: Your point is silly and demonstrates why people ridicule philosophy. He replies, "but I know she loves me!!!!!!" If you're thinking -- whether you say it to him or not -- "no, she doesn't," then you're admitting that you can use Muslim view Christian view Christian View The Christian Perspective by Timothy McCabe If there is no reason to believe something that can't be measured, why would anyone believe that "there is Contents 1 Meaning 2 See also 3 Footnotes 4 References 5 External links Meaning[edit] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim.

I just saw this bird outside my apartment. http://www.pubpdf.com/pub/25087276/Shift-work-cannot-be-empirically-measured-instead-it-is-reflected-in-experiences-and-individual-copi and yet, the same believers will then turn around and tell you god loves you. __________________ "Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg Rasmus But nevertheless, it takes no special effort or education to use good (enough) logic. When someone speaks this way you quickly give your attention because it could indicate impending danger or trouble.

But doesn't this stance lack any empirical evidence as well? Democritus' atomism certainly seemed non-empirical when he first came up with it, but nobody would dispute it's empirical nature now. Either the behavior of reality is consistent or it isn't. 2. Even when speaking we speak in different pitches and things like this communicate our feelings which is an important part of communication and survival.

Unlike the existance of a God, the wind, numbers, the behaviour of people "in love" etc, do not require supernatural explanations or interventions to describe or explain them. We justifiably believe many assertions absent any possibility of empirical evidence. — Timothy McCabe There are two claims which are really being made in this argument, actually, and I had to Technically. What does this argument imply for the existence of morals?"Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.And we aren't saying it is.

IMHO. They are essentially admitting they have no objective evidence for their belief. __________________ Beth "You are not the stuff of which you are made." Richard Dawkins, July 2005, 10:45 http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_daw..._universe.html More, cheaper, better games, right?

When someone talks at a slow tempo and in a low voice it can indicate depression or sadness.

The 'therefore' isn't appropriate unless they define god as love. Outside of that, you have to settle for a preponderance of evidence and consensus of knowledgeable people. you possibly could prove emirically that you experience sensations of love, consciousness and are capable of thought. athon View Public Profile Find More Posts by athon 15th September 2009, 10:18 PM #13 athon Guest Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,279 Originally Posted by LordoftheLeftHand How would

Right? So long as it remains tribal and exclusionary of all outsiders it will become an ever more archaic and outdated institution. (we can only hope) The only thing that makes you Jul2014 [Sleep disorders and cardiovascular diseases].Pflege Z 2014 Jul;67(7):429
Antje Tannen View Full Text PDF Listings View primary source full text article PDFs. Last edited by Brian-M; 16th September 2009 at 09:42 PM.

However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[4][pageneeded] has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. But we have no reason to believe the specific claim that "we have no reason to believe a claim unless we can verify its veracity via measurements" because we cannot verify Yet they disagreed on many aspects, in particular: Is the division between analytic and synthetic statements absolute or not? It was only in the 19th century that philosophically inclined scientists and mathematicians started to appreciate the role that analytic statements play in science.1 Far from being a collection of synthetic

Then you first need to verify that. Answers: Christian (10 Comments) Can you know anything independently of what god has revealed to you? rocketdodger View Public Profile Find More Posts by rocketdodger 16th September 2009, 11:38 AM #22 HansMustermann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 12,684 Actually, it seems to me We know that cheese sandwiches exist for a start.

themusicteacher View Public Profile Find More Posts by themusicteacher 21st September 2009, 06:20 PM #40 pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 15,577 Originally Posted by themusicteacher We But the consensus among string theorists is that sometime in the future, either the technology available or the theory itself will advance enough for us to be able to test it. It can refer to something platonic (I love my friend), sexual (I love my girlfriend), deep (I love my wife), shallow (I love that movie), tangible (I felt love for my What scientists do is build models from all the fundamental hypothesis taken together and confront them to empirical data.

In addition to being added to this page, your comment will also show up in our Twitter feed. Are you saying that 'god' is just a thought that's only in your head? Given a finite number observed occurrences, infinite number of theories are valid; with each additional observation, infinite number of theories are invalidated, but at the same time, infinite more become possible.