Empiricism and Inequality

Not quite philosophy discussions, debates, various thought experiments and other topics of interest.

Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 10th, 2015, 12:05 pm 

vivian maxine » August 10th, 2015, 8:35 am wrote:
Positor » August 10th, 2015, 7:02 am wrote:I understand Daktoria's argument to be as follows:

It is rational and acceptable to sample things and take the risk that one's conclusions about the unsampled members of the group may be inaccurate or incomplete. However, it is unethical to sample people, and take political decisions on that basis, because one may be overlooking special needs that the unsampled persons may have. In a political context, therefore, one needs to consider every person in a group individually. Applying so-called 'equal treatment' to a group of people when one is ignorant of the specific (perhaps anomalous) needs of all of them can lead to inequality of outcome.



A very good example. A certain town in Kansas (better not name it and start a war) allows pedestrians 30 seconds to cross a quite busy six-lane thoroughfare. Actually, it was more like 18 seconds to me but maybe I count fast when crossing a busy street. When some of us protested that 30 seconds was not enough time, the reply was "My job is to keep traffic moving". Any sampling will show that there are more cars than people today. Even with no sampling, this pedestrian can attest to that fact.


Maybe.

A better example would be a society where people methodically socialize, communicate, and interact to make sure that infrastructure is completely developed such that people aren't exposed to danger or difficulty when using it. We shouldn't be anti-social in simply having a results-oriented attitude in building infrastructure to get the job done. Instead, we should realize that people matter, and take a process-oriented attitude in how we build it.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 10th, 2015, 12:11 pm 

Natural ChemE » August 10th, 2015, 9:35 am wrote:Just to link the technical ideas related to how we avoid issues in empirical analysis:
  1. Markov chain Monte Carlo;
  2. Metropolis algorithm.

The linked subjects are graduate-level topics, so they're probably not accessible from the Wikipedia articles alone. However, the gist is that we repeat samples to check for "convergence". Convergence is said to be achieved the found solution stops changing after further iterative refinement/sampling, so we consider refinement/sampling to be sufficient.


I've studied statistics, so I understand what you're saying.

Still, reiterations don't deductively prove that samples are reliable. They're just an improvement of sampling's inductive basis. You're basically taking probabilities of probabilities, and then saying, "The chance of things being wrong is incredibly slim, so it's OK to make decisions this way."

The point I'm making is we shouldn't be focusing on what's sufficient (AKA good enough). We should be focusing on what's necessary (AKA all-encompassing).

Another way of putting it is I'd rather see a society designed by calculus, not statistics. The point is to analyze the function itself, not just take a bunch of datapoints and come to a regression.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Paralith on August 10th, 2015, 12:27 pm 

If your priorities as a decision maker are to make allowances for all people in a population, then understanding the empirically demonstrable limitations of sampling you implement policy which is prepared to handle the issues highlighted by the sampling, but that also has mechanisms in place to adapt to the needs of people as they arise, within whatever cost-benefit bounds you are dealing with.

Again, you're talking about methodologies. Not empiricism as a whole.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3039
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby CanadysPeak on August 10th, 2015, 3:27 pm 

Daktoria » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:11 pm wrote:
Natural ChemE » August 10th, 2015, 9:35 am wrote:Just to link the technical ideas related to how we avoid issues in empirical analysis:
  1. Markov chain Monte Carlo;
  2. Metropolis algorithm.

The linked subjects are graduate-level topics, so they're probably not accessible from the Wikipedia articles alone. However, the gist is that we repeat samples to check for "convergence". Convergence is said to be achieved the found solution stops changing after further iterative refinement/sampling, so we consider refinement/sampling to be sufficient.


I've studied statistics, so I understand what you're saying.

Still, reiterations don't deductively prove that samples are reliable. They're just an improvement of sampling's inductive basis. You're basically taking probabilities of probabilities, and then saying, "The chance of things being wrong is incredibly slim, so it's OK to make decisions this way."

The point I'm making is we shouldn't be focusing on what's sufficient (AKA good enough). We should be focusing on what's necessary (AKA all-encompassing).

Another way of putting it is I'd rather see a society designed by calculus, not statistics. The point is to analyze the function itself, not just take a bunch of datapoints and come to a regression.

That would mean a full-blown cavity search for every airline passenger. Oy vey!
CanadysPeak
 
Natural ChemE liked this post


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Paralith on August 10th, 2015, 4:01 pm 

CanadysPeak » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:27 pm wrote:
Daktoria » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:11 pm wrote:
Natural ChemE » August 10th, 2015, 9:35 am wrote:Just to link the technical ideas related to how we avoid issues in empirical analysis:
  1. Markov chain Monte Carlo;
  2. Metropolis algorithm.

The linked subjects are graduate-level topics, so they're probably not accessible from the Wikipedia articles alone. However, the gist is that we repeat samples to check for "convergence". Convergence is said to be achieved the found solution stops changing after further iterative refinement/sampling, so we consider refinement/sampling to be sufficient.


I've studied statistics, so I understand what you're saying.

Still, reiterations don't deductively prove that samples are reliable. They're just an improvement of sampling's inductive basis. You're basically taking probabilities of probabilities, and then saying, "The chance of things being wrong is incredibly slim, so it's OK to make decisions this way."

The point I'm making is we shouldn't be focusing on what's sufficient (AKA good enough). We should be focusing on what's necessary (AKA all-encompassing).

Another way of putting it is I'd rather see a society designed by calculus, not statistics. The point is to analyze the function itself, not just take a bunch of datapoints and come to a regression.

That would mean a full-blown cavity search for every airline passenger. Oy vey!


Indeed. I feel that Daktoria may be confusing limitations of time and resources with empiricism. Empirically, the only way to be 100% certain of the qualities of 100% of a population is to sample every single member of that population, yes. But in terms of making policy and governance choices, do we have time to survey all 300+ million people in the United States? Do we have the people with the training and the resources to pay them to conduct these surveys in such a way as to be sure the survey results are 100% accurate in representing the needs and desires of each person surveyed? And once we have our complete knowledge of what every single person needs, do we have the ability and resources to implement a policy that takes care of 100% of the needs of every single citizen?

There may be certain critical issues of human and civil rights that deserve such exhaustive attention. But I doubt any of those issues has ever been granted sufficient resources to actually receive an absolutely complete survey and response ensuring complete equality. This is not the fault of empiricism. This is the fault of choices humans have made about what methods to pursue in making and implementing policy decisions.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3039
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 10th, 2015, 5:58 pm 

Paralith » August 10th, 2015, 11:27 am wrote:If your priorities as a decision maker are to make allowances for all people in a population, then understanding the empirically demonstrable limitations of sampling you implement policy which is prepared to handle the issues highlighted by the sampling, but that also has mechanisms in place to adapt to the needs of people as they arise, within whatever cost-benefit bounds you are dealing with.

Again, you're talking about methodologies. Not empiricism as a whole.


Empiricism in general is about samples because of the nature of evidence gathering. When we experience facts in reality, we only experience some of them, not all of them. You can't discuss empiricism without automatically talking about methodology. The policies you implement automatically depend on the evidence you've already gathered, and generalizing what you've experienced to what you've yet to experience.

The instant you include adaptation within policy implementation is the instant you're no longer empirical. You're talking about taking actions that are independent of what's already experienced.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 10th, 2015, 6:02 pm 

CanadysPeak » August 10th, 2015, 2:27 pm wrote:
Daktoria » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:11 pm wrote:
Natural ChemE » August 10th, 2015, 9:35 am wrote:Just to link the technical ideas related to how we avoid issues in empirical analysis:
  1. Markov chain Monte Carlo;
  2. Metropolis algorithm.

The linked subjects are graduate-level topics, so they're probably not accessible from the Wikipedia articles alone. However, the gist is that we repeat samples to check for "convergence". Convergence is said to be achieved the found solution stops changing after further iterative refinement/sampling, so we consider refinement/sampling to be sufficient.


I've studied statistics, so I understand what you're saying.

Still, reiterations don't deductively prove that samples are reliable. They're just an improvement of sampling's inductive basis. You're basically taking probabilities of probabilities, and then saying, "The chance of things being wrong is incredibly slim, so it's OK to make decisions this way."

The point I'm making is we shouldn't be focusing on what's sufficient (AKA good enough). We should be focusing on what's necessary (AKA all-encompassing).

Another way of putting it is I'd rather see a society designed by calculus, not statistics. The point is to analyze the function itself, not just take a bunch of datapoints and come to a regression.

That would mean a full-blown cavity search for every airline passenger. Oy vey!


Not really. For example, we already use x-rays and metal detectors when determining whether or not people are carrying hazardous materials onto airplanes. Likewise, airlines are expected to purchase aviation insurance in case of accidents and incidents. In fact, aviation insurance preceded the advent of x-rays and metal detectors such that we expected airlines to categorically protect society and passengers in case things went wrong even if we didn't know what originally caused those wrongdoings.

A similar example is how we expect automobile drivers/owners to insure their vehicles for liability as well. That way, if they force others to endure damages, we know those damages will be afforded even if the driver/owner can't afford the damages oneself.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Paralith on August 10th, 2015, 6:16 pm 

Daktoria wrote:The instant you include adaptation within policy implementation is the instant you're no longer empirical. You're talking about taking actions that are independent of what's already experienced.


How is adaptation within policy not empirical? If the policy implementation comes across an individual not represented by the initial sample, then the implementation basically samples that individual on the spot and learns what they need by direct observation of that person. Sounds pretty empirical to me. Again, it's about whether or not you implement your policy in such a way that it is able to do so. That is a choice to be made by the policy designers, not a necessity of empiricism.

If what you're trying to say is, it's impossible to know with 100% accuracy the exact needs and desires of 100% of the population at 100% of all possible time points in the future, well then yea, of course that's impossible. And there's nothing about empiricism that claims such a thing is possible. With empiricism we gain knowledge about the world through observation. There are no promises about how much knowledge or how complete that knowledge will be, only that the more you observe the more you can gain.

And, as has been asked of you before, and as many of us have asked the many people who've come through this forum poo-pooing empiricism - what alternative method are you offering? We know empiricism is not guaranteed to grant us whole and perfect knowledge. But how else do you propose we go about gathering knowledge? How else do you propose we learn about the people you feel are being unequally treated?
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3039
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby CanadysPeak on August 10th, 2015, 6:36 pm 

Daktoria » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:05 pm wrote:
vivian maxine » August 10th, 2015, 8:35 am wrote:
Positor » August 10th, 2015, 7:02 am wrote:I understand Daktoria's argument to be as follows:

It is rational and acceptable to sample things and take the risk that one's conclusions about the unsampled members of the group may be inaccurate or incomplete. However, it is unethical to sample people, and take political decisions on that basis, because one may be overlooking special needs that the unsampled persons may have. In a political context, therefore, one needs to consider every person in a group individually. Applying so-called 'equal treatment' to a group of people when one is ignorant of the specific (perhaps anomalous) needs of all of them can lead to inequality of outcome.



A very good example. A certain town in Kansas (better not name it and start a war) allows pedestrians 30 seconds to cross a quite busy six-lane thoroughfare. Actually, it was more like 18 seconds to me but maybe I count fast when crossing a busy street. When some of us protested that 30 seconds was not enough time, the reply was "My job is to keep traffic moving". Any sampling will show that there are more cars than people today. Even with no sampling, this pedestrian can attest to that fact.


Maybe.

A better example would be a society where people methodically socialize, communicate, and interact to make sure that infrastructure is completely developed such that people aren't exposed to danger or difficulty when using it. We shouldn't be anti-social in simply having a results-oriented attitude in building infrastructure to get the job done. Instead, we should realize that people matter, and take a process-oriented attitude in how we build it.


I was recently at Bird Rock on Cape St. Mary's, NL, home of one of the major Gannet colonies. The approach to Bird Rock is steep, rocky, and slippery. Almost any fall or slip would send the hapless person over the cliff and into the sea, resulting in almost certain death. Absolute safety would require a chain link fence, patrol boats in the ocean below, patrols by law enforcement, and much of the bird area completely off limits to birders. Newfis, who think people should live, as opposed to prolonging existence, merely drive some orange stakes in the flattest areas of the clifftops and put up a sign saying something like, "Try to stay near the orange stakes to avoid falling off the cliffs." 100 % safety means no Harley-Davidsons, no football, airplanes that drive from city to city, etc. Bugger the nanny state.
CanadysPeak
 
TheVat liked this post


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 10th, 2015, 7:17 pm 

Paralith » August 10th, 2015, 3:01 pm wrote:Indeed. I feel that Daktoria may be confusing limitations of time and resources with empiricism. Empirically, the only way to be 100% certain of the qualities of 100% of a population is to sample every single member of that population, yes. But in terms of making policy and governance choices, do we have time to survey all 300+ million people in the United States? Do we have the people with the training and the resources to pay them to conduct these surveys in such a way as to be sure the survey results are 100% accurate in representing the needs and desires of each person surveyed? And once we have our complete knowledge of what every single person needs, do we have the ability and resources to implement a policy that takes care of 100% of the needs of every single citizen?

There may be certain critical issues of human and civil rights that deserve such exhaustive attention. But I doubt any of those issues has ever been granted sufficient resources to actually receive an absolutely complete survey and response ensuring complete equality. This is not the fault of empiricism. This is the fault of choices humans have made about what methods to pursue in making and implementing policy decisions.


Well first off, that's not even feasible. You'd have to install video cameras and microphones everywhere and otherwise design a network of surveillance equipment that perpetually surveys evidence to uphold people's civil rights. Not only is that massively expensive, but it also violates people's rights to privacy. Even if you could afford it, carrying it out would violate due process.

Second off, people are constantly pioneering into new areas and types of activity where surveillance equipment hasn't been setup yet. On top of that, the very act of setting up equipment would take place while not being surveyed.

Third off, people already live in areas where surveillance equipment hasn't been setup yet. Are we supposed to say their rights and others' responsibilities are subject to convenience? They're only entitled to respect if they either don't get violated before equipment is setup, or if they do get violated after? What if they get violated before equipment is setup?

I just find it a little ironic that you're trying to divide between empiricism and the costs of gathering evidence. Empiricism's value comes from being in touch with reality, but ignoring the costs is incredibly unrealistic! Again, the economic costs are secondary here. The real costs at hand are the violations of civil rights which happen when people aren't being surveyed.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 10th, 2015, 7:46 pm 

Paralith » August 10th, 2015, 5:16 pm wrote:
Daktoria wrote:The instant you include adaptation within policy implementation is the instant you're no longer empirical. You're talking about taking actions that are independent of what's already experienced.


How is adaptation within policy not empirical? If the policy implementation comes across an individual not represented by the initial sample, then the implementation basically samples that individual on the spot and learns what they need by direct observation of that person. Sounds pretty empirical to me. Again, it's about whether or not you implement your policy in such a way that it is able to do so. That is a choice to be made by the policy designers, not a necessity of empiricism.

If what you're trying to say is, it's impossible to know with 100% accuracy the exact needs and desires of 100% of the population at 100% of all possible time points in the future, well then yea, of course that's impossible. And there's nothing about empiricism that claims such a thing is possible. With empiricism we gain knowledge about the world through observation. There are no promises about how much knowledge or how complete that knowledge will be, only that the more you observe the more you can gain.

And, as has been asked of you before, and as many of us have asked the many people who've come through this forum poo-pooing empiricism - what alternative method are you offering? We know empiricism is not guaranteed to grant us whole and perfect knowledge. But how else do you propose we go about gathering knowledge? How else do you propose we learn about the people you feel are being unequally treated?


In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that government should be rational so people can be empirical within their own lives. People in their own lives learn from experience how things work. The point of government isn't to figure out what works, but to ensure that the people are secure to figure out what works among themselves. Sometimes, people talk among themselves to share what they've learned as well, but that's an act of socializing, not governing. The point of governing is to make sure that people socialize fairly so they don't violate each other to give information away.

Surveying people like that ignores how some people can change over time, how it makes people self-conscious and they won't necessarily give confident answers, and how some people are manipulative in how they answer surveys.

On top of that, it's not even really empirical because now, you're talking about policy design. You're not talking about policy implementation. Empirical policies take what's already known, and put it into action.

Heck, you really shouldn't trust politicians with empiricism because they'll often manipulate due process for their own self-interests in saying that enough evidence has been gathered, so no more is necessary. It's nice that you're suggesting we can survey 100% of people, but politics doesn't work like that. In politics, politicians are looking to secure support from constituents. That means once they've gathered enough evidence to satisfy enough constituents, they'll claim that any further surveys are too much to be bothered.

On the other hand, even if politicians do gather 100% evidence, they won't necessarily use that information honestly. Sometimes, politicians use evidence for ulterior motives to become more powerful than they're supposed to be, or to secure power beyond the term that they're supposed to be empowered.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Natural ChemE on August 11th, 2015, 3:01 am 

Daktoria,

What are you proposing if empiricism is to be avoided? For example, how should policy makers construct their policies if they don't use empirical evidence?
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Natural ChemE on August 11th, 2015, 6:25 am 


-President Obama on America's Clean Power Plan, via The White House channel on YouTube.

I kinda like how our current President trusts in Science.
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby mtbturtle on August 11th, 2015, 6:42 am 

Empiricism is not Science, although Science is empirical.

I have asked several people involved in these threads and Daktoria has been asked by others and still have not gotten an adequate response - What does Empiricism mean in these threads?
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby vivian maxine on August 11th, 2015, 6:52 am 

I suppose surveys before the governing body acts are good but the problem is most surveys are just that. There is usually no second act. There is no implementation. I don't mean never but I think it is usual. They've already decided what they are going to do and they do it.

Goodness, even voting for something (a kind of survey) doesn't always work. I remember one election day where we had to vote on whether to extend a tax. that was expiring The outcome was no. Next City Council meeting, one of the councilwomen said "they didn't understand what they were voting for. We'll have another vote on it." They did. The consensus was still no.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby CanadysPeak on August 11th, 2015, 8:24 am 

mtbturtle » Tue Aug 11, 2015 6:42 am wrote:Empiricism is not Science, although Science is empirical.

I have asked several people involved in these threads and Daktoria has been asked by others and still have not gotten an adequate response - What does Empiricism mean in these threads?


Well, I know you want an answer, and I can't answer for anyone else because I only know what my sensory inputs tell me, but I will try to give you my answer.

Empiricism has been divided, and subdivided, a whole bunch of times. We have constructive empiricism, irrational constructive empiricism, seventh day irrational constructive empiricism, ad infinitum, but the gist of it all is that I know the world through my senses. It has nothing to do with the method(s) I employ to provide input to my senses.

Do you recall the famous (well, I think it is) Cheech and Chong sketch about dog shit. They approach a pile of something (well watch)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY7ZX6ngOSs
They are empiricists.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 11th, 2015, 12:58 pm 

Natural ChemE » August 11th, 2015, 2:01 am wrote:Daktoria,

What are you proposing if empiricism is to be avoided? For example, how should policy makers construct their policies if they don't use empirical evidence?


Policy design should respect the experimental design process, not the results of experiments. That way, the people are free to use empirical evidence in their own lives. They don't have to conform to the evidence which others have discovered. After all, different people design experiments differently, and their experimental designs aren't necessarily compatible. Just because someone claims to have discovered evidence doesn't mean everyone trusts someone's evidence as valid. People should be free to socialize and verify or falsify evidence as they see fit.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 11th, 2015, 1:03 pm 

Natural ChemE » August 11th, 2015, 5:25 am wrote:
-President Obama on America's Clean Power Plan, via The White House channel on YouTube.

I kinda like how our current President trusts in Science.


I wasn't really thinking on a national level to be fair. I was thinking more on a local level of government.

Heck, you might argue that global warming exists because of people being expected to conform to institutional levels of production in society due to the evidence which institutions have presented towards local communities. They expect people to go along with the flow or else they're being difficult.

On the other hand, it is a crying shame that people treat Earth as the entirety of our environment. The real problem seems to be consumerism in that we've wasted so many resources on being pleased here and now that we've forsakened exploring outer space. People experience the facts which surround them, feel a certain way, and want to be immediately entertained. They aren't willing to embrace rational discipline in analyzing how to make the most out of what we have over the long-term.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 11th, 2015, 1:07 pm 

mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 5:42 am wrote:Empiricism is not Science, although Science is empirical.

I have asked several people involved in these threads and Daktoria has been asked by others and still have not gotten an adequate response - What does Empiricism mean in these threads?


I said something earlier to the effect of it being about studying facts in reality from experience, and then extrapolating the samples of what we study to the population of the rest of reality.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby mtbturtle on August 11th, 2015, 1:11 pm 

Daktoria » Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:07 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 5:42 am wrote:Empiricism is not Science, although Science is empirical.

I have asked several people involved in these threads and Daktoria has been asked by others and still have not gotten an adequate response - What does Empiricism mean in these threads?


I said something earlier to the effect of it being about studying facts in reality from experience, and then extrapolating the samples of what we study to the population of the rest of reality.


Can you point to any source that attaches the last part regarding extrapolating the samples etc? I've never seen that description used when it comes to empiricism.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 11th, 2015, 1:16 pm 

vivian maxine » August 11th, 2015, 5:52 am wrote:I suppose surveys before the governing body acts are good but the problem is most surveys are just that. There is usually no second act. There is no implementation. I don't mean never but I think it is usual. They've already decided what they are going to do and they do it.

Goodness, even voting for something (a kind of survey) doesn't always work. I remember one election day where we had to vote on whether to extend a tax. that was expiring The outcome was no. Next City Council meeting, one of the councilwomen said "they didn't understand what they were voting for. We'll have another vote on it." They did. The consensus was still no.


The problem with implementing surveys is a matter of practice. Even if you know what everyone wants or needs, the question becomes a matter of how to get it done.

This is another area where empiricism fails. It fails to draw the bridge on transforming ideas into reality. That transformation process takes rational values to get done, not empirical facts.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 11th, 2015, 1:23 pm 

mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 12:11 pm wrote:
Daktoria » Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:07 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 5:42 am wrote:Empiricism is not Science, although Science is empirical.

I have asked several people involved in these threads and Daktoria has been asked by others and still have not gotten an adequate response - What does Empiricism mean in these threads?


I said something earlier to the effect of it being about studying facts in reality from experience, and then extrapolating the samples of what we study to the population of the rest of reality.


Can you point to any source that attaches the last part regarding extrapolating the samples etc? I've never seen that description used when it comes to empiricism.


It comes from the nature of gathering evidence. The fact is when we gather evidence, we don't gather evidence about all of reality all at once. We gather samples over time.

Likewise, we then compare those samples to other parts of reality which are similar to what we've already gathered evidence on. For example, in medicine, we study some people's bodies, understand how their anatomy works, and then extrapolate the sample of bodies we've already studied to the population of others. We don't study everyone's bodies all at once. We learn from experience about the evidence of some, and use that experience in understanding others.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby mtbturtle on August 11th, 2015, 1:33 pm 

Daktoria » Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:23 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 12:11 pm wrote:
Daktoria » Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:07 pm wrote:I said something earlier to the effect of it being about studying facts in reality from experience, and then extrapolating the samples of what we study to the population of the rest of reality.


Can you point to any source that attaches the last part regarding extrapolating the samples etc? I've never seen that description used when it comes to empiricism.


It comes from the nature of gathering evidence. The fact is when we gather evidence, we don't gather evidence about all of reality all at once. We gather samples over time.

Likewise, we then compare those samples to other parts of reality which are similar to what we've already gathered evidence on. For example, in medicine, we study some people's bodies, understand how their anatomy works, and then extrapolate the sample of bodies we've already studied to the population of others. We don't study everyone's bodies all at once. We learn from experience about the evidence of some, and use that experience in understanding others.


So that would be no you can't point me to a source. This is your own spin that you label Empiricism, and we should not be translating your comments with the more standard dictionary definition as knowledge via the senses, experience.

Your problem I think is more with the process of generalization and induction not with empiricism, knowledge via the senses.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005
neuroParalith liked this post


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Paralith on August 11th, 2015, 1:45 pm 

Yea, at this point I feel that Daktoria says "If you do X then it's not empiricism" and then I say "No X is totally empiricism", and that's been the summary of our last few interchanges. It's a narrowing of the definition to only include those things which Daktoria disapproves of.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3039
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby mtbturtle on August 11th, 2015, 2:26 pm 

The complaint also seems to come from the effects of bureaucracy treating people like numbers rather than individuals rather than sampling methods or anything to do with Empiricism, knowledge via the senses. We have conflicting wants going on - We want everybody to be treated the same, the same rules apply to everybody (Equality) and we also want to be treated according to our unique, individual circumstances (Individuality).
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 11th, 2015, 4:32 pm 

mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 12:33 pm wrote:
So that would be no you can't point me to a source.


What does a source have to do with anything?

Are you saying we can't analyze concepts unto themselves? How do you suppose sources are even composed in the first place?

Honestly, you come off as a wise guy at this point. Anyone who's literate and has read an abundance of literature knows that people don't keep track of everything they've read.

On top of that, anyone who's literate and has read an abundance of literature knows there are certain concepts you understand the gist of over time. You don't cite everything.

Maybe you need to get out of the ivory tower and stop operating according to academic standards. For all you seem to defend empiricism, you seem very out of touch with reality.

It's times like this that I'm reminded of how actual working class people get sick and tired of "empiricists". For all empiricists clamor for equality, they don't seem to know what they're talking about. In fact, if you're in touch with reality, you would know how much working class people have been laughing at academics due to the ridiculous unemployment and underemployment rate that graduates have been encountering.

The reason they're unemployed is very simple. There's a difference between facts and evidence, but academics who are obsessed with empiricism don't understand that difference. They're either ridiculously naive in not understanding how reality works because they haven't yet sensed it, or they're ridiculously immature in saying they deserve the right to screw around because people haven't sensed the wrongdoings they committed.

In the real world, people aren't stupid, but empiricists insist on treating them like they are.
Last edited by Daktoria on August 11th, 2015, 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Paul Anthony on August 11th, 2015, 4:40 pm 

Perhaps you could explain this to the political pundits that insist on believing all women think alike, as do all blacks and all liberals and all conservatives and all Hispanics....

Each time pollsters tell us what each category and subcategory thinks, more of us "fall through the cracks".

I agree that the accepted methods of categorizing the characteristics of "things" doesn't apply as well with people.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 11th, 2015, 4:50 pm 

Paul Anthony » August 11th, 2015, 3:40 pm wrote:Perhaps you could explain this to the political pundits that insist on believing all women think alike, as do all blacks and all liberals and all conservatives and all Hispanics....

Each time pollsters tell us what each category and subcategory thinks, more of us "fall through the cracks".

I agree that the accepted methods of categorizing the characteristics of "things" doesn't apply as well with people.


Yea, that's a lot of the point. I do make that point, but conservative empiricists don't want to listen.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby mtbturtle on August 11th, 2015, 5:06 pm 

Daktoria » Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:32 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 12:33 pm wrote:
So that would be no you can't point me to a source.


What does a source have to do with anything?


Understanding what you are talking about. Where your ideas came from. They might just be clearer than you've been.

|
Honestly, you come off as a wise guy at this point. Anyone who's literate and has read an abundance of literature knows that people don't keep track of everything they've read.


Ok I'm done. I tried to be polite and ask you questions about what you meant and was even willing to read some background materials if they were available but I don't need the insults and attitude.



On top of that, anyone who's literate and has read an abundance of literature knows there are certain concepts you understand the gist of over time. You don't cite everything.


Since you are using an idosyncratic definition it is up to you to supply that definition and to make an argument about why the rest of us should abandon the standard definition and adopt yours. So far there has been no such analysis or argument offered and we had to pull a simple definition out of you.

next time you question others' literacy here expect to be banned.

The rest is just a screed about academics. In fact that is how most of these threads comes across and since you are resorting to personal insults perhaps it's time I close it down.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 12th, 2015, 4:49 pm 

mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 4:06 pm wrote:
Daktoria » Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:32 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 12:33 pm wrote:
So that would be no you can't point me to a source.


What does a source have to do with anything?


Understanding what you are talking about. Where your ideas came from. They might just be clearer than you've been.

|
Honestly, you come off as a wise guy at this point. Anyone who's literate and has read an abundance of literature knows that people don't keep track of everything they've read.


Ok I'm done. I tried to be polite and ask you questions about what you meant and was even willing to read some background materials if they were available but I don't need the insults and attitude.



On top of that, anyone who's literate and has read an abundance of literature knows there are certain concepts you understand the gist of over time. You don't cite everything.


Since you are using an idosyncratic definition it is up to you to supply that definition and to make an argument about why the rest of us should abandon the standard definition and adopt yours. So far there has been no such analysis or argument offered and we had to pull a simple definition out of you.

next time you question others' literacy here expect to be banned.

The rest is just a screed about academics. In fact that is how most of these threads comes across and since you are resorting to personal insults perhaps it's time I close it down.


I'm not questioning your literacy there. I'm saying that people who read have lives. They don't just dedicate their time, energy, and attention to keeping records about where they've accumulated ideas.

Your expectation of citations is very unrealistic.
Last edited by Daktoria on August 12th, 2015, 5:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Daktoria
 


PreviousNext

Return to Odds & Ends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests