• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why are the Sciences Empirical?

siti

Well-Known Member
But once, there was no science. And then there was.
But that in itself was a kind of scientific discovery - a triumph of empiricism...when someone (often credited to Francis Bacon but for sure people had been doing it long before that) noted that observation and induction (in preference to rhetoric and logic) comprised the appropriate method for discerning 'truth' about the natural world. This was not an invention - it was a discovery.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
But that in itself was a kind of scientific discovery - a triumph of empiricism...when someone (often credited to Francis Bacon but for sure people had been doing it long before that) noted that observation and induction (in preference to rhetoric and logic) comprised the appropriate method for discerning 'truth' about the natural world. This was not an invention - it was a discovery.

And before it was a discovery, it began as an idea.. An *imagined* idea...
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
There is a philosophy behind the scientific method.

...With empiricism, it is just a natural human experience that has existed since the concious mind began to acknowledge it's senses and surrounding environment.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Look: there always was a time when people took the input of senses to be real. To be the truth. That's empiricism. Then, at some point, they said that we should doubt the input of senses, we should test them to make sure that we're correct. That's science.

Materialism is another beast.
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
There is a philosophy behind the scientific method.

...With empiricism, it is just a natural human experience that has existed since the concious mind began to acknowledge it's senses and surrounding environment.
Empiricism is the philosophical theory that the world open to and describable by our interpretation of sensory data is adequately represented.

That's not a bad thing.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Without basic materialist & empiricist assumptions you cannot have science.

I would agree with you. You could have knowledge. That is you could have "justified true beliefs", but you could not have what we know as "science". Science can be thought of as a special case or subset of justifications.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Not really. It always was an idea, an empirical idea.

It sparked the imagination, but that's a different thing.

There is no such thing as an empirical idea. Unless someone can show one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
What else is there?
Well, empiricism's claim is that sensory and observable data was the only correct source of truth. Complex ideas were compiled of sensory data: a unicorn was the idea of a horse combined with the idea of a horn. But we do have ideas that are not related to sensory or observable data, yet still significantly shape the world: ideas such as integrity, honour, and promise. Empiricism was contrasted with rationalism, which asserts that we can know truths apart from the observed world, for instance from logic and mathematics, ethics and metaphysics, which have no foundation in the observable world. We know a bachelor to be unmarried because of definition, not from observing them living a solitary life.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Going beyond the obvious truth of that, what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?
Because the most easily understood things about existence as a whole, those which are the most accessible, are an attempt to address the most basic underlying question of all existence, "Why am I?" We glorify its successes, such as they are, because they promise answers, or rather the hope of answers to our most deepest questions of our own being.

The empiric approach is like taking metaphors and making them facts. It helps the mind settle down into something tangible it can digest. "All reduces down to the testable. In this I can rest my troubled mind. LIfe is predictable, on some level." While science is wonderful, it isn't a substitute for coming to terms existentially with one's own being.

So the other reason why that is the chosen path is, the hope that tests can reveal God. It bypasses the interior path, the scarey, and dark path where one faces annihilation. "If I can make rational sense of all of this of which I am part, then I can overcome the terror of my nonbeing". It's trying to put handles on the transcendent. It tries to bring God down to earth and put it in a bottle to analyze.
 
Last edited:
Top