[PEN-L:11624] Re: Empiricism

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 09/23/99 04:06PM >>>

Being empirically-oriented is not the same thing as being an empiricist. An
empiricist basically says that theories are unnecessary, relying only on
"common sense." I guess Carrol is thinking of the Empirio-criticism debate
of classical Marxism, in which some (like Eduard Bernstein) rejected
Marxian theory as a whole because of empirical evidence rather than seeing
that a lot of that theory is abstract and therefore does not apply directly
to the "real world" without bringing in extra information (like the
existence of the division of the world between the conquering and the
conquered nations, as in the theories of imperialism of Lenin, Luxemburg,
and Bukharin).

((((((((((((

Charles: Just for a different take on this, it would seem that empirio-critics were actually being less empirical than those usinjg the "extra information". The existence of the division of the world between the conquering and the conquered nations was a stone cold empirical fact.  To the extent that ththe Bernsteins ignored these facts they were NOT being empirical. The abstractness of facts does not make them non-empirical. Concrete facts are not more factual than abstract facts.  For example, the empirical facts about the subatomic structure of the atom are very abstract, that is derived through very indirect observation, but they are still empirical observations. They are not based on pure imagination.

Rod writes:
>The way we learn is more complicated that that. We are constantly moving
>back forth from "facts" to "theory", or if you prefer from the concrete to
>the abstract. Any one you attempts to "theorise" without information, is
>engaged in a dream world (is an idealist). We need both. It is a mistake to
>call all appeals to the "facts" empiricist.

This is right on target. Both "facts" and "theory" are necessary. In fact,
they nourish each other.

I agree that even though theories are needed, those which lack any
empirical or practical content are like building castles in the air.
Similarly, though empirical content is needed, thinking which rejects
theory and abstraction altogether isn't really thinking.

(((((((((((((

Charles: This is very true but insufficient for a scientific approach. Theory-empiricism must be united with practice to be fully scientific. Theory-empirical observation by themselves are scholastic.

Scholastic philosophers have interpreted the world ( based on empirical observations of it) in a number of ways. The thing is to change it.

Charles Brown