View Single Post
Old 2011-02-20, 06:56   Link #3061
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 26
Originally Posted by Ascaloth View Post
Non sequitur. Marxism was a philosophy, and the empirical method is the collection of data on which to to base a theory or derive a conclusion in scientific inquiry. Therefore, how does the failure of the application of Marxist ideology in real life lead to a demonstrated weakness in the empirical method?
I should apologize, my previous post was admittedly somewhat convoluted.
The attempt to implement Marxism was born, in my estimation, of a somewhat arrogant mentality and of looking at the issue at face value. Indeed you're right, it's not really the case that empiricism or the scientific method are wrong, but rather how people view them.

Additionally, Straw Man. Nobody's making the argument that empirical analysis is sufficient to lead to the whole "truth" (whatever it may be), but it is by far our best possible toolbox for the purpose....or to be more accurate, if ever we find a better alternative, it will be incorporated into that same toolbox. So, since you're trying to invoke the "other ways of knowing" argument, why don't you give a few examples?
A lot of people make that argument, and with it, some assumptions. They believe that empiricism is not only the best way to create an airplane or machine gun, or otherwise explain hard facts, but also the best way to live and regard life. Richard Dawkins is a good example, as well as a mass of people who claim, rather inanely, religious faith to be evil and blinding.

The point is not to find an alternative to empiricism; we already know that casting spells will not manufacture gold or allow one to fly, but rather to rectify the very mentality or consciousness that people hold towards existence. It would be wrong, in my view, to approach God or the divine as though they could be understood in human terms. Likewise, it would be wrong to hold empiricism and science as a god, which I feel some people do even if they would never admit to such a thing. The two concepts should and do ideally occupy different levels in man's awareness. Newton, for instance, used empirical methods to correctly determine physical laws, but simultaneously acknowledged a divine nature behind it all. He was willing to admit that what he discovered was neither whole nor absolute, and this is how scientists and people in general should conduct themselves.

Likewise, religious people would be idiots to deny, in the modern age, the efficacy of science and its method. They should not place faith on the same level as science, for the two are fundamentally different and should take different places in human intellect and character.

Try again.
See above.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote