harmonygirl's Journal

I'll listen to what you have to say, HG. Not that I have a lot of pull -- but the frustrations you've expressed here I've encountered for more than a decade.

I wouldn't have thought there could have been so much bias in empiricism -- yet positivism, empiricism's formal philosophy of choice, has allowed its own tail (empirical methodology) to wag the dog (i.e., the pursuit of some of the deepest truths related to the nature of reality -- which aren't likely to be physical in nature). Remove the methodology, and most concepts are no longer viewed as valid, in such limiting circles: whether by intent or by accident, they're instead dismissed (or marginalized) as invalid. That's where the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary (empirical) evidence" requirement often comes from, I think; certainly, it's rarely explained or justified as a fail-safe. I've come to believe it's mostly all about foot-dragging -- and the foot-dragging is mostly about fear.

I view such entrenchments as that of "empirical fundamentalism" -- whose primary driving force is aberrantly emotional (psychological) in nature, rather than "reasonable" or logical (hardly anyone actually practices logic any more, anyway, except those that teach it).

Why is such a fundamentalism unreasonable? Because the concept of its own bias is usually emotionally-driven: there often exists an apparent fear of almost everything that potentially supercedes the emotional comfort zones of the physical world, which is viewed as safe. (And religious fundamentalists aren't the only ones who trot out their own proof-textings in defense. When that happens in science, empirical fundamentalism's proof-texting is often camouflaged as "required" erudition.)

The irony of all ironies: the irrationality of empirical prejudice must be viewed as subjective (emotional) in nature -- mustn't it? That's been my experience with it all of these years. It so often comes packaged with anger or outrage.

"There must be a way:" I strongly suggest the establishment of what might be called "substantial anecdotal evidence (SAE?)," which would carry equal weight with empirical methodology...if that doesn't already exist in someone's barn. For this to work, SAE can't be waved away as, say, "complementary." SAE and empirical results MUST somehow, some way, share equal billing.

The trick would be determining what qualifies as "substantial" in SAE. Still, once you've established that, the floodgates of discovery might open: for no longer would that which is difficult to disassemble be (necessarily) dismissed because either the empiricist or his/her methodology isn't up to dealing with it -- and particularly when it's the former, those roadblocks that usually tend to commonly pop up would then be sidestepped, which is what must happen.

Philosophical speculations need only be tenable (yay, philosophy!) -- which means that they first must withstand unbiased empiricial scrutiny (and what I'm also suggesting would be SAE). But after that, there's no telling where a "newly-rational" speculative energy and its resultant discussions might lead.

One final point to add: practitioners of strict empirical methodology often tend to turn non-empirical TOE speculations into the "guilty until proven innocent" category, which I've never cared for at all. It's part of the strictly-empirical belief limitations that have gradually overgrown the labs of science.

However -- when the criteria instead re-focuses on "genuine tenability" (a determination of SAE, say) -- let's get some physical world anomalies on the table as part of these discussions! -- then I believe the sky's the limit. Excitement would then re-fill the air, and speculations would return to the realms of the electric, where they belong.

Would there still be a place for caution? Of course. The only difference would be that caution would cease to serve as the sole propellar of discovery.

DCB

Harmonygirl, "wholeness" and "empiricism" together... each a face of that greater wholeness to which I think you allude. Expansion stands perhaps for understanding. With language one can never express beyond a level of wholeness but picks around something until it quietly stands before the mind's eye.
What interests me these days is how far this process can be pushed and what is it like? Is it like a spider's web? Is it like an echo?
I like the echo idea because I noticed that many processes are variations on each other and repeat throughout eons of stuff.
That is why I think the most materialistic empiricist can also be as right as the guy who is full of echoes.
This situation promotes a certain kind of thinking.