A distinction, please. (a query)

[tjohnson]

Introspection can be observed by the one introspecting. One can observe whether one is in a dream-like state, sharp as a tack, confused, etc. Observation is more fundamental than empirical falsification, since the "empirical" part means verified by observation. In fact, nothing can be "empirically falsified" without observation.

In further fact, any person can empirically falsify his own observations, even ones nobody else can observe. Why does he need the observations of others to empirically falsify anything? He doesn't. I never read anywhere that more than one person is needed to exercise logic.

I think empirical means more than just "verified by observation". In science observations have to be reproducible by others. Science is a group activity more or less by definition.

[BaalChatzaf]

Introspection can be observed by the one introspecting. One can observe whether one is in a dream-like state, sharp as a tack, confused, etc. Observation is more fundamental than empirical falsification, since the "empirical" part means verified by observation. In fact, nothing can be "empirically falsified" without observation.

In further fact, any person can empirically falsify his own observations, even ones nobody else can observe. Why does he need the observations of others to empirically falsify anything? He doesn't. I never read anywhere that more than one person is needed to exercise logic.

I think empirical means more than just "verified by observation". In science observations have to be reproducible by others. Science is a group activity more or less by definition.

Exactly. The protocol is for any experiment to be repeated by an independent experimenter (or group thereof) to eliminate any bias. Singular observations carry little weight.

Witness is at the core of scientific corroberation. Objectivists tend to denigrate witness as a "collectivist" activity. If Objectivist A saw something with his own eyes, that is it. No further corroberation is required. Never mind the possibility of bias, misinterpretation or other error. Seeking witness is for Second Handers.

One wonder where first rate world class Objectivist physicists are? Are they in hiding? Are they all in Galt's Gulch?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

I think empirical means more than just "verified by observation". In science observations have to be reproducible by others. Science is a group activity more or less by definition.

Indeed. That is why introspection is by definition subjective and not scientific. Some people are absolutely convinced that God has spoken to them or that they have been abducted by aliens, should we therefore believe them?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think empirical means more than just "verified by observation". In science observations have to be reproducible by others. Science is a group activity more or less by definition.

GS,

Actually it does not mean "reproducible by others." It just means "reproducible," whether by your observation or by the observation of others. If you were on a desert island, you would depend on "empirical" knowledge to survive. Without others present, how could you be "scientific" enough to progress your knowledge and provide for your own survival if your "others" standard were the case?

Science without observation is not science. Science without others may be poor science, but it still can be science. (Science with observation and corroboration by others is best, of course.)

Getting back to empirical subjective knowledge, I won't even quibble with your "others" standard. Empirical subjective knowledge is happening all over the place these days in a manner that it observable by the agent and by others. Take the Harvard test I mentioned and you will see. It will be reproducible by you anytime you wish and it is reproducible by anybody.

Another case. Scientists are implanting electrodes in the brains of paralyzed people these days and training them how to manipulate these electrodes with thought so they can operate a computer. This is currently being reproduced using the same procedures in different paralyzed people.

I could go on and on. You can either look at this stuff or you can do like everyone is doing all of a sudden. Ignore the evidence and state an opinion as if it were a fact because the facts don't suit your previous bias...

Saying don't make it so, Joe...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Objectivists tend to denigrate witness as a "collectivist" activity. If Objectivist A saw something with his own eyes, that is it. No further corroberation is required. Never mind the possibility of bias, misinterpretation or other error. Seeking witness is for Second Handers.

One wonder where first rate world class Objectivist physicists are? Are they in hiding? Are they all in Galt's Gulch?

Bob,

This is pure BS. You have asked these questions before and been answered with names. Even on the basis of logic (which was with me), you grandly pronounced something similar about Objectivists and it was like pulling teeth to get you to look at Kelley's work.

Where is your memory hiding?

Michael

[tjohnson]

Actually it does not mean "reproducible by others." It just means "reproducible," whether by your observation or by the observation of others. If you were on a desert island, you would depend on "empirical" knowledge to survive. Without others present, how could you be "scientific" enough to progress your knowledge and provide for your own survival if your "others" standard were the case?

Science without observation is not science. Science without others may be poor science, but it still can be science. (Science with observation and corroboration by others is best, of course.)

OK, I think I got off track. I have a problem with the word 'observation' being applied to introspection or "looking within" oneself. Our sensory apparatus has evolved to interact with exterior stimuli and it is this sense that observation applies to, I think.

[BaalChatzaf]

Actually it does not mean "reproducible by others." It just means "reproducible," whether by your observation or by the observation of others. If you were on a desert island, you would depend on "empirical" knowledge to survive. Without others present, how could you be "scientific" enough to progress your knowledge and provide for your own survival if your "others" standard were the case?

For credibility, experiments produced by several parties corroberating a prediction carry greater weight than a repetition made by the same party. Why? To eliminate the possibility of systematic instrumental bias. Using a separate set of apparatus adds credibility. There is also the question of the experimenters personal bias which may creep in unconsciously. Two independent sets of eyes as better than the same set of eyes used twice. Also if an experiment is carried out with a different protocol and different instrumentation and the results are consistent the corroberation carries greater weight.

To answer the last question it is a matter of checking. Any one can make a mistake. Any two or three in agreement is less likely to be mistaken. It is called checking and has been done in the sciences for over four hundred years. Four hundred years of science has produced better and more useful results than three thousand years of philosophical twittering. Science works often, philosophy almost never works. I wonder why. Maybe because philosophers do not use witness and corroberation willingly. Do you know the difference between a philosophy department and a physics department? In the physics department they have waste baskets.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To answer the last question it is a matter of checking.

Bob,

If that is the way you think, when dealing with introspection, why don't you check instead of opine? Your opinion comes from you alone, which process you seem to disparage. I mentioned places where you can check along with others.

Between your sole opinion based on an assumption and the evidence I have seen and verified myself, I will go with the evidence. Until you look at it, I can't take your opinion as anything more than a misguided assumption.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

To answer the last question it is a matter of checking.

Bob,

If that is the way you think, when dealing with introspection, why don't you check instead of opine? Your opinion comes from you alone, which process you seem to disparage. I mentioned places where you can check along with others.

Between your sole opinion based on an assumption and the evidence I have seen and verified myself, I will go with the evidence. Until you look at it, I can't take your opinion as anything more than a misguided assumption.

Michael

"Evidence" to which only you are privy? I would not trust testimony based on such evidence any farther than I could throw my car bare handed. That is why I do not readily believe uncorroberated assertions. I want to have some independent witness or some physical evidence to support the assertions.

In courts of law single witness testimony uncorroberated by at least circumstantial evidence is highly dubious. Even if the witness has no dishonest motives he might be plain wrong.

That is why I do not believe Prophets of the Lord. I wasn't there when the Prophet had his conversation with God.

I like the scientific protocols the best. Experiments reproduced by independent parties with no personal stake in the outcome.

Ba'al Chatzaf