Contemporary philosopher of science Bas Van Fraassen offers a conception of empiricism not as a body of theory but as a stance or orientation. Other contemporary philosophers of science, including Ian Hacking, seem to well embody this conception of empiricism as a stance: they do not spend their time arguing on behalf of an empiricist epistemology so much as they urge that we as philosophers can know best about practices of knowing (such as science) only insofar as we express a sincere commitment to experience in our research.
Do you think the idea of empiricism as a stance is a viable way to keep empiricism alive in the 21st century in light of some of the major criticisms of empiricism as body of theory that we have seen this quarter? Or do you think that the idea of an empirical stance cedes too much of the ground for empiricist theory that Locke, Berkeley, and Hume were trying to gain in previous centuries?
Note that there are no required blog posts this week. However you can post a reply to this to earn a little extra credit for the portion of your grade related to the blog.
Final papers, to remind, are due on Monday June 8 by 5pm. Email instructor or TA with questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What on earth is a serious commitment to experience in research? Isn't all research experience? This whole notion is sort of superfluous... maybe it has not been described properly enough but what is the universal definition of the distiction between a "stance" and a "theory" anyways? In order for someone to have a certain stance they usually have reasons(theories of knowledge, cause and effect etc.) that influence them to arrive at that position and at that point making that sort of distinction seems nonsensical. The specified
ReplyDelete"stance" would never be held by anyone if they doubted in the same way as a rationalist, therefor there are beliefs in theory behind this "stance".
Like Ryan, I am finding it hard to seperate the two ideas. I was always under the impression that research was done (basically) through trail and error, which implies experience is necessary. So I would have to believe that experience is a crucial ingredient in research.
ReplyDeleteI'll start this one off with a lyric from a rather philosophical song by Bright Eyes:
ReplyDelete...
"If you swear that there's no truth, and who cares,
Why do you say it like you're right?"
...
Alright so I thought it was pretty entertaining how Van Fraassen outlined a contradiction within the definition of Empiricism itself. It was interesting to think that you can't even believe in something because of the basic premise of the something in which you want to believe... which is kind of what the above quote tries to embody.
I think it's important to the reputation of Empiricism to hold their stances while withholding their assertions. Stances are wiser than beliefs in that they can still hold all the ground gained by Locke, etc, but they also contain the wisdom to acknowledge that a stance is not this overbearing truth to which all must abide and believe. It's like, an Empiricist can ramble on forever about the arguments for Empiricism and recite old arguments and pose new arguments, but in the end, throw up their hands, acknowledge that those are just their views... and walk away! It'd take a real Empiricist to do that. So, I don't know! Locke, Descartes, Oberst... it's all what you make of it.
Quick and simple answer:
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think the idea of empiricism as a stance is a viable way to keep empiricism alive in the 21st century in light of some of the major criticisms of empiricism as body of theory that we have seen this quarter. Have a great summer! (=
I don't know if Locke, Berkeley and Hume would automatically reject this notion. Since they were setting the stage they were trying to not only define their position but also defend it. Since they were the beginning of the tradition I'm certain they didn't know where it would lead and couldn't have thought that it would never change.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the "progress" if you will, that has been made, they might readily agree with the idea of a stance and abandon some of their initial positions or modify them to reflect the new things they had learned about Empiricism and it's evolution. All in all this seems like a definition they could accept.
I don't think that there is really any need to "keep empiricism alive," regardless of what century we're in; it could just as well be the 21st century as much as the 25th century. Empiricism seems, at least to me, to be one of the most fundamental means of understanding how we percieve our own existence. Without experiencing something first-hand, how are we to truly know what "it" is? While many will argue that there are certain aspects of life that can be known innately, without the benefit of experience, a vast portion of our very existence, or at least our own perception of it, is based solely on actual experience. The theories of the Empiricists that we're studied this year won't ever really become outdated or irrelevant, if only because they were some of the first to outline and diagram these concepts. Bereft of these initial theories, we would have no basis upon which to further theorize on the human condition.
ReplyDeleteI feel empiricism as a type of stance is the best interpretation. Whether or not Locke, Berkeley and Hume would go for it is a whole other issue, I mean British empiricists “said explicitly that they were not empiricists” (Bas Van Fraassen). Further It seems Bas Van Fraassen makes it clear in the beginning of his chapter that “empiricism is not a single, specific philosophical position, but there is a tradition of philosophical positions that we call empiricist”. Which I take to mean that that a philosopher such as Berkeley can have a empirical stance and also have a philosophical passion that has God as the metaphysical spirit that holds reality together. I don’t think having empiricism as a stance interferes with empiricists having metaphysical beliefs, rather that their empirical views don’t justify them.
ReplyDeleteI feel empiricism as a stance is viable in the 21st century. Since empiricists value experience, it seems the notion of a stance would fit well. A stance gives room for flexibility within empiricism instead of having an absolute belief.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking matter-of-factually, let's face it "Epiricism" as we've learned it in this class is a rather young "-ism." Taking a hard line approach to empiricism in light of 19th, 20th, and 21st century objections made by a wide range of of commentators might not be the best option. Though the move to 'empirical stance' seems like a cheap analytic move to fuzz the lines of an empirical theory it might allow for a new conception of empiricism in a more pragmatic light. As I believe Andy said in class, Van Bran-long-last-name did sound vaguely like Dewey. But, eh, what do I know? I guess the only way a die-hard empiricist would be satisfied with the use of "empirical stance" would require its use and implementation as a re-conception. Perhaps over enough time some commentators of Ian Truthy Hacking will emerge and judge how things have turned out (judged hopfully in a new way)...until then, what could this blog-post be except an armchair exercise? An exercise I'm fine with by the way. For all those out there who like the cushioned seats of the arm chair I invite you to join me while our peers, empirical-cats, go about biting hedge-hogs...
ReplyDeleteI think empiricism as a stance is more suitable in the 21st century because of the inconsistencies in empiricism as a theory. As a stance, empiricism does not seem to require an absolute, whereas in theory it was held together by the idea that all knowledge comes from experience.
ReplyDeleteI feel empiricism as a stance works very well in the 21st century because it fits within the current standard about thinking about issues. Today we are skeptical about any belief or idea that calls itself hard, cold fact, no exceptions. Viewing empiricism this way today is completely ridiculous, and probably brings more negative light to empiricism in general if it is named to be the only way we truly have knowledge. Calling empiricism a stance is more inviting to the skeptical nature of minds today who are prepared to defeat any notion that is conceited enough to claim the path to knowledge without additional perspectives. Empiricism as a stance seems realistic and frankly, its hard to completely defeat other perspectives, such as reason, too!
ReplyDeleteI feel that empiricism as a stance enables the survival of empiricism, while actually completely disavowing earlier empiricist theory. I can't help but think Locke, Berkeley and Hume are rolling over in their graves when they see how watered down their versions of empiricism have become. Certainly we see the viability of empiricism as a stance because it allows us to overlook the glaring contraditions associated with the cyclical e, e+ example we discussed in class; however, the overlooking of these contradictions yield a "stance" which is nothing more than a weak argument regarding how knowledge is attainted. Who knows though? Maybe that weak stance is the only way that empiricsm can realistically exist.
ReplyDeleteEmpiricism should be seen as a good foundation for the 'life experience'. Whatever you would like to call what we experience (in the broadest use of the term) we as individuals do experience. "I think therefore I am" sums this idea up. What we experience may not always be 'true' or even necessarily lead us to truth, but we can be sure that these primary (or secondary) occurrences are observed from our own perspective. As technology, science and our understanding of our mind (or brain to be more pragmatic) flourishes, the distant views of empiricism almost fade into historical content, except for the foundations such as primary and secondary features. Only these most basic models of the mind seem to hold true even hundreds of years after Locke. So call it a stance or call it a theory or call it a model, but the knowledge that we can gain from understanding the foundations of empiricism seem to have, at the very least, some truth value that helps us better understand the world (matter or no matter) that we live in.
ReplyDeleteI think that whether empiricism is taken as a theory or a stance, empiricism itself isn't going anywhere . Experience being relevant to knowledge is not only understood intuitively, but it must be understood and trusted if we are going to live our lives as active and practical philosophers. If we do not trust our own experiences to produce knowledge, we are immobilized. Whether we can actually trust these things or not is almost completely irrelevant to how we should act and how we should philosophize about our active lives. Contradictory or not, right or wrong, empiricism is still going to be "alive" in one sense or another because it is necessary within our own lives. Even as things like quantum theory start to dispel a lot of validity in empirical evidence, empiricism is still going to be extremely useful for the active philosopher who wishes to remain mobile.
ReplyDeleteBrandi Gratis