The Foundation of Empiricism

Validating a human Endeavor
Is empiricism a valid pursuit? How do we know? Materialist – Naturalists point to the raging success of technology in the embrace of the Enlightenment. Empiricism obviously “works”. But is it valid?

To understand the roots of empiricism we must go to its assumptions. These are precepts that are necessary, if not sufficient, for empiricism to work reliably in the physical reality of our universe.

First are the presumptions of universality, permanence and persistence.
1.The physical “laws” of the universe are consistent across the universe.
2.The physical “laws” of the universe are constant throughout time.
3.The physical “laws” of the universe will continue to be changeless.

Next are the presumptions of validity of the First Principles of existence (ontological):
1.The Principle of identity is valid.
2.The Principle of Non-Contradiction is valid.
3.The Principle of bipolarity (excluded middle) is valid.
4.The Principle of Cause (necessary and sufficient) and Effect is valid.

These seven principles, as a minimum, underlie the discipline of empiricism.

Immutability and Empiricism
It is a simple observation to make: “technology exists; therefore empiricism works”. From this might be extrapolated that there is no other reality that exists. But that extrapolation necessarily eliminates empiricism itself, because none of the above seven principles exists within the “empirical reality”. Not a single one of these necessary principles can be shown to be valid using empiricism. In fact, a sub-concept is that “no theorem can prove itself”, a simplified version of Godel’s theorems. Empiricism cannot prove itself to be valid.

So what proof is there that empiricism is valid? The existence of massive amounts of new technology? No, that is not universal nor proven to be changeless; it is circumstantial and not conclusive.

What proves empiricism is that it does not violate its basic principles.

This realization has a meaning (“meaning” is another transcendental): Empiricism, even though it restricts itself to natural effects and causes, is only validated by transcendental principles.

Naturalism, Materialism
Confusion arises from the tendency to restrict all reality to empirical reality. This is called Naturalism, with a subset of Materialism. As is shown above, it is logically irrational to exclude any non-empirical reality, since to do so removes the very validation that empiricism requires.

What Naturalism does is to create the following statement:

“Although empiricism requires validation outside itself, which therefore transcends itself, all transcendency is denied, because empirical reality is all there is.”

This is an obvious paradox, a violation of the Non-Contradiction Principle (First Principle #2, above).

Naturalism is logically false. Empiricism, as a discipline is valid, and its very validity disproves Naturalism.

Rules of Empiricism
The pursuit of the discipline of empiricism requires some rigor in obtaining and verifying data surrounding the testing of hypotheses. These do not validate empiricism, as might be supposed. These rules of pursuit are used to validate the results of empirical activities. These rules include repeatability of testing, peer review, and falsifiability, among others. There is internal disagreement within empiricism as to the types and degree of verification needed for the differing needs of differing sub-disciplines.

But the original, foundational principles are not questioned.

Empiricism, Naturalism and God
Empiricism, as a discipline, rightly self limits its investigations to those that can be achieved using sensory and extended sensory determinations of physical reality. This in no way eliminates the idea that reality might extend beyond the measurable; in fact it does not even address that issue. It is Naturalism that takes that position. So the conclusion must be that empiricism and extra-Natural reality are compatible, or at least not incompatible. Naturalism is not empiricism, it is a self-contradictory worldview that tries to hijack the robust validity of empiricism in order to attempt to validate itself as the empirical disproof of a deity.

So Naturalism is not only False, it is also Parasitic.

As with any parasite, Naturalism is not good for empiricism.

Forty Year Atheist