empiricists: How do you know anything?

Question

I'm often asked to give empirical evidence for my beliefs as if empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence that can give you knowledge. So I want to ask the empiricists out there a few questions:

How do you know what you are thinking or feeling?
How do you know that you exist?
How do you know that your senses are giving you true information about the world?
How do you know that past experience can tell you anything about what to expect in the future?
How do you know that anything really causes anything else?
How do you know that two statements that contradict each other can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense?
How do you know that in any case of two straight lines intersecting each other that the opposite angles will always be equal?

Answer 1

1)How do you know what you are thinking or feeling?
Judging by their actions, I'm not at at all sure that most people do. As for myself, there's a point at which you say, 'Cogito, ergo Sum'. because there is no 'proof' that you actually think or feel. Your thoughts and feeling can only be experienced -by- -you- and by no one else. The attempt to transfer the nature of ones thoughts and feelings to other is called 'art' (of which 'language' is a subset)
2)How do you know that you exist?
I don't, and I don't. But I also don't let it worry me. It's close enogh to reality to work and thinking in 26 dimensions is tricky at best.
3)How do you know that your senses are giving you true information about the world?
Hehehe. I'm under no illusions that they are.
4)How do you know that past experience can tell you anything about what to expect in the future?
I don't. But it's the best guess that I've got. And experience has shown that it actually -is- quite frequently correct.
5)How do you know that anything really causes anything else?
Because if I don't assume causality, then everything is truly chaos.
6)How do you know that two statements that contradict each other can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense?
Because I can always fall back on causality to show that the causal reality of one denies the causal reality of the other.
7)How do you know that in any case of two straight lines intersecting each other that the opposite angles will always be equal?
That's just a game played with definitions and rules of logic. In fact, there's another 'hidden variable' in there. That statement is only true in a linear ('flat') space.

Doug

Answer 2

Although I detect a note of sarcasm (or perhaps derision) in this question, you present a considered argument, which warrants a considered response.

First, as the only valid observer of my thoughts and feelings, my interpretation is empirical.

Second, "I think therefore I am."

Third, in any methodology, a base of "faith" is required. I must accept that I exist, that I think, and that my perception is useful. To doubt would block my ability to move forward.

To your larger point: In a literal interpretation, you are correct--nothing is ever *certain*.

Empiricism is more accurately described as a discernment between the "probable" and the "improbable". If I have observed a thousand burns on a person who has touched fire, should I believe that fire heals?

To be an empiricist, one must be comfortable with having a "best guess" in the place of "truth".

Answer 3

Hey this is helene i just wanted to say thanks for answering my question......I hope I can help you with yours....Kinda confusing...Srry. I guess you know that you exist when you look in the mirror.....It's really complicated to explain!!!SORRY.*__*

Answer 4

i second the motion, er, the question!

Answer 5

ther is no such thing and we will never know.