>David and Todd,
>
> >         Empiricism means to experience.
>
>It means more than that. Here is Webster:
>
>2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in
>the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically
>3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience

        From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary:
Empiricism - 1. Experience, not theory, as a basis of medical science. 2.
Quackery.
Empirical - Based on experience rather than on scientific principles.
Empiric - 1. Based on experience. 2. A practitioner whose skill or art is
based on upon what has been learned through experience.

        Say a native on some remote island is walking on the beach and comes upon
what we know as a watch. Just before this there was volcanic eruption
spewing forth various materials. I would think that the watch would be an
indication that there was an intelligent force organizing material matter
much the way an intelligent force organizes the material matter of our
bodies. Or maybe all the copper, quartz, steel, glass, etc. just happened
to fall together to form that watch? But since this intelligence can't be
measured it doesn't exist according to your model of reality. One big
coincident? The odds are very much against that.
        Another factor is that a scientists's philosophy will guide what he
chooses to study and therefore find. No one can be totally impartial or
uninvolved. I don't think this is all that bad as long as the intent is
right(I know this could be another discussion).

>Empiricism is the theory that all knowledge originates in experience and
>which when put into practice calls for the reliance on observation and
>experiment in the acquisition of knowledge.

        The only things that are for sure are basic universal principles like the
law of gravity. The universe is mathematical and repeatable in it's laws
for the things that we can measure. Since thoughts can't be measured then
they don't exist? What about love? Please don't confuse science with reality.

>
>If you believe something that cannot be verified by observation and
>experiment then according to the tenets of empiricism that belief
>does not constitute true *knowledge*. Belief in the existence of God is the
>classic example. Such beliefs cannot constitute true knowledge to one who
>accepts the tenets of empiricism, at least until someone finds a scientific
>proof for the existence of God.

        The proof that universal intelligence exist(what most refer to as GOD) is
the level of organization of material mater in any living organism and it's
ability to reorganize(heal). Structurally a cadaver and you are materially
the same but you have a life force that controls the material mater of your
physical body through a mental impulse that is not consciously generated.
For my "experience" this definitely speaks for an intelligent force. Your
Innate knows more in one instance then any of us will know in a lifetime.

>Logical positivism is really the subject most relevant here. Logical
>positivism is the philosophical theory that statements which cannot be
>verified empirically are meaningless.

        There is that word again.

>I've argued against logical positivism in the past (I've been debating
>philosophy and religion and science online for no less than 10 years
>now.. my interests only recently changed to health and nutrition)

        Why?

> and one strong argument against logical positivism is similar to that to
>which Todd Moody alluded: the statement "Statements which cannot
>be verified empiricially are meaningless" cannot itself be verified
>empirically.

        It doesn't exist because it doesn't matter to us.

> This would seem to undermine logical positivism
>in that logical positivism appears to fail its own test. However upon
>closer inspection one sees that this objection is itself an ineffective
>argument unless we first accept the truth of logical positivism! It makes
>no difference to the veracity of logical positivism that its central
>statement cannot be verified, unless we first assume that statements
>must be verifiable to be true. Therefore the central principle of logical
>positivism is like the paradoxical "true but unverifiable statement" which
>must exist in every formal system of logic according to Godel's theorem
>(but that theorem is another juicy nugget upon which we could waste a
>few thousand messages, so let's not).
>
>I once used arguments from the philosophies of metaphysical idealism
>and rationalism to attack empiricism and materialism and logical positivism
>in order to defend my faith in a supreme being.

        What is your definition of metaphysical?

> However I have over time come to believe  that we need empiricism/logical
positivism to separate the
>wheat from the chaff, in the field of health care and diet and nutrition and
>health supplements (especially!) as well as philosophy. I suppose I'm just
>tired of all the unsubstantiated unscientific balderdash that I see being
>promulgated as "true knowledge" on the internet.

        Thanks, we all need to be challenged. I agree.

>
>-gts

        Back to eating raw meat.

Dave