The End Of Empricism

My Recent Posts

Metaphysics has led me to conclude not only that empiricism cannot be empirically verified but that its claims to be a source of truth is inherently incoherent. Empiricism cannot serve as a starting point in scientific research or a foundational concept in anyone’s life.

 

Empiricism has served as the basis of science and our search for truth for the last several hundred years. Lately the solidity of the physical premises on which empiricism is based has become eroded by new findings in physics. My studies have demonstrated Plato was closer to the truth. Ultimately, I formulated a Coherency Theorem which claims the only basis on which humans can thrive or survive is coherency. Coherency is the only possible 1st Order Principle. 

 

The Theorem states:

 

All we as humans being have as a foundation for our beliefs and philosophical positions and scientific claims is the coherency of those beliefs, positions and claims. Ultimately it does not matter how preposterous or absurd the idea if it fits in with everything one can and does understand to be true. The claim that God Exists is not to be evaluated on its own merits nor by means of some established metric or principle we claim is true, there is one and only one basis on which to evaluate the worth of this and all other ideas and propositions. Does the statement cohere with everything else we assert? All we as human beings have is the coherency of our thoughts and ideas. Anytime something we think does not cohere with other things something must give. At all times and in all ways and in all things, seek coherency. Coherency is the ultimate 1st Order Principle.

 

My claim is our economics and physical science does not provide a coherent world view. Rationality requires internal coherency not consistency with the assumption (empirically unprovable) that the world is empirically verifiable.

 

PS Incidentally I have established a new economic model that eliminates debt, unemployment and other social costs and a viable empirical scientific proof of God. I also have developed the most advanced theory of money. This information is available in several books I published on kindle the most noteworthy is Human Rights Versus Legal Rights.

 

Because my claims and theories are based on coherency I also claim none of my statements can be refuted.

 

Thanks 

Comments

Leroy Added Aug 4, 2017 - 7:51pm
"Because my claims and theories are based on coherency I also claim none of my statements can be refuted."
 
That's an arrogant statement.  No offense, but I recall your economic theories being resoundingly refuted.
Robert Burk Added Aug 5, 2017 - 3:37am
Thats incredible. And you do not even know what they are. On top of that you do not know, it seems what coherency means. A coherent theory cannot be refuted, that is why it is coherent. You do have the option of proving to me my ideas are incoherent. Why not try that?
 
Robert Burk Added Aug 5, 2017 - 3:39am
Do you think the world champion who says he is the world chamption is also arrogant? I am trying to grasp your use of english as it seems non-conformist. How is a simple statement of fact, in other words, arrogant?
 
Leroy Added Aug 5, 2017 - 10:07am
"That(')s incredible. And you do not even know what they are. On top of that you do not know, it seems what coherency means. A coherent theory cannot be refuted, that is why it is coherent. You do have the option of proving to me my ideas are incoherent. Why not try that?
 
Do you think the world champion who says he is the world chamption(sp) is also arrogant? I am trying to grasp your use of (E)nglish as it seems non-conformist. How is a simple statement of fact, in other words, arrogant?"
 
If the world champion says he is the world champion, it is a fact.  If he claims to be the best athlete to have ever existed and no one could prove him wrong, that would be arrogant.  It has no meaning because it can never be proved.
 
You attack the messenger rather than proving him wrong.  No offense, but when accusing someone of not comprehending the English language, your usage of the English language should be correct.  I make no such pretense.  I readily admit that with my BSEE degree came with a license to butcher the English language into perpetuity and I make liberal use of it.
 
Coherent
1.(of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent.
2. forming a unified whole.
 
I hazard to guess that you mean both, particularly the second definition.
 
It is only coherent because you say it is.  It does not reflect reality.  A number of people previously poked so many holes in your theories that it looked like Swiss cheese (no offense, Stoney).  I suspect you invent perpetual motion machines in your spare time as well.
Leroy Added Aug 5, 2017 - 10:20am
I once wrote a long email to someone.  He apologized for his response saying that he viewed himself as the defender of the English language and that he felt compelled to chastise me for misspelling the same four letter word twice.  I wasn't exactly writing my piece de la resistance.  In his short response, I noted 13 spelling and grammatical errors before I stopped checking.  I figured 13 was enough to make my case.  His response was that they were all typo's and didn't communicate with me for some years after that.  I viewed it as a case of extreme arrogance.  That is something that you might want to ponder.
Autumn Cote Added Aug 5, 2017 - 11:33am
Please note, the second best way to draw more attention to your work is to comment on the work of others. I know this to be true because if you do, I'll do everything in my power to draw more attention to your articles.
 
PS - There is a lot I can do and would like to do on your behalf.
Saint George Added Aug 6, 2017 - 1:43am
Wow.
 
(Yawn) Even your interjections are boring.
Robert Burk Added Aug 7, 2017 - 4:20am
Leroy, all the holes poked in my theories were refutted and all the critics immediately apologized for their errors and admitted they were wrong.
 
My theory is logical and consistent and is a unified whole, you can reject the premise or axiom but there are no threads to pull loose. My theory remains unrefuted and indeed not one person has even attempted to refute it, those who look at it somehow dissapear never to be heard from again. I assume they are allergic to the truth.
 
 
Silly George  I'd rather be boring than silly.
 
Leroy, I pondered your comment, and found it irrelvant and inapplicable. I am not in the least arrogant, you impose this narrative on me for the purposes of your argument as you have no method of creatively critiquing my ideas. I am assuming you are an atheist for this seems to be a common tactic amoung them, unable to think rationally they attack the messenger rather than the message.
 
My theories are absolutly unmatched in the history of the world, what they do the world says is impossible. I have researched this all my life, I know what the world knows and says and believes. I trust you will give me that. Over 40 years I constant refined and tweak and adjusted and developed my ideas. I know how mine ideas compare to others. You assume I could not do what I say because you are talking to me. If you heard of my ideas from a third party then they would have a mystique and you would give me more credit.
 
Your criticism of my analogy is ridiculous. The issue is arrogance, A world champion is not arrogant because he is a world champion, a person who says he has created an non refutable theory is not arrogant if he has regardless of what anyone thinks, the truth does not need popular support nor even confirmation. If the theory spans a sizeable portion of human knowledge and brings all the factors into a unified understanding it is coherent and true and it does not need your stamp of approval to be so.
 
Leroy Added Aug 7, 2017 - 8:15am
"Leroy, all the holes poked in my theories were refutted and all the critics immediately apologized for their errors and admitted they were wrong."
 
I don't recall apologizing.
 
"My theories are absolutly unmatched in the history of the world, what they do the world says is impossible."
 
Enough said.  Arrogance in the extreme.  Arrogant: "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."
 
"If you heard of my ideas from a third party then they would have a mystique and you would give me more credit."
 
I do not know you any better than a third party.
 
"...the truth does not need popular support nor even confirmation."
 
That is true.  But, the theory has to fit the data in each and every case since the beginning of time, else the theory is not correct.  It has not passed this rigor, so, at best, it is your opinion.  A unified theory involving humans is impossible since humans are irrational actors.  What might be true today might not be true tomorrow.  At best, we can strive for some essence.
 
 
Robert Burk Added Aug 8, 2017 - 5:18am
Leroy, Of course you did not apologize, no need for you to, you never responded to any part of any theory I have provided. 
 
lol, you are critical of my theory by providing your own theory, you claim I am arrogant because I did not do what the world says is impossible. OK. Either the world admits unemployment can be eliminated and an empirical proof of God is possible or I have done what the world says is impossible. You can claim I did not but that is idiotic (sorry but it is). If someone writes a theory and makes a claim the peer review cannot just asset the person did not write a theory and did not prove anything. You can say you do not think the claim is valid but that is all. 
 
Next you provide your own assesment of what constitutes a valid theory. You are sounding more and more like god except you do not sound like God at all just a human being with an over active ego. 
 
THe truth is what cannot be refuted and I have already claimed you cannot refute my arguments. Protesting with all the grand pomp of a demi-god is not a refutation. Its not how science works.
 
I had to laugh at your last comment. My first formed opinion as an adult researcher was that humans are irrational, that is one of the fundamentals that energized my research. I know people are irrational, I see it all the time even when I say unemployment, debt and poverty can be eliminated and I get personally attacked for the claim. The claim itself is not investigated people just do not like me saying these things. Talk about irrationality....
 
The best we can strive for is coherence, such as 2 + 2 = 4. Regardless of what you say people can either choose to make a change or refuse, I do not care if this is a 1000 years ago or a 1000 years hence the fact still holds. We can either do what is coherent or do that which does not make sense, that also cannot be disputed. The only thing you can do is show me how creating unemployment is consistent with what other things you are doing or trying to do. If you are trying to eliminate or lessen unemployment but creating it then your system is incoherent and you sir and those whom share your lifestyle are irrational.
 
Siince I claim and prove unemployment  can be eliminated and clearly show how I suggest I am  not irrational and my theory is not irrational and anyone who rejects my claims is demonstrating irrationality.
 
Leroy Added Aug 8, 2017 - 10:50am
"Leroy, Of course you did not apologize, no need for you to, you never responded to any part of any theory I have provided."
 
You can apologize anytime you like.  Rather than rehash it all, read it here.
 
"lol, you are critical of my theory by providing your own theory, you claim I am arrogant because I did not do what the world says is impossible."
 
I am not arrogant enough to put forth a BS unified theory and call it irrefutable.
 
"Next you provide your own assesment of what constitutes a valid theory."
 
It is not my assessment.  Yes, you can solve all the problems of the world by redefining words.  It doesn't change anything.  Give someone a million dollars in fake currency might make them a millionaire, but it doesn't change anything.
 
Are my suspicions true?  Do you invent perpetual motion machines?  You have that personality; you expect natural laws to be suspended.
 
 
 
Robert Burk Added Aug 9, 2017 - 4:58am
2 + 2 = 4 When you can refute this you can refute my theory. Opps, sorry, my error. When you learn what my theory says and what its claims are then you can say something about it that is relevant, when you can refute a tautology you will be able to refute my theory.
 
Robert Burk Added Aug 9, 2017 - 5:02am
For those who are capable of objectivity my position is there are two realities, one is consistent one is not. Simply put if a belief or claim or argument is not coherent with all the other claims and beliefs you adhere to you are in the second reality. It is that simple and that complex. This cannnot be refuted. I simply look at the standard claims of this system and demonstrate they are inconsistent. If they are inconsistent they cannot  be true and they cannot be part of the first reality, the consistent one. Its not complicated and it is not refutable. It just is not and claiming it does not make me arrogant, it simple means I am rational.
Robert Burk Added Aug 9, 2017 - 5:12am
Please not Leroy thinks saying I have created a consistent system is akin to saying I created a perpetual motion machine, this is a demonstration of how irrational he is, I say this as a way to help you to understand my proceedure.
 
Leroys argument is inconsistent. He is in effect saying my claims there is coherency in reality is the same as making a machine inconsistent with itself and the reality we know exists. A coherent system or theory could not include a perpetual motion machine. Such a thing could not logically fit in with any coherent framework. If one is more or less disconnected from reality such a thing can be entertained conceptually in isolation, but the more rational one is and the more coherent ones ideas and understanding is the less such an object as a perpetual motion machine will be considered of any interest,
 
I did not belabor the point needlessly, the same process can be used to look at such things as the concept of God, unemployment, government and so on.

Are you trying to produce unemployment, is it consistent with everything else you want in life and believe in, if not then there are inconsistencies in your conceptual markers. At some point you accepted a lie as the truth. This is not refutable. If you have an interest in establishing a coherent framework message me. 
 
Robert Burk Added Aug 9, 2017 - 5:13am
That ought to have read .. Please note ..........
Leroy Added Aug 9, 2017 - 8:02am
I can sum up your economic theory to save the world in one word: tourism.
Robert Burk Added Aug 9, 2017 - 9:04am
Now that is extremely interesting, because one of the first books I published was titled The Rebranding Of Bracebridge which was a critique of a local towns efforts to create economic based on tourism which I lamblasted for its irrationality and incoherence. So thanks for the summary of your assumptions and just another irrefutable example of how little you understand what I am talking about. Do please keep invalidating your claims. Saves me so much time.
 
Robert Burk Added Aug 9, 2017 - 9:07am
Where is the edit button.... that is mean to read ... create economic development based on tourism .. 
BTW, they ought to have listened to me.... this summer just about every weekend has been rained out...