Empirical observations are NOT founded on the principle of cause and effect. If anything, they are used to test and limit when such a law is applicable. All that is required for empiricism is that we can make observations, form testable hypotheses about those observations, test them, and change the hypotheses if required.mtimber wrote:
All empirical observations are founded on the presupposition of the reliability of the laws of cause and effect.
This is false.
I am not sure where you are going with this one.
Is this another attempt to deny the obvious?
I am attempting to show that things you think are obvious are, in fact, false.
Why is it false?
The point is that 'law of cause and effect' holds when physical laws apply that say that some initial state (the cause) leads to some later state (the effect). But the laws of physics are fundamental here and not all physical laws are of this sort.
In fact, the laws of quantum mechanics are not: they say that from an initial state, all that can be known is the *probability* of different final states with no way *even in theory* to determine which final state will actually come to be. In other words, causality does not always hold. But quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. This shows your claim that empirical science is founded on cause and effect to be wrong.