PIC UNRELATED

PIC UNRELATED

What is the better ideology for gaining knowledge?
Empericism
>We can't believe what we can't see
Rationalism
>All knowledge can be derived within the mind

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

A is A

That's all you need to gain knowledge. No one becomes educated by lying to themselves and faking reality.

160 IQ here
ask me anything

>What is the better ideology for gaining knowledge?

Could you possible sound like a bigger sperg?

Rationalism got BTFO 350 years ago

>objectivist """epistemology"""

Empiricism got blown out by a cat in a box.

eclecticism for memes and science

What is wrong with objectivism?

>implying QM contradicts empiricism
American education

>We can't believe what we can't see

I cannot see gravity, therefore I cannot believe it

I cannot see oxygen, therefore I cannot believe it

I cannot see atoms, therefore I cannot believe it

>seeing is the only way you can observe something

Who is making the observation?

>All knowledge can be derived within the mind
Define "the mind"

You mix empirical methods for collecting and analyzing data with Aryan thinking to illuminate the underlying laws.

Just started intro to philosophy? You're not anywhere as sophisticated as you think.

Rationalism IMO. If you take the relativity theory it was first derived in a mind. It turned out to be true in the end.
Empericism is true but not the best ideology for gaining knowlede. To gain new knowledge you have to think somthing up first that might not exist like that in reality. For example the actuall formulas in physics are not the only way to describe our world, but still seem to do a good job. So they have no "real" real world counterpart but help a LOT with understanding the real world.

Within the material, physical world that we can observe and measure, there exist abstracts that solely the human mind can observe like virtues. Any person who denies the metaphysical (materialist) can't think outside of the box and will forever be blue pilled.

"see" is to be understood in a metaphorical way here. Dont be retarded

>can't see gravity

Nigger, you never thow anything before? See a bird hit a building? Watched a plain crash vid?

I'm not a materialist though. I just like the activities that materials enable you to enjoy.

How can see be a metaphor? Are you retarded?

Empiricism is spelled with an i, not an e. Likewise that's a pretty poor definition for the concept imo. Id go with:
>knowledge comes from things that can be experienced; and true understanding can only come from actually experiencing 'a thing'

Whereas Rationalism would be:
>some knowledge / information / truth / whatever, can be tested and can produce predictable results

You're welcome user.

See is meant in a broader sense, more like "observe"

Those are abstract concepts that suggest gravity is there , but you do not actually see gravity.

146 IQ here
Anybody can be a Physicist with enough studying
IQ is just a measure of how much focus you need to become a Physicist
If you catch my drift, if not.
You're probably sub 120

>knowledge in 2017

Observation requires your sight to come to a emperical conclusion

>vincit omnia veritas
Shouldn't that be
>veritas omnia vincit

I know technically order is downplayed in Classical Latin but that just seems to irregular. Perhaps the phrase is in a form vulgar Latin?

It isn't about seeing the object. Empericism is about being able to observe with any senses of any kind. You only come to the understanding of gravity through observation.

One could not abstractly rationalize gravity without prior observation of objects falling/etc.

So blind people cannot make empirical conclusions?

KEK!!

If one suggests that gravity exist, then through the same observations one must suggest that gravity does that exist outside of the environment in which the observation is being made.

Through his rationality, no because his mind cannot observe it.

>If one suggests that gravity exist, then through the same observations one must suggest that gravity does that exist outside of the environment in which the observation is being made.

What this a typo that meant to say does not exist? Assuming yes, just because you know gravity exists in one situation, does not apply at all to another. It tells you next to nothing. Now, with enough observations, it could suggest that it is a ubiquitious phenomena. But, this doesn't assure that it is true, and further observation coudl always disprove it.

Rationalism in the philosophical sense is the belief that reason can be used to deduce all knowledge, based on the claim that reality is structured in an inherently logical way.

For example, Descartes would have thought that, if you were smart enough, you could deduce seemingly empirical facts such as this weeks winning lottery number just by pure reason and without any a posteriori evidence.

completly unrelated:

What was the meme with "my womens kids" or something called again?
Don't ask, I need it fast.

what is your favorite breakfast cereal?

Empiricism is based on objective facts. It can never be disproven.

"my wife's son"

...

Thank you

Seek Virtue in oneself and be Just in all spheres of knowledge and the only question you will ask is; will this make me a better or a worse person?

It can, actually. Go into a place where gravity will express no observable effects.

It has now been proven that gravity either doesn't exist in all environments, or exists in greater or lesser degrees.

>ctrl-f "kant"
>ctrl-f "critique of pure reason"
i know i'm not on /lit/, but you don't have to be a bookworm to know that both empiricists and rationalists were BTFO by ol' immanuel centuries ago.

read a book, opie

Also, before we go any further, I'm not a pure empiricist, I do believe in rationalism and empiricism together.

Suppose I observe that by playing two close-together sound frequencies together I can produce a beat frequency equal to the difference between the two frequencies (really common acoustics experiment). Isn't this an empirical conclusion that can be made only by hearing and not seeing?

Nevertheless, it exists no matter what he degree is.

That's the exact opposite of what Descartes thought. He was an epistemic. He would have been the first person to tell you that while you may think and therefore you are; you can never truly have knowledge that is entirely devoid of experience. You can use rationalism (and other forms of logical thought) to make potentially accurate predictions:
>I dont have to be shot to know that I dont want to be shot
However you do still need to have some concept of pain, harm, bad pain, metal, speed, force, impact, etc, etc, to be able to make that connection.

If you have no basis for building complex connections between complex series of events; you have a limited mental range to cognitively and accurately simulate a potential experience. This is why children (for example) die all of the time doing stupid things.

Cat in a box is a pretty poor example of QM, something like electron tunneling is better and actually supports empiricism.

>order is downplayed in classical latin
ding ding ding

as long as it's conjugated properly, the order doesn't matter.

What if the person observing these frequency was deaf? How can he come to this conclusion?

Reading the King James Bible.

Now take your blue pills to

a hebe

Not sure if that's true, I did 10 years for a PhD in astro phys and I guarantee some people wouldn't get through it with any amount of studying.

>What is the better ideology for gaining knowledge?
>Empericism
>>We can't believe what we can't see
>Rationalism
>>All knowledge can be derived within the mind
yes
Read Kant's critique of Pure Reason, he reconciles the two.
It's essentially that knowledge begins with experience but this does not necessitate all knowledge arising out of experience.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

Pol is too stupid to get philosophy.

t. philosopher

>Bulgarian philosophers

Catholicism

>American anything

They never answer this when asked...

Barebones epistemology:

Any statement in any form, except a tautology or a strict deduction, is falsifiable but not provable.

What a valid argument proves is that its conclusions follow from its premises, but this is not the same thing as establishing the truth of the premises. Every valid argument starts with an "if": if p is true then q must be true. But this leaves open the question of whether or not p is true. The argument itself cannot prove that, because it has already assumed it, and to have assumed already what it sets out to prove would be to move in a vicious circle. Every "proof" rests on unproven premises; and this is as true in logic, mathematics, and science as it is in everyday life.

Concepts derive from perceptions. One must be able to go back from any concept, even if through intermediate stages, to the perceptions from which that concept has been drawn.

The sole certainty we have consists in what is immediately given to us in subjective experience. Any other knowledge we lay claim to must involve inference, and therefore be liable to error.

That is not true. Descartes specifically argued in Meditations on First Philosophy that all knowledge from experience should be called into doubt (he called this the method of radical doubt), because an evil demon, for example, could be manipulating your entire experience (Meditation I). I agree with your last point, but I don't see why or how you attribute that idea to Descartes.

I think you need to explain why he would not be able to make this conclusion.

The Double Slit Experiment is a good BTFO for materialists/new atheists.

Spirituality is possible without Abrahamic religions.

>every valid argument starts with an "if"
>the argument itself cannot prove [the premises]
hey guize, i just had my first week of logic 101!
what the fuck is a tautology?? how does it work?

>concepts derive from perceptions
what the fuck are you even trying to say here? some concepts are a priori. why doesn't anyone read kant?

>the sole certainty we have consists in what is immediately given to us in subjective experience
you are so fucking wrong. try reading philosophy before making a distillation of epistemology.

you may have fooled retards on leddit, but get your fucking act together before memeing.

>Double Slit Experiment disproves atheism/materialism
As a physicist, hmmmmm.... this really fires up my noggin

Name a concept that doesn't derive from a perception.

Rationalism and empiricism aren't the only answers here. There are mixed answers. You can attain wisdom that you may find in your mind's eye. This would neither be a sole derivative of your mind nor a physical, empirical phenomenon beyond the capacity of the brain as an antenna. This example would not fit in either category but is still a worthy as a method of epistemology (see: Eastern religions).

It doesn't disprove pure materialism, but strongly hints at it. As a supposed scientist, you should be familiar with the difference between proof and experimental results.

>some concepts are a priori. why doesn't anyone read kant?
>c'mon man, synthetic a priori is just a given
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

I do not give a shit whether materialism is true or not, but to say that double slit hints at disproving it is hilarious. All it does is break traditional assumptions/intuitions about how the world works, and might just as well suggest a different materialism which isn't what we expected.

Empiricism all the way. Read some H. Spencer you hoes