I have asserted a non-contradictory empiricism, and have evidenced it.
Your assertion “physical experience is required for knowledge” is a proposition which makes knowledge dependent on experience and thus is a logical contradiction. As all the historical facts have long demonstrated. Further, you have provided no evidence, you have claimed that unrelated observations concerning the physical world are evidence of a theory of knowledge. I have demonstrated several times that you cannot make the leap from something like “I observe water oxidizes iron” to "Therefore physical experience is required for knowledge. As I pointed out, you are trying to defend the strong empirical statement with the weak empirical argument.
You have not countered it, you just keep asserting it’s not possible right after we actually demonstrate it being done.
You have not countered it, you just keep asserting it’s not possible right after we actually demonstrate it being done.
As such, you are already addressing empiricism as a hypothesis, and are challenging it based on evidence.
Changing the synonyms doesn’t change anything, its always been a theory and now it is a long disproven theory. If you want to say hypothesis feel free, then you can say it’s a long disproven hypothesis. Nor am I using any physical evidence to challenge it.
(Then G-d does not deal with the empirical world)
What does this have to do with anything?
If it is clear to you, then would you provide some evidence?
I just did. What did you think the talk about triangles was?
The universe is describable using numbers, but one can hardly say that it bends itself to mathematical forms.
Yet the universe obeys truths that transcend it. It certainly looks as if the universe bends itself to a platonic reality.
Also, triangles do not exist, whereas the universe does. You cannot have knowledge about triangles, you can only elaborate geometry self-consistently.
triangles certainly exist, and you have no idea if the empirical universe does. You have it backwards.
It has everything to do with epistemology. Pi is not knowable; it is stateable.
Funny but as we aren’t born knowing Pi, it is demonstrably something we come know.
The circumference of the earth is knowable, but pi will not tell you it. You have to first look at the earth and find out (empirically, need I say?) that it is not spherical. As a result, pi will not be accurate. This is the same as saying that euclidean geometry may help you, it may not. One has to be dealing with an empirical arrangement that fits the specific models of maths for those models to assist with knowledge.
Not in the least. As I have pointed out before, we can do math without reference to any empirical reality.
Precisely. There is no overlap. Maths can be true, but does it give knowledge? That is the real question we should turn to.
Sure does, just like Pi.
As I have said before, and as is obvious, being able to verify something does not make that thing false. Even if the principle of verification cannot be verified; other things still can.
Still using a proven contradiction as part of your theory of knowledge I see.
No, deliberately missing the point here I think. Where there is only evidence in favour of a proposition and none against, it is reasonable to assent to the proposition.
There is no evidence for the proposition that you assert and there is a ton of evidence in favor of rationalism, you have even admitted it yourself.
This is the non-problem of the reliability of perception.
In so far as you cannot claim to be experiencing empirical reality. It is a huge problem for the empricist. You cannot claim that knowledge only comes from the physical senses when you have no idea if you actually have physical senses.
I have already told you. If we are to consciously engage in a project of doubt, we have to doubt that we are doubting; therefore if successful we are not certain of anything, and we have nothing about which to gain knowledge. You forget who you are and what you’re doing, you don’t think you exist… If that’s the hallmark of reason (which it isn’t) that’s what you’re throwing at empiricism with dubito.
When you doubt everything, including doubt itself, then you are left with
Dubito. The act of doubting doubt proves *Dubito *. Real basic stuff here. The only thing we are certain actually exists is a rational object, not an empirical one.
Reality can be described using numbers, that is all we know. How does the universe depend upon numbers exactly? Or how does the universe follow logic?
Or numbers are describing reality. We don’t know how, the foundations of mathematics have been in crisis for a long time. As each school has flaws it is likely to continue for a very long time.
One might say: ‘Something cannot be in two places at once’, as if that proves the universe is governed by logic.
Something cannot be in two places at the same time. That does seem to indicate that the universe fallows laws that transcend it.
However, things can be in two places at once… Think about subatomic stuff. As Krauss says, we should learn from the universe, not impose our ideas onto it about what it can and cannot do.
Nothing in quantum theory allows something to bilocate.
The non-problem of the reliability of perception.
How do you know you actually have physical senses again? You think by declaring it to be true that it is? Fact is it’s a huge problem for the empiricist who claims that “physical experience is required for knowledge” when he doesn’t even know if physical experience exists.
