Are there any good arguements against empiricism?

Are there any good arguements against empiricism?

Attached: 823.png (426x364, 29K)

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Rationalism

take cocaine then tell me your senses are reliable and legit

ITT: christfag cope

plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Yeah but is there any way to say that our senses, when we're not affected by some substance that specifically alter our perception, is unreliable?

tell me how you know cocaine affects your senses without using your senses

Our senses are the only thing we have. Reasoning itself is done by the senses.

We can't know anything conclusively through repeated observation because we never know when our observations are going to change. You can't say conclusively that an object you drop will fall to the ground, maybe it will be the first object ever to defy Newtonian physics and float up into the sky instead.

Does anyone know what this argument is called?

The Myth of the Given if you want Big Brain refutation

sounds like the Sunrise Problem

oh I found it, "Problem of Induction"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

Thanks. Good work.

Pardon me if I sound polemical but isn't this really grasping the straws?

Not at all, the problem of induction is a serious problem in the philosophy of science and if one is going to argue against empiricism this would be a good way to do so.

As a side question that is more fitting for /sci/ but I'm too unknowledgeable on the topic to post there, how does empiricism interact with quantum mechanics?

it's the cocaine that reveals to you how unreliable and inconsistent senses are. only a few grams change your entire reality for a period then when the effect goes away your reality changes to a third state. with each state you progress, you see how obsolete, narrow sighted and stupid the former one is.
this is very similar to mindsets of individuals and the process of aging
don't do cocaine

Intuition.

We can't always trust our senses. If our senses are unreliable empiricism is doomed. Further more, how do we know we're not in a simulation? Literally all our senses could be wrong.

Try building an airplane without empiricism . That will answer your question.

Empiricism is simply the practical extrapolation of everyday common sense.

Here you go.

Attached: 1496676269943286.png (246x312, 53K)

This whole notion that we can't trust our senses stems from a misunderstanding of empiricism. That would be naive realism .

Empericism is inherently investigataive, probing , and guided by causational reasoning . It's not simply believing what you see. Do you really think science would have progressed as much as it did it empiricism were so facile?

And how do we do this investigative probing? Through our faulty senses. All data is ultimately gathered through them.
>causational reasoning
Not empiricism. Literally the opposite. There is a distinction between rationalism and empiricism.
>muh progress
We are monkeys becoming more effective at throwing rocks. Prove to me that the space station won't fall to the ground tomorrow when gravity suddenly stops working for the first time. You can't.

Come back to me when you have a more intelligent reply.

>Pardon me
>4channel

Attached: e82aeca80e30a4369d06e6579b90b865ef16c1ed1f8cd50801d9d4d443da7b2c.jpg (453x500, 43K)

That's done by your brain, and is based on earlier experiences

What was wrong with his response?

>Prove to me that the space station won't fall to the ground tomorrow when gravity suddenly stops working for the first time

I'll give you 1,000,000:1 odds that this won't happen. Will you take my bet?

Any definition of "knowledge" you may have that won't answer the above question correctly is stupid, and is one of the reasons why philosophy has the "navel gazing with no practical applicability" reputation.