Rationalism is a superior epistemology than Empiricism

[Anonymous No.10093339]

The proof follows directly from the definitions and is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Anonymous No.10093342]

Agreed

[Anonymous No.10093343]

>>10093339
except then you don't know shit

[Anonymous No.10093384]

>>10093343
Nigger physicist brainlet detected.

[Anonymous No.10093402]

>>10093384
okay, then tell me one fact that follows from rationalism alone without any empirical input

[Anonymous No.10093473]

>>10093343
Literally the opposite, you can never actually know anything via empiricism

[Anonymous No.10093485]

>>10093473
i can tell you for a fact that if i put an ice cube into a glass of water, it's gonna float, not sink to the bottom.

find the hole in my empirical fact here

[Anonymous No.10093581]

>>10093485
>i can tell you for a fact
No you can't
>find the hole in my empirical fact here
It's fundamentally rooted in rationalist a priori

[Anonymous No.10093591]

>>10093473
I pick up a rock. I feel its weight directly. I know the rock has way PURELY from direct experience of reality.
>hurr u cant know nuffin
Strict rationalists or platonists or whatever can kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.10093599]

>>10093581
>It's fundamentally rooted in rationalist a priori
Its not. The fact icecubes float is a posteriori knowlede

[Anonymous No.10093615]

>>10093339
I observe therefore I believe is superior to I reason therefore I believe, because some observations lead to conclusions that may seem counterintuitive to conclusions drawn through only inexperienced reason.

Reason through experience > reason through logic

[Anonymous No.10093618]

>>10093581
>No you can't
i just did.
>It's fundamentally rooted in rationalist a priori
actually no, and i don't understand where you're even coming from. if you're saying "knowing floating is about buoyancy and displacement is based on some sort of physics which i magically claim to be purely rationalistic" then i would point out that quantum mechanics is notoriously incapable of predicting crystal structures formed by solids, and you could _never_ _ever_ derive from first principles that ice is less dense than water.

the reason we know ice is less dense than water is based on observation. for sure.

checkmate mathfag

[Anonymous No.10093659]

>>10093599
Knowledge being a thing that one can acquire in the first place is a priori
>>10093618
>i just did.
no you didnt
>checkmate mathfag
Not even close
>>10093615
>Reason through experience > reason through logic
Not even close

[Anonymous No.10093699]

>>10093659
Logic is a construct of the mind and is subject to the fallacy and imperfections of man, while the world is deterministic and observations of it reveal the mechanisms beyond.
Your degenerate false reason can't make the world change face.

[Anonymous No.10093705]

>>10093659
>no you didn't
>not even close
>i give no counter-argument because i'm larping

not even a real mathfag then? just some troll.... as usual...

[Anonymous No.10093937]

>>10093659
>Knowledge being a thing that one can acquire in the first place is a priori
Confirmed for not knowing the meanings of words

[Anonymous No.10094025]

>>10093485
>i can tell you for a fact that if i put an ice cube into a glass of water, it's gonna float, not sink to the bottom.
On earth, in space however the water will surround the ice. "Floating" is ultimately no longer an empirical fact so "ice floating in water" makes absolutely no sense.
Also you're talking about two different qualities of the same thing; water. You have presented absolutely no empirical facts because what you are talking about is completely qualitative.

[Anonymous No.10094033]

>>10094025
It's an empirical fact that water ice floats in liquid water at standard gravity, temperature, and pressure. If you disagree you are most certainly trolling.

[Anonymous No.10094120]

>>10093699
>Logic is a construct of the mind
Logic is independent of human beings or the mind.
>while the world is deterministic
No it isn't
>observations of it reveal the mechanisms beyond.
False observations happen all the time, you hallucinate and see mirages every day, and thus reveal nothing.
Obviously empirical results hold weight and can be reproduced and should be considered. But they are not as powerful as rationalist logic and deductive reasoning, and they still are founded upon an apriori acceptance of rationalism and logic.
>>10093705
I already did.
>>10093937
Butthurt empiricist lmao
>>10094033
Obviously. But this means nothing to the point of the OP, which is simply that rationalism as an epistemology is more fundamental than empiricism.

[Anonymous No.10094143]

>>10094120
More fundemental=/=superior

[Anonymous No.10094174]

ITT high-school senior applying for philosophy BA hones his "let me ignore all real arguments and talk in circles without saying anything" skills

[Anonymous No.10094764]

>>10094120
>Logid is independent of human beings or the mind
Logic, like mathematics, is completely a fabrication of the human mindscape. Logic and reason are inextricable from the human brain and are subject to every computational failure and bias that the human brain can muster. Even cultural biases, like proportional or logarithmic thinking can impact one's ability to reason effectively.
>the world isn't deterministic
Prove it. A machine can be built to flip a coin and, under the same conditions, always receive the same result.
>hallucinations and mirages are the same thing
>mirages reveal nothing, not even about the nature of light or the nature of air
>people will repeatedly hallucinate a false-positive or false-negative observation because I say so
lol

[Anonymous No.10094774]

>>10094174
I have a BA in mathematics
>>10094764
>Logic, like mathematics, is completely a fabrication of the human mindscape. Logic and reason are inextricable from the human brain and are subject to every computational failure and bias that the human brain can muster. Even cultural biases, like proportional or logarithmic thinking can impact one's ability to reason effectively.
This is false. A human making a mistake in logic, does not mean logic is tied to human beings. Much like humans making a mistake ina measurement, does not mean the thing being measured act in the false way.
Logic is external to humans, like physics is external to humans. However, physics is built up from logic, logic is not built up from physics. It is more fundamental than physics.
>Prove it. A machine can be built to flip a coin and, under the same conditions, always receive the same result.
This has been proven for a hundred years now, by physicists in fact. Determinism hasn't been a valid epistemology for a century.

[Anonymous No.10095975]

>>10094774
>I have a BA in mathematics
That explains why you are so ignorant of reality.

At this point the pair of you are arguing about something completely tangential to the OP, so I will drag you back. Image how backward we would still be if we hadn't realized that empiricism and experimentation matter? Imagine the state of our existence. What does it even mean for "epistemology to be superior"? Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10095978]

>>10094774
>Determinism hasn't been a valid epistemology for a century
Prove it. What physical laws say so?

[Anonymous No.10095984]

>>10095978
[math]\Delta x \Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10095988]

>>10094774
Why BA?

[Anonymous No.10095991]

>>10095984
Lol you are so dumb

[Anonymous No.10095994]

>>10095991
kek, u got heisenburned

[Anonymous No.10096058]

>>10095984
How does uncertainty disprove determinism? The rules of quantum mechanics are entirely deterministic.

[Anonymous No.10096063]

>>10096058
maybe they are, but the results of empirical measurements are subject to uncertainty. meaning that if you believe there is a deterministic description of the universe, then the results of measurements are only related to one particular branch of that description

[Anonymous No.10096070]

>>10096063
So we have it that QM and all other known physical theories are deterministic. Obviously our universe isn't "made" of physical laws, merely described by them [to an unreasonable degree of accuracy]. But all measurements have inherent uncertainty. Can you show this implies a non-deterministic universe?

[Anonymous No.10096074]

>>10096070
there is no deterministic method that describes which branches the measurements we do will correspond to. there is a probability distribution which describes how measurements will turn out, and that's the ultimate prediction we can make. the science says that measurements are probabilistic in this universe, so therefore even if you believe in some "universal wavefunction" that evolves deterministically, that still says nothing about how your measurements go to one particular outcome or the other -- it's random. which is incompatible with deterministic.

[Anonymous No.10096101]

>>10093699
>observations are perceptions of sensory stimuli and are subject to the fallacy and imperfections of man
>while logic is otherwise unaffected by such misjudgements and can reveal the mechanisms beyond
I adjusted your (accidental I assume) retardation and changed it into a reasonable claim.

>degenerate false reason
Not him but... lol?

[Anonymous No.10096106]

>>10094025
>nuancing an intuitive analogy in attempt to discredit it

[Anonymous No.10096144]

>>10096101
You're first for the cross when the end times come.

[Anonymous No.10096174]

>>10096144
What the hell does this mean