ickplant@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 16 days agoAmenlemmy.worldimagemessage-square9fedilinkarrow-up1438arrow-down18
arrow-up1430arrow-down1imageAmenlemmy.worldickplant@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 16 days agomessage-square9fedilink
minus-squareDasus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·16 days agoEmpiricism doesn’t work without reason, btw.
minus-squarenot_woody_shaw@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-216 days ago*citation required
minus-squareDasus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·16 days agoIronically, not a requirement. If you’re purely empirical/empiricist, you need at least one person to walk into a pole to prove it’s there. If you’re a rationalist, you could rationalise where the poles are. If you use both, you’re likely to hit yourself less than when utilising only one or the other.
Empiricism doesn’t work without reason, btw.
*citation required
Ironically, not a requirement.
If you’re purely empirical/empiricist, you need at least one person to walk into a pole to prove it’s there.
If you’re a rationalist, you could rationalise where the poles are.
If you use both, you’re likely to hit yourself less than when utilising only one or the other.