ickplant@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 3 months agoAmenlemmy.worldimagemessage-square9fedilinkarrow-up1440arrow-down18
arrow-up1432arrow-down1imageAmenlemmy.worldickplant@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 3 months agomessage-square9fedilink
minus-squareDasus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·3 months agoEmpiricism doesn’t work without reason, btw.
minus-squarenot_woody_shaw@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-23 months ago*citation required
minus-squareDasus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·3 months 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.