ickplant@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 month agoAmenlemmy.worldimagemessage-square9fedilinkarrow-up1439arrow-down18
arrow-up1431arrow-down1imageAmenlemmy.worldickplant@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square9fedilink
minus-squareDasus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 month agoEmpiricism doesn’t work without reason, btw.
minus-squarenot_woody_shaw@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-21 month ago*citation required
minus-squareDasus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 month 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.