Quote:
Originally Posted by joecooool  i did not say science = truth. i said empirical evidence = truth. science then explains that empirical evidence with logic. and logic is based on perceived reality as well. so science is the closest thing to the truth we have.
the only reason why science is not 100% truth is because our logical explanations are based on the amount of empirical evidence we have, which always grows, so then our logical explanation might change based on having more empirical evidence.
for example Newtonian gravity vs. Einsteins gravity. newtons theory of gravity got upgraded.
the reason i say evidence = truth is because all knowledge in our brains comes from our perception. so its paradoxical to use knowledge which comes from perception to doubt perception. |
You have material reductionists on the one hand, who believe empiricism is the only way to go for knowledge acquisition, and then on the other, you have mystics, who claim the sensory apparatus can be transcended altogether.
Joe, just out of curiosity, what kind of "evidence" would it take to convince you that empirical observation was not the only means of acquiring accurate data regarding the presumably external world? And would that alter your views in regards to the delineation between subjective and objective?