Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?

[Angrboda]

“Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses.” - Aquinas. (took me a while to find the quote). An empirical approach does not automatically exclude theological speculation. Aquinas, like Aristotle before him, based their logical demonstrations on observations of nature. If observations from nature do not count as evidence, then really nothing does, and atheist critics are just arbitrarily dismissing evidence they don't like.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
~ Nietzsche

But Aquinas was wrong, doubly so, for his statement was not first in the senses.

[Neo-Scholastic]

“Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses.” - Aquinas.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
~ Nietzsche

But Aquinas was wrong, doubly so, for his statement was not first in the senses.

The quote from Thomas of Aquinas presupposes the same first principle as Aristotle. The Schoolmen made careful distinctions between the sense impressions, abstraction, and conception. In Scholastic theology the contents of the intellect in question are concepts not the sense impressions that proceed them.

[Ignorant]

. . .

Thanks for all of your input and your time!

[Angrboda]

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
~ Nietzsche

But Aquinas was wrong, doubly so, for his statement was not first in the senses.

The quote from Thomas of Aquinas presupposes the same first principle as Aristotle. The Schoolmen made careful distinctions between the sense impressions, abstraction, and conception. In Scholastic theology the contents of the intellect in question are concepts not the sense impressions that proceed them.

I fail to see how that is in any way a clarification or contradiction to what I wrote.

[Ignorant]

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
~ Nietzsche

Is that a fact or an interpretation? =)

[robvalue]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_f50j2ivXI

[Angrboda]

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
~ Nietzsche

Is that a fact or an interpretation? =)

[Jackalope]

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
~ Nietzsche

Is that a fact or an interpretation? =)

Neither.

[quip]

Consider the proposition:

"The truthfulness of all propositions must be empirically validated to count as knowledge."

If the above proposition is known as true, then it must be (as a proposition) subject to empirical validation. <= Is that the case?

If it is the case, how was it empirically validated?

If it does not require empirical validation, AND it is known to be true, then there seems to be a proposition (that one) whose truthfulness is known without empirical validation.

If that is true, then the original proposition is false (because NOT all propositions are subject to empirical validation, only some)

What do we think?

Yes, an epistemological take on Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

[robvalue]

Yes, the differences come about because mathematics creates precise abstract logical systems, whereas most claims of knowledge about reality are tentative and probabilistic. Only by omitting this implication can the comparison be made. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to "pre-amble" every sentence they make. You can always ask for clarification rather than trying to raze the ground and stifle the discussion. The approach a person takes indicates whether they are interested in discussion, or just "winning".

Of course, some people may genuinely go around making statements of absolute truth about reality, and so will fall foul of this kind of thing.