Given that the skeptics like Hume showed that pure reason is flawed, I don't think it's all that important for a philosophy to be self-validating. The true measurement of a philosophy is how functional it turns out to be. Besides, every philosophy is going to have make axiomatic assumptions that it cannot validate, either empirically or philosophically. Again, we determine the validity of those axioms by how functional they are. That empiricism has led to unprecedented levels of knowledge that no other philosophy can come close to reaching speaks volumes to its functionality.
And the more we learn about the human mind, the more we understand how flawed it is at parsing reality, and it has become clear that the conclusions that our minds reach need some sort of validation. The only way to do that is through empirical observation.
The only time I ever hear anyone argue against empiricism is if that person has made conclusions that cannot be validated empirically. Why is that?
And the more we learn about the human mind, the more we understand how flawed it is at parsing reality, and it has become clear that the conclusions that our minds reach need some sort of validation. The only way to do that is through empirical observation.
The only time I ever hear anyone argue against empiricism is if that person has made conclusions that cannot be validated empirically. Why is that?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
