Honest Help

[Strate_Egg]

I like philosophy, and take a class in it but i am trying to compare two methodologies and respective followers and doctrines to make a decision on what the best is. I have to chose from Skepticism, Rationalism, or Empiricism.


Personally, i like SKepticism the best because i feel it hast he fewest loopholes, contradictions, and assumptions compared to Rationalism or Empiricism.

It may seem extreme and unwieldly, but it seems to provide a good hard foundation for the definition of knowledge ( A true and justified believe)

Through Hume, and the previously methodological Descartes, they seem to exemplify all the faults of the other two Methodologies. Even so, the others seem to disagree amoung themselves as well as contradict. Accordingly, Skepticism seems the Antithesis of Empiricism and gives good counter-arguments.

Finally, the arguments against it seem weak at best. Does anyone agree?


I mean, uncertainty leads to lack of knowledge because Knowledge relies on justified beliefs. If you cant be certain, you cant justified a possiton. Skepticism seems the only consistant platform

[Darth Wong]

I mean, uncertainty leads to lack of knowledge because Knowledge relies on justified beliefs. If you cant be certain, you cant justified a possiton. Skepticism seems the only consistant platform

Skepticism suggests a false dilemma between certainty/knowledge and uncertainty/ignorance (at its extreme, it becomes solypsism, which is totally useless). Empiricism replaces that with the concept of accuracy: something which is known to be 90% accurate is better than something which is known to be 40% accurate.

[Strate_Egg]

Thanks. Ill brood over that. But somehow i just cannot get passed the basiis for Epistomology, Knowledge, a true and justfied belief. Due to universal believe falsifiers of Descartes, and the Humean causality, when discussing a topic from just a philosophical standpoint, skepticism is good i think. It is consistant. Even if it becomes useless to proceed in life, it proves its case. You cannot be certain about any assumption.


Empiricism is based on all knowedge from the senses. IN turn, they belive that knowledge represents reality as it truely is. (some have different believes of from whence it came, or how it represents reality. This caueses contradiction)

Accordingly, Skepticism of Hume and Descarte help to explain why the senses are unreasonable impossible to trust when deciding the fundamental ideals of the universe. Of course, you dont need to believe in skepticism to survive, but it just makes the best case. That is what i meant. There are just so many cheesholes in Empirical data to support it.


OF course, since you are a scientist, i am not saying that that is what is usefull. It just makes sense that how do you KNOW you are not dreaming or that your are not insane, or that your senses are not being fooled. THe Rationalists nor the Empiricists cannot prove this. THey are basing certainty of reality on uncertain principles. Thats what hangs me up.

[Strate_Egg]

Oops i forgot. YOU are completely right Mr. Wong. Skepticism is unreasonable, but it is strict as well.

[Strate_Egg]

This is becomming mind-boggling

[Darth Wong]

Thanks. Ill brood over that. But somehow i just cannot get passed the basiis for Epistomology, Knowledge, a true and justfied belief.

What you cannot get past is the notion that you must have absolute knowledge of the truth of something to accept it as the most reasonable conclusion. For, in the end, that is all empiricism asks you to do.

Due to universal believe falsifiers of Descartes, and the Humean causality, when discussing a topic from just a philosophical standpoint, skepticism is good i think. It is consistant. Even if it becomes useless to proceed in life, it proves its case. You cannot be certain about any assumption.

Black/white fallacy. Once you accept the notion of degrees of certainty rather than an on/off certainty, you can see the concept of empiricism taking form.

Empiricism is based on all knowedge from the senses. IN turn, they belive that knowledge represents reality as it truely is. (some have different believes of from whence it came, or how it represents reality. This caueses contradiction)

What is a more reasonable theory? That your senses are conveying information to you from a real source, or that you are encased in an elabourate virtual-reality simulation for which you have not a shred of evidence but your uncertainty?

Sorry, but empiricism is more reasonable than solypsism. Solypsism proposes two possible explanations for physical observation:

1) You are dreaming it yourself (even though the human mind is simply not that consistent).

2) You are in an elabourate hoax (see Occam's Razor).

Accordingly, Skepticism of Hume and Descarte help to explain why the senses are unreasonable impossible to trust when deciding the fundamental ideals of the universe. Of course, you dont need to believe in skepticism to survive, but it just makes the best case. That is what i meant. There are just so many cheesholes in Empirical data to support it.

What "cheeseholes?" Descartes was nothing more than the master of the tautology.

OF course, since you are a scientist, i am not saying that that is what is usefull. It just makes sense that how do you KNOW you are not dreaming or that your are not insane, or that your senses are not being fooled. THe Rationalists nor the Empiricists cannot prove this. THey are basing certainty of reality on uncertain principles. Thats what hangs me up.

That's because they are NOT basing certainty of reality upon uncertain principles. Absolute certainty is a worthless goal because it accomplishes nothing whatsoever.

If you accept the theory that the universe as depicted by your senses is real (and it is the most reasonable theory), then even if your senses are not very accurate, the scientific method of empirical measurement and verification will produce very accurate results. The only way for this to fail is if ALL of the data produced by your senses is completely false; not just inaccurate or partially false, but COMPLETELY false, so that you are living in a totally nonexistent dream world. This is quite frankly much more unreasonable, not to mention being the aforementioned black/white fallacy.

PS. Insane people are aware of the fact that nobody else can perceive their delusional visions. They are aware of the fact that their visions are neither quantifiable or verifiable; they just don't care. They do not constitute a refutation of empiricism.

[Strate_Egg]

Absolute certainty is what makes something Justified, it provides truth. In terms of actual philosophy, Empiricism doesnt cut it. Skepticism just makes more sense than to trust something that can be easily defeated. But then again, in LIFE, i do believe Empiricism is more useful. But in discussing what one is actually a better philosophy, i think black and white isnt a fallacy.


Rene Descarte's only mistake was going Rationalism. But you do have good points for living.


What is a more reasonable theory? That your senses are conveying information to you from a real source, or that you are encased in an elabourate virtual-reality simulation for which you have not a shred of evidence but your uncertainty?

You have no reason to belive that your senses are conveying what is "reality." that is an assumption. Skepticism addresses that. It may be unreasonable, but that doesnt make it incorrect. You cant PROVE you are right. Sketpics can provide many ways that (not you personally) but your possition is wrong. People that say senses DO provide knowledge about reality and the fundemental truths must prove it. Empiricist cannot because as Hume said: You cannot hop outside of your own body to make checks with reality.

[Strate_Egg]

PS. Insane people are aware

that is not entirely true. Many think they are veggies. How aware can a veggie be.

[Strate_Egg]

People lable things fallacies that they dont want to deal with. That is something Empiricism is good with. WE can hook someone up to machines, mind-control them with drugs, or brainwash them into thinking something is a reality. It can be done, therefore, it is no more unreasonable than saying the world was not flat. Also, many "Empiricists" believed in Geocentrism. Cearly they can be wrong. If they can be wrong about one thing, they can be wrong about a lot. Unless somone changes the definition of Knowledge to a REASONABLE justifed belief, instead ofa true and justifiable belief, Empiriciism cant cut the cheese.

[Sriad]

PS. Insane people are aware

that is not entirely true. Many think they are veggies. How aware can a veggie be.

...Er, catatonic people don't think they're much of anything. As for any others, being able to make the statement "I am a vegetable" denotes self awareness.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

NO!
People label bad/faulty logic fallacies.
Fallacies can be logical errors, or lies.
When the goal is to infuence, logic is not always the best way to persuade.
Intimidation, bribery, and misdirection are valid tools of persuasion, but not arguement.
Is this going to turn into an other philosophy wank fest?
Reality is real, objective, and quantifiable. To paraphase the Master, it doesn't matter who measures the fucking part, if the tool they use is accurate, and used properly, the measurement will always come out the same.
Don't get in too deep, and beware of fools who say perseption changes reality. BULLSHIT! It only changes what you percieve, and that meteor about to stike Earth will do so reguardless of being observed.
"Philosphy is useless, theology is worse."
Forget about it. If you want to fantasise, use porno or sci fi.

You obviously haven't done you homework, as this topic has been beaten to death, and is repeating itself, practicaly verbatum!
You have asked no new questions, and haven't read the preexsisting answers.

[Darth Wong]

Absolute certainty is what makes something Justified, it provides truth. In terms of actual philosophy, Empiricism doesnt cut it. Skepticism just makes more sense than to trust something that can be easily defeated. But then again, in LIFE, i do believe Empiricism is more useful. But in discussing what one is actually a better philosophy, i think black and white isnt a fallacy.

Wrong. Black/white is a fallacy, and a severe one. It's obvious that your knowledge of philosophy is not as advanced as you think it to be.

What is a more reasonable theory? That your senses are conveying information to you from a real source, or that you are encased in an elabourate virtual-reality simulation for which you have not a shred of evidence but your uncertainty?

You have no reason to belive that your senses are conveying what is "reality." that is an assumption. Skepticism addresses that.

Go back and read what I wrote again. The question is "what is the most reasonable theory to explain the data at hand", not "what can we be absolutely certain of, while assuming that anything not absolutely certain is worthless"?

It may be unreasonable, but that doesnt make it incorrect.

That is quite frankly the dumbest thing I've heard in quite a while.

You cant PROVE you are right. Sketpics can provide many ways that (not you personally) but your possition is wrong.

Wrong again. They can only prove that it is not absolutely certain, but it is a massive black/white fallacy to declare that they have thus proven it wrong. It is more certain than any other theory, dumb-ass. Try to engage the lump of gray matter in your skull instead of simply repeating yourself.

People that say senses DO provide knowledge about reality and the fundemental truths must prove it.

Strawman fallacy. Please grow a brain. "Fundamental truths" do not exist. What we have is data, and either good or bad explanations for it. Your explanation is not good.

Empiricist cannot because as Hume said: You cannot hop outside of your own body to make checks with reality.

Hume was an idiot. If there is something more "real" out there than the observable universe, the onus is on him to prove it's there. Don't be an idiot like him.

[Strate_Egg]

Wrong. Black/white is a fallacy, and a severe one. It's obvious that your knowledge of philosophy is not as advanced as you think it to be.

What you are describing is NOT the fallacy. It is no more fallacious than Empirical claims of data representing reality.


ALl it does is cast doubt. If youc cannot trust your senses, then you CANNOT, under any circumstances, EVER trust them to reveal reality.



As well, This that are not absolutly certain i did not say are worthless, only lacking certainty, therefore, they need to be re-examined and evaluated. You can easily live by the rules, but you cant prove (what science NEEDS to do) that reality is what it resembles by senses.


"That is quite frankly the dumbest thing I've heard in quite a while. "

It isnt dumb, its philosophy. Hmmm saying "I dont allow ANY theft" is unreasonable. However. depending on the rules, it really doesnt matter if something is unreasonable, as long as it works. So therefore "reason" does not make truth.

"Wrong again. They can only prove that it is not absolutely certain, but it is a massive black/white fallacy to declare that they have thus proven it wrong. It is more certain than any other theory, dumb-ass. Try to engage the lump of gray matter in your skull instead of simply repeating yourself.
Quote:"

Sorry moron, oops, Mr. Wong the mighty. YOU cant prove= no evidence, you lose. Sorry, this isnt "star-trek vs starwars.' You dont have an ICS god-book to help you. Empiricists make the claim that sensory data DOES represent reality. They have to prove it. If they cannot, ITS FALSE just as much as a trekkie saying lasesr are useless. YOU have the lump in YOUR head because why? YOU ARE AN EMPIRICIST. That is a big bias. YOu can hardly NOT support your own practice. AS I SAID. SKeptics (there are various types) DO NOT THINK ALL sensory DATA is worthless. IT is just SO unrealitable that you cant use it to distinguish reality.

SKepticism is made to keep dogmatic people from comming out (like rationalists) and saying "justice is so and so, Beauty is so and so."


"Strawman fallacy. Please grow a brain. "Fundamental truths" do not exist. What we have is data, and either good or bad explanations for it. Your explanation is not good. "

W/e. That is the idea of Philosophy, to PROVE that fundamental truths exist...IE Wow, you arent even a GOOD Empiricist DUMB-ASS. (since that is the only word you use) For a man of science, you dont believe in the truths of math? How do you get by in your profession? Starwars?


"Hume was an idiot. If there is something more "real" out there than the observable universe, the onus is on him to prove it's there. Don't be an idiot like him. "

Wow, for being an Idiot, he is well-studied and respected. OH but not by you, of course OH mighty wong. YOU are an Empiricist, he was not. I wouldnt support them either if i didnt liek their views yet could not prove them wrong. Hume didnt believe there was an "exteral" reality because he said it was impossible to learn THAT from the senses. THe only thing YOU COULD get from senses or experience was a biased, subjective OPINION.

His ideas of Causality were genius. He is a far better scholar than you are.

[Strate_Egg]

Actually, thank-you, i didnt mean to say that they "believe" they are self-aware, i meant to say many are veggies and they dont realise they are shitting on themselves and smearing it on the wall,
Syriad

[Strate_Egg]

Since all science evolved from philosophy,and it is still a MAJOR subject for study and is MANDATORY in many colleges....it is a far cry from useless. THere just arent any new metaphysical philosophies because the idea has become stupid, no one will ever agree, Rationalism and Empiricism will always have so many holes, none of them will ever listen, and it doesnt even matter IF there is an outside reality. YOu can still get bye.

[Strate_Egg]

Its amazing how wong IGNORES the definition of Knowledge. A TRUE.... do you understand that mr scientist???? TRUE, JUSTIFIED, CLAIM....... THAT is knowledge, NOT your "perceptions, observations, guesses, and generalizations based on induction.


You see...SKeptics have nothing to prove. They are not saying ti DOESNT exist, but rather you cannot make that distinction. YOu must suspend judgement and do somethikng worthwhile that will benefit your life. Trying to understand if Rationalism or Empiricism is right is like trying to forever choose which door leads to freedom, yet never having the key. It doesnt work since none of them can prove anything. Rationalists make sweeping claims, Empiricsits make sweeping claims. SKeptics are just there to remind them of that.

[Darth Wong]

What you are describing is NOT the fallacy. It is no more fallacious than Empirical claims of data representing reality.

Define reality, then.

As well, This that are not absolutly certain i did not say are worthless, only lacking certainty, therefore, they need to be re-examined and evaluated.

Evaluated how?

You can easily live by the rules, but you cant prove (what science NEEDS to do) that reality is what it resembles by senses.

Science does not need to prove that in any absolute sense. Science describes the observable universe. If you think that the observable universe is not real, that's your problem. You must then explain what is real, and you have not done so. Casting of doubt does not validate your fanciful alternative.

It isnt dumb, its philosophy. Hmmm saying "I dont allow ANY theft" is unreasonable. However. depending on the rules, it really doesnt matter if something is unreasonable, as long as it works. So therefore "reason" does not make truth.

So? You have still failed to justify anything you've said. You can't argue something with a completely irrational line of reasoning and then claim that your argument is valid despite being irrational just because it can't be absolutely disproven.

Sorry moron, oops, Mr. Wong the mighty. YOU cant prove= no evidence, you lose.

I don't need to prove that all of the evidence at hand does not come from a falsified source; you must prove that it does.

Sorry, this isnt "star-trek vs starwars.' You dont have an ICS god-book to help you.

Irrelevant red-herring and obvious ad-hominem attempt. Grow up and try again.

Empiricists make the claim that sensory data DOES represent reality. They have to prove it. If they cannot, ITS FALSE just as much as a trekkie saying lasesr are useless. YOU have the lump in YOUR head because why? YOU ARE AN EMPIRICIST. That is a big bias. YOu can hardly NOT support your own practice. AS I SAID. SKeptics (there are various types) DO NOT THINK ALL sensory DATA is worthless. IT is just SO unrealitable that you cant use it to distinguish reality.

Nice series of ad-hominems. However, any theory which postulates the existence of a greater reality than the one we can sense bears the burden of proof. You say that there is no evidence that the physical universe is not just a dream; I say that this postulate necessarily requires a GREATER PLANE OF REALITY WHICH YOU HAVE NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR. At least the evidence for the physical universe (the sheer consistency of our empirical observations) is better than the evidence for your super-physical universe (ie- no evidence at all).

SKepticism is made to keep dogmatic people from comming out (like rationalists) and saying "justice is so and so, Beauty is so and so."

You are confusing skepticism with solypsism.

"Strawman fallacy. Please grow a brain. "Fundamental truths" do not exist. What we have is data, and either good or bad explanations for it. Your explanation is not good. "

W/e. That is the idea of Philosophy, to PROVE that fundamental truths exist...

Too bad it's failed, then.

IE Wow, you arent even a GOOD Empiricist DUMB-ASS. (since that is the only word you use) For a man of science, you dont believe in the truths of math? How do you get by in your profession? Starwars?

Maths are not "fundamental truths", dumb-ass. Math is a useful system of thought which is internally self-consistent, much like science. You reject one but not the other; why? Your insults bely your obvious ignorance.

"Hume was an idiot. If there is something more "real" out there than the observable universe, the onus is on him to prove it's there. Don't be an idiot like him. "

Wow, for being an Idiot, he is well-studied and respected.

"Appeal to authority" fallacy.

OH but not by you, of course OH mighty wong. YOU are an Empiricist, he was not. I wouldnt support them either if i didnt liek their views yet could not prove them wrong. Hume didnt believe there was an "exteral" reality because he said it was impossible to learn THAT from the senses. THe only thing YOU COULD get from senses or experience was a biased, subjective OPINION.

Like all of your arguments, you seek to dismiss everything I say simply because I'm an empiricist. In fact, you have not addressed any single one of my points, except to say "you're an empiricist, nya nya nya!!!".

His ideas of Causality were genius. He is a far better scholar than you are.

Irrelevant when attempting to defend this specific idiotic claim. Your entire argument ties the validity of the argument to your perception of the man, both on his part and mine. I say again: your knowledge of philosophy is obviously pitiful, since you clearly have no clue about how to construct a valid argument.

PS. And learn to use the quoting function. We have 13 year olds year who can use it. You can figure it out too, if you really try hard.

[SirNitram]

Its amazing how wong IGNORES the definition of Knowledge. A TRUE.... do you understand that mr scientist???? TRUE, JUSTIFIED, CLAIM....... THAT is knowledge, NOT your "perceptions, observations, guesses, and generalizations based on induction.

That you change the definition of 'true' to suit your own fallacies isn't changing the fact that 'perceptions, observations, guess, and estimations' are completely accurate.

You see...SKeptics have nothing to prove. They are not saying ti DOESNT exist, but rather you cannot make that distinction. YOu must suspend judgement and do somethikng worthwhile that will benefit your life. Trying to understand if Rationalism or Empiricism is right is like trying to forever choose which door leads to freedom, yet never having the key. It doesnt work since none of them can prove anything. Rationalists make sweeping claims, Empiricsits make sweeping claims. SKeptics are just there to remind them of that.

No, kids like you claim to understand philosophy because they read one article, and prove they know jack shit about any branch of philosophy except Sophism.

[Darth Wong]

He thinks that science is somehow wrong because it only gives us knowledge about the universe, and that isn't "real" knowledge. He's obviously one of those feeble-minded pseudo-philosophers who tries to use sophism in order to make himself feel smarter than all of the world's scientists. I did like the part where he claimed that math is a "fundamental truth" while science is incapable of providing any kind of knowledge; you just can't get funnier than that.

[SirNitram]

He thinks that science is somehow wrong because it only gives us knowledge about the universe, and that isn't "real" knowledge. He's obviously one of those feeble-minded pseudo-philosophers who tries to use sophism in order to make himself feel smarter than all of the world's scientists. I did like the part where he claimed that math is a "fundamental truth" though; you just can't get funnier than that.

I think he's been reading Decartes too much, as, IIRC, he used math as one of the 'proofs' that reality is, in fact, real. Of course, the amusing point is anyone who did a real study of philosphy would notice that most viewpoints agree that, in the observable universe, WYSIWYG. Many postulate other, unobserved phenomenon, but no one tries to argue that the laws we've constructed are false.

I retract my earlier statement about Decartes, though; he's gone the 'thinking they're self aware' route, proving he hasn't gotten to 'Cogito Ergo Sum', the most basic building block of that whole branch.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Even if what we live now is a simulation of reality, how do you distinguish the two?

It's like those many universe theorists out there that assume because there is a universe for every conceivable possibility, this isn't the proper reality and anything we learn here is broken in another reality, thus, science is void as anything is seemingly possible. The fact that we can never see these other realities never dawns on them so what we experience here is de facto and nothing less than.

[Darth Wong]

Regarding Hume, while it was probably overstating things to call him an "idiot", this is the man who once wrote:

Rationally, I can never know that the loaf of bread that nourished me yesterday will nourish me today, hence I can never be rationally motivated to eat.

There is such a thing as taking skepticism too far, and that's it. When somebody starts arguing that it is not rational to think that food is necessary for survival, he's gone off the deep end.

PS. Stupid_Egg's brand of "skepticism" has about as much to do with actual skepticism as Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" has to do with actual objectivity, which is to say nothing but the name. He is a solypsist, not a skeptic. A skeptic demands evidence to support a claim. A solypsist denies the concept of evidence.

[Strate_Egg]

Whatever. You people are mindless drones of Wongism. ANyone with a different opinion whom you CANNOT prove wrong, you discredit lol. It is pathetic.

Whether i am a kid, or 90 years old, it makes no difference. SKepticism has many points of view. Hmmmm and as for the claim that i read one article and make conclusions, you are an idiot to assume such a thing. No, i have studied other methodologies, especially Rationalism and Empiricism. On my own time, i went and tried to understand which one's were best to compare. The only onesthat i found work together as a theses/antitheses need Skepticism...wheither it be universal/Limited.

WONG!!!! There is such a thing as taking skepticism too far, and that's it. When somebody starts arguing that it is not rational to think that food is necessary for survival, he's gone off the deep end.

I understand this fully Mr. Wong. OF COURSE it can go too far THAT IS the beauty of Skepticism in making other methodologies uncertain. That is its job. IT is supposed to be the antagonist. People are always ignoring when i say "YOU CAN get through life without knowning certain if something is true, or if it represents reality." The idea is that it could be false. There are a multitude of very good reasons why. SOME are stupid, SOME are far-fetched, yes.

PS. Stupid_Egg's brand of "skepticism"

PS, its not my brand, its a mix between universal and limited skepticism. I dont belive that Empirical or Rational thought can lead to an understanding of an external reality to the mind. THE ONLY thing i WOULD believe is subjective idealism. and that is even a stretch. IF that were the case, then everyone would run around with their own "matrix" in their heads.


A solypsist denies the concept of evidence

Damn man, the ONLY thing i am denying is certainty of knowledge of reality. The empiricists say their evidence conforms to reality, so do those that follow Berkely, so do those that follow Plato. All Empiricism does is tell you what your subjective senses tell you, that is it.


dmiral Valdemar "Even if what we live now is a simulation of reality, how do you distinguish the two?
"

THAT IS THE POINT: YOU CANNOT. whatever your senses tell you can be false. What you just said is a universal belief falsifier.

I do not believe science is void, because it helps you survive in whatever reality we have. Even if someone is manipulating our minds, or we are delerious, we are surviving. The point is.....you cannot debate reality using Empiricism. Rationalists TRY, but all they do is make HUUUUUUUUUGE assumptions.....like GOD MADE OUR ideas; therefore...since he is good, it represents reality. That is absurd.



SirNitram

Actually i do now about Cogito Ergo sum: that is the point that Descarte switched from methodological skepticism (strong) to the weak, cheese-hole assumption world of Rationalism. Then he started to get bad and make claims that were unsupportable. He tried to move from internal thoughts to exteral reality due to the presenes of a diviing being (GOd) as the mother of all ideas in the soul. A good many of Rationalists are deists.


Darth Wong " I did like the part where he claimed that math is a "fundamental truth" Well Mr. Wong, If you are a Rationalist or an Empiricist, maths are truths. Skeptics believe that you cannot have TRUE knowledge of the reality represented by these truths. (also beauty, justitice, good) It is nice that you warp the idea. Limited Skeptics as well as Universal skeptics usually dont believe we can attain reasonable information to make decisions on these ideas. I do not see what is funny about that. If you are to compare the 3 common methodologies, you have to incorporate fundamental truths.


SirNitram
That you change the definition of 'true' to suit your own fallacies isn't changing the fact that 'perceptions, observations, guess, and estimations' are completely accurate.

Actually good thing you mentioned this SIR. true ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr)
adj. tru·er, tru·est

1.
1. Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous. See Synonyms at real1. See Usage Note at fact.
2. Truthful.
2. Real; genuine. See Synonyms at authentic.
3. Reliable; accurate: a true prophecy.

Skepticism lists a fucking plethora of reasons why Empiricism and rationalism CANNOT express reality, therefore it is not factual, therefore...i didnt fucking do jack-shit to the definition. Also kid...KNowledge is a true, justified belief based on fact or reality. SINCE NEITHER empiricism NOR Rationalism can provide PROOF of fact to reality, SKeptics 1: others 0.
I am only using the Definition of KNowlecge, truth, and support from some of the worlds BEST philosophers. What are you using? OH Yea, a false claim that i distorted the defintion of truth and knowledge. Blow me. At least look up defintions before you speak.

[Strate_Egg]

OHHHh and ( Stupid_egg is creative for an Empiricist ) PS this comes from a man who calls a genius "a fucking idiot." Yea, you MIGHT be able to say that when you become that famous and world-wide studied.

[Strate_Egg]

OH, and i never claimed to be an expert, it isnt even my major. I just enjoy it as a secondary. There are some things i do not understand. FOr instance, i am not too sharp on Kant and his constructivism.