I’m amazed that so many people have thought about all this with a term for something I’ve wondered about, and yet I still think this is the wisest branch of the comments.
You pushed the inexplicable, the black box, into a system. Deities/the unknown forces come in all kinds of shapes and formats, not only judeochristian / abrahamic. Maybe it’s not a deity, but it’s where the magic we can’t explain happens.
We need axioms for anything, dude. I’m not anti-science, I just think all belief and knowledge is necessarily based in things that cannot be proven… and that’s ok.
We don’t need axioms for empiricism. That’s the entire point. We ask questions of physical reality and infer limited and verifiable knowledge from the results, without ever stating that anything has been proven.
That is why empiricism relies on sensory information.
So you don’t need axioms for empiricism, just to be clear. Your saying “actually” could make it look like you’re disagreeing, when you’re actually not.
Ah yes, the hubris of man. Cause we can totally prove logic works without using logic, right?
Ah yes, boobies …
I too enjoy boobies!
I’m amazed that so many people have thought about all this with a term for something I’ve wondered about, and yet I still think this is the wisest branch of the comments.
sticking to boobies is wise.
Which is more logical: some supernatural, indefinable thing or cold finality?
You can’t prove either, but one is foundational to shared delusions that drives commerce, hatred and war while the other is just peace.
Fair enough. Logic is your deity. Not a bad one, either. :P
Explain how it’s a deity. I don’t worship it. It doesn’t give me purpose. It’s not a comfort.
You pushed the inexplicable, the black box, into a system. Deities/the unknown forces come in all kinds of shapes and formats, not only judeochristian / abrahamic. Maybe it’s not a deity, but it’s where the magic we can’t explain happens. We need axioms for anything, dude. I’m not anti-science, I just think all belief and knowledge is necessarily based in things that cannot be proven… and that’s ok.
Fair enough.
We don’t need axioms for empiricism. That’s the entire point. We ask questions of physical reality and infer limited and verifiable knowledge from the results, without ever stating that anything has been proven.
You actually need axioms for everything except direct experience devoid of interpretation.
That is why empiricism relies on sensory information.
So you don’t need axioms for empiricism, just to be clear. Your saying “actually” could make it look like you’re disagreeing, when you’re actually not.
That sounds a lot like you consider it a comfort.
Nothing isn’t peace, it’s nothing.
Fair enough.