Is empiricism supported empirically? seems like a logical reach

no

are you saying strict empiricism is tautological?

And until they're tested in the real world, they remain theoretical and have no bearing on reality.

We don't praise Newton's theories on gravity or Einstein's theories of relativity for just being elegant, we praise them because they accurately describe reality. Theories like the one of relativity leads to testable propositions, such as the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. If this proposition was falsified, Einstein's ideas would be discarded almost immediately

No, it is not. It's always been wrong, and will continue to be wrong, and its adherents will merely say that it is closing in on the truth.

Which is just another thing they're wrong about.

It's already fairly common knowledge that the speed of light used to be greater in the past.

then you've moved the goalposts because the question was whether empiricism supports itself logically.

Rationalism and empiricism are closely related but they are exclusive from each other

>It's already fairly common knowledge that the speed of light used to be greater in the past.
No. Pople have produced models with that property but we have 0 (Z E R O) empirical evidence to back it up.
t. Physicist

And I asked specifically what the OP meant by that. What exactly does he mean by this question, what are the consequences of it being supported vs. it not being supported, how can we test the differences between the two, and which one, when looking at the world we live in, is more likely?

Now, if I look at the world, and I observe that empirical research achieves a pretty high amount of robust knowledge, compared to building theoretical systems that have little to no connection with reality, I would say that empiricism is supported pretty well as a robust method of obtaining reliable knowledge. It's not flawless, but then again neither is logic, which has its own set of complications

They are, have you studied foundations of mathematics pleb-bro?

Autists like you amuse me.

How do you propose going back in time and measuring the speed of light?

>thinking you need to go back in time to measure decay in anything

Lol, see radioactive decay. Especially bismuth.

Oh, you're one of those special snowflakes who thinks that 6 million years of radioactive decay takes 6 million years.

kek

Pleb.

>I can watch bismuth and thus see the speed of light from the creation of the world!

go on, tell us how maths is empirical

Do you think mathematics are pulled out of people's asses? Mathematics is based on empirical observations entirely, just abstracted. That's why it's so useful.

mathematics are forms of our a priori knowledge of space and time. Arithmetic is to time what geometry is to space

>>go on, tell us how maths is empirical

>here i have two apples and i give one to my friend
>i want to formalize this exchange and any possible similar exchange
Here you have arithmetic.

>i observe bodies changing velocities and want to formalize concepts such as rate of change
Birth of derivatives and integrals.

How are there mathematical theories that have no instantiation in the physical world, then?

They're built upon and extrapolated from ones that do.

Name exactly one thing we know a priori about space and time that doesn't rely on observation, that is to say empiricism.

Wrong already, our experience of time is the only thing that allows us to engage in the social exchange called mathematics.

Empiricism is supported by human senses. It is not infallible but is the most accurate in terms of explanations of natural phenomena. Supernatural ideas such as gods are automatically dismissed as you cant observe them with your senses, which gives rise to atheism.

If the speed of light changed over time then none of what we know makes sense. Simply put it has to have stayed at a constant or else the Universe would not be how constant it is now.

Arithmetic, geometry, Algebra

Short answer, yes.

So are facts about abstracted theories, that involve no empirical concepts, only idealised abstract concepts, still empirical facts? Even if this fact is not instantiated in the real world, and therefore can't tell us anything about it?

That's the application of mathematics to empirical phenomena. the potential for mathematics must exist in our mind first

[spoiler]Everything reduces to empirical concepts. This is the nature of our existence.[/spoiler]

>So are facts about abstracted theories, that involve no empirical concepts, only idealised abstract concepts, still empirical facts?
I don't know how to categorize them. The entirety of mathematics is contingent upon the axioms we assume within it. They are about as empirical as any tautology one can come up with. Mathematics is one huge, useful tautology.

> Even if this fact is not instantiated in the real world, and therefore can't tell us anything about it?
Because math is based upon our experience, it can tell us about our experience. If some general empirical observation is to some relevant degree close to its mathematical abstraction, then the mathematical abstraction can tell us about it.

Think Newton's laws of motion juxtaposed to actual observations. You'll never get an answer that is exactly correct using the formulae, but you will get an answer that's close enough.

Space and time doesn't make sense out of our perception of the world. If there were no perceiving beings there would be no space or time. It is not something we can discover in the world

>Space and time doesn't make sense out of our perception of the world.
What? Space and time are abstractions of what we experience, I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:

-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist, the scientist will wave then the card of nominalism, anti-realism, relativism/nihilism/solipsism and terrorize you, since the scientists have no other means, than terrorism, to validate their position

the fact that you have faith in mathematical models to tell you about ''the world'' (which is an inductive concept, like all concepts) is already a philosophical stance. but scientists cannot justify this stance and they become very upset as soon as they are recalled that they fail at justifying their claims that their inductions and deductions are more than conventions inside some formal language.
So they even say explicitly that they are not paid to justify their faith and that this justification does not matter anyway (because they choose to claim that ''science works, look it gives us computers and cars :DDDD'' which is nothing but feeding our hedonism and the statement itself remains very dubious)

>''science works, look it gives us computers and cars :DDDD'' which is nothing but feeding our hedonism and the statement itself remains very dubious
You're free to fuck off back to your cave and mentally masturbate while rubbing shit over yourself anytime.