When did you realize that most of our problems, political/philosophical and otherwise...

My point is that there isn't.

Logic should trump emotion/passion every time.

You can hear something empirically true and still "get" feels

>Reductio ad absurdum

>Empiricism

This is reasonable if you consider potential humans to have value. By your retarded dichotomy, anything that leads back to values is a 'feel'. Congratulations, you just ended ethics with a Veeky Forums post.

I was vague and will clarify: what pseudoarguments based on feels are the most common?

Why not?

He might be dry, but I've come to learn that the truth is not exciting.

you shouldn't kill all the useless indigents at the old folks home

This is my favourite Pepe. So comfy.

Elaborate on why.

You don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow, sure

but thanks to empiricism and the Scientific method, technology rises

let's just give it the strong interpretation so that we're clear.

>we shouldn't abort fetuses because they are human.

this is not a feelings-based argument. in fact, it's part of an implied syllogism that goes like this:

>Premise 1: we shouldn't kill humans.
>Premise 2: fetuses are humans.
>Premise 3: abortion is a form of killing.
>Conclusion, Therefore, we shouldn't abort fetuses.

it's completely logical. it may not be sound, but it's logically valid. defining premises and substitution via the transitive property to create a conclusion. the only way that you can clash with it is by rejecting a premise, which just leads to a deadlocked clash of axioms.

>fetuses are humans
This is the feelings part

Empiricism is ANTITHETICAL to the 'scientific method'.

There's no such thing as causality with empiricism. No necessary links between events, and thus no laws/etc. At best, you have educated guesses; that is, trends, etc.

An empiricist believes that although to date, in identical 'normal' conditions, water has boiled at 100°C, there is nothing to say that it will always do so.

no that's called a premise.

you can definitely disagree with the premise, ie have a different definition of humans. but why should we favor your definition?

because some experts agree? well that's just an appeal to authority. and even if it weren't, just as many experts disagree.

underlying all of this is an axiomatic clash. out of thin air, we are each defining what is human differently, and coming with justifications after the fact. if you feel that you are not doing this, then you are obliged to outline a strict definition of what is human--in which case i will likely respond with a counterexample that problematizes your definition.

Antithetical is a strong word. The scientific method incorporates and expands upon the concept of empiricism; it is dependent on it.

You don't understand empiricism.

Please read Hume.

How about you prove him wrong instead, if it´s not too hard for you?

Empiricism is the specific concept that we cannot know anything beyond what we experience with our senses. It's not something you can just 'incorporate' or 'expand' upon - it's an all-or-nothing concept.

What said, basically.

*specific theory

Empiricism is what makes you're bridges solid, my friend.

If you can't cross it, it's not a bridge.

i think you are misconceptualizing how 'laws' arise from the usage of the scientific method. to be fair, many scientists are guilty of this as well.

science (if not many arrogant sscientists) is always in an admitted state of "to the best of our knowledge--which can be referenced here, here, and here."

scientific 'laws' are always "to the best of our knowledge" which is very similar to your empiricist thought about recognizing trends and making educated guesses. this is evident in the fact that scientists are willing to adjust 'laws' (educated guesses about trends and causation) when new observations are made. this is fundamental to the field of science and to the very concept of the scientific method. the scientific method admits that ultimately, causality is impossible to determine.

'laws' are mainly for communicative simplicity. once you contextualize all scientific claims as existing under the umbrella of "to the best of our knowledge," then it becomes redundant, distracting, and unnecessary to begin each claim with a whole paragraph about how the claim is conditional to all of these other things like the uncertainty of causality and the evolutionary nature of scientific knowledge. it is already assumed that the reader is familiar with these concepts. so scientists can just say "the world is round." instead of "based on previous observations, the world is round--but maybe our observations are flawed or maybe there is a lurking variable (there's always a chance)."

it would be ridiculous to state every single scientific claim in that sort of format every single time you state it, especially to an audience who is already supposed to be up to speed on the theory behind the scientific method,

If I drop a ball on the ground, and it makes a sound, empiricism cannot account for this.

Empiricism would conceive of two separate, consecutive events with no necessary link between them.

You would have the ball striking the ground, and the sound that is heard. As no necessary link can be sensed/experienced however, then at best the empiricist will be able to assert that the dropping of ball may produce a sound. Emphasis on the *may*, because with no necessary links and laws, it could one day just as easily not.

I can't believe I'm entertaining Humean empiricists in a post-Kantian world.

What we need is to bring back the Trivium and Quadrivium.

The modern education system has not proven to be any better.

>A central concept in science and the scientific method is that it must be empirically based on the evidence of the senses. Both natural and social sciences use working hypotheses that are testable by observation and experiment. The term semi-empirical is sometimes used to describe theoretical methods that make use of basic axioms, established scientific laws, and previous experimental results in order to engage in reasoned model building and theoretical inquiry.

This is regurgitated ad nauseum in any Intro to Science class.

Step it up famalam

I think you don't understand that those people who want to give politics classes to children are precisely the same one who don't want them to learn basic logic.

Political lessons in high school = indoctrination of the young.

It's always like that. Here in Brazil we used to have classes on religion, and they always turned out to be nothing more than Christian indoctrination, though the goal was supposedly to teach about religions in general.

I agree that people should learn logic in high school, specially informal logic, which is usually more important than formal logic, but this is not what the Remainers want. They just want everyone to suddenly start agreeing with their own personal views.

>any Intro to Science class

If you go to a community college, maybe.

Have fun trying to build a theory devoid of synthetic a priori judgements.

Look breh, you're the one who said empiricism is antithetical to science.

This shit is self-evidently absurd. I dunno, I guess you're just fucked from the jump

peace out, god bless u

You don't understand empiricism.

It does not allow for causality, which hinders scientific inquiry in every way conceivable.

I don't know how I can make this more obvious.

It doesn't matter if the bridge is not used or does not serve anyone in any given moment in time, but when it is used, it works.

If it was not tested due to human error in math or construction then it wasn't a bridge at all because no one had ever crossed it.

>It does not allow for causality, which hinders scientific inquiry in every way conceivable.

wow, it's almost like the scientific method extends empiricism or...

nah nevermind im just rippin this sherm again

You can't extend empiricism.

You either have causality or you don't.

If you do, you don't have empiricism. You have something else.

Good god.

What do call it when you have a sixth sense on that e.g. the dreamland, the world created by the mind?

Not sure what you mean, but synthetic a priori judgements do not require any sensory experience to prove - although they can be proven by it.

John Taylor Gatto

>implying education is the sole foundation of wisdom

Let me redpill you OP.

Most of humanity is utterly incapable of applying logic in a calm and rational manner to things which really matter to them.

For most humans, politics is a place to assert feelings. Logic has no place.

Education will not change this either way.

Wisdom requires certain innate traits which are not equally shared by upright apes such as homo sapiens. Those traits are low time preference, openness, and an utter disregard for the opinion of others.

With experience and maturity you will end up agreeing with me.

Perhaps one can gain clarity and unity by melding the engines of sanity and insanity.

>arguing on the basis of their feels.
reason is a slave of the passions

Men have their minds and women their feelings more highly developed. Either alone can give nothing. Think what you feel and feel what you think. Fusion of the two produces another force
-some faggot

Interesting, Can you give me a tdlr version?

Agreed with to an extent, Politics is at its core all about feelings. There's a tendency to focus in on younger generations doing this, but it's ubiquitous across generations. In any popular forum of discussion, you would be hard pressed to find any argument that didn't fundamentally boil down to feelings on any side of a debate. People really like to convince themselves they're operating in a completely rational manner, but it all ultimately boils down to tribalism and pet causes.
It might be possible for education to happen in such a way that could minimize this, but the fact that this behavior is present in all generations belies the fact that if such a way exists, it hasn't been practiced in at least a few hundred years

This.

>implying all arguments aren't just a complicated version of feels