Some philosophers say that our senses could deceive us, and if all reality can only be experienced through our senses...

Oh my goooood pal. Seriously I've taken like 2 philosophy classes and even a pseud like me cringes at this.

Truth is not, "whatever is not proven wrong." You made a leap of logic there. Read Hume. Read Kant. Read period.

No, you don't get it. Think about it some more.

The point is that they would have no possible way of knowing that this was going to happen, even with using all of their senses, including sixth sense and spider sense.

>He said u can't kno nuffin

But he didn't even say THAT. He said that knowledge CAN be achieved but only from marriage of empiricism and rationalism, not from either by themselves.

Was he the most intelligent human to ever live?

Don't disparage spider-sense like that.

No, Goethe was.

>Some philosophers say
Epic namedrop

> if all reality can only be experienced through our senses
Presupposition. Reality is elusive, our senses are mere lenses.

>since all we know comes from our senses
Wrong

>If through more tests, that theory is not proven wrong, we can call it a truth.
Being scientifically sound does not equate to truth. Furthermore Science uses rationality to construct theories that exist beyond empiricism.

>then our senses are reality, and the truth is contained inside that reality

I'm sure this sounded positively epic in your head

I'm trying to learn here too, but you're not making a point. I explained why all we know comes from our senses, or if you prefer, our brain. Because that is the only way we can know anything, it's self-explanatory.

>Wrong
Tell me why it is wrong you sophist

>Being scientifically sound does not equate to truth. Furthermore Science uses rationality to construct theories that exist beyond empiricism
All rationaly is based on empiric data

>I'm sure this sounded positively epic in your head
Not an argument

In modern science, the truth is something that wasn't proven wrong

Well, Kant for one: You can't know the noumenal. Hegelian phenomenology involves about the dialectical construction of the object. Much of neo-Kantian and neo-Hegelian philosophy deal with similar themes. Schopenhauer adopts it and combines it with the veil of maya, which Nietzsche talks about in Birth of Tragedy. Nietzsche is also deeply perspectivist, with is anti-representationalist. With phenomenology you get Heideggers always-already, which (vulgarly) is deeply perspectivist and talks about various ontological relations being historical (deeply Hegelian, again) and how we're sort of "trapped" inside them, and need to work hard to get out of them.

The analytics get it with N.R. Hanson's theory-laden perception, Kuhn's normal science to an extent, Winch's Wittgensteinian philosophy of epistemology/metaphysics in science, all very similar to Feyerabend's work (especially his posthumous book, The Conquest of Abundance, similar to the old idealist/veil of maya stuff).

TLDR: Your encounter with the world is deeply coloured by concepts. Few if any of these people would deny ANY objective reality, but they would have severe reservations about the extent to which you can access it, and many would say that, in fact, "bare" reality is kind of meaningless. Why do we care? Even if we care, we care for cultural/spiritual reasons, which are within us first and foremost.

The kind of truth correspondence or truth "isomorphy" you seem to be getting at in the OP is an old idea and hasn't fared well in the 20th century.

On causation, Hume and Kant are a good starting point.

The essence is incomprehensible without comprehension of the reality of the appearance.

Thanks, I'll start with Critique of Pure Reason

check out Badiou: "bare" reality exists and is represented as the set of all elements, the "pure multiple," matter that is not even sensuous enough to be described as "matter," because that even is adding too much; just stuff—Being.

That sounds neat. Never read Badiou. Thanks.

CPR is pretty fucking hard to read.

Of the dudes I mentioned, Hanson is actually kind of fun. Patterns of Discovery is a good book.

I'm not completely new to philosophy. I read Thus Spake Zarathustra, Human All Too Human, Fear And Trembling, and I started Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations recently. Besides that I have a base in most philosophers through podcasts, videos and blogs.

Will it be that hard to me?

>truth is relative
>we can know this as a constant because reasons unexplained

Neat.

Stop thinking about things from the lenses of "truth" and "falsehood". Those things don't actually exist, it's just bullshit that people made up.

No, it's fucking not. This pop-sci=real science shit needs to die already.

More like you KANT know nuffin'

Not if you can read that shit easily enough, but honestly, and I don't say this to be a dick, are you sure you're getting a good handle on what you're reading?

>u can't know nuffin
This is not really a good description of Kantian's theory of knowledge. He said you can't know noumena. What we sense and experience is not noumena, though, we experience phenomena. He said you can know that. But you can't understand things as they are in-of themselves, essentially - you can't understand the "essence" of things in the universe.

Thus Spake Zarathustra was one of my firsts. I understood everything, with some slight alterations, but a friend explained it to me later. Philosophical Investigations isn't hard at all.

But I understand your concern

You're coming off rather pseud-ish here.

>Not defending OP, but it's hard to take someone who can't even follow the law of non-contradiction in a short post.

Calling truth and falsehood bullshit is making a claim about this epistemological duality's falsehood, which in turn asserts the duality's relevance.

Wrong. Everything happens inside matter since the Universe is infinite.

You're talking shit; you're juggling with and equating terms that are diametrically exposed.

You ought to read Hume's an enquiry of human understanding and find an introduction to Kant and some epistemology coursebook and build your way up from there. it truly isn't as clear cut as ou make it out to be and as others have mentioned, a lot of the great philosophers of the late 18th and 19th century have spent their lives trying to wrap their heads around the subject

senses matter. anyone who says otherwise is literally autistic.

>le senses can deceive maymay

Learn the difference between sense and intellect, fucking dumbass