[Right Wing Professor]

If you slip up and think of something that actually interacts, instead of just calls names, I am just a keystroke away. Specifically, how an empiricist avoids total skepticism re: all knowledge was the issue.

Why should an empiricist be totally skeptical?

[Right Wing Professor]

No, on second thought, don't follow up. You're the kind of enraged, scientifically-illiterate, philosopher-wannabe we have three dozen of on FR. I just re-read your follow-up to Ich, and I have no wish to get down in the gutter with you.

[chronic_loser]

Why should an empiricist be totally skeptical?>>>

Simply, because empiricism, by definition, cannot authenticate itself, as it cannot get "outside" the realm of particulars to any type of "meta" anything.
Empiricism, by definition, is concerned with observable details. For example, David Hume recognized this when he observed one billiard ball "causing" the otherst to scatter on impact. In fact, he observed nothing of the sort. He observed one ball striking others and the others scattering. Empirical data re: causality is completely lacking. Push it back far enough and you are left only with statements that there are certain perceptions and our minds tend to organize these into patterns. Whether these have any real relationship to the "think in itself" (Kant) is a matter of conjecture and COMPLETELY unresolvable with the empirical method. Therefore, empircism collapses back on itself.

Again, the brighter scientists recognize this, and the honest bright ones both recognize and acknowledge it. The rest are either dullards or dishonest, or both.

[chronic_loser]

Why should an empiricist be totally skeptical?>>>

Simply, because empiricism, by definition, cannot authenticate itself, as it cannot get "outside" the realm of particulars to any type of "meta" anything.
Empiricism, by definition, is concerned with observable details. For example, David Hume recognized this when he observed one billiard ball "causing" the otherst to scatter on impact. In fact, he observed nothing of the sort. He observed one ball striking others and the others scattering. Empirical data re: causality is completely lacking. Push it back far enough and you are left only with statements that there are certain perceptions and our minds tend to organize these into patterns. Whether these have any real relationship to the "think in itself" (Kant) is a matter of conjecture and COMPLETELY unresolvable with the empirical method. Therefore, empircism collapses back on itself.

Again, the brighter scientists recognize this, and the honest bright ones both recognize and acknowledge it. The rest are either dullards or dishonest, or both.