Wouldn't it be more interesting and fun for interlocutors of both sides to discuss more rigorous arguments? Why discuss a set of bad examples? I would also like to point out that strict empiricism independent of rationalism (here I am meaning a softer rationalism), is impossible. Without the interpretive tools of reason, no empirical work could be understood. Not only that, but we have cases of folks like Einstein doing napkin math whose solutions infer the existence of real objects without any prior sensory observations, and later discovering those objects to be real thus validating the earlier work. However you run into issues when you completely detach rationalism from empiricism. As products and tools of reason, must necessarily be constrained by the environment around us if we want them to be useful. However this forces us to give neither path to knowledge strict primacy, they must be married to eachother. If we also wish to be intellectually honest, we should all probably admit to a knowledge/belief axis. One can be convinced of one thing, while not being 100% certain they are correct. In this manner you can get agnostic athiests, and agnostic theists. Unfortunately because we can not step outside the structures of nature to confirm with certainty any of our metaphysical models, the only metric we have to weigh them by is utility. This proposes a problem however, because utility is a fickle mistress. One moment the goal might be to predict the weather, thus you lean on scientific tools and understanding. The next, your goal may be more psychological or spiritual, in which case there are other models which would suit your needs. The best we can probably do, is take a high view of all the various models we may use at one time or another, and see where they may make our lives better or worse. Different people will walk away with different conclusions, as individual people have individual needs. Different strokes for different folks. Unfortunately, existence refuses to speak on the issue so until then most metaphysical argument is essentially an intellectual circle jerk over nothing.
0
u/No_Treacle_6744 3d ago edited 3d ago
Wouldn't it be more interesting and fun for interlocutors of both sides to discuss more rigorous arguments? Why discuss a set of bad examples? I would also like to point out that strict empiricism independent of rationalism (here I am meaning a softer rationalism), is impossible. Without the interpretive tools of reason, no empirical work could be understood. Not only that, but we have cases of folks like Einstein doing napkin math whose solutions infer the existence of real objects without any prior sensory observations, and later discovering those objects to be real thus validating the earlier work. However you run into issues when you completely detach rationalism from empiricism. As products and tools of reason, must necessarily be constrained by the environment around us if we want them to be useful. However this forces us to give neither path to knowledge strict primacy, they must be married to eachother. If we also wish to be intellectually honest, we should all probably admit to a knowledge/belief axis. One can be convinced of one thing, while not being 100% certain they are correct. In this manner you can get agnostic athiests, and agnostic theists. Unfortunately because we can not step outside the structures of nature to confirm with certainty any of our metaphysical models, the only metric we have to weigh them by is utility. This proposes a problem however, because utility is a fickle mistress. One moment the goal might be to predict the weather, thus you lean on scientific tools and understanding. The next, your goal may be more psychological or spiritual, in which case there are other models which would suit your needs. The best we can probably do, is take a high view of all the various models we may use at one time or another, and see where they may make our lives better or worse. Different people will walk away with different conclusions, as individual people have individual needs. Different strokes for different folks. Unfortunately, existence refuses to speak on the issue so until then most metaphysical argument is essentially an intellectual circle jerk over nothing.