Will add both (in conjunction) and neither (something else perhaps)
Which (if any) is necessary to “truly” know the world. (For the sake of argument, assume that the world can be truly known.)
You could really make a good arguement for either one, but you could also make a good arguement that neither of them fit the arguement.
I am leaning towards a combination of both myself.
One creates a hypothesis via rational thought, then one attempts to verify (or falsify if you want) via empircal means.
This would be the Scientific method, and yet, very rarely if ever does science truly know something. Theories are cobbled together piecemeal, laws get rewritten as even 99.99% certainty is not absolute.
So, if not both ( as I would have it) then what else is there?
combining both is a good start but then one finds himself in exactly the same position revealed by hume and compounded by kant…
knowledge is a closed system of language (perhaps idealism can be ‘knowledge’ by definition only and it is knowledge of nothing but ideas), not telling one anything about the world… the thing in itself cannot be known…
knowledge is impossible for both…
-Imp
indeed, combine the two. instinctively we’ll no doubt use Hume or Locke’s empiricism but for confirmation rationalism would seem valid. would an Empiricist with a Cartesian view of the world be mutually exclusive or can they be used to complement each other and create greater understanding? Also, is knowledge belief, or non-negotiable truth? I’m sure wittgetnstein would have a field day!