Here's the broad circularity. Empirical knowledge is the only kind of knowledge that can stand up to empirical testing.
That's a weird thing to say.
No.
Empirical knowledge is that knowledge that can be tested empirically.
That it's empirically testable, is what makes knowledge empirical knowledge.
There's nothing circular about that.
It's just a qualification of what type of knowledge we are talking about. In this case: it's testable knowledge.
I stick to my point. It is the only type of knowledge that has value. Because it's the only type of knowledge that can be shown to be accurate.
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the only
knowledge, is empirical knowledge.
Because if it can't be shown to be accurate, then it's not knowledge - then it's just a belief.
You could say that knowledge are those claims / beliefs that have been shown to be accurate.
And how do you show things are accurate? Well, through empirical means.
So really, I'ld even say that "empirical knowledge" is redundant. The word "knowledge", to me, already implies empiricism, at least when it comes to knowledge about the natural world. How things work etc.
Therefore, says you, it's the only real kind of knowledge. You're already assuming what you're trying to prove.
No, not at all.
It's not assumed. It is concluded. From the track record.
And from the rather simple idea that accurate knowledge is better then inaccurate knowledge. So you require a means to find out if things are accurate or not.
"accurate" are those things that reflect actual reality. So you require a means to test those things against reality. Empiricism, provides that means.
I am not aware of any alternatives.
In any case, this is anything but circular.
So you admit that this is all simply your opinion, or shall we say preference?
No, the track record of empiricism being succesfull and very good at getting things right, is pretty objective.
