forum for week of 2 October

Argle, like me, is a sceptic and his argument about using perception for evidence as being absurd if the motive of science is to arrive at a truth about how our world functions. If we ourselves aren’t able to master our own senses, that play many perceptual tricks on us, how can we then begin to use perception as a means of understanding the world around us? Bargle however makes a valid point in the sense of practicality. If we are to incessantly try to only use evidence that we know come from a source that is 100% reliable, mankind wouldn’t have the confidence to venture and create the many technological and social advances that we so take for granted. If Bargle’s argument is only for a starting point for evidence for a certain belief then I believe perception is our best bet. However once we have built our foundational beliefs on that particular subject, I argue with Argle that we shouldn’t continue to build on it with perceptual evidence. The empiricists’ view of obtaining beliefs is just negligent when dealing with advanced fields (especially in the sciences). Scientist can for the glory of their name base their theories on perceptual evidence, but what would benefit humanity more is if they used less intuitive methods to arrive at their grandiose theories, which in most cases would lead us closer to the truth