The way you emphasized the 'know' told me exactly where you were planning to go if I was to agree. If I was to agree you would start using the most basic of knowledge to 'prove me wrong' in the same way you used the most improbable thing to argue against Rob (which you had to continually reinforce). A rather senseless approach to a debate as its a literal attack rather than one pertaining to what his actual argument was (not to dismiss possibilities so easily).
You make it sound like I'm trying to trick you or something. It's an incredibly simple question, and you still haven't answered it. It's one of the must fundamental questions of philosophy.
Can we know anything?Since you're claiming to know of specific paths to knowledge, one can only assume that your answer is "yes".
I said revolutionary progression of science where one highly agreed upon theory is dismissed in light of a new one or a similar instance in which a theory may be heavily resisted against by the current 'logical' way of thinking. You've taken what I've said and applied it to all scientific progress which completely misses the point. I also told you imagination was needed.
There is no reason to overcomplicate this so much.
If you agree that we can know things, this second question simply pertains to
how we know things.
I argue that reason and evidence are the only fundamental means of acquiring knowledge. I would also argue that imagination in and of itself cannot lead directly to knowledge, it has to be a derivative of something experienced, or already known to be true.
If you disagree, you have to provide an example of your process in action, otherwise the point is moot.
This topic is locked
