Talk:Empiricism

	This science related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

I don't get the Missouri joke, can someone explain it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Missouri, a.k.a., the "Show Me State." ListenerX^TalkerX 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, I see. Thanks LX! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think empiricism does necessarily imply epistemological solipsism since we only experience our perception of the external world and not the external world itself. ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.12.108.240 / talk / contribs (signed by bot)} 17:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Skinner does not support the tabula rasa perspective

Stop spreading this myth. Seriously. In his view, behavior was the culmination of >>>phylogenetic<<<, ontogenetic and cultural interactions. In other words, while human behavior has a greater flexibility compared to other animals, mostly because of verbal behavior, it is still determined by "innate" components. ^{— Unsigned, by: Magicman / talk / contribs} 20:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a very oft-edited article, so it's unsurprising that there may be an error. Do you have any sources we could tack on? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Buddha quote

First of all, great quote. However, the source on the quote contains two very important caveats which emphasize that it's a highly paraphrased/modernized quote. Could the quote's attribution be changed to "a paraphrase of The Buddha" or something? I don't think it's enough to expect that the reader assume it's a paraphrase because, apart from the last sentence, it could pass as a direct translation. Vi (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is empiricism self refuting?

All knowledge is gained through sense experience. We would consider that statement to be a form of knowledge(non-coincidental true justified belief) but we haven't gain that knowledge through our senses. I think this empiricism-rationalism debate is pointless considering that one is self refuting and the other is circular. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 07:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

While I could argue with that statement, this is not the place for it. This is a talk page for discussing the improvement of its corresponding wiki article, not for arguments about the merits of empiricism or lack thereof. Internet forums, such as this, would be a more appropriate place for such discussions. - Linneris (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine, just tell me if it is self refuting or not and I'll delete this section. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)