>>11266936>do i really need to? what are you typing on? years of scientific validation. this is why philosophy is useless. instead of studying reality and making tools from it to do useful things, you go on writing pointless walls of text that are a complete waste of time.YES, you DO have to make an actual argument that "science corresponds with reality", you can not say "but your computer!!", that is not an argument. You don't even have a definition of "useful things" or "studying reality" (define useful and reality).
Hume literally disproved (as in, objectively, with the same rigor and undeniability of any mathematical proof) that induction is not possible, and thus the scientific method and empiricism are not universally valid methods of gaining knowledge. Causality is not real, just because YOU THINK it is does not mean it is, you have to prove that it actually is real in order to show empiricist epistemology is valid. And saying "it's always been that way" is equivalent to saying "all even numbers so far are the sum of two primes, so Goldbach's conjecture is true!". It obviously doesn't work like that.
You need to come up with a way to salvage empirical knowledge whilst knowing that causality is literally disproven. When you do this, you get Kant's Transcendental Idealism.
You use the scientific method that Kant literally invented and then go on to shittalk Kant, like a petulant child shittalking his father for making him eat his vegetables. Pathetic.
