Empiricism is a compelling philosophy, although it has significant drawbacks when applied too simplistically:
- First, empiricism's truth is not perceptible through the senses. We should accept it because Epicurus says it, but why should we believe him? So, since empiricism asserts that the senses are the foundation of all knowledge and that we should only accept evidence that can be traced back to first-hand experience, isn't it self-defeating?
- Second, scientific theories allude to objects that no one has ever seen, touched, or otherwise experienced, such as "quarks" and "gravity waves." In reality, it appears that much of science is based only on logic. This includes the concept of atomism itself. Is it necessary for the empiricist to reject science?
To begin, it must be acknowledged that there is no way to demonstrate the reality of empiricism by the senses. It would also be foolish to try to provide a rationalistic case for why empiricism is the best method for testing our ideas. Is this to say that empiricism is a question of faith, that we must believe Epicurus revealed the truth to us? This, too, appears to be ludicrous.
The greatest approach to this conundrum is to declare that empiricism is not a proposition that is true or incorrect in and of itself, but rather, as philosopher Bas Van Fraassen says, a position that I might choose to take. One reason to use it is that it is practical. The philosophy of trusting my first-hand experience has shown to be quite effective in keeping me alive and somewhat pleased. I trust my eyes and hearing to tell me when I'm in danger of being hit by a car or attacked by an animal, and I trust my body to tell me when I need food, drink, or shelter.
My senses tell me which meals I'll like, which scents I should buy or avoid, and how to decorate a place beautifully, and my subjective sentiments tell me whether a film is worth watching to the finish. Other people's evidence on these issues will be taken more or less seriously, depending on how trustworthy I feel they are as witnesses.
Another reason for my empiricist attitude is that I applaud numerous discoveries based by comprehensive first-hand observation, experiment, and verifiable evidence, such as the creation of medications and medical treatments. When empiricism was rediscovered and perfected during the Scientific Revolution, the rate of invention quickened. This time corresponded to the rise in popularity of Epicurean philosophy. As a result, accepting empiricism as a beneficial viewpoint for human existence is not self-contradictory.
To be sure, empiricism hasn't always been a boon. Many miseries have been inflicted upon us as a result of the empirical stance's power over nature, which we would not have endured if physics and chemistry had stayed in a pre-17th-century state. Some information, such as how to produce atomic bombs, would have been best left unsaid. The empirical approach will very certainly lead to knowledge of how to make test-tube animals, new viruses, and new surveillance and thought-transference mechanisms, and once you know how to do something, it's tough not to do it. Important ethical problems include what sort of information we should pursue and what we should do with the knowledge we already have.
The unobservable character of many scientific phenomena, including the Epicurean atom itself, is the second challenge with empiricism. The existence of atoms was inferred from an analogy (dust motes in the sunbeam) and observations such as attrition and abrasion, as demonstrated in the preceding chapter.
Although scientific devices such as microscopes and telescopes can compensate for some limitations in our perceptive capacities, important information is frequently learned through imaginative leaps and extended chains of reasoning.
The second problem with empiricism is that many scientific things are unobservable, including the Epicurean atom itself. As proven in the prior chapter, the existence of atoms was deduced from an analogy (dust motes in the sunbeam) and observations such as attrition and abrasion.
Although scientific instruments such as microscopes and telescopes can compensate for some of our perceptual limitations, vital knowledge is typically acquired through creative leaps and long chains of reasoning. The Epicurean considers unobservable entity hypotheses to be tentative. At the same time, as I'll demonstrate in the following chapter, scientific consensus ought to be respected. Science arose from a tradition dedicated to eliminating causes of inaccuracy in human subjectivity, as well as those coming from poor perceptual circumstances.