|
A critique of a strawman of empiricism, is not really a justification for an alternative truth system (mysticism.). Yes, there are things that are unknowable, even with the tools of empiricism. But pointing out this issue, in no way supports the idea of using a non-sense ideology in its place, or even ascribing any value to such a thing. > that holds that there is value in both kinds of knowledge No, there is no knowledge in mysticism. And is it a bad argument to point out a supposed problem in empiricism, as a justification for a different system, when that other system doesn't deal with the problem any better. > believing something irrational to be true, makes it true. Believing something to be true, does not make it true, unless you redefine the word "true" to a nonsense definition of "Well a true thing, is whatever we believe to be true. Gotcha, I win! I just created a self-consistent tautology, by playing word games, and making up a new definition! You can't call me wrong, because it's a consistent, self referential belief! That intro to philosophy class sure was useful!" |
This is where the term “leap of faith” was coined. That illustration shows that, at least where self-confidence is concerned, belief in one’s own capabilities can greatly influence the outcome. Do not read this as a rebuttal to your last point; it’s a nuance, and may be limited to one’s own self-conception.
That essay also discusses the circumstances where it makes sense to respect non-rational[1] beliefs:
> Genuine option – "we may call an option a genuine option when it is of the forced, living, and momentous kind"[0]
All of those terms are precisely defined in the essay, and the Wikipedia article has a decent lightning summary. The point is, when you are faced with coming up with a personal philosophy or set of guiding principles, you are forced to figure it out, and science is not (yet or possibly ever) capable of providing answers to those questions for most people.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe#Sections...
[1] I prefer the term “non-rational” here because “irrational” has connotations of “going against rational thought” whereas “non-rational” implies “areas which are not covered by rational thought.”