3 ms·

There's nothing ironic about that. Your question itself reveals your own assumptions: * What is evidence? * What does it mean for evidence to be empirical? *

There's nothing ironic about that. Your question itself reveals your own assumptions: * What is evidence? * What does it mean for evidence to be empirical? * What does "critical thinking" or "reasoning" mean? * What is a fact? Further (more meaty) questions to ask: * Does your concept of evidence support the existence of a single truth? * Can 2 people truly perceive the same fact in the same way? What does it mean to perceive a fact? And the list goes on

stdbrouw 9y ago
You're changing the subject. The fact that it is possible to have a discussion (whether empirical or not) about the nature of evidence or of what constitutes a fact, and even that this might be a very fruitful thing to discuss, does not suddenly make a statement like "philosophy improves critical thinking" true and beyond questioning.