If a system-of-thinking’s epistemology ends with a skepticism, “I know that I don’t know,” then that epistemology does not exist. It does not mean knowledge does not exist, but empiricism as an epistemology is false. Knowledge is from another epistemology. The answer for knowledge is of course the bible. It is the only first principle for knowledge.

To conclude that “I know that I do not know,” is an impossibility of reality and of thinking. A contradiction, because it affirms and denies the same thing, affirms nothing. To affirm Y and then deny Y, gives no knowledge. There is no knowledge, no subjects, or predicates if an epistemology ends in skepticism, which denies the law of contradiction. I cannot deny my own existence, nor can I do it in my thoughts, without using my existence. I cannot deny the law of contradiction without using it. A contradiction does not exist. A doctrine of knowledge that leads to skepticism, which denies the law of contradiction does not exist. Any starting point that reduces to skepticism when scrutinized must be rejected, because skepticism, by its own merit, cannot assert its own truth without contradiction.

Empiricism is a logical fallacy. Sensation is not subjects or predicates, nor can one assert that it does without a category fallacy, which when taken to their essential attributes would deny the law of contradiction. To deny the law of contradiction is anti-logic. The same is for logic and mathematics. A visual input, which is a copy of something else, is not the category of logic.

Also, to use sensation to justify knowledge ends in an infinite regress of more sensations. How do you prove a sensation, except with another sensation, and so on. How do you sense you are not sensing? With a sensation? Also, transient, momentary descriptions of sensations as premises always leads to a logical fallacy when the conclusion ends with universals. To say some and all is the same thing denying the law of contradiction. To deny the law of contradiction is anti-logic. Thus, Empiricism and conclusions from them is anti-logic.

To have more information in the conclusion than the premises is a non-sequitur fallacy, because the conclusion does not logically follow if your conclusion has more information than your premises. Thus, all induction is technically a non-sequitur fallacy, because all conclusions of induction has more information than the premises. If your conclusion does not logically follow the premises, then it leads to skepticism; “you know that you do not know.” But this denies the law of contradiction. Thus, induction makes knowledge impossible because it leads to skepticism. Induction is anti-logic because it violates the law of contradiction.

Science relies on Empiricism and Induction, and thus science by extension also denies the law of contradiction by leading to skepticism. Thus, science is anti-logic. In addition to these two fallacies, scientific experimentation commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent takes a sufficient connection in the premise, but then in the conclusion states it as a necessary one. Thus, the conclusion has more information in it than what the premise provides. This additional information makes the conclusion not logically follow from the premises. Thus, experimentation is by definition a non-sequitur fallacy. This means the conclusion leads to skepticism; it leads to, I know that I do not know. This is anti-logic, because it violates the law of contradiction. There is no logical justification to say otherwise, other than mindlessly asserting so.

Science is a triple anti-logic enterprise. There is no knowledge in the conclusions of science; there are no subjects or predicates in science. It is logically impossible to say science has knowledge without denying the laws of logic. What is worst, to attack science or deny logic? But without the law of contradiction you cannot even think. This does not mean science has no role, but it cannot be used for knowledge.

I asked Grok AI to show in formal validity,– a necessary conclusion, without additional information being added into the conclusion or committing a category error from the premises to conclusion,– sensations (empiricism) to laws of logic in the conclusion. It said it was technically impossible. It said if one includes the Socratic method or abstraction (which allows induction and category leaps not included in the premises) then you could, but if one is being strict with categories and the laws of logic, then you cannot logically go from sensation in the premise to a conclusion of something like logic, or math, ethics, universals (etc).

 This just goes to show that the Socratic method is still the intellectual fudge factor morons use to manufacture knowledge when there is none. It is an intellectual ass wipe, to make their crappy conclusion seem legit.  Whether it was the Socratic method or Aristotle or David Hume, or Science, all of them involve the same magical moment where one category, without justification, turns into another category and where conclusions that do not necessarily follow from the premises, do follow from the premise without logical warrant. Of course, by this irrational thinking I can define reality however I want, and this has always been the end game for fools.  

Lastly, when asking the difference between definitions of Rational and Irrational, the AI said Aristotle and Russel, in the realm of logic used rational to be about deduction and necessary inference, and thus, irrational was the opposite. Irrational is about inference that do not necessarily follow from the premises. But when I asked if science was irrational, it denied it. Despite telling me the conclusions from induction and affirming the consequent do not logically follow from the premises, which is what Grok defined as irrational, it wanted to say science was not irrational. After probing it more, I again found out that it considered the Socratic method or the modern use of it called abstraction, rational. This is of course nonsense, because it involves induction and category errors.  As Vincent Cheung says in Professional Morons, they have abandoned trying to be rational and magically make the irrational manufacture knowledge. Even though such a prosses violets the laws of logic, they are under the delusion they have knowledge, or they know they don’t have knowledge and will just pretend they do. And yet, these are the ones telling us they are smart, and Christians are dumb? Lol.