Then your view of epistemology is skewed by misrepresentations.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Traditionally it's divided into two branches: rationalism and empiricism. Modern science adheres to empiricism, but without some degree of rationalism, pure empiricism would be reduced to a set of facts with no glue to hold them together.
"All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples" is a rationalist statement because it implies "If it's an apple, then it's a fruit" but not "if its a fruit, then its an apple." It's grounded on the premise that apples are a type of fruit, which is an empirical fact based on the characteristics of fruits and apples matching that criteria. But the conclusion that the not all fruits are apples is a rationalist deduction.
That's a simplistic example, and sounds pointless and intuitive, but the same rules apply in more complex scenarios. And if someone is a rational person, then rationalism should sound intuitive. It's like saying "a triangle's vertices add up to 180°." It's not relative.
Skepticism is different from Epistemology, although there's some overlap. But there are healthy and unhealthy ways of doing skepticism. Saying "I won't believe anything without sufficient evidence" is healthy skepticism. Saying "I won't believe anything ever and I'll doubt all evidence presented to me" is unhealthy skepticism.
There's also radical skepticism which asks "Can we ever truly know anything?" It's about systematically doubting every possible thing, in effect being skeptical of even the human capacity to know anything beyond a doubt. This originated as a neoplatonic school of thought during the hellenistic era, but in modern philosophy it's more associated with DesCartes's Meditations and something called Cartesian Doubt, which is more of a thought-experiment rather than an actual claim.
It basically goes "In order to know anything for sure, first we must doubt everything, and then only allow ourselves to believe that which we can know beyond a doubt." He then presents a rationalist argument to prove that the first thing that he can verify is that he himself does indeed exist, because if he didn't then he wouldn't be able to question whether or not he really exists. Thus, the "Cogito Ergo Sum" argument.
Someone who stops reading after the first meditation might think that means he's a solipsist, but he goes on to later arguments to prove that he can also trust his senses/perceptions to give him satisfactory evidence of objects in his environment.
Bear in mind that he was writing before the scientific method was formalized, and it likely never would have been developed if it weren't for the way he revolutionized the philosophical tradition. He wrote at just around the cusp between the late-Renaissance and early-Modern eras, and arguably one of the defining features of this era shift is the way in which the philosophical tradition altered course due to the influence od his work. Later thinkers (i.e., during the Enlightenment) built upon his work when they formalized the scientific method.
Even the shift into post-modernism in the mid-twentieth century was due to the influence of a philosopher who framed his work as a radical critique (and divergence from) the work of DesCartes, which wouldn't have been possible without the advances in philosophy that had taken place over the centuries since DesCartes revolutionized the tradtion. That's how "dialogue" or "dialectic" works in the history of philosophy: even if you disagree with something and present an entirely new argument as a response, you can't ignore the influence that the older argument had on the formation of your rejection of it.
But philosophy shouldn't cloud science.
Good philosophy doesn't cloud science. If somebody is using bad philosophy, or pseudo-philosophical tautologies, to obfuscate scientific discovery, then what they're doing is sophism, not philosophy.
I think they were trying to make an epistemological argument, but it was a poorly crafted one and ignores the ground that science has gained over the radical skepticism of a pseudo-Cartesian doubt.
Epistemology does however dovetail with the very foundations of the scientific method, and while "philosophy isn't science," science itself is built upon philosophy. That's why many of the earliest modern scientists were all considered philosophers during their times.
Because when it happens to other cars, there's a recall and the problem gets fixed. When it happens to tesla, musk bribes a regulatory body or breaks into the government and defunds an entire institution so that he can get away with it.
Musk has personally set those cars ablaze
He's not a nazi because his cars are deathtraps. He's a nazi, and his cars happen to be death traps.
You think you're smart with your making up things I didn't say.
If they just want to be anti-genocide, they should find a slogan that doesn't advocate for ethnic cleansing. And if they don't know the meaning of the slogan then they should be informed. That's all I did, and you won't stop being butthurt about it. Goodbye.
All you're doing is moving goalposts, twisting the things I've said, and pretending you're the one being rational. Calling me racist and anti-semitic isn't going to change the complexity of the situation, and trying to force your overly simplistic solutions is only going to complicate things further.
There's no point answering any questions you ask if you're only going to take everything I say in the most uncharitable light because you're allergic to nuance. I'm done with you.
If you want an example of how that sort of thing plays out, go read about Kurdistan.
Multiculturalism and democracy are good things, but if they're not implemented intelligently then bad things can happen, and ignoring the historical contexts in which conflicts between ethnic groups are rooted is not sufficient to overcome the animosities that may arise when you try to merge them into one functioning government.
All you did was to provide propaganda talking points .
Not even a little bit. All I did was provide historical context for the meaning of the slogan. It's entirely possible to criticize Israel's actions and western/anglophone governments' support without perpetuating phrases that connote ethnic cleansing.
I have problem with your lies and hypocristy
If you can't take this seriously, then neither will I...
I didn't say they can "never" coexist in peace, I said the solution is more complex than simply throwing them into the same pot and saying "there, have democracy."
If you're just going continue to lean on strawman characterizations of what I'm saying, then we're done here.
I'm not even Australian, so I don't know why you're blaming me for what their government is doing. All I did was provide context for the slogan in question on the OP article. That doesn't mean I support Israel.
This inane campism where "any criticism of one side implies support for the other" is so worn-out. Do better.
You don't have a monopoly on "truth," and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who's so out of touch with reality. Maybe in a different era, but this is 2026.
I don't care if you change what you think, you can continue being confidently wrong. And when you help Republicans maintain their hold on power, you will be partially responsible.
Sure, tell me you think I'm a kid. What I think is childish is letting some ideological purism get in the way of political pragmatism.
It's not racist and anti-semitic, it's called being in touch with reality. Even western democracies are having issues with either stalemates causing ineffective governance, or a resurgence in populist extremism causing political instability.
You can't just merge two vastly different societies with a history of open conflict under one political system and expect it to magically become some egalitarian multicultural utopia. History has shown countless times that it doesn't work. Almost always, at least one group is marginalized and disenfranchised.
Then your view of epistemology is skewed by misrepresentations.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Traditionally it's divided into two branches: rationalism and empiricism. Modern science adheres to empiricism, but without some degree of rationalism, pure empiricism would be reduced to a set of facts with no glue to hold them together.
"All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples" is a rationalist statement because it implies "If it's an apple, then it's a fruit" but not "if its a fruit, then its an apple." It's grounded on the premise that apples are a type of fruit, which is an empirical fact based on the characteristics of fruits and apples matching that criteria. But the conclusion that the not all fruits are apples is a rationalist deduction.
That's a simplistic example, and sounds pointless and intuitive, but the same rules apply in more complex scenarios. And if someone is a rational person, then rationalism should sound intuitive. It's like saying "a triangle's vertices add up to 180°." It's not relative.
Skepticism is different from Epistemology, although there's some overlap. But there are healthy and unhealthy ways of doing skepticism. Saying "I won't believe anything without sufficient evidence" is healthy skepticism. Saying "I won't believe anything ever and I'll doubt all evidence presented to me" is unhealthy skepticism.
There's also radical skepticism which asks "Can we ever truly know anything?" It's about systematically doubting every possible thing, in effect being skeptical of even the human capacity to know anything beyond a doubt. This originated as a neoplatonic school of thought during the hellenistic era, but in modern philosophy it's more associated with DesCartes's Meditations and something called Cartesian Doubt, which is more of a thought-experiment rather than an actual claim.
It basically goes "In order to know anything for sure, first we must doubt everything, and then only allow ourselves to believe that which we can know beyond a doubt." He then presents a rationalist argument to prove that the first thing that he can verify is that he himself does indeed exist, because if he didn't then he wouldn't be able to question whether or not he really exists. Thus, the "Cogito Ergo Sum" argument.
Someone who stops reading after the first meditation might think that means he's a solipsist, but he goes on to later arguments to prove that he can also trust his senses/perceptions to give him satisfactory evidence of objects in his environment.
Bear in mind that he was writing before the scientific method was formalized, and it likely never would have been developed if it weren't for the way he revolutionized the philosophical tradition. He wrote at just around the cusp between the late-Renaissance and early-Modern eras, and arguably one of the defining features of this era shift is the way in which the philosophical tradition altered course due to the influence od his work. Later thinkers (i.e., during the Enlightenment) built upon his work when they formalized the scientific method.
Even the shift into post-modernism in the mid-twentieth century was due to the influence of a philosopher who framed his work as a radical critique (and divergence from) the work of DesCartes, which wouldn't have been possible without the advances in philosophy that had taken place over the centuries since DesCartes revolutionized the tradtion. That's how "dialogue" or "dialectic" works in the history of philosophy: even if you disagree with something and present an entirely new argument as a response, you can't ignore the influence that the older argument had on the formation of your rejection of it.
Good philosophy doesn't cloud science. If somebody is using bad philosophy, or pseudo-philosophical tautologies, to obfuscate scientific discovery, then what they're doing is sophism, not philosophy.