| ▲ | fasterik an hour ago | |
My point is that pushing for human understanding as the primary goal assumes an answer to an empirical question that we don't yet have evidence for. How do we know that human understanding is the right instrumental goal, as opposed to solving open problems as fast as possible? Even if we think human understanding has intrinsic value, how do we know which approach will maximize human understanding in the long run? The idea that all meaningful questions can be answered empirically is known as "verificationism" and is philosophically quite dubious. | ||