Where does knowledge come from?

Both sense data and geometric proofs are flawed ways of gaining knowlege

Question: Where does knowledge come from?
Position‹3 of 4›: Knowledge is impossible
Argument‹2 of 2: Both sense data and geometric proofs are flawed ways of gaining knowlege

The arguments against both rationalist and empiricist approaches to knowledge are legitimate.

The argument

Both empiricism and rationalism have weaknesses. The scientific method contains bias and reduces complex systems to smaller parts that are insufficient to explain the complex system. The rationalist perspective bases the knowledge on innate knowledge that is assumed and not verified. Both methods have limitations, therefore, it is impossible to gain knowledge. On the other hand, the skepticism view holds that every person should be an inquirer who is still looking for the truth and is never satisfied. Because knowledge is impossible, skepticism is the best way to gain knowledge with human constraints.

Premises

[P1]Empiricism's scientific method contains bias and reduces complex systems to parts too small to explain the whole. [P2] Rationalism rests on innate knowledge that is merely assumed and never verified. [P3] Since both the empirical and rational routes to knowledge are fundamentally flawed, neither can deliver certain knowledge. [C] Therefore, because both sense data and geometric proofs are flawed ways of gaining knowledge, knowledge is impossible.

Counter-arguments

There are truths that are not deniable. They can be addressed through inferential rules. If there are two chairs in the room, there are two chairs in the room. If one has the experience with the content that there is something green in front of him, then there is something green in front of him. By observation and reason, humans can gain knowledge and undeniable truth.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Bias and reduction are limitations of a method in practice, not demonstrations that it yields nothing. A great deal of scientific practice consists of corrections for bias — controls, blinding, replication, pre-registration, peer review — and reduction is a strategy rather than a commitment, since many sciences work with emergent and system-level explanations. [Rejecting P2] The characterisation is a caricature. Rationalist positions do not generally rest on unverified innate knowledge; the standard cases are logic and mathematics, whose claims are established by proof. The argument itself relies on inference throughout, so if the rational route delivers nothing, this argument delivers nothing either. [Rejecting P3] The conclusion is self-defeating twice over. It is advanced as something known, and it moves from "neither method delivers certainty" to "knowledge is impossible", which holds only if knowledge requires certainty — a demanding standard the premise never defends and which most accounts of knowledge reject. The position's own recommendation of skepticism as the best way to gain knowledge concedes the point, and the counter supplies the ordinary cases: that there are two chairs in the room is something one can simply know.