Editing Epicurus (section)

===Epistemology===
Epicurus and his followers had a well-developed [[epistemology]], which developed as a result of their rivalry with other philosophical schools.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|page=26}}{{sfn|Asmis|1984|pages=9–13}} Epicurus wrote a treatise entitled {{lang|grc|[[:wikt:κανών|Κανών]]}}, or ''Rule'', in which he explained his methods of investigation and theory of knowledge.{{sfn|Asmis|1984|pages=10, 19}} This book, however, has not survived,{{sfn|Asmis|1984|pages=10, 19}} nor does any other text that fully and clearly explains Epicurean epistemology, leaving only mentions of this epistemology by several authors to reconstruct it.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|page=26}}{{sfn|Asmis|1984|pages=9–13}}  Epicurus rejected the Platonic idea of "Reason" as a reliable source of knowledge about the world apart from the senses{{sfn|DeWitt|1976|page=10}} and was bitterly opposed to the [[Pyrrhonism|Pyrrhonists]] and [[Academic Skepticism|Academic Skeptics]], who not only questioned the ability of the senses to provide accurate knowledge about the world, but also whether it is even possible to know anything about the world at all.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|page=23}}

Epicurus maintained that the senses never deceive humans, but that the senses can be misinterpreted.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|pages=23–24}}{{sfn|Asmis|1984|page=11}} Epicurus held that the purpose of all knowledge is to aid humans in attaining ''ataraxia''.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|pages=26–27}}{{sfn|Asmis|1984|page=12}} He taught that knowledge is learned through experiences rather than innate{{sfn|Strodach|2012|pages=27–28}} and that the acceptance of the fundamental truth of the things a person perceives is essential to a person's moral and spiritual health.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|pages=28–29}}{{sfn|Asmis|1984|page=12}} In the ''Letter to Pythocles'', he states, "If a person fights the clear evidence of his senses he will never be able to share in genuine tranquility."{{sfn|Strodach|2012|page=29}} Epicurus regarded gut feelings as the ultimate authority on matters of morality and held that whether a person feels an action is right or wrong is a far more cogent guide to whether that act really is right or wrong than abstracts maxims, strict codified rules of ethics, or even reason itself.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|pages=30–31}}

Epicurus believed that any statement that is not directly contrary to human perception can be considered possibly true.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|pages=32–34}} On the other hand, anything contrary to experience can be ruled out as false.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|page=34}} Epicureans often used analogies to everyday experience to support their argument of so-called "imperceptibles", which included anything that a human being cannot perceive, such as the motion of atoms.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|pages=34–35}} In line with this principle of non-contradiction, the Epicureans believed that events in the natural world may have multiple causes that are all equally possible and probable.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|pages=35–39}} Lucretius writes in ''On the Nature of Things'', as translated by William Ellery Leonard:
<blockquote><poem>There be, besides, some thing
Of which 'tis not enough one only cause
To state—but rather several, whereof one
Will be the true: lo, if thou shouldst espy
Lying afar some fellow's lifeless corse,
'Twere meet to name all causes of a death,
That cause of his death might thereby be named:
For prove thou mayst he perished not by steel,
By cold, nor even by poison nor disease,
Yet somewhat of this sort hath come to him
We know—And thus we have to say the same
In divers cases.<ref>{{cite book |last=Carus |first=Titus Lucretius |title=Of The Nature of Things |others=William Ellery Leonard (translator) |publisher=Project Gutenberg |series=Project Gutenberg EBook |volume=785 |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/785/pg785.txt |date=Jul 2008 }}
Book VI, Section ''Extraordinary and Paradoxical Telluric Phenomena'', Line 9549–9560</ref></poem></blockquote>
Epicurus strongly favored naturalistic explanations over theological ones.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|pages=36–38}} In his ''Letter to Pythocles'', he offers four different possible natural explanations for thunder, six different possible natural explanations for lightning, three for snow, three for comets, two for rainbows, two for earthquakes, and so on.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|page=38}} Although all of these explanations are now known to be false, they were an important step in the history of science, because Epicurus was trying to explain natural phenomena using natural explanations, rather than resorting to inventing elaborate stories about gods and mythic heroes.{{sfn|Strodach|2012|page=38}}