Editing Philosophical methodology (section)

=== Geometrical method ===
The geometrical method came to particular prominence through rationalists like [[Baruch Spinoza]]. It starts from a small set of [[self-evident]] [[axioms]] together with relevant definitions and tries to deduce a great variety of theorems from this basis, thereby mirroring the methods found in [[geometry]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Goldenbaum |first1=Ursula |title=Geometrical Method |url=https://iep.utm.edu/geo-meth/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=17 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Nadler |first1=Steven |title=Spinoza's 'Ethics': An Introduction |date=2006 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-83620-3 |pages=35–51 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/spinozas-ethics/geometric-method/08550AF622C78ACC388069710D37036E |chapter=The geometric method}}</ref> Historically, it can be understood as a response to methodological skepticism: it consists in trying to find a foundation of certain knowledge and then expanding this foundation through [[deductive inferences]]. The theorems arrived at this way may be challenged in two ways. On the one hand, they may be derived from axioms that are not as self-evident as their defenders proclaim and thereby fail to inherit the status of absolute certainty.<ref name="DalyHandbook"/> For example, many philosophers have rejected the claim of self-evidence concerning one of [[René Descartes]]'s first principles stating that "he can know that whatever he perceives clearly and distinctly is true only if he first knows that God exists and is not a deceiver".<ref name="DalyHandbook"/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Hatfield |first1=Gary |title=René Descartes: 3.5 God and error |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/#GodErr |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=27 February 2022 |date=2018}}</ref> Another example is the causal axiom of Spinoza's system that "the knowledge of an effect depends on and involves knowledge of its cause", which has been criticized in various ways.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Doppelt |first1=Torin |title=Spinoza's Causal Axiom: A Defense |date=2010 |url=https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/handle/1974/6052/Doppelt_Torin_201009_MA.pdf |chapter=3: The Truth About 1A4}}</ref> In this sense, philosophical systems built using the geometrical method are open to criticisms that reject their basic axioms. A different form of objection holds that the inference from the axioms to the theorems may be faulty, for example, because it does not follow a [[rule of inference]] or because it includes implicitly assumed premises that are not themselves self-evident.<ref name="DalyHandbook"/>