Cliff-jumper argument

This argument involves the notion that we can only judge or have an opinion about something if we have experienced it ourselves. If that were the case, we would first have to, e.g., jump from a particular cliff in order to be able to argue for or against jumping from that cliff. This view originates from empiricism, according to which there are supposedly no general principles in nature, but only statements applicable to a given situation. For an empiricist, each new jump from a cliff would always be a new unknown we could not draw conclusions from past observations that we could apply to the future or other similar situations respectively.

« Back to Glossary Index

By Clemens Lode

Clemens Lode is a management consultant with focus on agile project management methods (check out He likes to summarize his insights into books, check out his philosophy series "Philosophy for Heroes" here: His core approach to philosophy and management is that people need to be more aware of their limits and ultimately their identity and their vulnerabilities.