A method whose foundational claim depends on unexamined psychological introspection rather than transcendental justification fails the very standard of rigorous grounding it sets for itself.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Method: The continuous pursuit of ever more precise determinations of experience
Psychological introspection(as used in philosophy of mind): Looking inward at your own thoughts and feelings to understand how your mind works, rather than using objective outside evidence.
Rigorous grounding(as used in epistemology and methodology): A solid, carefully-thought-out logical foundation that holds up under scrutiny and doesn't rely on weak assumptions.
Transcendental justification(as used in epistemology): A way of proving something is true by showing it's a necessary condition for knowledge or experience itself to be possible (a philosophical term made famous by Kant).
Unexamined(as used in epistemology): Not carefully checked or questioned; taken for granted without thinking critically about whether it's actually true.

Based on where you are in your exploration