# Where do you stand?



## Unkotare (Dec 3, 2013)

Rationalism or Empiricism? 


No fence sitting, no third option.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 3, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Rationalism or Empiricism?
> 
> 
> No fence sitting, no third option.



Rationalism, for sure.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 3, 2013)

Score one for Rationalism.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 3, 2013)

Cogito Ergo Sum

Score two for Rationalism.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Dec 3, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> Cogito Ergo Sum
> 
> Score two for Rationalism.



Seconded only because I can't choose both....jerk!


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 5, 2013)

Actually I'm sitting on an exercise ball right now. Neither, there's no such thing as rationalism we can agree on, and empiricism often finds what it is looking for, or rationalizes what it has found, returning me to my first point. 

I prefer a liberal communitarian pragmatism or some vague attempt along those lines. 

Great book below if you want to challenge your presumably rational instincts. There's a nice oxymoron.  

"Within the ethos of reason there was also the idea of encouraging generalized education. Education instilled knowledge. Knowledge dispelled superstition, thus making it possible to reason. A man capable of reasoning was fit to be a citizen. But this idea of creating citizens was vague. What did the elites want them for? The eighteenth-century philosophers believed, after all, in permanently established but benevolent authority. Educating the masses was intended only to improve the relationship between the top and the bottom of society. Not to change the nature of the relationship. [..] Like any elite holding great power, the technocrats are not particularly interested in the creation of subsidiary elites. Thus, while a fortune continues to be spent on state schools and universities, the entire system continues to decline. The intellectual muscle needed to give it direction is concentrated instead upon the continued refining of the education of the technocratic elite. Indeed, whatever may be quoted about the need for general education, there has always been an underlying contradiction in what the nation-state wished to teach the citizen. The masses, it was believed, could not be given more than a basic education: basic skills and - nowhere in elite education does this appear - a moral framework. In other words, they were to receive the nuts and bolts of a humanist formation." p130 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 5, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> Actually I'm sitting on an exercise ball right now. Neither, there's no such thing as rationalism we can agree on, and empiricism often finds what it is looking for, or rationalizes what it has found, returning me to my first point.
> 
> I prefer a liberal communitarian pragmatism or some vague attempt along those lines.
> 
> Great book below if you want to challenge your presumably rational instincts. T





From your post, it seems you misunderstand what Rationalism is.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> From your post, it seems you misunderstand what Rationalism is.



The idea that reason guides us, or is a good guide. The trouble with that is where does reason come from and how and why.  Can reason be unreasonable. 

"Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 6, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > From your post, it seems you misunderstand what Rationalism is.
> ...








No, you're not getting it. You are misunderstanding the fundamental debate between Rationalism and Empiricism in the context of the Enlightenment.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 6, 2013)

Rationalist, if that couldn't already be guessed by my avatar.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Rationalism or Empiricism?
> 
> 
> No fence sitting, no third option.



Rationalism.  Fear is the mind killer, you must rise above your senses if you are to be human.


----------



## AquaAthena (Dec 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Rationalism or Empiricism?
> ...



_Our greatest fears lie in anticipation._ _Most_ of the things we fear the worst do not come true, I have found out.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 6, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Rationalism or Empiricism?
> ...




WC made a funny!


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 6, 2013)

AquaAthena said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Yes, and how we deal with those fears can be rational or reactive based on senses and primal urges ingrained genetically, such as to flea from predators.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 6, 2013)

Rationalism...I sensed this was the right answer...wait...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2013)

Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## Flopper (Dec 6, 2013)

Rationalism.  Society can not grow and prosper without it.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 6, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > From your post, it seems you misunderstand what Rationalism is.
> ...




Here you go. I found something that explains it in simple terms:

Rationalism - By Movement / School - The Basics of Philosophy


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 7, 2013)

I'm not interested in the Cliff notes, I'm interested in the broader, heavier question, if people possess reason, aka rationality, then how is it we can never agree on anything. The thread on 'freedom' is a perfect example. Which leads me to a dilemma, reason must not be reasonable, as if it were, wouldn't we be able, using our reason, to arrive at agreement. Thus if reason leads us all over the place how can that be rational? Or is rational not really rational?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but empiricism ignores anything that can't be seen, heard, tasted, felt, or smelled and that's an awful lot. If we relied only on empiricism, our knowledge base would be pretty small.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Dec 7, 2013)

Rationalism you mangy mutt.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...




That would be the Rationalist argument.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Rationalism or Empiricism?
> 
> 
> No fence sitting, no third option.



Rationalism and empiricism are the same thing.

Try again young grasshopper.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Rationalism or Empiricism?
> ...




I'm proud of you for reading some Kant, but as fundamental concepts they are distinct ontological approaches.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Dec 7, 2013)

LOL, you ^^ know Kant? Color me surprised.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

R.C. Christian said:


> LOL, you ^^ know Kant? Color me surprised.



Go play with a ball of yarn, idiot.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Dec 7, 2013)

You're not as smart as you perceive yourself to be but please continue. This amuses me.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

R.C. Christian said:


> You're not as smart as you perceive yourself to be but please continue. This amuses me.





Go find a topic you know the first thing about, if there is one, idiot.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Then you should find it easy to explain how empirical thought is irrational.

I am all ears.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...





You also seem to be misunderstanding the terms in question. I posted this before, have a look:


Rationalism - By Movement / School - The Basics of Philosophy


----------



## R.C. Christian (Dec 7, 2013)

Do you teach this at your middle school? Very basic stuff.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

R.C. Christian said:


> Do you teach this at your middle school? Very basic stuff.



A) I don't teach at a middle school

B) I posted it for Percy's benefit

C) I wouldn't expect the likes of you understand even this much


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Your link confuses determinism with rationalism.

What is irrational about empirical thought?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



One can make the wrong conclusion if based solely on your senses. What you feel, hear, see, smell or taste may not be what you decide they are based solely on those senses.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...





You are misunderstanding the terms in question. Read the link more carefully.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I have read the link carefully. It was written by philosophy amateurs if they equate determinism with rationalism.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...





You really seem to be misunderstanding one of the fundamental philosophical debates of the Enlightenment.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Which might be determinism vs. empiricism.

Let's at least get the names of the teams right.



On a side note, which came first, the chicken or the egg?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



The chicken had to come first. Both if you believe religion or science. Scientifically there is no reason to believe that evolution would have created the first chicken by egg. That makes no sense.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 7, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



The egg had to come first. It would have been the offspring of a non-chicken via mutation or coincidental DNA combination..


(I will start a new thread on this. Apologies to Unkotare)


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI]Picard's Epic Double Facepalm - YouTube[/ame]




Maybe you need to find something else to discuss.


----------



## percysunshine (Dec 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Already started a thread.


Still waiting for you to explain how empiricism is irrational. Which is impossible, but apparently necessary from your philosophical position.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Still waiting for you to explain how empiricism is irrational. Which is impossible, but apparently necessary from your philosophical position.






There is really no point to this since you clearly don't understand the topic. Enjoy your chicken and egg thing, though.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 8, 2013)

As with most online debate this has deteriorated to a 'I know, you don't' level. Add in a few ad hominem's and the stew is complete. But back on topic, I'd have to go with empiricism over rationalism. The reason is simple, nothing we think about appears magically or rationally. We can only think about what we know, and what we know is based entirely on experience. And how we think about what we know is based on a lot of what we experience and who we are - history, culture, class etc. Dependent on your age you have gone through numerous changes in thinking, consider the Tooth Fairy and Santa as examples. Nothing in my mind alone tells me anything about either. It is only now after many years, like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin, that I have come to the realization that twelve Playboy bunnies and a C7 Corvette will not be in my driveway Christmas day. I still look but it seems it ain't gonna happen. My wife of many many years laughs at my rationalism, she I suppose was always the empiricist. And so it goes.....


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 8, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> We can only think about what we know, and what we know is based entirely on experience. .....






That would be the Empiricists' argument alright...


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 8, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> Nothing in my mind alone tells me anything about either......






And that would be where the Rationalists would disagree with you...


----------



## Mertex (Dec 8, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



The decision to become an Atheist is one of rejection, pure and simple. If one knows about the deity, one can't just "be without"; *either one accepts it, or one rejects it.*

And the decision basis absolutely cannot be empirical, unless one changes the meaning of the word, empirical.

When an Atheist claims empiricism, what he generally seems to actually mean is that he, personally, sees no material evidence of a deity, and therefore the odds against are overwhelmingly against such an existence.

*One might think that if 88% of the population claims knowledge that Fred does exist, then the denier might reconsider. But it doesn't work that way with Atheism, because Atheism is based on denial and emotional issues, not on classical logic.*

The college freshman daughter of an acquaintance recently told him that she had looked through the telescope all over outer space, and saw no god; therefore he does not exist. This is a crashingly poor piece of thinking. One does not see the carpenter when looking at a house, nor the engineer when looking at a cell phone, nor the biochemist when looking at an aspirin.

Atheists use logic that is inverted. Because there is no grounding, no absolute basis for their thoughts, then their thoughts are free to be selected in favor of the perpetuation of their worldview dogma. In other words, *it is the opposite of rational*, it is rationalized.Atheistic Empiricism or Irrational Induction? | True Freethinker


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 17, 2013)

Apropos of the OP, ever consider the significance of Kant's first name?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Dec 25, 2013)

Empiricism.

"Empiricism is a theory of knowledge which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism, idealism, and historicism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3]

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that knowledge is based on experience and that knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification.[4] One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guide empirical research."

Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth  in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience."[4]"


No thanks.


----------



## Tor Hershman (Feb 7, 2014)

If Aqua Athena's avatar is an apt depiction on herself, I DO stand with whatever she has to say


----------

