Where do you stand?

[Unkotare]

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

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

Which might be determinism vs. empiricism.

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

[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]

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

Which might be determinism vs. empiricism.

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

Maybe you need to find something else to discuss.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Mertex]

Which might be determinism vs. empiricism.

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

Maybe you need to find something else to discuss.

Already started a thread.


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

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]

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

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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]

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