Bogus?

[xmas1997]

Rationalism is not a uniform position. Some rationalists will simply argue that some truths about reality can be discovered through pure reason and thought (examples include truths of mathematics, geometry and sometimes morality) while other truths do require experience. Other rationalists will go further and argue that all truths about reality must in some way be acquired through reason, normally because our sense organs are unable to directly experience outside reality at all.

And thus the line of demarcation between science and philosophy further gets grayer until eventually there is none.

[DMC]

And thus the line of demarcation between science and philosophy further gets grayer until eventually there is none.

Empiricism, on the other hand, is more uniform in the sense that it denies that any form of rationalism is true or possible. Empiricists may disagree on just how we acquire knowledge through experience and in what sense our experiences give us access to outside reality; nevertheless, they all agree that knowledge about reality requires experience and interaction with reality.

[xmas1997]

Empiricism, on the other hand, is more uniform in the sense that it denies that any form of rationalism is true or possible. Empiricists may disagree on just how we acquire knowledge through experience and in what sense our experiences give us access to outside reality; nevertheless, they all agree that knowledge about reality requires experience and interaction with reality.

But don't they also require replicable proof? How else do they posit their theories?

[DMC]

But don't they also require replicable proof? How else do they posit their theories?

If you believe that all crows are black without ever having any experience with crows or birds, then that belief does not qualify as knowledge. It may be true - but you weren't rationally justified in believing it.


Similarly, if you believe that all dogs are large because you have never encountered a small dog, that also would not qualify as knowledge. The belief may have some reasonable justification, but the claim simply isn't true. Verification is the process by which we make sure that what hear has some basis in truth. This is vital because we are fallible - it isn't true that any idea which occurs to us is correct. Since it makes no sense to say that a person knows something which is false (i.e., that 2 + 2 = 5), we must make some effort to verify information before being able to properly say that we know it.

So when someone says they know a god exists, what are they actually saying? Aren't they saying they hope a god exists, that they feel that a god exists.. that it feels right to them to hold such a position? Is it actually knowledge, or even belief?

[xmas1997]

If you believe that all crows are black without ever having any experience with crows or birds, then that belief does not qualify as knowledge. It may be true - but you weren't rationally justified in believing it.


Similarly, if you believe that all dogs are large because you have never encountered a small dog, that also would not qualify as knowledge. The belief may have some reasonable justification, but the claim simply isn't true. Verification is the process by which we make sure that what hear has some basis in truth. This is vital because we are fallible - it isn't true that any idea which occurs to us is correct. Since it makes no sense to say that a person knows something which is false (i.e., that 2 + 2 = 5), we must make some effort to verify information before being able to properly say that we know it.

So when someone says they know a god exists, what are they actually saying? Aren't they saying they hope a god exists, that they feel that a god exists.. that it feels right to them to hold such a position? Is it actually knowledge, or even belief?

Ah yes, this is true, but what if what we know is true, cannot be replicable because it is subjective to ourselves?
Do we reject it as being a flight of fancy or a whim of the moment, or do we delve deeper and do our best to understand it?
I may be diverging from the discussion a bit, but your opinion is welcomed.

[DMC]

Ah yes, this is true, but what if what we know is true, cannot be replicable because it is subjective to ourselves?
Do we reject it as being a flight of fancy or a whim of the moment, or do we delve deeper and do our best to understand it?
I may be diverging from the discussion a bit, but your opinion is welcomed.

You are merging into a solipsism argument. Rene says stop... don't do it. The fact you just asked me that question and said my opinion is welcomed means your "cannot be replicated" is false. Since I cannot physically implant an idea into your mind, it must be replicated just from the words I type.

There is knowledge of personal experience, which is the type meant when someone says "I know war" or "I know pain." In these instances, the person can draw upon personal experiences not otherwise available to others.

[xmas1997]

You are merging into a solipsism argument. Rene says stop... don't do it.

Okay.