ba ba ba bum bum!!

I consider myself to be a rationalist, but, I would go as far as to use empirical evidence as reasoning for an argument.

I consider myself to be a rationalist, but, I would go as far as to use empirical evidence as reasoning for an argument.

[Louie Dawgs]

Originally Posted by BL_NK

I consider myself to be a rationalist, but, I would go as far as to use empirical evidence as reasoning for an argument.

I have problems with rationalism.

Actually, I could have a problem with empiricism as well, depending on how you judge it.

Here's my problem with rationalism (or at least pre-postmodern rationalism), and this is in fact the part of epistemology which most interests me.

My question is dissent. Why does it happen?

Let me give some background. I love politics. Honestly, I do. I read blogs, I read opinion articles, I post on forums. I consider myself a liberal, almost to the point of being a social democrat.

For the longest time, I was sure as fuck that I could, at least theoretically argue someone out of a position. It's an old idea, if we have a disagreement, we argue about it and the best argument wins, people change their mind to see true reason.

This never happens.

Why? You can take one of several paths.

1. You can state that one is right, one is wrong and the wrong one has struggled to see the error in his ways because he doesn't have all the relevent facts, he has faulty logic, ect ect...

Classically, this would be the rationalist view. (I hate to generalize, but bear with)

I disagree. There are people, many people who are highly educated and have a mastery over a subject and disagree on basic levels. I don't think that some of these people have faulty reasoning, I think it's something else...

That being path #2. That there is some measure of objective truth, however we all use fundamentally flawed logic at some level or another, so the best we can do is simply draw closer to the truth...(perhaps, I"m not so sure about this part). Anyway, when we accept this I think (I'm not totally sure) that we must accept that since we all use flawed reasoning, multiple lines of reasoning can make sense to different people.

Furthermore, I posit that there are multiple rational solutions to a problem that lead to vastly different answers.

I generally subscribe to #2.

#3. The postmodern view.

There is no objective truth.

Perhaps true in some sense, but certainly not as a general rule.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

Originally Posted by _Lizman_

Yes You Would
Whats Empirical?

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------



Oh No, I Would Certainly Agree [Posh British Voice]
Similarly To How Love Is Merely A Score Of Chemical Reactions

:facepalm:

[Louie Dawgs]

Originally Posted by BL_NK

I consider myself to be a rationalist, but, I would go as far as to use empirical evidence as reasoning for an argument.

I have problems with rationalism.

Actually, I could have a problem with empiricism as well, depending on how you judge it.

Here's my problem with rationalism (or at least pre-postmodern rationalism), and this is in fact the part of epistemology which most interests me.

My question is dissent. Why does it happen?

Let me give some background. I love politics. Honestly, I do. I read blogs, I read opinion articles, I post on forums. I consider myself a liberal, almost to the point of being a social democrat.

For the longest time, I was sure as fuck that I could, at least theoretically argue someone out of a position. It's an old idea, if we have a disagreement, we argue about it and the best argument wins, people change their mind to see true reason.

This never happens.

Why? You can take one of several paths.

1. You can state that one is right, one is wrong and the wrong one has struggled to see the error in his ways because he doesn't have all the relevent facts, he has faulty logic, ect ect...

Classically, this would be the rationalist view. (I hate to generalize, but bear with)

I disagree. There are people, many people who are highly educated and have a mastery over a subject and disagree on basic levels. I don't think that some of these people have faulty reasoning, I think it's something else...

That being path #2. That there is some measure of objective truth, however we all use fundamentally flawed logic at some level or another, so the best we can do is simply draw closer to the truth...(perhaps, I"m not so sure about this part). Anyway, when we accept this I think (I'm not totally sure) that we must accept that since we all use flawed reasoning, multiple lines of reasoning can make sense to different people.

Furthermore, I posit that there are multiple rational solutions to a problem that lead to vastly different answers.

I generally subscribe to #2.

#3. The postmodern view.

There is no objective truth.

Perhaps true in some sense, but certainly not as a general rule.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

Originally Posted by _Lizman_

Yes You Would
Whats Empirical?

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------



Oh No, I Would Certainly Agree [Posh British Voice]
Similarly To How Love Is Merely A Score Of Chemical Reactions

:facepalm: