Rationalism v. empiricism

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:27 am

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:26 am
commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:23 am
Rationalism deals only in thoughts, coherent or otherwise.
What would you think about if you had no sensory/empirical input?
I’d have to use my imagination.

commonsense
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:31 am

I’m just saying that materialism and rationalism are more different than in degree only. They are certainly different in kind. Just read a little bit of Wikipedia’s discussion on rationalism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Skepdick
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:43 am

commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:27 am
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:26 am
commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:23 am
Rationalism deals only in thoughts, coherent or otherwise.
What would you think about if you had no sensory/empirical input?
I’d have to use my imagination.
What would you imagine if you had no sensory/empirical input?

commonsense
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:27 am

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:43 am
commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:27 am
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:26 am

What would you think about if you had no sensory/empirical input?
I’d have to use my imagination.
What would you imagine if you had no sensory/empirical input?
Nobglobs. Nobglobs riding on unicorns.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Sculptor » Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:06 am

But seriously - even the most abstract ideas and systems of thought have empirical correlates.
Without relating to some THING, ideas do not survive without hard relevance.

commonsense
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:00 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:06 am
Without relating to some THING, ideas do not survive without hard relevance.
So true, so true.

commonsense
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:45 am

Sculptor wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:06 am
Without relating to some THING, ideas do not survive without hard relevance.
Yes, ideas (thoughts) do not survive (live through) unless they relate to some material thing. They only exist until the instant that they no longer survive. Thoughts that do not correlate to some material thing only exist until the instant that they no longer survive. Thoughts without relevance exist, if only impermanently.

Unless they are thoughts relevant to immaterial things such as love, honor, loyalty and dishonesty. Then thoughts, and by their existence rationalism, endure.

And what of empiricism? Can it exist without the guidance of rationalism? Certainly, the answer is indeed it can.

Observations of the physical world can be accomplished, among other ways, when an image falls upon the retina. That image, that observation, can be transmitted, in the form of electrically charged impulses, to the brain where those impulses can be stored as memories. Not one thought or idea is needed to accomplish all that.

But is there any practical value in collecting observations unless they can be retrieved for some useful purpose later? To do that involves thought: some identifying feature of the memory to retrieve must be recognized and compared to pieces of memory along the way in order to find the right one. Once a group of observations has been retrieved, rational thought is required if any conclusions are to be drawn.

Thought can be relevant to the material or the immaterial (e.g., love, honor, loyalty and dishonesty), but empirical observations cannot be regarded in any way without the means to regard them (I.e. rational thought).

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Sculptor » Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:26 am

commonsense wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:45 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:06 am
Without relating to some THING, ideas do not survive without hard relevance.
Yes, ideas (thoughts) do not survive (live through) unless they relate to some material thing. They only exist until the instant that they no longer survive. Thoughts that do not correlate to some material thing only exist until the instant that they no longer survive. Thoughts without relevance exist, if only impermanently.

Unless they are thoughts relevant to immaterial things such as love, honor, loyalty and dishonesty. Then thoughts, and by their existence rationalism, endure.
Generally you need a thing to love, honour and by loyal to. And a thing about which to be dishonest. Empirical reality grounds it all.

And what of empiricism? Can it exist without the guidance of rationalism? Certainly, the answer is indeed it can.

Observations of the physical world can be accomplished, among other ways, when an image falls upon the retina. That image, that observation, can be transmitted, in the form of electrically charged impulses, to the brain where those impulses can be stored as memories. Not one thought or idea is needed to accomplish all that.

But is there any practical value in collecting observations unless they can be retrieved for some useful purpose later? To do that involves thought: some identifying feature of the memory to retrieve must be recognized and compared to pieces of memory along the way in order to find the right one. Once a group of observations has been retrieved, rational thought is required if any conclusions are to be drawn.

Thought can be relevant to the material or the immaterial (e.g., love, honor, loyalty and dishonesty), but empirical observations cannot be regarded in any way without the means to regard them (I.e. rational thought).
I think we are in the same page.

Skepdick
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:29 pm

commonsense wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:45 am
Unless they are thoughts relevant to immaterial things such as love, honor, loyalty and dishonesty. Then thoughts, and by their existence rationalism, endure.
The simple explanation is that they aren't immaterial. You experience those things. They are real, physical phenomena. Chemical processes taking place in your brain.

They affect your judgment, mood and behaviour. They have, clear, real-world consequences. They are causes.

The fact that you conceptualise them as "immaterial" is just language playing tricks on you.

commonsense
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:07 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:29 pm
commonsense wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:45 am
Unless they are thoughts relevant to immaterial things such as love, honor, loyalty and dishonesty. Then thoughts, and by their existence rationalism, endure.
The simple explanation is that they aren't immaterial. You experience those things. They are real, physical phenomena. Chemical processes taking place in your brain.

They affect your judgment, mood and behaviour. They have, clear, real-world consequences. They are causes.

The fact that you conceptualise them as "immaterial" is just language playing tricks on you.
Point taken.

They are immaterial only in the fact that you cannot sense them directly.

You are right to say that these ephemeral states have a real connection and relevance to the material.

(Not tricked so much as ignorant.)

commonsense
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by commonsense » Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:20 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:26 am
Generally you need a thing to love, honour and by loyal to. And a thing about which to be dishonest. Empirical reality grounds it all.
Generally yes, but one can love loyalty or be dishonest about honor.

Whether these are material things or not makes a significant difference to the legitimacy of my claims (see Skepdick’s post).

Skepdick
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:40 pm

commonsense wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:20 pm
Whether these are material things or not makes a significant difference to the legitimacy of my claims (see Skepdick’s post).
The "legitimacy of claims" is a misnomer in the context of an individual mind. All the problems arise in the context of "us". Where two minds are communicating.

You claim that you experience love. Could you ever doubt that claim? Only other minds can.

Sure, you can't describe that experience but that's just because language sucks.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:22 pm

While love is not something that can be empirically demonstrated the commonality of the experience means that it can still be
discussed between multiple minds . Even when an experience is being discussed that is unique to a particular mind other minds
can still learn about it by acquiring knowledge from the experienced mind

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:34 pm

commonsense wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:42 pm
But wait—rationalistic proof requires no observation, save only the recognition that the connection between given thoughts is non-contradictory. Rationalism is not observable unless thought is observable.

And rationalism has no requirement to be derived from nor applicable to the material. Rationalism has the ability to be entirely immaterially propositional.

No?
No. Your suggestion here would identify rationalism with logic, which would make the discussion vacuous. I am talking about rationalism, not logic.

As in anything, there are different shades of grey when it comes to rationalism, but I did make clear what I meant by rationalism: Rationalism requires instead that the proof of your claim be an observation of your own mind.

Given my assumption, rationalism requires the "observation of your own mind". As such, there is a clear distinction with the idea of empiricism requiring observation of the material world.

This also makes clear logic and propositions are not enough. You still need to observe the reality of your mind.

Pain for example is a fact of your mind and as such you can observe pain. As a fact, it is not a proposition although you can express propositions relative to pain, for example, "I am in pain". But for this statement to be true, you need to be in pain. And to know that the statement "I am in pain" is true, you need to know that you are in pain, and this before any logical consideration whatsoever. There is no reasoning in knowing that you are in pain. Rather, knowing that you are in pain is the necessary knowledge required for you to do any reasoning and produce any propositional knowledge, such as the statement "I am in pain".
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:40 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:09 pm
[The definition of rational (in accordance with logic) is incoherent. Which logic? There are so many to choose from!
There is just one logic understood as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, which is the usual way most people understand what logic is.

You are really talking about the very many different theories of mathematical "logic", without of course making clear what you mean because you' don't know what you are talking about.
EB

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests