Rationalism v. empiricism

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:43 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:40 pm
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.
I just took a shit.

It's objective. I performed it. I am human.

Shitting! That's clearly what you mean by "logic". Right?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 5:44 pm

commonsense wrote:
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
I don't follow links. If you can't explain your point yourself, so be it.
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:46 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:44 pm
I don't follow links. If you can't explain your point yourself, so be it.
You don't read. You don't elucidate. Do you even shit?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 5:46 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:43 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:40 pm
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.
I just took a shit.
It's objective. I performed it. I am human.
Is that what you mean by "logic" ?
Irrelevant to what you pretend to reply to.
You've been really quick loosing track of the conversation!
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:47 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:46 pm
You've been really quick loosing track of the conversation!
You've been really terrible at framing the conversation.

It's ok. We get that you aren't very capable of shitting. I am trying to help you.

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 5:50 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:46 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:44 pm
I don't follow links. If you can't explain your point yourself, so be it.
You don't read. You don't elucidate. What do you even shit?
I always discuss what people say when they produce arguments.
You don't. You just produce irrelevant assertions, misrepresentation of what people say, and falsehoods because you are an ignorant.
There is nothing to discuss. Just put you in your place, with the garbage.
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:51 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:40 pm
There is just one logic
Then why do the Constructivists disagree with Aristotle?

Skepdick
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:52 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:50 pm
I always discuss what people say when they produce arguments.
Sure thing. In which logic would you like me to produce my argument?

Aristotelian or Constructive?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 5:53 pm

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.

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).
Very well put.
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 6:02 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:29 pm
The fact that you conceptualise them as "immaterial" is just language playing tricks on you.
You don't have to conceptualise pain to know you are in pain.
What we conceptualise is the material world. We have the concept of a tree and think of it as material. We don't experience the tree itself. We only experience our perception of whatever looks to us as a tree.
The idea that the mind is immaterial is a direct consequence of our conception of the material world as material. We have realised that our mind isn't the same thing as what we call the material world. There is nothing in the material world we can recognise as the pain we experience.
Scientists themselves don't study pain as we experience it, they study the objective correlates of pain.
Whether the material world is of the same nature as our mind remains to be seen. We just don't know yet.
And that is common knowledge. To go beyond that is just ideological dogma.
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:03 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:40 pm
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.
Lack of clarity is your incompetence - not mine.

You are the one who claims that there is only "one logic". So it follows then that if we have 20 logical theories then at least 19 of the theories must be wrong. Why don't you start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_logic

Which of those theories are wrong?

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 6:06 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:51 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:40 pm
There is just one logic
Then why do the Constructivists disagree with Aristotle?
Mathematical logic.
Personally I don't care and i think nobody should. It's essentially a waste of time.
Mathematicians have a nice little job and they are busy producing and cloning ever more zany theories that have no relation to the real world.
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 6:07 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:03 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:40 pm
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.
Lack of clarity is your incompetence - not mine.

You are the one who claims that there is only "one logic". So it follows then that if we have 20 logical theories then at least 19 of the theories must be wrong. Why don't you start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_logic

Which of those theories are wrong?
Which theories? I don't follow links.
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 6:08 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:52 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:50 pm
I always discuss what people say when they produce arguments.
Sure thing. In which logic would you like me to produce my argument?

Aristotelian or Constructive?
You don't know what is logic. There is no possible rational conversation with with you. You systematically misrepresent what people say. It's just a waste of time. You're just a nuisance.
EB

Skepdick
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Rationalism v. empiricism

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:09 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:06 pm
Mathematical logic.
You said there is only one logic. Mathematical logic is still logic!

Mathematics is an objective performance and capability of human beings.

Distinction without a difference.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests