Rationalism

[granpa]

Rationalism - Religion-wiki


Rationalism is any view appealing to reason (Logos) as the source of the justification required to be able to rightly say that a fact is "known" to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. (Simply observing the sun rise again and again is not sufficient to know beyond a reasonable doubt that it will rise the next day. One much have an understanding of the 'reasons' why it rises).

Empiricism is certainly not wrong but, without rationalism, it is a shallow and incomplete world view. In the purely empirical world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought morally wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends. On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the complex emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. These emergent phenomena may not be empirically observable but they are immediately perceptible to intuition. Just as one can "hear" things that cannot be "seen". (Psychology is an emergent property of biology which is an emergent property of chemistry which is an emergent property of particle physics). People subscribing to the purely empirical world view do not think in terms of right vs wrong but rather in terms of great vs not great.

Clearly, being "made of" something (for example atoms) is not the same as "being" something. But this brings up an even deeper issue. What does it mean to "be" something? In the purely empirical world view it doesn't mean anything. In the purely empirical world view names are arbitrary and meaningless labels. This is confusion. (I would compare this to believing that its OK to be a thief as long as you don't steal anything). Words are categories and the phenomenon of Convergent evolution clearly shows that those categories are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.

There is nothing magical about intuition. Intuition is simply the brain using inductive reasoning and massive parallel processing to determine the reasonableness (plausibility) of certain possibilities. You suspend your disbelief long enough to get a "feel" for how well the idea "fits" with everything else you know. Does it conflict with other things you know? Does it require that you make many other assumptions? Or would it, in fact, explain things that would otherwise be unexplained?

Intuition can't tell you whether a given idea is true or not, but if used properly, it does tell you whether that idea is reasonable or not. Occam's razor states that the most reasonable possibility tends to be the correct one.

 

[KCfromNC]

In the purely empirical world view it doesn't mean anything. In the purely empirical world view names are arbitrary and meaningless labels.

Huh? Labels stop having syntatic and semantic meaning just because one believes that we should ground our knowledge in observations of reality? You'll have to show your work here.

There is nothing magical about intuition.

Of course not. The research just shows that it isn't a reliable source of knowledge.

 

[FireDragon76]

Huh? Labels stop having syntatic and semantic meaning just because one believes that we should ground our knowledge in observations of reality? You'll have to show your work here

Empiricism is the attempt at grounding knowledge in sense experiences. The whole idea that we observe reality as it is, freed from our own presuppositions about that reality, is part of the problem with those claiming an empiricist high ground.

 

[KCfromNC]

Empiricism is the attempt at grounding knowledge in sense experiences. The whole idea that we observe reality as it is, freed from our own presuppositions about that reality, is part of the problem with those claiming an empiricist high ground.

Why do you believe empiricists think that our observations are unquestionably perfect? Sounds like a convenient straw man to me rather than an accurate description of actual empiricists.

And this doesn't answer my question. Even assuming that empiricists think that every sense experience is a perfect representation of external reality, how is that belief in any way related to a lack of meaning in words?

 

[granpa]

the meaning of a word is found using rationalism.
One can be an empiricist and a rationalist at the same time. They do not conflict.
It is only those that reject rationalism completely who subscribe to a "purely empirical world view" for whom words have no meaning.
these are a very small but loud and influential minority of empiricists

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Of course not. The research just shows that it isn't a reliable source of knowledge.

Reason is, though, and reason is not empirical.

 

[KCfromNC]

Reason is, though, and reason is not empirical.

Logic not grounded in empirical facts is simply word games, though. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[durangodawood]

Reason is, though, and reason is not empirical.

I think the "axioms" of reason derive from observation.

 

[granpa]

At this point someone usually interjects "But all information comes to us through our senses therefore all information is empirical". That may be true, but the way we process that information isn't always empirical. Intuition can give true and valid results yet because of its nature it is impossible to prove it to someone else. There is nothing magical about intuition. Intuition is simply the brain using inductive reasoning and massive parallel processing to determine the reasonableness (plausibility) of certain possibilities. You suspend your disbelief long enough to get a "feel" for how well the idea "fits" with everything else you know. Does it conflict with other things you know? Does it require that you make many other assumptions? Or would it, in fact, explain things that would otherwise be unexplained?

Intuition can't tell you whether a given idea is true or not, but if used properly, it does tell you whether that idea is reasonable or not. Occam's razor states that the most reasonable possibility tends to be the correct one.

It really is as they say: "you see what you want to see". And if you truly want to see what the facts say when they are allowed to speak for themselves then you will indeed see that too.

 

[KCfromNC]

At this point someone usually interjects "But all information comes to us through our senses therefore all information is empirical". That may be true, but the way we process that information isn't always empirical. Intuition can give true and valid results yet because of its nature it is impossible to prove it to someone else.

Guessing can give true and valid results as well. The question is how reliable the process is, and in both the case of guessing and intuition, the answer is not nearly as reliable as other methods we can use.

 

[granpa]

guessing can give true but not valid results.
that's what justification is about

 

[KCfromNC]

guessing can give true but not valid results.
that's what justification is about

Yep, as I said previously it is just like intuition in that respect.

 

[granpa]

Whats invalid about inductive reasoning?

 

[KCfromNC]

Whats invalid about inductive reasoning?

You'll need to be more specific - there are probably an infinite number of examples both valid and invalid inductive reasoning.

But what does that have to do with this thread? I thought we were talking about intuition - you know, "the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason".

 

[granpa]

didn't even read it did you?

 

[KCfromNC]

didn't even read it did you?

I know you're attempting to redefine intuition as something rational. It is just that no one else agrees with you. Anyone here can do a quick search on "induction intuition" and see that the educational sources that pop up contrast one with the other rather than attempt to define them as the same.

 

[granpa]

redefine intuition?
That's like saying I'm trying to redefine Square.
It is what it is.
All I have done is offer a rational explanation for how it works and show you how to use and interpret it properly.

It really is as they say: "you see what you want to see". And if you truly want to see what the facts say when they are allowed to speak for themselves then you will indeed see that too.

For some people, however, intuition is simply a cudgel to bash people over the head with to force them to believe what they believe. Needless to say, these people are not using intuition properly.