My handwriting used to be so beautiful that people would often comment on it. They would asked me where I learned to write like that. But it was just my natural writing.

Although, that was BC (Before Computers).

I used to write a lot and I was a perfectionist at heart so I just naturally developed beautiful handwriting.

But then when AD came (After Digital), I started using word processors almost to the exclusion of handwriting all together.

My sister just bought me a caligraphy pen set with an instruction book. I started trying to copy the letters they show in the book but I wasn't doing so hot with it.

So then I started just writing naturally again. At first it was very awkward and sloppy and I thought I had lost it. But I kept at it and it came back!

Now I'm getting back to the point where I can just write naturally and it looks like fancy writing with these caligraphy pens.

This is so cool because I can write much faster this way. I can focus on whole words rather than on each individual letter.

Maybe owl scan in some of my writing in and show it off.

You know, like in "This little light of mine, um gonna let it shine".

And now we can enter into the deeply philosophical discussion of whether letting your light shine constitutes, "pride".

And is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

Hmmm?

So many questions.

So few Jess Lees.

Empiricism starts with the premise that there is stuff already there and the only valid means of understanding it is through observation. But the fault there is that it cannot go beyond the original premise. So the most that can be said of it is that it is of no use outside it’s own box because, according to it’s own premise, there is no outside. And that is, quite literally, empiricism’s downfall. It starts with an observation, takes that as a premise, and then cannot go anywhere but down (or more precisely “in”) from there. It cannot get out of its own box.

Rational though, on the other hand, is the very basis of creativity. It’s “thinking outside the box” that has been the root of all greatness of any kind in the history of this planet.

You don’t even have to go as far as the spiritual. You only have to go as far as esthetics.

What is esthetics if not purely rational thought? What “solid empirical premise” could possibly have given birth to the beauty of Michelangelo’s “David”?

Yes, if you want to know how to build a 2 mile long bridge that will hold up too 5,000 cars per hour, by all means use your empirical facts.

But if you want to create something new, empiricism just won't - actually, "can't" - do it.

In my opinion, rationalism is the chicken that gives birth to the empiricism egg.

So then you're saying that men like Galileo, Kepler, Isaac Newton, Albert Eintein and just about every other scientist who ever made a new and creative discovery for their day were all Rationalists?

That's a quite interesting view.

I guess that would make Max Planck, Neils Bohr, Edwin Shrodinger, Werner Heisenberg and all the rest of QM crew Rationalists as well.

Perhaps the terms Rationalist and Emiriscist are themselves a bit vauge?

I hesitate to label any of those men as either, just as you do not label yourself as either.

I was attempting to differentiate between "discovery" and a "creation".

To me the difference between discovery and creation is the basic difference between empiricism and rationalism.

But to ignore either one in favor of the other, may be the very definition of stupidity.

There must be some sort of creative thought in order to "connect the observation dots". Without that creative "connecting", there is no knowledge - only "sensory input".

And the flip side of the same coin is, there must be some sensory input to connect. Without that, there is no "reality". Nothing but subjective ideas.

This is very closely related to the self-centric.vs.other-centric issue.

Does all knowledge come from "outside"? If so, then the reductio ad absurdum is "I" don't really exist because there is nothing but "outside".

Or does all knowledge come from "inside"? If so then the reductio ad absurdum is that "I" am the only thing that exists because there is no "outside".

The only practical reasoning is that there is both "I" and "other" and that knowledge can originate from either.

But it is the "new creation" that comes from rationalism that is the source of all the great advances of man.

In fact, our language seems to support just exactly that same thought. You hear the phrase "great idea" a lot. But how often do you hear the phrase "great observation"?

If you are attached to that little light inside you... and direct people to it... in the manner of "Oh look at MY little light... see how bright it is, it is MUCH brighter than everyone else's."

That would be pride.

But to glow with an inner light... and allow it to guide you... all those gifts, talents, arts are shared with no attachment.

The 'Mine' in my light ceases to exist... in one's thinking.

Well that can be tricky semantics.

Did Einstein creatively 'invent' time dilation, or did in observe' that it must be so?

Personlly I feel the latter is true.

So yes, the proper phrase to use for Albert Einstein would be "Great Observation!"

For me, the difference between Rationalism and Epiricism is not merely that one is creative and the other is not. I think that people who investigate the world via empirical thought must ulimately be very creative if they expect to get anywhere.

For me, the difference between Rationalism, and Epiricism is the difference between Physics and Pure Philopsophy.

The kind of Pure Philosophy that Descarte, Plato, and Aristotle were famous for amoung others.

These men believed that everything could be understand via thought alone.

Period. It has nothing to do with creativity. It has to do with a belief that if you think deeply enough you can find the answers to all questions using nothing other than pure thought.

To me, that's the meaning of "Rationalism".

I dismiss that line of thinking as being basically wrong. I hold that you could not figure out this universe without using your five senses and knowing something about it.

In other words, if you were mind alone, and had no sensory input at all, you could not conclude that if a universe were constructed it would need to be like the one in which we live.

Yet this is what the Pure Philosophers believed. They believed that they could figure out the "truth" of reality because they believed that there can only be one 'truth".

But this isn't the way things are.

Truth has absolutely no meaning outside of foundational premises.

Yet, if a person is attempting to figure things out using pure thought at alone they can begin with whatever premises they like.

Some may not lead very far, others may lead further. But most importantly the premises that would lead to this physical universe that we actually live in are arbitrary, and not concretely unique.

So trying to figure this universe out using pure thought alone is basically impossible. It's just not doable.

This was the foundation of almost all Greek thought. And they did succeed in mathematics, but they cheated and just didn't know they were cheating.

They were using an experiential concept of number to form their premises. It wasn't pure thought at all, it was Empiricism the whole time. They just didn't realize it.

Ah yes, the semantics can be tricky indeed.

I don’t I think Einstein “observed” time dilation before he came up with his theory. (The actual observation of time dilation was not accomplished until later.)

So the “knowledge” of time dilation could not have come about empirically.

And I’m willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that he did not “invent” time dilation either. (It appears to have existed before he came up with his theory.)

But since it could not have come from observation, where did the “knowledge” of time dilation come from?

So I’m really only attempting to support what you’ve already said: It is a false dichotomy. The “pure” form of either excludes any possibility of the other. But neither can stand alone.

It’s like communication. There has to be a “from” and a “to”. Remove either one and communication ceases.

There are “dots” (observation) and there are “connections” (thought).

Rationalism and empiricism are truly symbiotic. The apparent dichotomy is false.

"The observer" and "the thinker" are the same entity.

You would like the way Ornette Coleman thinks.

I beg to differ.

Yes, it's true that Einstein didn't observe time dilation directly. But that isn't what I had said.

I say that Eintein observered that time dilation must be true. That's not the same thing as observing time dilation directly.

But it was still empirical thinking, and the reason that it was empirical thinking is because his conclusion that time dilation must be true was entirely based on the empirical facts up to that point.

In fact, I hold that purely Rational thinking is truly impossible. Those people who believe that they are exercising "pure thought" are kidding themselves.

Just like Aristotle believed that all objects naturally come to rest. This is their natural state of being.

That line of thinking was actually empiricle. He was basing that on his experience that objects tend to naturally come to rest.

He was wrong. However, the reason he never discovered that he was wrong was because he was satisfied with thinking purely rationally without actually experimenting emprically with the physical world to find out just how much truth there was in that observation.

He also believed that the earth was at the center of creation. Again, a wrong conclusion.

So I would argue that Einstein's line of thinking was empirical the whole way through. In fact, he came to that conclusion by accepting that the speed of light must be constant for all observers. And that was an empirical fact. Or at least he accepted it as such.

And this is what I'm saying about pure rationalistic thought.

A pure philosophy who is locked up in a room and only allowed to think about these things using only his mind alone, could go either way. He could decide to keep the speed of light constant for all observers, or he could decide to let it be different for all observers.

Based on which arbitrary choice he makes he's going to be heading entirely different roads from there on out.

The empricist simply says, "Let's ask the universe and see what she has to say, and then build upon the answer that she give us."

A pure philosopher would not be premitted to ask the universe because as soon as he does he becomes an empiricist.

A pure philosopher holds that he can figureout the true nature of the world without any need to make observations and experiments. He believes that the physical world is just a facade and can't be trusted anyway.

But, in truth, pure philosophy isn't even possible. All philosophy is rooted in experience. So the very debate between rationalism vs. empiricism is a moot point really.

That's just my very humble opinion.

Abra, I don't see where the article mentions pure thought at all.
________________________

"The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge"

This was the discussion, to what degree is rationalism dependent on data. Data without perspective is useless, just as rational thought is a tool with no purpose if it has no data.

I think by polarizing this issue you have missed the point. No one can operate in a bubble with no empirical data, I don't see where the article tries to take that stance.

There is no question that theoretical physics makes great uses of empirical data to do there research and at this juncture it would be impossible to put an empty mind in a room and have it wile out a facet of reality that we have not already come to terms with.

But to say there is no rational thought? Is that really the stance you are taking abra?

Or have I miss read you?

When you say empirical the whole way do you mean that Einsteins rational thoughts had nothing to do with his discoveries? NOTHING???????????? So why didn't someone else make the discovery, why didn't everyone slap there foreheads once it came out? Why did so many rile against it, if it was wholly empirical?

Black and white?

Well, I confess I haven't gleaned over the article yet in great detail.

But what else could it be about if it wasn't to pit Rationalists vs Empircists?

Can you give an example of an empiricist that doesn't use reason?

I can't even imagine such a thing, unless it would be a assitant technician who just does what they're told to do.

I do know that there are arguments between 'pure mathematics' which would be pure rationalism, versus applied mathematics, which would be more along the lines of empirism.

In that argument I would take a very firm stance that applied mathematics is the only mathematics, and the so-called 'pure mathematics' is truly a joke, and is in fact empirically incorrect.

That's my stance on that one.

In fact, that's precisely the topic of the book I never write.

JB




Hi JB,

Number two- Empiricism - is the stance that science takes when attempting to methodically pursue repetitively accurate results which is then considered, until proven otherwise, to be knowledge. NOTICE that it is not considered truth so much as it is agreed upon knowledge. It IS NOT trapped inside a box, it is open for revision, however, the revision must ALSO comply with scientific methodology, which can only be based of sensual perception.

Number one – Rationalism – is the by-product of a thought process that must strictly adhere to the notion that God exists. If one asks a question the answer MUST conform to the belief that God exists.

And you think empiricists are confined to a box?????

Let me then ask – how does one develop a concept of what God is? Without such a concept, asking questions is for naught, as there would be an inability to conform the answer into the box that requires a Godly fit. HOWEVER, as Abra will state much later in this thread without any way to prove why, where, how such information came into being then any individual could say anything was true BUT THEN truth could only ever be known by an individual and knowledge would be difficult to impart as people could accept or deny whatever did not fit into their own self-created little box.

Just my opinion.

Sky:


Hi Sky
MM – I sense skepticism…. I don’t empiricism the way you describe it. Consider the fact that philosophy has always been and remains today the for-runner of science. Therefore, re-consider your thoughts by questioning, how can science proceed if it were to use ONLY the rational philosophy?

I’m trying to catch up with the posts, so I think I’ll get back to this shortly. Just think about it a moment.

As for aesthetics – what is beauty if it is has no relation to a subjective value? Who would dare to tell others what must hold beauty? In what way do you associated the valuation method of aesthetics with science?

Abra:


Not vague at all and not similar by any stretch. I think any attempt to combine the two philosophies would be likely to put science at odds against itself. What I see coming out of such a dilemma is something akin to “Creation Science” get out the garlic necklace and make your wooden crosses.

Sky


Ok – time to present some logic.

Back to the question of scientific methodology.
The term science is Latin in origin, scire, which means “to know.” Usually, we witness something, observe a behavior through our senses and we question what we have perceived. We may even take the question into the realm of abstract thought and add another element a posteriori to the equation. This is how the empirical tradition of philosophy begins. After experiencing reality with our senses we attempt to explain exactly what we’ve perceived and then include the a posteriori information. This is the first step of a scientific approach to attaining knowledge; “to know.”

To proceed we would need to create a hypothesis or, basically, an answer to our question or questions about our perceptions. The hypothesis then needs to be tested for negative or positive results. Notice that to get any answers, the answers MUST BE PERCEIVED. Either type of result adds knowledge, however, to continue the pattern and attain more knowledge, for the sake of knowing, is called pure science. To continue the pattern for the purpose of attaining useful knowledge for practical purposes is called applied science.

Science is approached the same way all the time, through objective perception, explanation of the perceived and the hypothesis. How the hypothesis is formulated and scientific method used, to test the hypothesis, include a variety of options. These depend on what information is being researched, its origins and what is expected to be attained through the exploration.

In the realm of science, it must be assumed that humans are capable, only, of objective scientific examination. The idea being that our contact with the universe is physical and in this physical state we require perception through our senses. It is, only, perception that gives the ability to formulate knowledge about reality.

This means that if reality consists of anything that does not relate, in any way, to our senses we will never experience it, we won’t even question it, because we won’t know about it.

Furthermore, if any of the qualities of Rationalism are valid, then they would be valid across nations, cultures, societies and individuals throughout time. Yet, in 70,000 years the wide ranging majority of the sum total of human knowledge has been acquired in the last 1500 years. That’s a pretty heafty argument against rationalism.

Would you feel as though you had an insightful moment if it suddenly occurred to you that the branches of a tree were all part of the same whole? THAT is what rationalist are attempting to claim, that Sky is your reduction ad absurdum.

Abra:

Sky:


Abra:
I say that Eintein observered that time dilation must be true. That's not the same thing as observing time dilation directly.

But it was still empirical thinking, and the reason that it was empirical thinking is because his conclusion that time dilation must be true was entirely based on the empirical facts up to that point.

Yes – I agree totally with Abra.

Bushido


Well there you are, the Opening Poster. GREAT TOPIC thank-you so much for the great read and EVERYONE for the discussion. I was about loose my mind attempting to find some INSIGHT into this damn math. If knowledge were intuitive, or inherent, then the compartment of my brain that was supposed to have that information for algebra has been damaged. YEOWW!

Ok, well now all you’re saying is that “Einstein observed some reason”. If that’s the case, then you’re right – by that logic rationalism is nothing but complete illusion.



It seems we do have a semantic problem.

We are considering two “sources of knowledge”. In Empiricism it is observation or experience. In Rationalism it is thought or reason.

But I think we need to define knowledge for this to make sense. Since knowledge is the object. We need to know what we’re talking about.

If knowledge is defined as “scientifically demonstrable fact”, then it would appear on first look that empiricism can be the only way, since “demonstrable” specifically requires observation.

But if you do define it that way, then you must also allow that a fact need not actually be observed to be knowledge. It only need be observable. (Otherwise, the only people with “knowledge” would be those who actually observed it. Thus I, who have never even seen a particle accelerator, could not possibly know anything about nuclear physics.)

So now we have an observer (one who actually observed an event) and a student (one who did not observe it but is told about it.)

Does the student have “knowledge” of the event?

If he does, it cannot be the exact same knowledge as that which the observer has.

So what’s the difference between the two “knowledges”?

One is observed and the other is 100% pure unadulterated reason.

Hi Redy. Good to sse you back.

I think I addressed that in a later post. My stance is basically that knowledge can be gained by both observation and reason. But that goes back to the definition of "knowledge" which I also addressed in a previous poast.

I would have to disagree with you on this one quite vehemently Sky.

Who rationalizes beauty?

I don't believe that esthetics is based on thought at all. It's based more on intuitive feelings, pure primal desire. No rationalization required.

If anything, it's based on empiricism because without any sensory input what stimuli would you even have to base your decision on?