In a message dated 1/16/2000 1:14:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
rubingh@delftnet.nl writes:
> to add to the knowledge in one's head with only
> criticsm as one's tool and *without* using any justificationalist-like
> thing such as supportive proof/experience.
Basically that _is_ the difference between Rationalism vs. Empiricist claims
are. One claims the head (e.g., Einstein, quantum mechanics, mostly
mathematicians) and one claims observation (e.g., Edison's trial and error
method, psychologists, astrologers (just kidding). That is why my philosophy
is called PCR/CCR and not pancritical empiricism or CCE.
Empiricism can not work for anything too small to observe (e.g., quanta) that
is why rationalism is so powerful. After the rational theory predicts some
event, then we set out to find the observation by experimentation. The other
way around just leads to induction. AGAIN . . . darn!
I know rationalism must be just "killing" the empiricists in the group. In
this group, however, I am not exactly going out on a limb, since the
president of ExI, Max More, Ph.D. in philosophy USC, is also rationalist ala
PCR/CCR.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:19 MDT