Is rationalism the better epistemology or is empiricism the better epistemology? and why do you think so?
113005
Rationalism is good because we have the right and the duty to prove we are not animals by using our reason, our intelligence. Empirism is good because we are physical, how can we be if not related to the external world? But look around you: we have achieved a high technological level thanks to empirism; we have not completely killed each other or blown into pieces (yet) thanks to rationalism: only the ancient philosophers could do the distinction: we cannot afford it!
828514
There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.\n\nEpistemological arguments for (or against) ontological claims are all doomed to failure, based simply on the nature of knowledge.  I believe it was Saint Patrick who held forth a shamrock and said "It is three, yet it is one.  It is a mystery."  And although I RATIONALLY agree with your question/statement, your philosophy, Horatio, leaves no room for mystery.  Which is why logical consistency never truly takes root in most human minds;  we desire the sublimation of rationality to the spiritual.\n\nFor the majority, it is not the logic of the belief, but the EXPERIENCE (illusory or otherwise) of the belief which is important.
71790
technically speaking, we use reason and logic before we believe. After all, reason and logic are mental processess which re- or deconstructs information before we accept it. The talibans believe that their code is only logical and reasonable, even if we do not. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is also logical and reasonable based on evidences, but many still do not believe in it. So perhaps, there is a vague line between them. Howver, which will you ACCEPT? believing without logic and reason, or reasoning without believing?
381065
I think constructivism is the best theory.  Developed by Alexander Wendt from the University of Ohio it says that identity is the most important factor in IR.  \n\nThe problem with realism and liberalism is that they are static theories, they don't really deal with change in the system.  On the other hand, constructivism says that the international system is created through common knowledge, shared meaning, and practices.  Thus, instead of emphasizing structure, theorists using this theory emphasize process and learning as the keys to understanding why IR is the way it is.
389774
Yes. Relativism is a dead end street and has only come about because of the need for individualism to be asserted as a concept in the light of free market democratic politics. I think it is nearing its end. Belief in an ultimate truth beats relativism every time. It drives people rather than making them lifeless workers in the capitalist society. I think the two coming to a head is what the whole war on terror is about.
10720
Some people tend to use one method over the other almost all the time.  Methodical people tend the be rational thinkers with little or no intuition.  Fast and to the pointers tend to be the opposite, relying on intuition without thinking about the problem.\nIn most cases something between.  Slow and methodical can be carried to extremes and nothing will ever happen except thinking about the situation.  Fast and to the point can be carried too far and turn into fast but missing the mark.
300737
The fact is, if there was a better reason for there NOT to be anything than there was for there to BE anything, then people wouldn't exist to ask "why is there no universe, why is there nothing?". So it's a one way question and by that logic, either rhetorical or petitio principii, not scientific.\n\nThere is a good reason why I dislike philosophy. The reason this question is philosophical and not scientific is for the fact that wanting a purpose or reason for anything is disgustingly human-centric. Science questions are to only be objective and not anthropocentric in my opinion, or else they are more like opinion polls. \n\nI think all philosophy should be based off of strict logical deduction and induction, otherwise the discipline accomplishes nothing and should be left to the drunkards and potheads. For the most part, this is the case.
530040
well, you do bring up a good point, we have to have faith to believe both - for science we must have faith that truth exists and it can be explained by rational laws coming from experiments, and for religion we must have fauth that truth exists and is given by god and/or gos'd word which is contained in religious texts. the scientific faith requires a much smaller leap - it is hard not to believe something that can be reproduced over and over and becomes more and more powerful a tool for explanations. religion requires believing texts written, interpreted, and recopied by men long ago, and cannot be tested at any time.\nyou could choose, like nietzsche, to put faith in neither, and to doubt the existance of any ultimate truth. if you do choose to believe there is truth, then for me, science is far more persuasive.
1163239
Have you heard of Occam's razor?\nIt says that to explain a framework, entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.\n\nFurthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.\n\nNow, let's say God created heaven and earth. We introduce another element into the framework - God, that brings with it a whole new range of questions like Who created God, when did he start existing, what before him.\n\nThis doesn't simplify the argument, but makes it more complex. So, explain it with the least set of assumptions, being everything based on scientific principles which are all explained by mathematics.\n\nHope this is a logical and respectful argument.
914208
An oxymoron. Science is objective lucidity.  Creationism is subjective magical-thinking.
834012
Actually, it has.  Logic and reason have enhanced perspective.  When I was younger, I was supposed to accept the views of adults and peers at school because our teachers were trusted purveyors of information.  I'm glad I questioned authority.  I shed that democratic crap after personally finding each tenet wrong and empty of reason in a thorough examination of my life.  Liberal ideology supports egos, not real living.
159130
Qualitative is better.
420637
I think you might find that engagement in logic and reasoning is an activity that is undertaken voluntarily, when it suits a particular purpose. The proportion of one's time spent in these activities is not related specifically to intelligence, but to other social factors. For instance, if one doesn't agree with the opinions or beliefs of a particular group of people, it might simply be easier and faster to assume that these people are of lower intelligence, rather than provide any evidence whatsoever of their potential motives for holding those beliefs or opinions, or evidence that they are, in fact, of lower intelligence.\n\nThis doesn't mean that the person him/herself is of lower intelligence for jumping to an easy assumption (in this case, that this particular group of people is of lower average intelligence). This person could have abandoned logic and reason for a variety of reasons. This person could simply be lazy, or heavily biased. In any case, it would be in this person's argument's best interest to actually bring statistical evidence to the table, otherwise there is no real way the claim might be supported (though it might be superficially supported in its current form by those who happen to share the person's particular opinion, for whatever reason). This is not the hallmark of true inquiry; rather, it is the hallmark of true rhetoric. While rhetoric has its place in inquiry and the search for truth, all too often it is passed off AS the truth, an activity which is in no one's best interests except those trying to espouse and spread an opinion that is not based on accepted facts (in this case, that this particular group of people are of lower average intelligence).\n\nSadly, such tactics can at times be construed to be intentional. Sometimes a person might take a personal belief, no matter how erroneous, and pass it off as fact to support an argument motivated by any number of dubious motives, from malice to simple jealousy. This is a true hallmark or racial propaganda, for instance.\n\nAt the core of the matter may be a simple concept: both the humanist and Christian (I won't comment of other schools of thought or religions, though they exist) ideas that the individual human has intrinsic value. Basing an argument on the idea that one person or group of people has some negative quality, like low intellignce, does a great disservice to the discourse. Arguments that contain such personal motivations invariably end up being beside the point anyway.
1072229
Do you mean Critical Thinking? Because everyone should know how to tell the difference between a rational argument and a logical fallacy. Those who know how to recognize a logical fallacy (such as a straw man argument or an ad hominem attack) make much better citizens because they can tell when a politician is relying upon fallacies and mistruths rather than facts and logical arguments to try to prove his point.
569852
What's the difference?\n\nDidn't the brain which engages in rational decision making also evolve?
58815
Yes, very much in the following years. Cognitive science has much to its credit already. Among other accomplishments, it has given rise to models of human cognitive bias and risk perception, and has been influential in the development of behavioral finance, part of economics. It has also given rise to a new theory of the philosophy of mathematics, and many theories of artificial intelligence, persuasion and coercion. It has made its presence firmly known in philosophy of language and epistemology - a modern revival of rationalism - as well as constituting a substantial wing of modern linguistics.
360716
to be honest, i don't think plato would be either...he would be a rationalist...he seemed to believe that we are born with knowledge residing in us and we discover it as we go along.