ITT I explain why the nation is so fucked up

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

lol boost, chill. I'm not using it so support my point, I'm just saying it so you know where I'm coming from.

I don't even disagree that creationism is irrational, I'm just arguing for it to show that it isn't an unreasonable position when you consider that rationality isn't the ultimate form of thinking, a position scientific philosophy has indoctrinated in our thinking

[wufwugy]

lol boost, chill. I'm not using it so support my point, I'm just saying it so you know where I'm coming from.

I don't even disagree that creationism is irrational, I'm just arguing for it to show that it isn't an unreasonable position when you consider that rationality isn't the ultimate form of thinking, a position scientific philosophy has indoctrinated in our thinking

I suggest you rework your sources because you're not accurate on your definitions. For example, you're equivocating rationalism and empiricism, yet they couldn't be more different. It is very easy to confuse a lot of the semantics, though, because there is some overlap due to the contributors to philosophy not having the exact same understanding and vernacular.

Or maybe you weren't referring to rationalism, but rationality, but then it is a mistake to claim scientific philosophy as having any bearing on it because rationality is simply the ability for humans to have understanding.

But I'm also not the best person to give a concise rundown of definitions because I have to research a lot as I go, and they can get hairy. A lot of it is worthless fluff too


Here's a pretty solid linear breakdown of how we know what we know

Rationality is the ability to think with reason (and develop knowledge), philosophy is the most fundamental study of anything and everything (including knowledge), epistemology is the study of knowledge, empiricism (science) and rationalism are the methods of gathering knowledge, empiricism is the only known correct method (because it's based in experimental observation), and rationalism is generally incorrect but it still has what I would call an amateur place in facilitating empiricism in the ways in which it's not really different than logic


Also, you're contradicting yourself if you claim science and logic as being an inadequate form of thought because you're using science and logic to formulate that thought. At this point in time, we have quite the steadfast and definitive understanding of knowledge.