Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

That's only part of the story -- the theoretically pure version, but not how it plays in practice.

The real lowdown is that Empiricism itself is nothing at all without Reason.

There are no "pure observations". There are only observations as understood and analyzed by reason.

Without a conceptual framework (which requires reason/logic etc) there are just a bunch of things happening one after another or simultaneously in 4D space.

Empiricism is not the "ancient enemy" of Reason, but it's complimentary.

That's why from Physics to anthropology, and all kind of hard sciences, use both observations AND math, logic and conceptual frameworks to discover, evaluate and express their findings.

View on HN

Yes, there's an extensive bibliography that follows - which only makes me more confounded that most educated people haven't even begun the journey (or have skipped the first distinction.)

While reason could be complementary, that's NOT what Rationalism is, and it's not what the humanists I keep encountering say or write, either - it may be the position they would retreat to if pressed, but it's absolutely not what they say.

Reason has so often been the refuge of the enemies of empiricism. That it shouldn't be this way is true, but careful you don't fall into a "No true Scotsman argument," here; since the complementary view is not an accurate look either at history or of much of academia now, in my experience.

Too-quickly assuming complentarity (as de facto true or worse logically true) is precisely how many people fall into the trap of conflating the two very distinct things.

>Reason has so often been the refuge of the enemies of empiricism. That it shouldn't be this way is true, but careful you don't fall into a "No true Scotsman argument," here; since the complementary view is not an accurate look either at history or of much of academia now, in my experience. Too-quickly assuming complentarity (as de facto true or worse logically true) is precisely how many people fall into the trap of conflating the two very distinct things.

The thing is, what academia or those people you mention say about Reason and/or Empiricism doesn't matter that much.

It's what people (e.g. actual scientists doing research) do that matters. And what they do is clearly using them complementary.

Just because there are theories that posit that it's either all A or all B, and people ascribe to them, it doesn't mean that it's indeed all A or all B. Or that a pure A/pure B even exists.

Please read up on the last century of history of science - in particular the Copenhagen Interpretation and for more recent history, Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics." The history of science is replete with examples of reason being mistaken for empirical fact, and this seems to be becoming more common, not less.

It seems like observation must exist before reason because many forms of life (including plants) implement a basic observe-decide-act loop.

Reason and the rationalization that preceded it aren't necessary for a single organism to make decisions. It's only when communicating that persuasion and justification come into play.

Logic and math can be thought of as a particularly rigorous form of rationalization that's intended to be universally useful and persuasive, by stripping away unnecessary dependencies on time, place, and community. But local decision-making doesn't need this; it can and usually does cheat using unjustifiable heuristics.

> There are no "pure observations". There are only observations as understood and analyzed by reason.

There is no measure of the accuracy of knowledge about what correct "reasoning" is without empirical observation of minds and their physical makeup (e.g. psychology, neuroscience). How do you know you or the whole of humanity isn't mentally "color-blind," so to speak, without empiricism? You can't.

Rationalism pits reason against empiricism. Empiricism says that observation is necessary to build a firm foundation of reason.

>How do you know you or the whole of humanity isn't mentally "color-blind," so to speak, without empiricism? You can't.

How do you know colors aren't an illusion, and that empirical observation reflects the true nature of reality? Through accepting several rational arguments.

Even more, both positions view a self as single entity making logical deductions.

All the theories of divided self, all the theories of divided behavior as automatic and/or conditioned responses, all the theories of humans as inherently irrational, etc lie outside of both of these approaches.

Essentially, these are approaches that hew closely to the mainline of Western Philosophy. They may see each other as "ancient enemies" but that's because they only imagine slight variations on their positions.

And to take that even further the framework or the frame of reference can make dragons a rational explanation. All it requires is that you buy into the premise of some initial claim. Its not just that they need each other its that they can be used by each other to bukld all sorts of worlds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com