UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 22

Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

From: Jeff Olson <jlolson.nul>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:28:41 -0600
Archived: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:23:23 -0400
Subject: Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

>From: Cathy Reason <CathyM.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:14:58 +0100
>Subject: Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

>>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:42:37 +0100
>>Subject: Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

>>>From: Cathy Reason <CathyM.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:36:04 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: The van Gogh Fallacy

>>>No, it has everything to do with using words to mean what they
>>>in fact mean.

>>A worthy aim, so why don't you stick to it? I was originally
>>using the term 'empirical', not 'empiricism'


>As a matter of fact, the term you used was "empirical
>rationalism". Since rationalism asserts the primacy of
>intellect >over experience, that term is meaningless.


Here's a quote from philosophy professor Peter Markie on the
alleged irreconcilability of empiricism and rationalism:

"Rationalism and empiricism, so relativized, need not conflict.
We can be rationalists in mathematics or a particular area of
mathematics and empiricists in all or some of the physical
sciences. Rationalism and empiricism only conflict when
formulated to cover the same subject. Then the debate,
Rationalism vs. Empiricism, is joined. The fact that
philosophers can be both rationalists and empiricists..."

I've found the tenor of these remarks largely echoed by other
degreed philosophers on this subject. I would think that someone
who knows what they're talking about would know that.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast