Have you...

[Skirata]

[Conrad_Jalowski]

Science is subordinate to philosophy while rationalism triumphs over empiricism.

[Tan 90]

Science is subordinate to philosophy while rationalism triumphs over empiricism.

You have a thesis. Now provide supporting details.

[SickbyDefinition]

I have, and damn it feels good.

[Cosmic Fury]

Science is subordinate to philosophy while rationalism triumphs over empiricism.

I disagree with the first part of your statement. Philosophy is, in its own way, a science, so the two are related, and therefore neither is subordinate to the other.

[Heraclius]

It is common knowledge that human senses are completely and totally infallible. It isn't as though refraction, reflection, and other similar occurrences show flaws in our senses, no not at all.

But in all seriousness I would much rather deal in cold hard facts than in philosophical debate. One is concrete, it cannot be debated. The other could be debated until the end of the universe. Empirical evidence is how we perceive the world as a whole, and while empiricism and rationalism both are incredibly important, I learn more to the side of empiricism. With that said, I have never done the above activity. I live in conservative rural Pennsylvania; if I did that I would likely get shot, or at least suffer severe injury at the hands of . . . well everyone. Heh, score one for cowardice.

[King Solomon]

Personally Skirata I liked the cartoon, it was funny. The parody it makes is the funny part. I am more of a realistic and practical person. Sometimes though a debate can be a good thing, and it is great to debate facts. Theory is something that can be debated, but is also considered to be acceptable.

Consider this, gravity is a theory. It is a theory because it was first an idea, that could be debated and thought over. Now it is considered non-debatable. Isn't it possible though to say gravity doesn't exist and something else keeps us on the ground. It could be, and those are the types of ideas I like to debate, ones that can make you really think and question.

Normally though I am more realistic and practical. Great cartoon Skirata.

[DonDee]

It is common knowledge that human senses are completely and totally infallible. It isn't as though refraction, reflection, and other similar occurrences show flaws in our senses, no not at all.

<snipped for the sake of brevity>

There was a time when people thought that the universe revolved around the world. For lack of advanced scientific instruments, people thought this to be true. Because human senses told them this to be true. It was, then, a COLD HARD FACT.

So, what was a COLD HARD FACT then is no longer true. For awhile back then, believing that the world is other than the center of the universe would lump you in that crazy group of mystics who believe science.

HUMAN SENSES ARE FALLIBLE. What is "true" in your brain is nothing more than the chemical reactions in your brain. Which can be induced (probably in the near future). Watch the Matrix.

So there is room for philosophy and the metaphysics. Einstein doubted the "cold hard facts" of his time.

[Heraclius]

That was complete and total sarcasm DonDee. Of course they are fallible, but they are all we have and they have served us well.

[DonDee]

Ok, sorry. Sarcasm is hard to detect in written format (for lack of tone and facial expression). My bad.