From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon science.svg

This science related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


I don't get the Missouri joke, can someone explain it? Tetronian you're clueless 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Missouri, a.k.a., the "Show Me State." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ohhhhh, I see. Thanks LX! Tetronian you're clueless 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think empiricism does necessarily imply epistemological solipsism since we only experience our perception of the external world and not the external world itself. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 17:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Skinner does not support the tabula rasa perspective[edit]

Stop spreading this myth. Seriously. In his view, behavior was the culmination of >>>phylogenetic<<<, ontogenetic and cultural interactions. In other words, while human behavior has a greater flexibility compared to other animals, mostly because of verbal behavior, it is still determined by "innate" components. — Unsigned, by: Magicman / talk / contribs 20:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a very oft-edited article, so it's unsurprising that there may be an error. Do you have any sources we could tack on? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Buddha quote[edit]

First of all, great quote. However, the source on the quote contains two very important caveats which emphasize that it's a highly paraphrased/modernized quote. Could the quote's attribution be changed to "a paraphrase of The Buddha" or something? I don't think it's enough to expect that the reader assume it's a paraphrase because, apart from the last sentence, it could pass as a direct translation. Vi (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is empiricism self refuting?[edit]

All knowledge is gained through sense experience. We would consider that statement to be a form of knowledge(non-coincidental true justified belief) but we haven't gain that knowledge through our senses. I think this empiricism-rationalism debate is pointless considering that one is self refuting and the other is circular. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 07:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

While I could argue with that statement, this is not the place for it. This is a talk page for discussing the improvement of its corresponding wiki article, not for arguments about the merits of empiricism or lack thereof. Internet forums, such as this, would be a more appropriate place for such discussions. - Linneris (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Fine, just tell me if it is self refuting or not and I'll delete this section. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)