Andy Norman offers an interesting "reform" of rationalism. He
advocates that rationalism went off the rails with the ideas of Plato
and foundationlism, that Socrates really had it right. This would turn
logic on its head requiring a burden of disproof rather than a burden
of proof as in traditional logic. When you think about it this is
really the way science works. Every assertion is forever open to
disproof by contrary evidence but by removing the need for
foundational support we deal with the problem of extreme skepticism
which leads to post modernist thinking and anti science ideology.
A very interesting essay. His idea of rationalism accords well with
I think he shorts empiricism a little in that he (presumptively) claims
there are a lot things beyond the reach of empirical knowledge. For
example, that's where Sam Harris disagrees with presumptive wisdom that
neurophysiology can't have anything to say about what's moral and where
Vic disagrees with the presumption that science can't say anything about
the existence of God.
My other comment is that he doesn't even mention the other main
contender in epistemology, coherentism.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at