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.
Bob Zannelli

A very interesting essay. His idea of rationalism accords well with actual argumentation.

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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to