I am going to step out Saint.
I understand what the words mean and I understand what has gone wrong in science and what you are doing is exactly that.
You don’t want to hear it.
It is probably because of the way we started and, I agree that my example is not perfect.
However, the general thought should have clicked.
Your emotion in this makes me step away.
You are merely seeing your own reflection (due to your own emotional speculations).
I am not. I am being honest about my shortcomings. I am also honest about what I think to see you do.
pm.
It isn’t about being honest. It is a common syndrome (related to Grey Syndrome) that causes people when looking through a fog (in this case, the internet) to have to speculate about things of interest or concern. And when they speculate, they reference what is most familiar (seeing themselves first - “what I would have meant if I had said that”) and their greater concerns (what they fear most or hope for most). Thus, especially on the internet, they imagine the emotions and intent corresponding to their worries and their own emotion patterns; "When I talked like that, I am angry". It is due to the commonality of that, they invented emoticons 
.
See I am not unhappy
In real life, people are accustom to using more obvious clues and thus are not usually proficient at speculating emotional intent as is expressed online.
'A pure rationalist would only gain knowledge via intuition, followed by deduction. This would mean that if you were a pure rationalist - never being an empiricist - you would never learn from experience.
For example any of your thoughts about how society is run, these days, say, would be based on your rational metaphysics, which in turned would be based in no way on experience.
YOu are a rationalist, not a pure one, at least in how I would define the terms. You believe that knowledge can be gained solely via intuition followed by deduction. But you also believe that one can gain knowledge via empiricism. It seems to me some of what you put forward as true, here in the forums, is based on what you have experienced: of society, of other people who post here and more.
Empiricists are generally always pure, since they rule out rationalism. (this leads to paradoxes when one examines the process through which they began to accumulate knowledge, but I am sure you are aware of the limitations of empiricism.)
Empiricism says all is so, Rationalism says some subset is something else. That’s why I added the adjective ‘pure’, since I thought that was where he was going. Lock up the rationalists and see if they actually develop science (but they can and did, since most scientists were rationalists - used both intuition/deduction (hell, most were monotheists) AND empiricism - until say 100 years ago.
A pure rationalist would be in a very bad bind. I mean, how would they know they experienced an intuition? Don’t they need to experience the process of making the deduction? What the hell are their conclusions referring to? Their premises? which is why most rationalists acknowledge empirical approaches also. Empiricists on the other hand are more likely to be pure, hence the qualification pure would be redundant with them. To show their purity is nuts requires a little more footwork.
So you meant “born as a rationalist and remaining so”.
Actually, I don’t really believe in the dichotomy that is proposed. No one has ever been purely non-rationalist nor solely rationalist. But you have to be an accomplished rationalist to see why that is necessarily true.
Certain things that I have come to know without room for further question came entirely from rational thinking (the construct of sub-atomic particles, time, and space, why positive and negative attract, the make of gravitation, and so on). But the confidence in the conclusions was only gained through empirical scrutiny and resolution debating (the typical scientific method).
Generally speaking all generalities can be completely derived through rational thinking. But all specifics must be learned through deductions from observations. The make of all things can be deduced without ever observing a single physical item. But the current locations and conditions of any specific items must be observed, although perhaps indirectly.
That’s one way to say it and it captures nicely the problem I had with the scenario in the first post (as it seemed to be at least). I suppose a baby is also in potentia an empiricist. Even learning something in the womb. Though one could argue that the early foetus is a rationalist with the knowledge that empicial approaches can be good. In fact I like that. So we are conceived as rationalists, as a mere quibble to your formulation.
I agree. I think I even said that. That was why I was being critical of his OP. It was as if one was a rationalist one could not also be a scientist. Or as if we put some rationalists on an island they would somehow stop learning from experience or could even agree to, especially as adults, though also especially as children. But he was heading in some other direction one I can’t get yet.
I’ll take that as a compliment then.
Yes. And also: There are probably a great many less universal truths you have arrived at with a greater emphasis on empirical approaches.
We are on the same page here. It does get a little complicated. ARe homo sapiens a generality or a specific or both, but I agree.
Does one need experience to know that there are generalities and specific items? Hard to test the answer since we would need a consciousness without experience of such things to see what it would do. We tend to highlight observational empiricism, rather than say participatory. We experience ourselves. We are immersed in being. We are specific and general in our own experience of ourselves. Anyway I am mulling out loud.
You may not agree but to me we are fairly close on the same page.
That is kind of an interesting point that gave me hesitation.
I can (and have) derived, purely rationally, that all of space is filled with what I named “affectance”. There is absolutely no choice in that matter. And a part of that same reasoning concludes that there would be more and less dense regions of affectance (what they are now referring to as “dark matter/energy” vs merely outer space). I do not have to experience or observe the existence of the more dense regions to know that they exist. And in fact, in the extreme case when the density gets high enough, a particle will form. Because of the math, I know that somewhere in the universe, such extreme density exists and thus particles exist. And I know that some will be what we now call “positive”, some “negative”, and some “neutral”. I can know with 100% certainty that all of those things exist somewhere. But I can only speculate via observations (and rumors) that those items exist anywhere close to me.
I find it interesting that what is preached today as the most certain method of knowing is in fact a method that is always uncertain. Rationality, logic, can provide absolute knowledge (again of generalities). Empiricism can only yield a high probability of being right, a “theory”, never a “law”.
Laws come from rationalists. Theories come from empiricists.
And then also interestingly, a “theory” is a “god” (whether a true theory/god or false). And science promotes theories, but hates gods. Rationality (logic) yields laws, not gods. And yet science attempts to dispel logic in favor of diverse theories of a magical, irrational universe (mostly quantum physics fantasies).
Kant’s transcendental idealism / transcendental philosophy is to be understood as a methodological reflection on the cognitive capacity of rational beings and as a response to the dispute between empiricism and rationalism.
Empiricists are of the opinion that only the sensual perception delivers knowledge, cognition; without this the mind is a blank sheet of paper, a tabula rasa. The rationalists - initially Kant himself was also a rationalist - assume that only the mind is capable of delivering deception-free knowledge, cognition. In his “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” (“Critique of Pure Reason”) Kant objected both empirists and rationalists, although his solution was: “both … and …”, because knowledge (cognition) needs both the empirical way and the rational way.
„Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer, Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind.“ (Immanuel Kant).
It is crucial for the Kantian epistemology that one does not directly perceive the reality of objects but forms the appearances of objects in the consciousness. Real is the appearance (phenomenon), while the world and their individual objects remain unknowable as a “Ding an sich” (“thing as such”, “thing in itself”, “noumenon”). The “Ding an sich” is unknowable.
According to Kant “transcendental” refers to the knowledge (cognition) of the conditions of the knowledge (cognition) itself, which is prior to all experience.
So there is both a “both … and …” and a “versus”.
If it comes to the human possibility of knowledge (cognition), then knowledge (cognition) needs both the rational way and the empirical way; but if it comes to the “Ding an sich”, then knowledge (cognition) is not possible.
There is the usual reduction to meanings and language analysis. Much more simple,many in tune I believe with Petit’s intention is to classify it into the two simple terms ontology, and phenomenology.
That is I believe sufficient for the goals here intended. the whole history of philosophy surrounds around the relation between the two, whether it be co-relation, correspondence, parallelism, causation.
It may be more convenient to study issues and underlying concepts, as in transandental idealism, before attaching all kinds of labels to them. semantics is not an entry point, since concepts change within changing situations. applications have departed from meanings in terms of central ideas, to functional analysis of workable concepts , and how they are defined in terms of usage.
I don’t think that I can agree with Kant on that, although perhaps it is an issue of clarification.
Is it an example of “Ding an sich” that what is on the table is “an object”?
If so, then that can be certainly known, although not as trivially as most people would think. The fact that you see what you think is an object is insufficient proof. But cognition is merely a matter of category definitions. An object is defined to have specific characteristics. And those characteristics are related to affects upon the individual. The characteristics and affects can be defined and directly known if defined properly.
Only an object being present can have the affect AX on me
The affect AX is upon me
Therefore an object is present.
Defining AX exactly right is the only issue. One cannot say that only an object can appear to be an object. AX cannot be simply the perception of an object. AX must exclude any possibility of anything other than an object.
The mind can only know perceptions, definitions, and conclusions. When the definitions are properly related to the perceptions, certainty of perceived experiences (knowledge of “ding an sich”) can be obtained. An example might be:
Def: Reality ≡ the only cause of perceived affects upon me.
Ontological principle: All perceived affects are caused by reality.
Known situation: I perceive affects upon me.
Known conclusion: Reality is affecting me.
Note that this does not exclude the reality of physiological or psychological conditions bringing about aberrations of unrealistic beliefs that can mislead to false knowledge. It is still reality that is affecting even though it is perhaps a fantasy that is believed to be that reality due to presumptuous processing or reasoning in the mind.
The concern is ensuring that the definitions are exclusive; “By definition, only X or Y can cause Z”. There must be a complete lack of alternatives to ensure certainty of conclusions. Thus our “affect AX” must be defined as only possibly caused by an object being present. One must be able to accurately say, “I know, without room for question, that an object is present simply because I perceive affect AX.”
Unfortunately, lazy egocentric philosophers want to take the easy route of defining the perception itself as the only reality (relativism) or that the fantasy within the mind is the only reality (solipsism). Objective reality is known for certain only through cross verification, known as “falsification”.
I will translate:
Ding an sich = noumenon = thing in itself
phenomenon = our perception of the thing in itself.
The issue is that it is quite impossible to know for sure what the thing in itself is. The only thing we can know is how we perceive it. Now, the major problem is that the way our minds are wired is not equal to the working of the world around us. So, our mind constructs this 3d image with causal responses to stimuli, while the thing in itself is some thing in reality (and we all know that reality is not just 3d and also not causal).
Erroneous and fanciful speculations.
If your answer to those is “because they told me so”, I’m afraid that will not do because;
“Everyone knows that Helios raises the Sun”
“Everyone knows the Earth is flat”
“Everyone knows that Jesus walked on the water”
“Everyone knows that automobiles cannot outrun horses”
“Everyone knows that the Earth is only 6000 years old”
So what “everyone knows” is a bit irrelevant on this forum. If you believe something, tell us why it is that you personally believe it besides it being your religious faith in scientism and their evangelists.
I am beginning to doubt your capacity for logical reasoning. Is it possible that maybe you are just repeating what people told you?
I’m not doubting your incapacity for logical reasoning because you just gave 3 non-sequiturs. Since you seem to be unaware, a non-sesuitur is formed when one draws a conclusion that is not related to the presented logic.
1) Non-sequitur. I am guessing that you think that because someone has only observed something, he cannot know of it. That would be a “begging the question” type of logic fallacy (using the proposed conclusion of your reasoning as your reasoning, “it is true because it is true”). And again, guessing that you have no other reasoning.
2) Non-sequitur. What does time have to do with spatial dimensions? Time can be considered a “4th dimension” for sake of mathematics, but that has nothing to do with the known 3 spatial dimensions. You have implied that “everyone knows” that there are more than 3 spatial dimensions (plus any time dimensions).
3) Non-sequitur. You asserted two premises within your excuse. The first one is false (“it has always existed, which refutes causality,”). It is, in fact, causality that demands an infinite regression, which is entirely possible (and factual).
I hope that you can do better than that. Perhaps a little less “simple” mindedness.
Come on man, no wonder you have so much trouble working out reality. You are denying that x = x and claiming that x is not x when x is x:
Come on man, that is basic philosophy. Immanuel kant. You should read more and not a phallacious argument… there is no relation between the conclusion and the argument. Therefore not a non sequitur. Get your definitions straight.
Come on man, you invented the ‘spatial’’ in the dimension question. Even though you should be aware that it is impossible to seperate dimensions; or be wrong. So; any dimension transforms all other dimensions. It is proven that this is where Euclid’s Geometry is phallacious. Again, read more. Basic stuff. And again, no relation between the argument and the conclusion. Therefore not a non sequitur. Get your definitions straight.
Eternal regression cannot possibly be correct. In fact, that is a logical phallacy and I bet that you know it. it proves that reality cannot be causal. Again, I do not make non sequiturs. But you do.
I do not think that you can do better than that. Perhaps a little less “simple” mindedness.
So, as said, I am going to step out and stop discussing this with you for the following reasons:
I will call you a fraud openly and say that I will stop discussing things with you.
C Y A
So I over estimated you by guessing that you could at least construct a coherent argument. And “x is x” does not refer to a conclusion being the premise.
You appear to be completely unaware that of the difference between a premise and a conclusion, providing no steps between.
… amazing.
“No relation between premise, argument, and conclusion”???
Wow … that’s not just bad, but seriously sad.
For additional reading if you get bored merely regurgitating what you got suckered into presuming was “proven fact”:
Merely another fallacious assertion, void of any reasoning (aka philosophy).
I don’t really think that I “invented” that one.
Again, merely an assertion, no reasoning or logic provided whatsoever.
“You are just Wrong! And that PROVES that you are Wrong!”
You just precisely described yourself (not surprised).
Didn’t know that you needed a Cover.
As I had explained ealier, we both knew that neither was going to change the mind of the other so it was merely a question of who would get forced into lying, denying, or ad homs first.
Guess that was you, although I did expect to get at least a little more discussion, but since you apparently have no idea of what an argument is, obviously there is nothing to “discuss” or debate. You state your opinion, as silly as it might be. I state mine with a ton of reasoning supporting it. You state your opinion again and ad hom me. That didn’t take long.
James, I will no longer reply to any of your messages until you explain why you, a self proclaimed accomplished scientist:
You should read it. Maybe you will recognise yourself in it.
Kant was an enlightener before he overcame the enlightenment; so he was a rationalists before he curbed the superior power of the rationalism and became an idealist. But then the idealist Hegel came and campaigned again for the rationalism. … Hey …
Just another, “Everyone knows” excuse. 
You should try philosophy sometime. Thinking for yourself doesn’t really hurt all that much.