Most casual Rationalist ontology specifies little distinction between "adopting a belief" intellectually vs. intuitively.
-
-
a traditional rationalist would reject the methodology as being haphazard and vacant, having quicksand as a foundation. a meta-rationalist critique of that is to point out that the axioms of rationalist belief are themselves intuitions shown to be instrumental via experiment.
-
starting from quicksand and hardening it as needed/appropriate is a better match for a nebulous ontology though and allows for adaptation when new evidence becomes available.
-
traditional rationalism is prone to getting stuck and not getting unstuck until it's torn down to the foundations and rebuilt. a very expensive process.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.