9 added 1 character in body
source | link

The distinctions can be made in virtue of how much dogma and empirical evidence are involved, but philosophers have pointed out that the lines of demarcation are rather blurry, like the distinction between bald and not bald.

Philosophy involves very little dogma and very little empirical evidence; it is the art of rational conjecture. Philosophers seldom agree with each other because common premises are few and far between. In the realm of opinions freedom should be absolute because the opinion doomed by one philosopher may be perfectly acceptable by another philosopher. Bertrand Russell preferred a quarrelsome atmosphere in philosophy and refused to play the authoritative role at the height of his career; he was generous to his attackers and lavished compliments to anyone who demonstrated some understanding of his philosophy.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence. Nevertheless philosophers have pointed out that there are hidden faiths in scientific knowledge; the empiricist creed that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience is itself a dogma. Because of these all-agreed-upon common criteria, scientific methods are widely accepted in scientific community, and peer review is a reliable procedure to ensure the quality of scientific work. Hidden faiths in empirical knowledge do not license other groundless faiths; empiricism too is not immune to doubt - this is what faith implies.

Both philosophy and science are highly tentative, subject to revision based on new evidence.

Religious pillars are dogmas. Paradoxically and by the same standard, scepticism can also be called a religion. The dogma that is fundamental to scepticism is this:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. (Russell. On the Value of Scepticism)

Bertrand Russell was the kind of philosopher who sifted through systems of beliefs and pointed out what were implicitly assumed a priori, then went on to reduce the number of postulates to bare minimum. This pattern of thinking recurred in his Critical Exposition of Philosophy of Leibniz, his mathematical philosophy and his theory of knowledge.

The distinctions can be made in virtue of how much dogma and empirical evidence are involved, but philosophers have pointed out that the lines of demarcation are rather blurry, like the distinction between bald and not bald.

Philosophy involves very little dogma and very little empirical evidence; it is the art of rational conjecture. Philosophers seldom agree with each other because common premises are few and far between. In the realm of opinions freedom should be absolute because the opinion doomed by one philosopher may be perfectly acceptable by another philosopher. Bertrand Russell preferred a quarrelsome atmosphere in philosophy and refused to play the authoritative role at the height of his career; he was generous to his attackers and lavished compliments to anyone who demonstrated some understanding of his philosophy.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence. Nevertheless philosophers have pointed out that there are hidden faiths in scientific knowledge; the empiricist creed that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience is itself a dogma. Because of these all-agreed-upon common criteria, scientific methods are widely accepted in scientific community, and peer review is a reliable procedure to ensure the quality of scientific work. Hidden faiths in empirical knowledge do not license other groundless faiths; empiricism too is not immune to doubt - this is what faith implies.

Both philosophy and science are highly tentative, subject to revision based on new evidence.

Religious pillars are dogmas. Paradoxically and by the same standard, scepticism can also be called a religion. The dogma that is fundamental to scepticism is this:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. (Russell. On the Value of Scepticism)

Bertrand Russell was the kind of philosopher who sifted through systems of beliefs and pointed out what were implicitly assumed a priori then went on to reduce the number of postulates to bare minimum. This pattern of thinking recurred in his Critical Exposition of Philosophy of Leibniz, his mathematical philosophy and his theory of knowledge.

The distinctions can be made in virtue of how much dogma and empirical evidence are involved, but philosophers have pointed out that the lines of demarcation are rather blurry, like the distinction between bald and not bald.

Philosophy involves very little dogma and very little empirical evidence; it is the art of rational conjecture. Philosophers seldom agree with each other because common premises are few and far between. In the realm of opinions freedom should be absolute because the opinion doomed by one philosopher may be perfectly acceptable by another philosopher. Bertrand Russell preferred a quarrelsome atmosphere in philosophy and refused to play the authoritative role at the height of his career; he was generous to his attackers and lavished compliments to anyone who demonstrated some understanding of his philosophy.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence. Nevertheless philosophers have pointed out that there are hidden faiths in scientific knowledge; the empiricist creed that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience is itself a dogma. Because of these all-agreed-upon common criteria, scientific methods are widely accepted in scientific community, and peer review is a reliable procedure to ensure the quality of scientific work. Hidden faiths in empirical knowledge do not license other groundless faiths; empiricism too is not immune to doubt - this is what faith implies.

Both philosophy and science are highly tentative, subject to revision based on new evidence.

Religious pillars are dogmas. Paradoxically and by the same standard, scepticism can also be called a religion. The dogma that is fundamental to scepticism is this:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. (Russell. On the Value of Scepticism)

Bertrand Russell was the kind of philosopher who sifted through systems of beliefs and pointed out what were implicitly assumed a priori, then went on to reduce the number of postulates to bare minimum. This pattern of thinking recurred in his Critical Exposition of Philosophy of Leibniz, his mathematical philosophy and his theory of knowledge.

8 added 207 characters in body
source | link

The distinctions can be made in virtue of how much dogma and empirical evidence are involved, but philosophers have pointed out that the lines of demarcation are rather blurry, like the distinction between bald and not bald.

Philosophy involves very little dogma and very little empirical evidence; it is the art of rational conjecture, which involves very little dogma or empirical evidence. This explains why philosophersPhilosophers seldom agree with each other, because common premises are few and why, infar between. In the realm of opinions, freedom should be absolute because the opinion doomed by one philosopher may be perfectly acceptable by another philosopher. Bertrand Russell preferred a quarrelsome atmosphere in philosophy and refused to play the authoritative role at the height of his career; he was generous to his attackers and lavished compliments to anyone who demonstrated some understanding of his philosophy.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence. Nevertheless philosophers have pointed out that there are hidden faiths in scientific knowledge; asthe empiricist creed that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience is itself a consequencedogma. Because of these implicitall-agreed-upon common faithscriteria, scientific methods are widely accepted in scientific community, and peer review is accepted as a reliable procedure to ensure the quality of scientific work. Hidden faiths in empirical knowledge do not license other groundless faiths; empiricism too is not immune to doubt - this is what faith implies.

Both philosophy and science are highly tentative, subject to revision based on new evidence.

Religious pillars are dogmas. Paradoxically and by the same standard, scepticism can also be called a religion. The dogma that is fundamental to scepticism is this:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. (Russell. On the Value of Scepticism)

Bertrand Russell was the kind of philosopher who sifted through systems of beliefs and pointed out what were implicitly assumed a priori then went on to reduce the number of postulates to bare minimum. This pattern of thinking recurred in his Critical Exposition of Philosophy of Leibniz, his mathematical philosophy and his theory of knowledge.

The distinctions can be made in virtue of how much dogma and empirical evidence are involved, but philosophers have pointed out that the lines of demarcation are rather blurry, like the distinction between bald and not bald.

Philosophy is the art of rational conjecture, which involves very little dogma or empirical evidence. This explains why philosophers seldom agree with each other, and why, in the realm of opinions, freedom should be absolute. Bertrand Russell preferred a quarrelsome atmosphere in philosophy and refused to play the authoritative role at the height of his career; he was generous to his attackers and lavished compliments to anyone who demonstrated some understanding of his philosophy.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence. Nevertheless philosophers have pointed out that there are hidden faiths in scientific knowledge; as a consequence of these implicit common faiths, scientific methods are widely accepted in scientific community, and peer review is accepted as a reliable procedure to ensure the quality of scientific work. Hidden faiths in empirical knowledge do not license other groundless faiths; empiricism too is not immune to doubt - this is what faith implies.

Both philosophy and science are highly tentative, subject to revision based on new evidence.

Religious pillars are dogmas. Paradoxically and by the same standard, scepticism can also be called a religion. The dogma that is fundamental to scepticism is this:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. (Russell. On the Value of Scepticism)

Bertrand Russell was the kind of philosopher who sifted through systems of beliefs and pointed out what were implicitly assumed a priori then went on to reduce the number of postulates to bare minimum. This pattern of thinking recurred in his Critical Exposition of Philosophy of Leibniz, his mathematical philosophy and his theory of knowledge.

The distinctions can be made in virtue of how much dogma and empirical evidence are involved, but philosophers have pointed out that the lines of demarcation are rather blurry, like the distinction between bald and not bald.

Philosophy involves very little dogma and very little empirical evidence; it is the art of rational conjecture. Philosophers seldom agree with each other because common premises are few and far between. In the realm of opinions freedom should be absolute because the opinion doomed by one philosopher may be perfectly acceptable by another philosopher. Bertrand Russell preferred a quarrelsome atmosphere in philosophy and refused to play the authoritative role at the height of his career; he was generous to his attackers and lavished compliments to anyone who demonstrated some understanding of his philosophy.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence. Nevertheless philosophers have pointed out that there are hidden faiths in scientific knowledge; the empiricist creed that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience is itself a dogma. Because of these all-agreed-upon common criteria, scientific methods are widely accepted in scientific community, and peer review is a reliable procedure to ensure the quality of scientific work. Hidden faiths in empirical knowledge do not license other groundless faiths; empiricism too is not immune to doubt - this is what faith implies.

Both philosophy and science are highly tentative, subject to revision based on new evidence.

Religious pillars are dogmas. Paradoxically and by the same standard, scepticism can also be called a religion. The dogma that is fundamental to scepticism is this:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. (Russell. On the Value of Scepticism)

Bertrand Russell was the kind of philosopher who sifted through systems of beliefs and pointed out what were implicitly assumed a priori then went on to reduce the number of postulates to bare minimum. This pattern of thinking recurred in his Critical Exposition of Philosophy of Leibniz, his mathematical philosophy and his theory of knowledge.

7 added 226 characters in body
source | link

The distinctions can be made in virtue of how much dogma and empirical evidence are involved, but philosophers have pointed out that the lines of demarcation are rather blurry, like the distinction between bald and not bald.

Philosophy is the art of rational conjecture, which involves very little dogma or empirical evidence. This explains why philosophers seldom agree with each other, and why, in the realm of opinions, freedom should be absolute. Bertrand Russell preferred a quarrelsome atmosphere in philosophy and refused to play the authoritative role at the height of his career; he was generous to his attackers and lavished compliments to anyone who demonstrated some understanding of his philosophy.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence. Nevertheless philosophers have pointed out that there are hidden faiths in scientific knowledge; as a consequence of these implicit common faiths, scientific methods are widely accepted in scientific community, and peer review is accepted as a reliable procedure to ensure the quality of scientific work. Hidden faiths in empirical knowledge do not give license toother groundless faiths; empiricism too is not immune to doubt - this is what faith implies.

Both philosophy and science are highly tentative, subject to revision based on new evidence.

Religious pillars are dogmas. Paradoxically and by the same standard, scepticism can also be called a religion. The dogma that is fundamental to scepticism is this:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. (Russell. On the Value of Scepticism)

Bertrand Russell was the kind of philosopher who sifted through systems of beliefs and pointed out what were implicitly assumed a priori then went on to reduce the number of postulates to bare minimum. This pattern of thinking recurred in his Critical Exposition of Philosophy of Leibniz, his mathematical philosophy and his theory of knowledge.

Philosophy is the art of rational conjecture, which involves very little dogma or empirical evidence. This explains why philosophers seldom agree with each other, and why, in the realm of opinions, freedom should be absolute. Bertrand Russell preferred a quarrelsome atmosphere in philosophy and refused to play the authoritative role at the height of his career; he was generous to his attackers and lavished compliments to anyone who demonstrated some understanding of his philosophy.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence. Nevertheless philosophers have pointed out that there are hidden faiths in scientific knowledge; as a consequence of these implicit common faiths, scientific methods are widely accepted in scientific community, and peer review is accepted as a reliable procedure to ensure the quality of scientific work. Hidden faiths in empirical knowledge do not give license to groundless faiths; empiricism too is not immune to doubt - this is what faith implies.

Both philosophy and science are highly tentative, subject to revision based on new evidence.

Religious pillars are dogmas. Paradoxically and by the same standard, scepticism can also be called a religion. The dogma that is fundamental to scepticism is this:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. (Russell. On the Value of Scepticism)

Bertrand Russell was the kind of philosopher who sifted through systems of beliefs and pointed out what were implicitly assumed a priori then went on to reduce the number of postulates to bare minimum. This pattern of thinking recurred in his Critical Exposition of Philosophy of Leibniz, his mathematical philosophy and his theory of knowledge.

The distinctions can be made in virtue of how much dogma and empirical evidence are involved, but philosophers have pointed out that the lines of demarcation are rather blurry, like the distinction between bald and not bald.

Philosophy is the art of rational conjecture, which involves very little dogma or empirical evidence. This explains why philosophers seldom agree with each other, and why, in the realm of opinions, freedom should be absolute. Bertrand Russell preferred a quarrelsome atmosphere in philosophy and refused to play the authoritative role at the height of his career; he was generous to his attackers and lavished compliments to anyone who demonstrated some understanding of his philosophy.

Science relies heavily on empirical evidence. Nevertheless philosophers have pointed out that there are hidden faiths in scientific knowledge; as a consequence of these implicit common faiths, scientific methods are widely accepted in scientific community, and peer review is accepted as a reliable procedure to ensure the quality of scientific work. Hidden faiths in empirical knowledge do not license other groundless faiths; empiricism too is not immune to doubt - this is what faith implies.

Both philosophy and science are highly tentative, subject to revision based on new evidence.

Religious pillars are dogmas. Paradoxically and by the same standard, scepticism can also be called a religion. The dogma that is fundamental to scepticism is this:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. (Russell. On the Value of Scepticism)

Bertrand Russell was the kind of philosopher who sifted through systems of beliefs and pointed out what were implicitly assumed a priori then went on to reduce the number of postulates to bare minimum. This pattern of thinking recurred in his Critical Exposition of Philosophy of Leibniz, his mathematical philosophy and his theory of knowledge.

6 added 350 characters in body
source | link
5 added 33 characters in body
source | link
4 added 147 characters in body
source | link
3 added 436 characters in body
source | link
2 added 99 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link