Is one better off having an empiricist perspective, rather than that of a rationalist, in the context of the ontological existence of the paranormal
>>17481825
I would argue that the empiricist perspective is in general superior and should be used whenever possible. Because "rational" for us doesnt mean "existing" in our shared reality. Many things that sound rational are not real from the empiric point of view. And many things that sound irrational for our small minds are in fact real empirically (relativity, quantum physics etc.).
Im mostly interested in what sense most paranormal phenomena are real: As a psychological phenomenon or in physical form (including unknown physics).
>>17481825
What the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves. You are both the thinker and the prover. Proof can be obtained thru rationale, or empirical data. Empirical data is superior in today's world because of the dominance of science and math as the leading "spiritual forces"
>>17481951
>>17481932
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.
I wonder how long until we develop the tech to gather empirical data on these types of experiences
