Talk:Rationalism and Police uniforms and equipment in the United Kingdom: Difference between pages

Revision as of 21:04, 14 July 2006

Revision as of 10:15, 29 June 2007

Line 1:

{{Lead section|date=May 2007}}

{{moveto|Rationalism}}

[[Talk:Continental rationalism\Archive 1]]

==Uniform==

== Ockham's Eraser ==

[[Image:Hampshire helmet constable.jpg|thumb|right|A Hampshire Constabulary custodian ("bobby") helmet]]

[[Image:Edinburgh G8 police group DSC05042.JPG|thumb|right|Police officers in white shirt and helmets]]

[[Image:Police.three.on.patrol.london.arp.jpg|thumb|right|Metropolitan Police officers wearing hi-visibility jackets]]

Although there are minor variations in the styling, pattern and [[insignia]], the police forces of [[Great Britain]], [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]], the [[Isle of Man]] and [[Gibraltar]] all wear very similar [[uniform]]s. In general, these have taken their lead from the [[Metropolitan Police]], with changes appearing in that force first. The base colour is a very dark blue, almost indistinguishable from black (and these days often actually is black), which earnt the police the nickname of the "boys in blue".

Formal uniform comprises an open-necked [[tunic]] (with or without an attached [[belt (clothing)|belt]], depending on the force) and [[trousers]] or [[skirt]], worn with a white or light blue [[shirt]] and black [[necktie|tie]] (usually [[Clip-on tie|clip-on]], so it cannot be used to strangle the wearer). Although most forces once wore blue shirts, these have been less used since the [[1980s]] (when the Metropolitan Police changed to white) and most now wear white. Officers of the rank of [[inspector]] and above have always worn white shirts, and in many forces so have female officers. In some forces, female officers wear a black and white checked [[cravat]] instead of a tie. Officers of the rank of [[Sergeant]] and above wear rank badges on their epaulettes, while [[Constables]] and Sergeants also wear "[[collar number]]s" on them.

JA: Under the rubric, "Do not ramify subtext beyond necessity", I am moving one editorical comment to the talk page, so that it can be archived for all posteriority. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

<blockquote>

Leibniz developed his theory of monads in response to both Descartes and Spinoza <nowiki><!-- this is speculation (and not convincing, to be honest), because he found that Spinoza's response to the [[mind-body problem]] did not allow for [[individuation]]--></nowiki>.

</blockquote>

Until the mid 1990s this was also the everyday working uniform, but today it is rarely seen except on formal occasions. The normal working dress retains the shirt (open-necked or with a tie or cravat) and trousers, worn with or without a [[jersey (clothing)|jersey]] or [[fleece (clothing)|fleece]]. Some forces use [[combat trousers]] and [[combat boot|boots]]. Today, female officers almost never wear a skirt in working dress, and frequently wear trousers in formal dress as well. Officers also frequently wear reflective waterproof [[jacket]]s, which have replaced the old [[overcoat|greatcoat]]s and [[cloak]]s traditionally worn in inclement weather. Most officers now wear [[body armour]] when on duty.

==On speculation==

Basic headgear is a [[Combination Cap|peaked cap]] for men, and a round [[bowler hat|bowler]] style hat for women. All officers wear a black and white (red and white for the [[City of London Police]]) diced band around the hat, a distinction first used in Scotland and later adopted by all forces in Great Britain. Traffic officers wear white cap covers (yellow in Derbyshire). On foot duty, male constables and sergeants outside [[Scotland]] wear the familiar conical [[custodian helmet]]. There are several patterns, with different forces wearing different types. Although some Scottish forces have used helmets in the past, they are no longer worn in Scotland.

JA: The way I read them, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza are not just rational thinkers but speculative thinkers, and we need to exercise caution to avoid a type of misunderstanding that often arises in presenting the work of speculative thinkers. A speculative reasoner can present one sort of speculative system on a Monday morning, a very different system on a Tuesday afternoon, and an utterly fantastic system on a Sunday evening. But they can be, and in the case of these three, certainly were, just as acquainted with ordinary reality as anybody has to be in order to get through life, and they do not of necessity contradict themsleves anymore than Walt Whitman did. In the case of Leibniz especially, his speculations about what God knows and when he knows it have to be keep in a separate hamper from his knowledge of what we "fallible and mortal finite information critters" (FAMFIC's) know and how we come to know it. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:They are historically classed as rationalists as opposed to empiricists. They may be speculative but then so were the idealists (even more so perhaps). Pretty much every philosopher, amateur and professional is in consensus about this. Hence on my course when I was taught about the rationalists, Spinoza, Leibniz et. al were mentioned. What are you on about when you talk about FAMFIC's? --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Officers of the [[Police Service of Northern Ireland]] (PSNI) wear a uniform which is somewhat different, due to the political situation. The main colour to be found is a dark and light green with the uniform looking very unlike mainland police uniforms.

==Malebranche et al.==

===Uniform history===

As already mentioned, the less prominent rationalists have no mention in the article as of yet. How are we to go about mentioning their rationalist "credentials" without turning it into a full summary of their works. Somehow, the distinctly "rationalist" parts have to be emphasised. Is Gassendi a rationalist by the way? --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The first uniform, which was a lighter blue than at present, was a high-collared [[tailcoat]], worn with white trousers in summer. The headgear was a hardened [[top hat]], which served the dual purpose of protecting the officer from blows to the head and allowing him to use it as a step to climb or see over walls. The sleeves of the dark blue coats originally had a pattern of white bars, roughly 6&nbsp;mm wide by 50&nbsp;mm high, set roughly 6&nbsp;mm apart. This immediately distinguished them from naval or maritime personnel. Although this feature was taken up in the [[Dominion]]s, it was not used in the USA.

The tailcoat was later replaced by a tunic, still high-collared, and the top hat by the [[custodian helmet]] (both adopted by the Metropolitan Police in 1863). With a few exceptions (including the [[City of London Police]] and the [[Hampshire Constabulary]]), the helmet plate was (and still is) based on the [[Brunswick star]]. The helmet itself was of cork faced with fabric. The design varied slightly between forces. Some had that favoured by the Metropolitan Police, topped with a boss, others had a helmet that incorporated a ridge or crest terminating above the badge, while others had a short spike, sometimes topped with a ball.

:Well, as the category "Rationalists" is artificial and a bit vague in the first place, it's not easy to say definitively who ought to be placed in it. On the whole, I'd say that Gassendi shares enough with the Rationalists to be included (though his views on, for example, the possibility of deriving scientific knowledge through the senses changed through his life, and his scepticism and Epicureanism might be taken to set him apart from the Rationalists). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The tunic went through many lengths and styles, with the Metropolitan Police adopting the open-neck style in 1948 (although senior and female officers adopted it before that time). Senior officers used to wear peaked pillbox-style caps until the adoption of the wider peaked cap worn today.

::Hmm, I agree that the distinction is a little artificial. How about Malebranche? I'm not overly familiar with his works as I am with Gassendi's. Two good books that collaborators on this article might want to read are Cottingham, J. (Major Descartes scholar) ''Rationalism'' and Aune, B. ''Rationalism, Empiricism and Pragmatism: An Introduction'', as they are valuable secondary resources we'll be able to use for the article and they're notable for their clarity in drawing out similarities and differences between the philosophers. --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Female officers' uniforms have gone through a great variety of styles, as they have tended to reflect the women's fashions of the time. Tunic style, skirt length and headgear have varied by period and force. By the late 1980s, female working uniform was virtually identical to male, except for headgear and sometimes neckwear.

==Requested Move: Should Continental Rationalism be merged with the Rationalism article?==

==Personal radios==

I vote no. As a user with a PhD in Philosophy, I think that (a) the current '''Continental Rationalism''' article provides a sober, satisfactory description of some of the modern rationalist philosophers, but (b) the current '''Rationalism''' article veers into what many academic philosophers think of as fringe material involving free thinking and anti-religious humanism. (a) Philosophical rationalism is generally seen as following a distinctly separate path from empiricism, but (b) humanistic "rationalism" is often seen as closely allied with contemporary scientific empiricism. Bottom Line: I don't think that the prospects are good for merging these 2 articles. I'd suggest instead that the current '''Rationalism''' article be left as is and that '''Continental Rationalism''' be expanded into something like '''Rationalism in Academic Philosophy''', so that the thought of classical and medieval philosophical rationalists like [[Aristotle]] and [[Thomas Aquinas]] can be included, as well as 20th century philosophical rationalists like [[Brand Blanshard]] or [[Henry Veatch]]. --[[User:WikiPedant|WikiPedant]] 03:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In 2004, British police forces began the roll-out of a digital [[TETRA]] (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) system for communications, called [[Airwave (communications network)|Airwave]]. The Airwave system replaced the previous Motorola radio handsets and [[two-way radio]]s with a mobile phone-like device, which is supposed to improve radio coverage, is encrypted to prevent interception, and allows data as well as voice transmission. The roll-out is due for complete coverage of all UK police forces and other emergency services by the end of 2007.

Personal radio systems were first issued to police officers and installed in police cars in the 1960s (resulting in the demise of the "[[police box]]" telephones made famous by ''[[Doctor Who]]''). From the 1990s, officers frequently carried [[mobile phone]]s in addition to their personal radio units.

:You are saying precisely what I have been trying to say. I propose not that they be merged, but that rationalism should either redirect here or continental rationalism should be moved there. The content currently found at rationalism could be moved to something like [[rationalist movement]]. As is, it gives many people the wrong impression of what rationalism means in philosophy. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

==Firearms and weapons==<!-- This section is linked from [[The Adventures of Tintin]] -->

::Yes, [[User:Srnec|Srnec]], now I see what you have in mind. Your suggestion works for me. It keeps the articles separate and rightly gives the name '''Rationalism''' to the academic philosophical stream. Sorry for misunderstanding your intent. --[[User:WikiPedant|WikiPedant]] 18:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In the [[United Kingdom]] and some other countries of the [[Policing in the United Kingdom|British police]] tradition, the police are not normally issued firearms, but are issued other weapons ([[Club (weapon)#Telescopic batons|batons]], [[pepper spray]], [[CS spray]] etc.), although some officers may be issued firearms in special situations. This originates from the formation of the [[Metropolitan Police]] in the [[19th Century]], when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections concerning armed enforcers. However, the [[Ministry of Defence Police]], [[Civil Nuclear Constabulary]] and [[Police Service of Northern Ireland]] (formerly the [[Royal Ulster Constabulary]]) are issued firearms as a matter of routine. Every force can also call upon armed response units in a matter of minutes, and certain specialist squads, such as the [[Flying Squad]], [[Special Branch]], [[Diplomatic Protection Group]], Royalty Protection Branch, and officers protecting airports and government buildings, are routinely armed.

The weapons carried routinely by ordinary police constables are currently an extending [[Club (weapon)|baton]] and, in all but two county police services, personal issue [[Riot control agent|incapacitant spray]], such as CS (a chemical incapacitant) or CapTor (a natural incapacitant based on extracts from [[Capsicum]] peppers. The effects of sprays are designed to be short-lived, subsiding within 30-60 minutes and clearing more quickly in well-ventilated areas.

:Because nobody else but you has responded to dispute tags and move requests, I have unilaterally moved [[rationalism]] to [[rationalist movement]] and made the former a redirect here. There is a disambiguation page at [[rationalism (disambiguation)]]. I still think this page ought to be moved to rationalism and [[continental rationalism]] ought to redirect there. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of batons varies across the country and each force selects which baton is best able to fulfil its needs and provide the best protection to officers. Friction lock batons such as the [http://www.asp-net.com/ ASP] are popular, although the PR-24 [[Monadnock]] extendable baton (sometimes known as the side-handled baton) or the Monadnock Straight Lock baton is used in some forces. Some forces use a one piece "Arnold" baton, although they are relatively rare except in forces in the North of England.

::I agree that the correct next step is to move this page to Rationalism and redirect Continental Rationalism there. --[[User:WikiPedant|WikiPedant]] 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

===Use of firearms===

JA: People are not following the proper protocols for page moves. When they do, I will vote that the best name for the philosophical position commonly associated with Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, et al. in Enlightenment Days and let us say Chomsky in recent times is just plain vanilla ''[[Rationalism]]''. And please, I don't want to return here in the Fall and find an article entitled ''Just Plain Vanilla Rationalism''. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Police armed uk.jpg|thumb|right|Firearms officers wearing body armour]]

Unlike the police in most other countries, most officers in the British police are not routinely armed, except in [[Northern Ireland]], at [[airport]]s, [[nuclear power plant|nuclear facilities]], and on some protection duties. However every territorial police force has an armed contingent of officers patrolling able to support unarmed colleagues when required. The arming of the police is a perennial topic of debate.

Officers on night patrols in some [[London]] divisions were frequently armed with [[Webley and Scott|Webley]] [[revolver]]s (and, after the [[Sidney Street Siege|Battle of Stepney]], Webley [[semi-automatic self-loading pistol|semi-automatics]]) for over 50 years following the [[murder]] of two officers in [[1884]], though individual officers were able to choose whether to carry the weapons. The practice ended in July [[1936]], after which arms could be issued by a sergeant if there was a ''good reason'', and if the officer had been trained.

==Requested move==

The issue of routine arming was next raised after the [[1952]] [[Derek Bentley]] case, and again after the 1966 murder of three officers in London ([[Massacre of Braybrook Street]]), following which around 17% of officers in London were authorised to carry firearms. After the deaths of a number of members of the public in the [[1980s]], control was considerably tightened, many officers had their firearm authorisation revoked, and training for the remainder was greatly improved and later extended to include some training from the [[Special Air Service|SAS]].{{Fact|date=February 2007}} Currently around seven per cent of officers in London are trained in the use of firearms. Firearms are also only issued to an officer under strict guidelines <ref>[http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/firearms.pdf ACPO firearms policy]</ref> See [[Specialist Firearms Command|CO19]] (Metropolitan Police Firearms Unit).

* [[Continental rationalism]] → '''[[Rationalism]]''' — ''Rationale'': Continental rationalism is rarely referred to as anything other than rationalism in scholarly context. The article currently at rationalism should probably be moved to [[rationalist movement]] or some such. —[[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to allow armed officers to rapidly attend an incident most forces have patrolling [[Armed Response Vehicle]]s (ARVs). ARVs were modelled on the Instant Response Cars introduced by the [[West Yorkshire Police]] in [[1976]], and were first introduced in London in [[1991]], when 132 armed deployments were made. Today [[CO19]] and the [[Diplomatic Protection Group]] provide London with ARVs with officers having weapons permanently holstered on their person to allow rapid deployment.

===Survey===

Although largely attributable to a significant increase{{fact|June 2007}} in the use of imitation firearms and air weapons, the overall increase in firearms crime between 1998/99 and 2002/03{{fact|June 2007}} (it has been decreasing since 2003/04, although use of imitations continued to rise){{fact|June 2007}} has kept this issue in the spotlight. For the first time since 1936, the routine carrying of firearms on normal police patrols was re-introduced in [[Nottingham]] in February [[2000]], in response to a number of gang related shootings on the St Ann's and Meadows estates. Despite this, [[Police Federation of England and Wales|Police Federation]] surveys have continued to show overwhelming police officer resistance to routine arming. In the Federation's most recent (2006) Officer/Arming survey, 82% of respondents were against the routine arming of police.<ref>[http://www.polfed.org/WhereWeStand_Firearms_and_the_policeAWAITING_INFO230506.pdf Police Federation Survey]</ref>

: ''Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>

As of September [[2004]], all forces in England and Wales also have the [[Taser]] available, but it may only be used by Firearms Officers, although there have been growing calls quietly from within the ranks and the public for all officers to be routinely armed with a [[Taser]]. The [[Police Federation]] have already called for this and is a firm position held by it. <ref>[http://www.polfed.org/we_stand_F0AE5868581B4E239F2FEDFC4D976359.asp Police Federation]</ref>

* '''Support''' per reasons given above. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 21:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

* '''Support''' per reasons given above. [[User:WikiPedant|WikiPedant]] 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

* '''Support''' per reasons given above. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 01:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

* '''Support''' as nom. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' we have two movements, at least slightly related, ''both'' of which are commonly called "rationalism". This is the ideal situation to have [[Rationalism]] as a dab page. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' per the concept that the particular "...ism" reflected in the philosophy of the [[continental rationalism|continental rationalsists]] has a discrete and readily identifiable meaning in any undergraduate philosophy class. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ... A summary of the philosophy of the "continental rationalists" should, however, be included in the article on [[rationalism]]. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 03:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

<small>''For more on firearm use by British police, see the [[Policing in the United Kingdom#Controversial shootings|controversial shootings section]] of the main [[Policing in the United Kingdom]] article.''</small>

===Discussion===

[[Image:PolicingAnimalRightsDemonstrationOxford20050129 CopyrightKaihsuTai.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Thames Valley Police]] policing an animal rights demonstration in Oxford]]

: ''Add any additional comments''

==Police vehicles==

I'm not ready to vote on this (in part because it seems that someone didn't quite follow etiquette here -- the rationalism page has already been turned into a redirect; that should have waited, moi), but it seems to me we need to consider whether we really need this change. Note: I'm a philosopher, and, myself, say "rationalism" to refer to the thought of Descartes, Leibniz, and (generally) Spinoza. But now that Wikipedia is becoming international, we need to keep in mind the broader perspectives of people from Asia, South America, etc. It might be seen -- somewhat goofily or not -- that three European dudes shouldn't be able to "own" as important a word as ''rationalism''.

{{main|Police Car}}

The archetypal British "bobby" walked his beat alone. Apart from rapid response units, motor vehicles were rarely used except in rural districts (and even there, [[bicycle]]s were more common). However, following the 1964 [[Police Act 1964|Police Act]], the police became increasingly motorised and it is now rare to see an officer on foot patrol except in city or town centres, and then rarely alone. More recently, police forces have begun to put officers back on the beat as 'community' or 'neighbourhood' patrols. In an increasing number of urban centres police bicycle units are used to provide a quick response in congested areas, pedestrianised areas and parkland, as well as carrying out patrols. A bicycle patrol provides a happy balance between the distance covered by a motorised patrol and the approachability of the foot patrol. <ref>[http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=298 TFL 999 London Cycling Award press release]</ref> The [[Metropolitan Police]] now have over 1500 police bicycles.<ref>[http://www.daveches.co.uk/analysis/bikes Police on bikes, from LS8]</ref>

[[Image:UK Police Battenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Traffic Police Car with high visibility battenburg markings.]]

Basically, what do we ''lose'' by keeping this article at Continental rationalism, and opening the article like so:

[[Police car|Patrol cars]], sometimes known as [[panda car]]s, are in use everywhere and may be crewed by one or two officers. In Scotland, because of the necessity of corroborating evidence, there are always two officers in a vehicle. Rapid response vehicles are utilised for various departments in each police force. Some examples are: armed response vehicles and some traffic department vehicles, which come in marked and unmarked variations. Typical examples of high-powered rapid response vehicles are BMW 5 series, Volvo T5s and V70s, enhanced [[Opel Vectra|Vauxhall Vectra]]s and various Subaru and Audi high-end models. Police also use Land Rover and Range Rover models - such as for responding to motorway incidents - Jaguar cars are even used by some forces. Most forces use [[Ford Transit]] vans or similar models as personnel carriers, with specially adapted versions in use by public order units such as the Metropolitan Police [[Territorial Support Group]]. Police motorcycles, bicycles and horses are also employed depending on the situation.

All Home Office police forces have access to air support, often in the form of helicopters. Some forces, such as Hampshire, also have small fixed wing aircraft.

"'''Continental rationalism''' (generally referred to simply as "rationalism" by scholars of European philosophy) is an approach to philosophy ..."

Forces with significant waterways to police maintain police watercraft, ranging from [[Zodiac Group|Zodiac]] dinghies to [[Arun class lifeboat|ARUN class]] boats.<ref>[http://www.met.police.uk/msu/training.htm Metropolitan Police Marine Unit]</ref><ref>[http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/index.asp?locID=927&docID=-1 Strathclyde Police Marine Policing Unit]</ref>

?

==Other relevant pages==

Not trying to be difficult; I've just been starting to appreciate how much many users around the world are frustrated by the Western focus of the English Wikipedia (which has become the de facto international Wikipedia). And, again: what do we lose by saying "Continental rationalism"? Note, also, the use of the term 'Continental rationalism' is not at all "rare" in the U.S. and Canada. --[[User: Cultural Freedom|Cultural Freedom]] [[User talk:Cultural Freedom|''talk'']] 2006-07-13 07:07 (UTC)

* [[Police Aviation in United Kingdom]]

==References==

JA: The term "Continental" is inaccurate and misleading as rationalism is a logical element of many philosophies that are found on many other continents both before and after the fluorescing of the Big Three Enlighteners of undergraduate philosophy courses. The basic tenet is the pertinence of ''rational concepts'', or ''concepts of the reason'', and it is thus a minimal form of opposition to nominalism. This is the reason for its being taken up in the late great cognitive revolution by [[Chomsky]] and others as a counterpoint to the nominal replacement for psychology proper that was represented by behaviorism. Making sense of its influence through history is nearly impossible under the onus of the label "Continental". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Law enforcement in the United Kingdom]]

The adjective "Continental" should be dropped from the name of this article. '''Rationalism''' is one of the most established currents in philosophy, ranging from the Ancient Greeks (not usually considered "continentals" in philosophy) to contemporary North American philosophers. I believe there was a rationalist school in classical Hindu philosophy, but have no expertise in this. There were certainly rationalists among the major medieval Islamic philosophers (largely under the influence of Aristotle). The modern continental rationalists (Descartes through Kant) as well as all of the other schools and time periods can be suitably covered in subsections of a single article on '''rationalism'''. It is simply unacceptable for an encyclopedia of any consequence to fail to have a primary article on philosophical '''rationalism'''. [[User:WikiPedant|WikiPedant]] 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:Law enforcement equipment|British police]]

:I admit to not following protocols, but that was because the situation was already confusing and I think there was misinformation. The primary purpose of moving rationalism to rationalist movement and redirecting it to continental rationalism was to draw attention to the problem and to fix the major problem of misinformation: rationalism in philosophical discussion describes continental rationalism. The word has connotations outside of philosophy that have led it to be applied to many different schools and modes of thought which are not in any way rationalist (note I did not say rational). Rationalism, in philosophy, is shorthand for continental rationalism. Rationalism may have more than one dictionary definition, but only this sense is an encyclopaedia topic. The fact that people like Richard Dawkins have inappropriately misappropriated the term for themselves does not change its actual meaning even if many people (non-philosophers to be sure) have accepted this "new" definition: similar to using "materialism" as a synonym for "greed." [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

::No prob about not following protocols! I also believe in the WP "Be Bold" dicate. I have no problem dropping "Continental" from the name, as long as the article is (or becomes) about rationalism in general. Right now, it's almost entirely about Continental Rationalism :). --[[User: Cultural Freedom|Cultural Freedom]] [[User talk:Cultural Freedom|"talk"]] 2006-07-13 17:52 (UTC)

JA: Similar problems affect the philosophical use of the term ''[[Pragmatism]]'', which has come to have many meanings among both literate and illiterate philosophers in addition to the ordinary variety of popular and non-technical uses. Rather than lend diplomatic recognition to every new "movement" that comes down the pike, it was thought preferable there to create a catch-all article ''[[Pragmatism (non-technical)]]''. You might find this a better idea in this situation, too. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

: After examining the [[Pragmatism (non-technical)]] page, I'm inclined to think that it should be redone as a standard Widipedia disambiguation page. This seems to be exactly the kind of situation that disambiguation pages are intended to deal with. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] has already created a [[Rationalism (disambiguation)]] page, and I think this will serve well as the "catch-all" for '''Rationalism'''. [[User:WikiPedant|WikiPedant]] 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: Probably best to discuss all that at [[Talk:Pragmatism (non-technical usage)]]. But I can fill you in on the features of its peculiar history — not all of which I know about — that are pertinent to the situation here. The page was once a lot larger but had a lot of content deleted by one editor back in April that nobody else has gotten around to giving a second look, and it just got rewritten by the addition of some new material that is still in flux, and so it does look a little "dabby". But it was not intended as a dab page so much as place to treat the everyday meanings of the word ''pragmatism''. Most likely the name would eventually be shortened to something less awkward sounding. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's stay on-topic here, folks. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

: The real problem here is that continental rationalism and the modern rationalist movement are so different as to be almost antonymous: most people describing themselves falsely as "rationalists" because (it seems) they oppose "religion" are in fact empiricists, which would be the opposing philosophy of rationalism. This is why there can be no overarching rationalism page. We need a rationalist movement page and a continental rationalism page with a dab page. The question, then, is: should [[rationalism]] be the dab page or the site of continental rationalism? I vote to keep it the latter in accordance with most encyclopaedias and philsophical usage (it ''is'' a philosophical term). [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 03:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: Rationalism is not a school, it's an aspect of almost any, er, rational philosophy. Some philosophers emphasize this aspect more than others, and depending on arbitrary thresholds in the eye of the observer they get classified as "rationalists". As I have already pointed out, the fact that things like grammatical categories — say, NP, VP, etc. — are ''rational concepts'', that is to say, concepts that extend beyond the finite empirical data given, is an important feature of "modern" cognitive science since the mid 1950's. For another example, even though Peirce is known for roundly criticizing significant features of Cartesian philosophy, he concurs with Descartes on the importance of rational concepts in this sense, and this is in fact one of the things that separates Peirce's original version of pragmatism from the radically naive empiricisms that James and the early but not the late Dewey sometimes drifted off into. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 03:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: As for the term "modern rationalism", this is a non-notable neologism that is not recognized in philosophy. The fact that anybody with a radio talk show these days can declare a new "movement" in pop philosophy, and most of them already have, witness ''[[truthiness]]'', does not make that movement notable in reputable philosophical circles. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 03:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

: What are you trying to say? I, too, would not call rationalism a school, but is not an aspect of almost any philosophy. Empiricists may be rational, but not rationalistic. Some schools of rationalism and empiricism may share concepts, but they differ foundationally. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 03:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: Let's see if we can find some common definitions. How about the informal definition of ''rational concept'' that I gave above? Do we share an understanding of the difference between rational concepts and empirical concepts? For example, the rational concept of a Sentence is something that covers an infinite number of instances, whereas my empirical concept of a Sentence covers exactly the finite number of sentences that I have seen in my finite experience up to this point in time. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 03:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 04:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: Okay. Then let's see if we agree about the uses and abuses of ''ideal types'', ''analytic ideals'', what are more humbly known as ''textbook caricatures''. For example, I am mostly concerned with scientific inquiry, and I find that all scientific inquirers, ''in actu'', are mixed cases of empiricists and rationalists, no matter how the textbooks classify them, and no matter even how they might have depicted themselves, ''in armchairum''. Do you observe this too? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:As a rationalist, I do find that it is impossible to think without ''a priori'' knowledge and scientific inquireres are no exception. Certainly any scientist who wishes to maintain his sanity (or the sanity of his science) would be forced to abandon a Humean scepticism, which they could only do, while accepting Humean empiricism, if they accepted certain rationalist presuppositions. I hope that made sense. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 04:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: I'll take that as a ''yes'', if only because it's late here, and I want to rush on by the nuances of ''a priori'' that might still force us to backtrack later.

JA: Now, scientific inquiry is really just a disciplined form of common sense, in a reflective and self-critical sense of common sense. And so common sense, which nobody gets through their day without, is a mixture of empirical and rational ingredients. That is, to come toward the middle from the rationalist side, even people who easily fess up to using rational concepts will also admit to using classes of rational concepts that they find themselves, willy nilly, testing against experience for the sake of judging their utility. Maybe some concepts are excluded from that testing, but hardly all of them are. Are we still on the same page about all this? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

: What types of "rational concepts" can be "test[ed] against experience for the sake of judging their utility"? And what does this mean epistemologically? It only means that we accept some rational concept as being good for attaining some end ''if'' we already accept the likelihood of the future resembling the past, which is a rational concept, for it certainly cannot be determined empirically. In the end, we haven't ''verified'' anything empirically even if we test some rational concept against experience. I don't think were still on the same page, but perhaps I should say that "common sense" may just refer to those assumptions which we accept as grounded without being commonly aware of their ground. Whether they are grounded or not, or whether that ground is empirical or rational is the real question. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: In the realm of lingusitics we have the rational concepts of a Language, a Sentence, a Noun Phrase, a Verb Phrase, and so on.

JA: One of the things that we expect of rational concepts is that they will have definitions that can be reasoned from in a purely ''a priori'' deductive manner, without any ''necessary'' reference to any realm of experience outside the experience of reasoning with the elements that are admitted into a suitably well-defined ___domain. And there is no doubt that we have something approaching a ''pure'' rational system in the example of [[formal language theory]]. Historically speaking, of couse, we never would've thought of such things if it had not been for our natural interest in natural languages, but once the realm of formal abstractions is formed it tends to rule itself by its own rules, as if it were autonomous and independent of experience.

JA: But I think that even [[Cartesian linguists]] like [[Chomsky]] consider themselves to be engaged in an empirical science of linguistics, and so they must bring the purely rational concepts and rubbery definitions of Language, Sentence, Part of Speech and so on to meet the road of actual parts of speech, real live sentences, and natural languages. And they will judge rational concepts of all of these things as being more or less useful for explaining the properties of their putative empirical instances.

JA: Something like that is what I think I had in mind when I wrote that hazy stuff late last night. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

: But would not a rationalist regard actual language as an expression of conceptual language? That is to say, language exists in the mind without being accessible to the senses. We can express it in writing (visual), speech (audial), braille (tactile), and many other ways which utilise the senses, but ultimately the sensible language derives its value from "fundamental properties of the mind" which are not empirical. Language can be contrasted with jibberish: I can construct a language of my own, but I can also construct jibberish and they are distinguishable. Whether or not either language actually exists, I can differentiate them based on these "fundamental properties of the mind". That is to say, I need not have actual languages to know what is fundamental to language. That actual languages possess these features is not empirically derived, but known aforehand. I can't see that language is dependent on sense experience. Can you explain why language must be accessible to the senses to be known? Or am I misunderstanding you? [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 20:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: I don't know what a person whom you call a rationalist would say say about language, since I don't know whether we are using that word the same way. So maybe it's time to go back and see if we've made any headway with the initial question.

JA: I started out with the following statement:

<blockquote>

JA: Rationalism is not a school, it's an aspect of almost any rational philosophy. Some philosophers emphasize this aspect more than others, and depending on arbitrary thresholds in the eye of the observer they get classified as "rationalists".

</blockquote>

JA: And you expressed puzzlement with this in the following words:

<blockquote>

What are you trying to say? I, too, would not call rationalism a school, but is not an aspect of almost any philosophy. Empiricists may be rational, but not rationalistic. Some schools of rationalism and empiricism may share concepts, but they differ foundationally. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 03:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

</blockquote>

JA: So we agree that rationalism is not a school, but just what sort of thing it is we have yet to decide. Just off the top of my head I called it an ''aspect'' of any philosophy that employs reason. This is probably because I consider the bare use of rational concepts to be the birth of rationalism. But we are many things at birth that we are not yet conscious of being, so maybe I should wait until a thinker is conscious of using rational concepts before I call him or her a rationalist. What do you think?

JA: Or maybe we should reserve the term ''rationalist'' for the thinker who is not merely a user of rational concepts but who asserts and truly believes that he or she has no need of anything else but rational concepts — well, they usually say ''in principle'' here. How about that? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)