Rationalism Vs. Empiricism

I am not against any one, there are facts and facts that make me think that one of them its better than the other, but at the end I think I would choose empiricism. First of all I think that experience makes us capable to judge, so every "truth" that we know should be tested and according to that, we could judge or modify it. For me there are so much variations in everything that you could never stablish an absolute truth. Also in our daily acts we all are more empiricist because we always interact with what we see, feel, hear, smell and we actually believe in what we are feeling, and we don´t apply our scientific knowledge for our daily actions, and yes there could be some confusions but empiricism doesn´t opose to the use of reason, but our acts are based on what we feel every moment. Just having experiences you could have a judgement criteria because only then with the repeated actions you will really know it, and a human can´t have the complete meaning of what the truth is. As we know we are not perfect, and the empiric thoughts gives you the tools to know and control what you´re living in that moment . An example of how it works it could be explaining the theory that we are borned like a blank paper that is filled with experiences end with those experiences we learn, and that way we could know if something is that way or not, and if we don´t know we will have more experiences that could let us now later, or make an association of ideas, ceation of concepts. I think we all know how observation could make us learn so much, and if its real or not our acts are based in that because is our reality.

senses = wrong

DESCARTES

As we many people spend their time trying to explain our past and history and many many other things, Descartes spend his time asking himself about our existance, if we are or not real. After having a doubt, and another doubt of our existance, he ended with a conclusion "I think, therefore I am"... this explains a lot,(just by making myself this question I can know that I exist, and it makes me different from other thing). He said that you can not believe in our senses, and for explain this, he gave the example of the dream, so how can you really know that you are not in a dream, because if you use your senses as a guide such as see or feel you could be in a dream, so your senses won´t be a guide that led you to the truth. So he said that you can only explain things mathematically, because everything in the world is macanically perfect, and through math everything is undersatandable.

He inventes a way to explain everything, and this is the analititc geometry, this way you can conceibe something in universe. He always used the logical explanations and he don´t trusted anything, just thinking that the analysis will led him to knowledge... this makes him a rationalist.

Idols of the marketplace...

I think that now a time we use a lot this intellectual fallacie, because ussually when we try to express ourselves for example we exagerate so much trying to say something, and it´s understanded by everyone but we don´t really make sense with the words that we are using in the real sense of the words... this could be like "hace como u millón de años que no le veo" and this it´s a complete distortion of the words just to say that i have not seen someone for many many time...