Final answer:
When assessing the rationality of convictions, it is important to consider coherence, compatibility with other well-established beliefs, and empirical evidence. Feelings and convictions should not be the sole basis for beliefs. The pragmatism of methodological naturalism, with its focus on empirical evidence and falsifiability, offers a more effective way to establish knowledge.
Step-by-step explanation:
In assessing the rationality of our convictions, particularly in the context of Popper's falsifiability criterion, it is important to understand that while some beliefs may seem unfalsifiable, it doesn't necessarily mean they are irrational. Rationality in this context refers to the process of forming beliefs based on evidence and reasoning. It is true that some convictions may be difficult to falsify or quantify probabilities for, but we can still evaluate their rationality by considering the coherence of the belief and its compatibility with other well-established beliefs.
When evaluating the accuracy of our convictions, it is helpful to use a standard that combines both objective and subjective elements. While feelings and convictions are real, they should not be the sole basis for justifying beliefs. Instead, they should be complemented by more objective, consensus-based approaches that rely on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and critical thinking.
The pragmatism of methodological naturalism offers a more effective way to establish knowledge and resolve philosophical disputes compared to relying solely on personal convictions or feelings. The principles of falsifiability and the research program approach, as advocated by Popper, provide a systematic framework for testing and refining theories through empirical evidence. By subjecting our beliefs to empirical scrutiny and embracing the principle of falsifiability, we can ensure a more reliable and objective process of knowledge acquisition.