[Conservative Texan Mom]

Thank you. I think this particular site does very well at explaining technique. However, I think it generalizes too much. I do not think faith and belief should necessarily be listed as examples of irrational epistemology. They can be, if they are lumped into the "it's true because I say so" category. Faith and belief, however, can also be the result of knowledge, experience, and observation. When based on these things, a very well thought, reasoned, and rational argument can be made for their existence. It is more abstract though because it is not based on empirical evidence.

[donh]

When based on these things, a very well thought, reasoned, and rational argument can be made for their existence.

The site in question appears to be an objectivist site. It makes unwarranted assumptions about the tangible existence and ubiquitous power of axiomatic ideas in formal logic.

While it is possible that entities for which no certain objective evidence of any great power exist, I think you oversell the extent to which reasoning and rationality support their existence. Reasoning that only works while preaching to the choir, isn't the sort of reasoning science is organized to address.