At the heart of any discussion is how we see the world around us: our paradigms. But how do we form them, these worldviews? What do we mean when we say we 'believe' something to be 'true'? Is it even possible to bridge the gap between belief (subjective truth) and reality (objective truth)? And if our meaning can betray reality, can we even communicate on the subject?

So, for example, if I were to say, "I believe in God," we might legitimately ask what I mean by "believe" and what I mean by "God", and we might also wonder whether the impression of God I have in my head (my paradigm) bears any resemblance to a god that actually exists in reality.

Fundamentally each individual's beliefs are either 'thought' or 'felt'. You 'think' or you 'feel'. You decided to read this article because some mental process told you it was worthwhile, or some emotion made you connect with the subject. Even those who like to express a mystical side and talk about the spirit and the soul, engage either through thought or feeling: they will talk about God speaking to them (thought) or God moving their spirits (feeling). We tend to acknowledge this distinction culturally by talking about 'heart' and 'head'.

Such is the process-mechanism of our being. But what of the raw data? What of the 'stuff' that is analysed in this way? Where does it come from? At this point we join a prolonged debate between those who believe ideas are sourced externally through the five senses (empiricism¹) and those who believe ideas are sourced internally through our own mental and emotional resources (rationalism). This is the origin of such great disputes as 'nurture-nature' (a priori-a posteriori).

The empiricist philosophers include Aristotle, John Locke and David Hume. Rationalists include Plato, René Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz.

It is worth saying from the outset that these two possible sources are not alternatives. They are sometimes seen in competition, so for example Plato argued that we have an (intuitive) idea about the object 'horse', and when we see (empirically) something that conforms to that idea we call it a horse; but the source of that idea was internal (or at least revealed internally) and so does not derive from seeing the animal wandering around in a field.

It is, however, perfectly reasonable to affirm that both sources co-exist and compliment one another. It is possible that some ideas are derived through our experiences, while some are axiomatic and the product of intuition (or revelation). This leaves us with a model for the collection and analysis of ideas such as I have sketched below:

Fig 1 - my paradigm paradigm

The diagram attempts to show how we engage with data derived from six sources, five of which are external (the senses) and one is internal (which I have called 'intuition').

¹ It is worth reminding ourselves from the outset that 'science' is founded in empirical philosophy; i.e. it is limited to the observable.