Arguments Against Empiricism

This helped form empiricism which says that what we know comes from experience and that observing and experimenting enable scientific knowledge

This author ascribes to the empiricism paradigm. This paradigm is similar to empirical knowing in that it is based on the premise that what is known can be verified through the senses, or

Isaac Newton’s astounding achievements in the field of science contributed to the birth of empiricism. This was the belief that knowledge acquired through sense experience is the only true meaningful knowledge. This idea began in Britain and spread all the way to Scotland and even Ireland. Philosophers such as David Hume developed radical ideas supporting these beliefs.

Empirical knowledge is integral in developing or explaining theories of science. A scientific theory, in the first place, relies on a body of factual information

Epistemological Foundationalism essentially claims that some empirical beliefs carry justification that does not require, or depend, on the justification of other empirical beliefs. In this essay, I intend to introduce the reading, “Can Empirical knowledge Have A foundation?” Written by Laurence Bonjour, to give a detailed summary of his arguments - as well as those who object to his - and ultimately to assert my belief that there is currently no example of an empirical belief that of which can be justified in an epistemic sense without avoiding reference to other empirical beliefs, which would then have to be justified themselves, not solving the regress problem.

Consider the following example of how much information is acquired prior to a decision. Suppose upon entering a room one is unexpectedly confronted with the sight of a fully grown tiger. A fairly reliable prediction is that person would endeavor to leave the area in great dispatch or otherwise seek safety. All by itself that prediction is uninteresting. More interesting is the explanation for the behavior. Would the person's decision to run be based upon any detailed information held about that particular or would the decision be based upon the person's information about how he has seen other tigers behave, what his parents have told him about tigers or tiger folklore? Most likely the individual's decision would be based upon the latter. He simply pre-judges or stereotypes the tiger. The fact that it is a tiger is deemed sufficient information for action.

Between the two schools of epistemology, rationalism and empiricism, I am inclined towards the philosophies of rationalism. I am persuaded towards philosophical approaches which are superior at attaining truth. Empiricism relies on observation using the five senses in reasoning to achieve truth. However, in Plato’s Thaetetus, Socrates gives strong arguments for the limitations of human perception. The Canadian legal system, also, recognizes flaws in human observation, which increases my skepticism of empiricism. Conversely, rationalism relies solely on the use of logic and deduction in reasoning. Both, Plato and Socrates stressed the value of rationalism through the ability to know and express combinations of elements through mathematics. Large

Empiricism and positivism are two major characteristics of received view. McEwen and Wills (2007) state that “empiricism is founded on the belief that what is experienced is what exists” (p. 515). In other words, one’s experiences determine what we know. This knowledge from our experiences, must be confirmed by scientific support. McEwen and Wills (2007) go on to say that “these experiences be verified through scientific methodology” (p.8).

Though there are many good and bad aspects of the scientific method, there is an underlying fault with all of them. The scientific method in psychology relies on empiricism. Empiricism is a view that all knowledge is derived from experience. The scientific method can ultimately be split into two attitudes. The first is the dogmatic attitude. Dogmatism is the wish to impose regularities on the basis that repetition of regularly occurring events mean that a belief in

The next two, rationalism and empiricism are the combination of knowledge via science. Knowledge via rationalism involves logical reasoning. It is the combination of stating precise ideas (often in the form of syllogism), applying logical rules, and making logical conclusions based on the ideas. The problem is when the syllogism’s content or either premises is false. The knowledge is not based on the content, but on the logical manner it is presented. Knowledge via empiricism involves gaining knowledge through objective observation and the experiences of one’s senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching (collection of facts), and views knowledge, as “I’ll believe when I see it”.

An objective theory that predicts future events can only be possible when dealing with the five senses. Once there is a pattern of the same things reoccurring over and over again, a universal law starts to develop. This means that no matter what, some things will always be true, while other things will always be false. One’s beliefs, whatever they may be, have no manner on the facts of the world. Some facts of the world include the sun rising, women being able to carry a baby, and even evolution. Another example is the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, which describes that when interacting with people, one may need certain information about the person in order to reduce their uncertainty. In the event that one does gain more information about the other person or

There are two main schools of thought, or methods, in regards to the subject of epistemology: rationalism and empiricism. These two, very different, schools of thought attempt to answer the philosophical question of how knowledge is acquired. While rationalists believe that this process occurs solely in our minds, empiricists argue that it is, instead, through sensory experience. After reading and understanding each argument it is clear that empiricism is the most relative explanatory position in epistemology.

Merriam-Webster defines epistemology as “the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge.” As applied to intelligence, the application of epistemology becomes highly important when analysts are making judgements while assessing information that is not fully factual. Analysts work with information that can be ambiguous, deceptive, conflicting, and even absent; yet, they are required to produce intelligence products that are reliable enough for policymakers to act upon and make decisions. In these situations, the analyst must make good use of epistemology to ensure that the intelligence judgements are reliable. Regarding intelligence analysis, there are four epistemologies, or “ways of knowing”, that are used: authority, habit of thought, rationalism, and empiricism. Science is a fifth epistemology that combines attributes of rationalism and empiricism. An analyst must know which epistemology he or she used to understand the errors that may be made and the self-correcting mechanisms needed to improve reliability.

Empiricism is based from sensory experience and observed facts. This view emphasizes that “scientific knowledge can be derived only from sensory experience” (Alligood, 2014, p. 15). Examples of sensory experience are seeing, feeling and hearing facts. This approach is labeled the research-then-theory strategy. An example that Alligood provides is that “formulating a differential diagnosis requires collecting the facts and then devising a list of possible theories to explain the facts” (2014, p. 16). Empiricists believe that reason alone does not give knowledge (Markie, 2017).

They are the result of generalizing experiences. Rationalism believes that the ideas of empiricism cannot be dependable without considering future claims that can be proven. Such factor as the laws of nature or cause and effect on an event, cause and effect, where one event causes the effect of the other event, stem from rationalism are inherently