Empiricism Vs. Positivist Theory Of Knowledge

Do we have innate ideas? Offer your view with reference to the work of Descartes and Locke

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

Empiricism is the theory stating that all our knowledge comes from sensory experience. We perceive the world around us through our senses as real, for instance: a table feels hard and solid therefore it’s real, I can taste this burger, therefore its real. Philosopher John Lock says that when we are born our minds are like blank slates (in Latin, this is called tabula rasa), slate being the original material that black boards were once made of. Locke is saying that at birth our minds are clean blackboards, and all the information we obtain through experiences in written on the blackboard. (Kaye, S.M & Thomson, P, 2007)

Epistemology or theory of knowledge is a branch of philosophy related to the scope and nature of knowledge. The subject focuses on examining the nature of knowledge, and how it relates to beliefs, justification, and truth. Epistemology contract with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. “Epistemology is the philosophical investigation into this question: What can we know? The question, at first, seems pretty simple: It seems pretty obvious that I know that 3+5+8, that the sun will rise tomorrow and that my chances of winning the lottery aren’t very good. I also know

Empiricists believe that you gain knowledge through experience, however, what our experiences are telling us can also be lies. Bertrand Russell made up the term “sense data” to explain what our experiences really are. Russell’s explanation of sense data inevitably leads to bigger skeptical worries that seem unanswerable. Russell presents strong arguments for skepticism and then ultimately dodges them with the use of the law of parsimony. Russell’s response to his argument lacks luster and falls short, his argument should have left him a skeptic.

In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume attempts to uncover the ultimate truth about where our knowledge comes from.  This leads him to suggest that all our ideas and knowledge arise from outward experiences and sensations.  He attempts to prove this by solving the "problem of induction."  I disagree with Hume's ideas, and in this essay I will explain why.  I shall begin by explaining the problem of induction, and the sceptical doubts Hume raises concerning the inductive process.  I will then explain how Hume solves the problem.  Finally, I will conclude by offering a critique of Hume's doctrine, and explain why I find it to be inconsistent.

Empiricism states that knowledge is based on experience, so everything that is known is learned through experience, but nothing is ever truly known. David Hume called lively and strong experiences, perceptions, and less lively events, beliefs or thoughts. Different words and concepts meant different things to different people due to the knowledge, or experiences they have. He believed, along with the fact that knowledge is only gained through experience, that a person’s experiences are nothing more than the contents of his or her own consciousness. The knowledge of anything comes from the way

I lean a little more towards the next viewpoint: empiricism. Empiricism was John Locke’s theory that our knowledge is created through experience only. In other words, empiricism and rationalism are nearly polar opposites of one another. Locke created the idea of the Tabula Rasa, which translates into ‘blank slate’. When we are born, we are an empty blackboard waiting to be filled with the chalk of life.

It was David Hume that brought forth the problem of induction. Due to his profound critique, philosophers have argued the subject of induction for centuries. Considering the fact that our experiences of the world cannot confirm or disprove general or universal claims, but only particular facts. For this reason, empiricism requires a method to change from knowledge of a specific group of objects, to knowledge of global and general connection. Such a procedure is called

Rationalism champions, above all, reason; and advocates that “a class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly” (Blanshard, 2015). During 17th century or the “Age of Enlightenment”, key figures like Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza, sought through their own, distinct approaches, to examine “the relation between mind and body, the nature of substance, and the place of humanity in nature” (Cottingham, 1988). According to (Markie, 2013), rationalist philosophers’ work is in line with one or more of the following theses: the intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis, and the innate concept thesis. Pursuant to the intuition/deduction thesis, initial data or premises are linked with conclusions which are free of epistemic

Empiricists, such as John Lock, George Berkeley, and David Hume, would all refute skepticism in a sense and believe that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience rather than innate ideas. Berkeley offers a most intriguing view of empiricism in his work A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Mostly aimed to refute fellow empiricist Locke’s’ ideas about the human nature of perception, Berkeley offers a cleaner answer to skepticism. Although both philosophers would agree on several ideas, Berkeley’s idealism creates a successful response to the skeptics. The basis of idealism shares the similarities found between Locke and Berkeley; everything exists as an idea and all ideas are made up of smaller ideas.

Empiricism, favored by John Locke, is a philosophical opinion that reveres and favors the experiences gathered by the human condition as the only means to true understanding. For Empiricists, knowledge is formed by the sense experiences and these form our opinions and reasoning. Should there be an absence of experiences there would then be a void of knowledge.

Empiricism is the view that knowledge arises from experience, and that, therefore, science should rely on observation and experimentation. Locke argued that the mind at birth is a “blank slate” which experience writes on. Bacon focused on experiment, experience, and judgement to explain knowledge, saying that the human brain finds more patterns in the world that are actually present, and discards those that do not follow its view. Both these people’s views reaffirmed the idea that science stems from observation and experimentation.

Empiricists use three anchor points in which they derive their opinions from. The first of these points is; the only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience. An easier way to understand this is to compare the mind to a clean sponge. As the sponge touches things, it takes with it, a piece of everything it touches. Without this, the sponge would remain clean and be void of anything

All these views bear the mark of his distinctively strong empiricism. He proposes (quite reasonably) that our inductive inferences lack the information we would need to be certain of claims they suggest, and (a bit more surprisingly) that not even deductivist inference can insure our certainty about empirical claims because the experientially attained premises we adduce in support of such claims are no greater than probable.