Epistemology : Empiricism And Rationalism Essay

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

The Intuitionist, a novel written by Colson Whitehead, illustrates many aspects of society through the parody of a detective novel. Since elevator inspectors have no detective talents, the idea is just a cover, underneath which lies a myriad of the author's opinions on society. The book, published only in the year nineteen-ninety-nine, is filled with miniscule clues that pilot one toward substantial metaphors. Among these are racism, politics, one's place in society, and so on and so forth. This novel is an ocean of allegories in its youth, its depths waiting to be explored.

Throughout my journey I am discovering the epistemological tradition that best fits my own perspective. There are many ways in which a person learns; learning can be defined as a change in behavior due to past experiences. As well, there are different approaches to learning such as; behaviorism, cognitivism, connectivism and constructivism. Many aspects of my life have formed my epistemological assumptions such as family, friends, community, education and my own experiences. Epistemology is defined as the theory of knowledge, with respect to its methods, validity, and scope; it is the inquiry of what discerns acceptable belief from opinion (Bates, 2015, section 2.2.1, para 1). I feel that I connect best with experiential cognitivism since I prefer to experience information before internalizing and relating it with what I know to be true. I will draw upon my past experiences to illustrate my position as I have come to understand myself as an experiential cognitivist, which situates within the epistemology of pragmatism. Pragmatism is defined as a practical approach to problems or matters. As William James states in his book Pragmatism, A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking “He (pragmatism) turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action, and towards power” (para 12, Lecture II What Pragmatism Means).

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

This paper will address the problem of skepticism. My focus will be exclusively on Global Skepticism as it is more controversial than Local Skepticism. The stance I am seeking to persuade you to take is one regarding the question of whether or not Global Skepticism is justified. In this paper I will discuss and analyze what other philosophers have said about the topic, my argument, how my opponents might object to my arguments, and how I respond to those objections. My hope is the conclusion to my argument will convince you that Global Skepticism is not justified and we can, in fact, come to ‘know’ things about our reality and obtain knowledge.

Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.

One of the most important branches in philosophy, is Epistemology, which means, theory of knowledge. So far, philosophers have made many attempts to discover the source of knowledge, the standards or criteria by which we can judge the reliability of knowledge. We tend to be satisfied with think what we know about almost everything, even though sometimes we are shocked to discover that something that we thought it was sure and certain, is instead proved dubious and not sure. For example, suppose that one person that you know and trust tells you that the moon landing in 1969 is only a lie, and the pictures and film were made in a laboratory. We might distrust our friend maybe or think that in fact there were no prove

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

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.

How many times have you said, “No way, I do not believe it!” It is our natural tendency not to believe in something that we have not seen with our own eyes or experienced it personally. There is a saying, “seeing is believing” which has led us to a world full of skeptics. We want proof so we are not gullible fools. Skepticism, or scepticism, as it was spelled back in the ancient times, was pondered by philosophers who tried unsuccessfully to figure out the thought process and how we gain knowledge. Philosophers gave deep thought to determine how we arrive at such true beliefs and knowledge of the external world. Three such philosophers were Rene Descartes, David Hume and Christopher Grau. Rene Descartes was a French philosopher in the early 1600’s; David Hume was a Scottish Philosopher in the 1700’s, and Grau an American philosopher Professor born in 1970. The timeline s important because philosophical views have evolved over time. All three men were from different eras, but they each explored, argued, and addressed the topic of skepticism from their philosophical view. This proves that they take the subject of skepticism seriously, just as we should too. There is good reason to believe that a human’s knowledge of the external world results from both a posteriori knowledge acquired through sensory experience and a priori knowledge which is innate. Descartes, Hume, and Grau through their personal views and skeptical

Epistemology- Epistemology is the division between empiricism and rationalism in different ways of thinking about how we reason and rationalise that knowledge and how it is reliable and certain, epistemology gives us our professional theories, beliefs and practices and how we differentiate between what is true and false. (Scott, 2014).

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).

In Plato's Theaetetus, he says, "Any one forms the true opinion of anything without rational explanation, you may say that his mind is truly exercised, but has no knowledge." This is quite true that when one can state a true opinion supported by a rational explanation, one's opinion constitutes knowledge, since perceptions of senses are excluding in this case. Moreover, a rational explanation does not contain any subjectivity, it is an objective entity for humans to understand true knowledge. For this reason, I fall with rationalism and believe it is a superior philosophical viewpoint about the nature of knowledge.

Epistemology is purposed with discovering and studying what knowledge is and how we can classify what we know, how we know it, and provide some type of framework for how we arrived at this conclusion. In the journey to identify what knowledge is the certainty principle was one of the first concepts that I learned that explained how we, as humans, consider ourselves to know something. The certainty concept suggests that knowledge requires evidence that is sufficient to rule out the possibility of error. This concept is exemplified in cases like The Gettier problem in the instance that we suppose (S) someone to know (P) a particular proposition. As Gettier established the Justified True Belief as a conceptual formula for knowledge, certainty

The ultimate question that Hume seems to be seeking an answer to is that of why is that we believe what we believe. For most of us the answer is grounded in our own personal experiences and can in no way be justified by a common or worldly assumption. Our pasts, according to Hume, are reliant on some truths which we have justified according to reason, but in being a skeptic reason is hardly a solution for anything concerning our past, present or future. Our reasoning according to causality is slightly inhibited in that Hume suggests that it is not that we are not able to know anything about future events based on past experiences, but rather that we are just not rationally justified in believing those things that