Rationalism In Science

John Locke and David Hume, both great empiricist philosophers who radically changed the way people view ideas and how they come about. Although similar in their beliefs, the two have some quite key differences in the way they view empiricism. Locke believed in causality, and used the example of the mental observation of thinking to raise your arm, and then your arm raising, whereas Hume believed that causality is not something that can be known, as a direct experience of cause, cannot be sensed. Locke believed that all knowledge is derived from our senses, which produce impressions on the mind which turn to ideas, whereas Hume's believed that all knowledge is derived from experiences,

Rationalism is the theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than religious belief or emotional, while empiricism is the theory that knowledge is derived from senses-experience which stimulated the rise of experimental science. The philosophers Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume all have different views on the existence and nature of external objects. Some see it as the view on objects as everything is sense related other see it that it is all from thought but the object is not existent.

John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.

David Hume, a philosopher who raised radical doubts about the rationality of the scientific enterprise. Hume believed that “experience can only assure us of what we are actually observing at present, or can remember having observed in the past” (Cottingham, 2008). In this paper I will show that David Hume’s claim on induction that when there is real knowledge of an event, it cannot correctly justify inductive assumptions.

Rationalism: a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher in the eighteenth century that had some pretty interesting views on cause and effect, which made him an empiricist. This just means that he believed that you had to experience something in order to know about it. David Hume was also best known for his influence on the systems of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher and like Hume, was in the eighteenth century. Kant had many great points in his life and research and his beliefs, to this day, continue to have massive influences on contemporary philosophy. Especially in the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, political theory, and aesthetics. In this paper, we will discuss David Hume’s empiricist skepticism with Immanuel Kant’s theory of transcendental idealism.

Sir Karl Popper, challenging the status quo, inspiring generations to ponder on the meaning of science, the methods to find truth, is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. Of particular importance to scientific methods of inquiry is the brawl between the development of theory and the criteria for science. In Popper’s own words, it is in this brawl that Popper decided to “grapple with the problem: When should a theory be ranked as scientific? or Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?” (Popper 1957), p. 1).

There are two significant empiricists I’m going to focus on, Aristotle and David Hume. Specifically, the focus is on their ethics: what those ethics are, how they differ from each other, and which is superior. Superiority will be determined by the philosophy’s usefulness—whether the epitome of a philosophy’s virtue is attainable by man; and how conducive the philosophy is to human happiness. In both of these respects, Aristotle is superior to Hume.

Although it is irrefutable that both Aristotle and Isaac Newton are great scientists and have made phenomenal contributions to scientific development, their scientific methods vary to a large extent. With reference to Scientific Method in Practice, Aristotle investigated the world by using inductions from observations to infer general principles and deductions from those principles to conduct further observational research (Gauch, 2003), while in Isaac Newton's Scientific Method, the author describes Newton’s method as aiming to turn theoretical questions into ones which can be explained by mathematical ideas and measurement from phenomena, and to establish that propositions inferred from phenomena are provisionally guides to further research

After that theory scientists started Wondering about this theory and a lot of Scientists made up Models and conducted Experiments to Explain this Theory. In this report we will put our self’s inside Each scientist’s Shoe and see What has he discovered.

Firstly, Hume effectively tackles the commonly held assertion that humans are purely rational creatures that successfully implement reason in every situation. Hume concedes

David Hume's most famous quote is “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” To understand the implications of this quote as a basis for an ethical theory you need to understand that every other ethical theory attempts to derive how things ought to be from how things are. The jumps from matters of fact and relations of ideas perceived by reason, to value judgments perceived by emotions, are made in Hume’s opinion with no logical reason. There is nothing contradictory in the statement the sun will not rise in the morning, it is not unreasonable. We only feel that it “ought to” continue rising in the morning. The scientific method uses inductive reasoning to construct a hypothesis and Hume does not contend that it should not be used. It has been useful thus far in making predictions and it is the only tool that we have for understanding the world around us.

Rationalism is the position that there are ways that we can gain knowledge independent of sense experience. Some sources of knowledge that the rationalist may offer include innate ideas like that we have at birth, intuitions like intellectually envisioning a proposition as true for the things like the laws of logic or math, and deduction is an infallible process of logical proof often by taking certain logical or mathematical truths as intuitively true.

In the 17th century Francis Bacon introduced induction as the new method for producing scientific theories. However inductive reasoning is riddled with problems that make it unsatisfactory for demarcating science. Hume’s problem of induction

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat