Essay on Rationalism vs. Empiricism: The Argument for Empricism

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

There are three forms of doubts that Descartes believes in, one of which is the defective nature of doubt. The defective nature of doubt is reasonable because it gives Descartes a clean slate to begin doubting everything he’s uncertain of. Because Descartes wants knowledge and truth, he starts to look to doubt. To gain knowledge and truth one must have cautious perceptive that contains no doubt. Therefore, Descartes thinks that since the foundation of his knowledge had uncertain characteristics, he must take apart his knowledge and destroy everything he thought he knew. Then he starts to build his knowledge back up but only with things that he is certain of.

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 is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements.

Rationalism is an explanation of the world through our minds. Rationalism is a theory of knowledge where the critical

As stated, doubt is central to Descartes process in establishing the foundation for all knowledge, a foundation that he derives as indubitable. The first doubt that Descartes addresses is the human senses. He equates that the senses

While I agree with you that the use of reason is in important in order to best reach the truth, it is difficult to have access to a vast quantity of knowledge without observation or experiencing the external world. This it likely why I have a preference to subscribe to transcendental idealism which in many ways combines the rationalism and empiricism. Transcendental idealism, like rationalism, uses reason and critical evaluation, but transcendental idealism focuses on the observations and puts into account that our experiences may not be accurate accounts of the external

Rationalism promotes the role of a priori truths. An example of rationalism is found in mathematics, ethics, logic, and metaphysics. Rationalism is based of the idea that in order for something to be true, it must be proven true. Weaknesses of Rationalism would be to rely everything on Rationalism and cannot always be used in practical use. One might separate themselves from reality if they rely on Rationalism. A person will becomes alienated from society because not all things can be proven true through. One cannot prove what’s real and what’s not; it is based on someone’s point of view. Rationalism cannot always be used in a practical use. A person would not be able to use rationalism in our everyday lives. Rationalism teaches us humans that

Clark’s view of rationality is in parallel with classical foundationalism which says that most beliefs are basic, not having the support or knowledge of other beliefs. I am in agreement with Clark’s view that evidentialism does not accurately describe our beliefs and how we came about those beliefs.

Out if all the theory's I think empiricism makes the most sense. This is because, for the most part, I do not think knowledge can be innate. When you are a child you do stupid things like putting your hand on a hot burner. However, as people grow they learn more and more and obtain knowledge. To me knowledge is something that is earned, so if it is earned then it can't be innate. Yount's explanation of these these did not change my mind. Yount's reasoning actually strengthened my view of empiricism over rationalism. This is because one of the things listed for empiricism, Colors, really spoke to me. I feel like this could also be added on to, for example someone that is born blind has no idea what seeing is like and even their dreams are composed

Descartes’s theory of knowledge is essentially based in skepticism. He argued that in order to understand the world, first a person has to completely suspend their judgements of the world around them. This is the impression that the world makes on their mind. In this way, the physical world is not what leads to knowledge. Instead, the mind finds rationally seeks knowledge. The question is, essentially, “should we believe beyond the evidence?” (Kessler, 2013, p. 332). In this way, the ideas are rooted in the nature of doubt. This is an inherent nature of the mind, which is the result of the nature of man as made by God. In this way, the mind is guided by god towards knowledge in its infallible ability to reason about reality. In this way, the mind’s reasoning ability, even in the absence of physical reality, can ultimately lead to knowledge. I don’t fully agree with Descartes’ proposition that only the mind can produce certain knowledge and that our senses are constantly under the attack and being deceive by some evil deceiver. In order to go against Descartes propositions concerning about doubt I will use Locke to oppose it.

Empiricists believe that knowledge is justified through experience, and uses inductive logic. People argue against empiricism with skepticism, but if some skepticism is believed it is impossible to accept reality. For example, Descartes mentions that because of the possibility of a demon controlling all the human senses making it so everything we experience is the demon playing a trick, and because it cannot be disproved it derails all empiricist claims. This theory although a possibility is very unlikely, along with other skeptical claims, and with that thinking there would be no scientific advancement or acceptance of common knowledge such as the existence of gravity. Descartes even mentions in his writing of the challenge of always using this kind of thinking (Descartes 1641). In empiricism the more evidence the more certainty and justified knowledge is. If one doubts all of one’s senses just because there is some flaws that optical illusions can show, means that one could not trust anything. One could not trust that they are wearing boots when in fact they are wearing boots, and it could be dangerous to doubt something such as a tree being where you see it because one could run into the tree and hurt themselves. Empirical beliefs are necessary to go through life. An example in Jurassic Park where empiricism is applied and shows its usefulness is when Grant kills the raptors attacking him by feeding them poisoned eggs. In the scene Grant uses his past experience with raptor fossils, and how it was believed that they would eat the eggs of other dinosaurs, and used that knowledge to save his and others life. This scene shows how empirical predictions have an immediate real life usefulness that rationalist predictions do not (Chichton 1990, P.

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.

Empiricism on the other hand, bases knowledge on sense experience and testing. This is a deviation from rationalism that believed in the mind as the main source of knowledge and beliefs. This school of thought believes that all beliefs and knowledge that can be considered acceptable are only justified through experience. Concepts are a posteriori knowledge and can only be applied from the senses on the basis of experience. Information on any component of knowledge and beliefs is obtained posteriori rather than priori. Knowledge of words is only meaningful as long as it conveys concepts and all concepts are only reviewed by past experience. The passage clearly outlines the knowledge behind empiricism. It perceives the mind as white paper free of any characters. It attributes experience as the source of knowledge to furnish this blank piece of paper. It specifically attributes experience and observations as the source of knowledge in comparison to rationalism that relies on reason and the mind. Although rationalism believes in the inner self and mind as the basis of knowledge, empiricism perceives external factors far from the personal mind and perception. Although the mind is involved in creation of knowledge, it is more as a memory of past experience and

The production of knowledge is a process that occurs through a sequence of related actions, these series of actions allows for the Ways of Knowing to interact in a way that works to develop the knowledge that is being produced. From the prescribed title we can claim that while the Ways of Knowing may appear to be acting in isolation when forming knowledge, they are actually working in a variety of different ways in the construction and formation. In some cases, the Ways of Knowing are interacting so closely together that it is often hard to differentiate between them, for example emotion and reason, or imagination and memory. Given the right circumstances faith can be isolated to a point where it can be acting by itself to produce knowledge. However, this knowledge is often deemed as unreliable, due to faith being seen as one of the more “subjective” ways of knowing. This inability to differentiate the ways of knowing from each other during the production of knowledge, raises the questions “Can any knowledge in any Area of Knowledge be produced by a single Way of Knowing?” and “Is it possible to distinguish between Ways of Knowing if they are working together?”. While reason is used in almost all production of knowledge, it is the other Ways of Knowing used that can determine whether the knowledge is reliable or not, as some Ways of Knowing are more subjective than others. This essay will attempt to