Blog 3

Blog 3

Sarah Nelson

PHI- 100

The two sides of the free will debate are the Determinists and the Libertarians. Hard determinists say that actions are effect while the real world- such as society and family- are the cause. So our actions are programmed by society and other outside or external influences and we are following a pre-programed path. While Soft determinists believe that we have some free will but it is still due to external forces. This free will differs from the Libertarians view of free will because for soft determinists we are still following our emotions which are a product of outside forces such as society. On the other side Libertarians say some of our actions are our choice and others are innate. In short it comes down to Nature vs. Nurture.

                I side with the Libertarians for when it comes down to society or life style growing up as a deciding factor on our decisions, we are taught what is right and what is wrong. However at the end of the day it is our up to us if we follow the rules set before us or not. If we look at a famous war such as the American Revolution it was started by those who chose to defy the social standards and teachings growing up. If all our actions were dictated by society there would have been no war. The typical family environment does not tend to result in people rebelling against the crown as it would have been ‘frowned upon’.  It was their own choice to stand up against the crown so those actions are therefore examples of free will. While the soft determinists would point out that those acts would be seen as acts of free will as they are aligned with the emotions and desires of those who started the American Revolution they would claim it is because of external forces that had placed those thoughts and feelings in those rebels. To which I disagree as for many of them had probably grown up in homes that were similar to what was a traditional house hold that placed emphasis on how the king was in charge etc. This would not provide a foundation for the ‘desires’ or ‘emotions’ to be placed in the people. We all have innate actions as well. They would be actions that help others in need whether they are people or animals or donating to charity. These are acts of compassion as they are impulsive and not something you debate over.  

                In terms of explanatory breadth Libertarians cover more actions. They cover rebels or those who defy societies’ rules to promote causes.  Hand in hand with that would be those who break the laws placed by society such as theft with those who are well off financially.  You make the decision to steal and as society dictates it wrong you are going against society. Then there is the reverse. You consciously make the decision to follow society’s rules and control your actions to obey the laws by not doing anything to break the laws. While Determinists cover following the laws and those who break them as society dictates to follow the laws and external forces cause you to steal but they do not cover rebels.

                For explanatory depth Libertarians  explains in more details as it explains why people act out if they have need to steal such as a desperate need for money. However it also explains why if they would steal if they were not in need of money. It covers both scenarios with more details instead of a broad reason why all actions occur. Then there are innate actions such as compassion. Libertarians would defend it as innate as we want to help and freely choose to help the needy because it helps make us feel better about ourselves. Determinists would chalk it up to society pressuring us to donate through advertisement and collecting tins.

For simplicity, the determinists view is more simplistic as it has only one cause for our actions and that is not free will. Then Libertarians are more complex with two reasons for our actions such as free will and innate actions.

For conservatism they are equal. It depends on view point of people and perhaps religious or philosophical belief. Some believe our actions are a result of society and environment which tends to provides security for them.. Others believe that we have our own choices in life and stick to that belief as they desire the feeling of being in control.

1. Libertarian and Determinist are the most plausible explanation of our actions.
2. Libertarians have more Explanatory breadth and depth while Determinists are more simplistic.
3. Therefore libertarian has the best explanation of our actions

Free Will Debate

Free will can be defined as the power a person has to make voluntary choices and decisions without the constraint of necessity or fate. Determinists argue that all of actions are determined by proceeding events or external causes.  These external causes may include, the physical world or the environment in which a person is raised. On the other hand, libertarians believe in the doctrine of free will. They claim that some of people’s actions are determined by spontaneous free will. This is the ability to voluntarily make choices and decisions that will alter the course of their lives. However, they believe that some actions are determined by external causes.

                After closely examining the debate, I have come to the agreement that libertarianism is the plausible explanation to my beliefs on the idea of free will. I do believe that in certain scenarios, some actions are determined by external causes. For example, In Compatibilism Free Will Is Consistent with Determinism by W.T. Stace, it was stated in a conversation between Jones and Smith, “Jones: I once went without food for a week. Smith: “Did you do that of your own free will? Jones: No. I did it because I was lost in a desert and could find no food.” Here Jones, had no choice to go without food. His environment made it impossible for him to obtain food. It was out of his control. However, in another example in the text, there is a conversation between Gandhi and Smith, “Gandhi: I once fasted for a week. Smith: Did you do that of your own free will? Gandhi: Yes. I did it because I wanted to compel the British Government to give India its independence.” In this case, Gandhi believed that he could change the environment that he was surrounded in by fasting for a week. He made the voluntary decision to fast in hopes of that the British Government would grant India its independence. It was Gandhi’s own free will to make this decision.

                I do not believe that morals could exist without free will. If no actions were based on voluntary choices or decisions how could anyone be blamed for committing a crime, or an action that is frowned upon in society. People could simply state, “It was out of my control. My actions have already been predetermined.” These explanations are false. In certain cases, some things are out of a person’s control.  Such as, being raised in an abusive household. The child could grow up to be an abusive parent and blame it on the way they were raised, or they can make the voluntary decision to change this abusive cycle and be a good parent to their own children. 

Libertarianism has more explanatory breadth than determinism does. This is because it explains more types of human behavior. Libertarians know that most actions are determined by free will while other actions are determined by external causes. The events and actions that people have the ability to change, they will. This is due to the fact that many people choose to make certain decisions in their own lives. They act in ways based off their own desires and feelings. Determinism fails to address the concept of morals. Morals cannot exist if people do not have free will. If people cannot voluntarily choose right from wrong, what differentiates between right from wrong? Libertarianism gives people the opportunity to accomplish this.

                Determinism explains the causes of human behavior in greater detail than libertarianism does, thus it has more explanatory depth. Determinism gives reason to people’s actions. In my previous example, I talked about a child being raised in an abusive family and then becoming an abusive parent when they grew up. Determinism explains that the reason why the child became an abusive parent is because they are surrounded in an abusive environment. Libertarianism fails to give reasons as to why people act the way they do. They cannot describe in detail why things happen and their purpose.

Determinism has fewer parts and assumptions than libertarianism does, making it less likely to conceal hidden errors. This shows that determinism has more simplicity than libertarianism. Determinism has one explanation for people’s actions, and that is that people’s actions are determined by external causes. Libertarianism however, has many reasons for people’s actions. The reasons are free will and external causes. Because free will can vary in so many ways, it is much more complex than simply stating that actions are determined by external causes.

Libertarianism is much more consistent with our current, common sense beliefs than determinism. This is because many people like to know that they are in control of their own lives. They do not like to think that their lives are predesigned for them. It gives people a sense of purpose to know that they have a say in their future. Cleary, libertarianism has more conservatism than determinism.

1. Libertarianism, and determinism are the most plausible explanation of the ultimate causes of human behavior.

2. Libertarianism has much more explanatory breadth and conservatism, whereas determinism has a little more explanatory depth, and simplicity.

3. Therefore, libertarianism is the best explanation of the ultimate causes of human behavior.

Rationalism vs Empiricism (Blog Post 2)

Source of Knowledge

Empiricists believe that all ideas come from experience, and that there is no such thing as innate knowledge. However, logical truths and math are not because of our five senses, but our reason of ability to connect ideas. I do believe our knowledge comes from experience, but some knowledge is innate.

As part of the Explanatory breadth the origin of more ideas come from rationalism. A supernatural human being created earth and humans. The idea of empiricism fails to address how everything started. Humans are a product of their parents, which are a product of their parents and so forth. The Earth didn't just appear, nor did humans. Something had to create them to start the world off. 

For explanatory depth empiricism goes into depth about science and how advanced it has become due to the empiricist belief. On the other hand there are many more ideas come from Rationalism; such as math, creativity, logic and even morality. Based on our five senses, how would you determine justice or good from bad? Undermining creativity by saying you can only combine and separate is an empiricism idea. Fantasy realities and abstract designs would disagree with that thinking.

As for a simplistic view, I do believe that rationalism covers up for concealing errors. Saying everything comes from experience, there are a few things that can be questioned. Rationalist stating that the ideas that can be questioned are innate covers up majority of all hidden errors. Empiricism is more complex with no ideas being innate. Everything is derived from our five senses or reasoned from the mind.

The perspective seen in modern day conservatism is rationalism. Math is found to be innate, in addition to justice, human rights, and moral duties. The nature of reality can’t be found through our experiences. We can’t check our experience on what reality really is so we have to rely on reason.

1.      Rationalism and Empiricism are the most plausible explanations of where our ideas come from.

2.      Rationalism has much more explanatory depth and simplicity, whereas empiricism fails to explain innate ideas such as mathematics and morality.

3.      Therefore, Rationalism best explains where our ideas come from.

Blog Post 2

Tyler Stevens

Philosophy 100

Professor Gilliland

14 October 2014

Rationalist or Empiricist?

            Philosophers argue whether our ideas come from experience or more or less are innate. The rationalists would argue that some ideas are innate and that the rest come from experience, while empiricists would argue that all of our ideas come from experience. In my opinion, the rationalistic point of view makes more sense, because there are some ideas such as the ideas of hearing, seeing, breathing, and swallowing. These ideas are essential to life, and are automatic functions of a human body. The internal sensations of emotion and desire are rational because they are human urges of attraction or even anger that has no reflection on experiences you may have had in the past. The argument for empiricism is that our thoughts and ideas are weaker and duller than impressions, and that all of our thoughts and ideas can be analyzed into simple ideas originating in experience. The thoughts and ideas that are considered to be empirical are memories of occurrences in your lifetime, and products of the imagination.

            The ideas in which I feel are rational are things like knowing to scratch yourself when you have an itch. The sensation triggers a reaction in the body to scratch the area that is itchy. This does not come through experience; this is an automatic response from the body telling you how to give relief to your itch.

Explanatory breadth- Although I argued for rationalism earlier, I think empiricism has more explanatory breadth than rationalism does because it can apply to much more than rationalism can. Rationalism fails to address the theory of learning things, as you grow older. You are born with a pretty much empty brain and learn from there, but I still believe some things are innate.

Explanatory Depth- I think rationalism has explanatory depth because morality is something that would fall under explanatory depth and is something I believe to be rational because having morals is something you know is right.

Simplicity- I think empiricism has more simplicity because it is easier to form ideas from experience than the rationalist point of view, rationalists have to form ideas based on nothing, which makes it hard for them to have simplicity.

Conservatism- I think rationalism is more conservative than empiricism because it can be something that fits our own belief. If I have a belief in innate ideas stronger than empirical so I believe that rationalism is conservative because It fits my beliefs more strongly.

1.Rationalism and empiricism are the most plausible explanations of why we think the way we do.

2.Rationalism has much more conservatism and explanatory depth whereas empiricism has a little more explanatory depth.

3.Therefore rationalism is the best explanation of why we think the way we do.

Lea Clark

Philosophy 100

Blog Post 2

Rationalism and Empiricism is a very controversial debate; each has a different view of where our ideas come from. Empiricists have the idea that all ideas come from past experiences, while rationalist have the belief that some ideas are innate and the rest come from experience. I agree with the belief of the empiricists; all ideas come from past experiences. A newborn baby knows nothing about the world they are born into. They learn from experiencing new things and can apply what they’ve learned in the future. Therefore, the same concept would apply for composing new ideas.

            Everyone is born with no knowledge of anything. No one has had experiences that would teach him or her anything at that point in their lives. Babies learn by experimenting. A baby might pick something up and put it in their mouths that to older people would not seem normal. However to a baby it is their way of figuring out what this object is because they are unfamiliar with it. From the second you are born, you begin to discover the world around you and have new experiences every day and gain more knowledge.

            Descartes describes in his wax example moving a solid piece of wax close to fire and seeing it melt. Although the wax melting and changing from a solid to a liquid does not mean that it is a different piece of wax. People know this from experiencing it; you never see Descartes physically switch out the piece of wax, the shape and state of it may have changed, but it remains the same piece of wax.

Explanatory Breadth: I think empiricism explains explanatory breadth better than rationalism. Empiricism states that ideas come from experiences while rationalism believes some ideas are innate. Rationalists fail to see that people are born with no knowledge and that ideas do not come from nothing.

Explanatory Depth: Empiricism is explained more in explanatory depth than rationalism. Since empiricists believe ideas come from experience, it can be further into depth based on what the empiricist has experienced. Since rationalists believe ideas are innate the same would not apply to them.

Simplicity: Again I think empiricism fits more into this category. Empiricism is less likely to have errors due to past knowledge and being broken down into an easier form to understand. Where a rationalist might have more errors because they have nothing to base their ideas off of.

Conservatism: Empiricism is more consistent than rationalism. Rationalism could go down a bunch of different paths because it argues all ideas are innate. But empiricism states that ideas are form experiences.

1.     Empiricism and rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.

2. Empiricism has much more explanatory depth and simplicity, whereas, rationalism has a little more explanatory breadth.  

3. Therefore, empiricism is the best explanation of the origin on ideas

Le'Shania Anderson
Blog post #2
PHI 100 24N



                                              Rationalism or Empiricism

       
Rationalism and empiricism are two different theories in which philosophers think some of our knowledge is acquired. Rationalist have a belief that knowledge we have is based on reason, making sense of a situation using logic instead of proof to know if something is the case or not. Empiricist argue that knowledge that we have and obtain is based on experiences. I believe between the two theories, rationalism seems the most plausible because every single question can not be answered because there aren't any evidence to prove or disprove something. Certain ideas cant be derived from experience such as the idea of a single creator of all the infinite galaxies, planets, and creatures.  We cannot derive this from experience because no one person has been at the very beginning of time to say they have witness and experience it.

Explanatory Breadth
With rationalism you can logical understand that there is a God because you logical know that things need origins a galaxy can not just have always been and just have been evolving on its own. Empiricism theories might have the belief of the " Big Bang Theory" as a cause and might have some evidence such as the constant expansion of galaxies, but they can not address the fact that the cause they have evidence for still needs a creator. Energy can not just naturally be created or destroyed it can only be changed from one form to another. So the idea that a burst of energy just happen from nothing can not be proven with evidence.

Explanatory Depth
With empiricist theories they tend to more so explain the origins of ideas more because empiricism looks for evidence, there for they can more so explain and back up their claims. But there are only so few questions can be answered with the full explanation and evidence as to why. With rationalism there are infinite number of possible answers.

Simplicity
Rationalism is more simpler of the two theories because they can just logically think what a possible reasoning for something to be. Empiricism are more complex because they have needs to see something or have evidence for claimed to be factual.

 Conservatism
I believe rationalism is more consistent with our current common sense of believe because we have so many questions that simple cannot be proven true or false with evidence be cause there is a lack of or insufficient.
1. Rationalism and Empiricism are the most plausible explanations of how we obtain knowledge 
2. Rationalism has much more explanatory depth and simplicity, empiriscm has a little more explanatory breadth.
3. Therefore, rationalism is the best explanation of how we obtain knowlegde

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Eric Kemmling

Philosophy 100-24n

10/14/14

Blog Post 2

Experience Fuels Knowledge

A major debate in philosophy comes from the disagreeing opinions between supporters of empiricism and rationalism. Both arguments focus on the origin of our ideas, or more importantly whether they are stemmed from experience based learning, or pre-configured notions in our brains. Empiricists believe that no knowledge is innate, that by through lived experience and use of our senses and reasoning we learn and gain knowledge. Rationalists on the other hand believe that some knowledge is innate and already ready to use, including mathematics and morality. Both pose strong arguments for their cause, but it seems empiricism holds a better explanation.

Empiricism forming its evidence on experience has the upper hand in terms of argumentation. Its explanatory breadth is much larger when compared to rationalism and provides a better theory when comparing the origin of ideas. The argument of rationalism imposes that some of our knowledge is innate and already pre-learned, but how can this be true without first taking use our senses and reasoning? For example the knowledge of color and shapes, forms being a debated part of innate knowledge. Without seeing or feeling an object the mind cannot process and know them. The blind can not describe color, or contemplate a shape without first feeling it, just as the deaf can not imagine a sound unless experiencing it before. The problem with rationalism is that it does not provide an origin to this knowledge.

When it comes to explanatory depth the same problem with rationality comes into the light. The explanation for most occurrences is that the five senses could not comprehend it so it must be innate, This argument does not have much depth beyond coming to a quick conclusion. The idea of wax radically changing is often thrown at empiricists, for how could a person know they were the same thing. Descartes analogy does pose a good point, but in my opinion by watching the wax change, and with combined reasoning into the properties of the way things burn and melt from prior experience, this is not a good argument. Although it would be easier to be taught this knowledge, by watching things of the same nature go through similar changes, i believe a conclusion would eventually be drawn. The way empiricism allows trial and error, provides a deeper way to explain.

Empiricism is also simpler in terms of its explanations and arguments. Being that all things are learned through experience and reasoning there is no confusion over where knowledge originates or how. In rationalism there is confusion between what knowledge is innate, and what isn't, along with why certain things are innate and why not.

Lastly empiricism is more conservative and in compliance with societies current beliefs. Our scientific method is based off trial and error, done through experimentation and experience. we use empiricism to advance ideas and further make theories and predictions. Rationalism and innate behavior are not very widespread because it is common sense not to take anything for fact, as our knowledge expands so do our explanations for things. Through history it seems that believing in something without a doubt enough to call it innate, is eventually proven wrong. This could be related to early views on god and science.

1. The ideas of empiricism and rationalism provide the most reasonable and well thought out explanations on how humans obtain knowledge.
2. Empiricism through the ideas of lived experience and reasoning through the senses has better explanatory depth and conservatism, whereas rationality has lesser depth.
3. Therefore, empiricism is the best explanation of how knowledge is learned.  

 

Allison Simpkin

Phi 100

Professor Gilland

10/14/14

Blog Post 2

The basis for all ideas and concepts have to come from somewhere. It has to come from some experience that people faced or lived. As proven in the dream theory, you are able to dream of ideas that are biased from your own experiences. For example; if you dream about a unicorn the idea of that creature comes from a fact that you understand and know the concept of a horse. All you do is combined the horse and a horn to create a unicorn. This all ties back to the concept of empiricism and all of our ideas come from past experiences.

The concept that ideas and thoughts come from personal experiences and are not innate. You may come up with an idea of some sort out of the blue but it will be logical to why you are thinking of that. There are plenty of times that you wake up from a dream and not understanding and comprehending what just happened. To come up with a valid thought or idea you have to understand the reliable resource of which it is coming from. Therefore the ideas must be concrete and not innate.

In Descartes’ wax example it proves my point. Something can go through such a drastic change and remain the same. In the wax example the wax was solid and then melted into liquid wax. Whichever form the wax is in it all comes to be the same piece of wax just in a different state. This links directly to the idea that ideas originate from past experiences. An experience can remain the same once it has all happened. The only thing that changes is the way you take off of it. An example that proves this is, you go on a trip to a country outside the United States. You climbed the highest mountain that you have been working your entire life for. The fact or idea that you climbed the mountain doesn’t change. The way you perceive that experience a few years later may change. However the backbone to the experience will never change. It is still the same mountain no matter how much it may change. To recap the wax is still the same wax no matter if it is melted or not.

A.    In terms of explanatory breadth empiricism all of the ideas are covered in some was by one experience or another. This idea proves that all ideas have a central source where they are coming from. You can’t have ideas that are out of the blue.

B.     In terms of explanatory depth empiricism is not covered all the way with just one central Esperance. An idea is almost guaranteed to come from more than one experience or source. There is also a guarantee that one source is going to be in deeper depth than the other. An example of this is in history class a war could break out. When that war breaks out there are always more than one cause for it. The bigger end for the result of the war is weighing on the side that is more favored.

C.     In terms of simplicity empiricism there is very little room for error. If our thoughts and ideas come a source they are not created out of the blue. There is a pace to look back on for why someone is thinking the way they do. The end result always comes from experience and there is no way to question what you are thinking or experiencing. The other theory that says only some ideas come from experiences is very questionable.  You can’t determine sat and stone that the thought are true or not. Therefore there is no way you can be one hundred percent someone has just made something up.

D.    In terms of conservatism there is no doubt that it doesn’t go against our common sense. The experiences that we faced is true and will remain constant without any doubt that there is error. The ideas that we come up with are all backed up with experience, in return you can’t doubt if it happened or not.

 

1.      The theory that all ideas are innate and some ideas are innate are most plausible explanations of our lack of experience.

2.      The theory that all ideas are innate are 100% back up, whereas the theory that some ideas are innate are in jeopardy for error.

3.      Therefore, the theory that all ideas are the best expiation for valid ideas.

Adam Schwabacher

Philosophy

10/14/14

Blog #2

Rationalism Vs Empiricism

            Rationalism and Empiricism are polar opposites that are used to debate topics. People who use rationalism believe that there is reincarnated into them from past lives. An example of this is when to people are doing something for the same amount of time and one of them happens to more naturally to one then other person this calls for rationalism. Empiricism believe that most of people’s knowledge comes from experience.  I do agree with Humes thoughts over the Decorates. Due to the fact some people are naturally better at some things then other people better people are able to change over time, learn more things, and could become better then someone who is naturally good at things.

            In the passage the Decorates say that if something changes then it’s a different thing. The Decorates talk about wax. Wax is can be both a liquid and a substance at the same time. You could mold wax and brake wax but it is still going to be the same thing. Take a football player for example. You could train someone to be a linemen or a Quarterback.  When he signs up to play he could be a lightweight player. Later in the season you see how good he got at playing and how much better he got at tackling or throwing the ball. He could be an all state player by the end of the season, but when you look at him he still is going to be the same guy that signed up to play football. Like the wax you could mold a football player and you could brake him, he will still be a football player.

            Humes was correct in talking about Empiricism and how knowledge is gained from experience. The more someone practices something can ae able to get better at it will eventually lead them to be better at something then other people. There are people in the world that are natural good at something but as John Adams said “Practice makes perfect.’

 1.Empiricism and Rationalism are the most basic topics about origins.

2. Empiricsm has more depth and simplicity other then rationalism with has a lot less depth

# Therefore Empiricism is a better way to discuss origins.

Empiricism

Many people have argued where ideas come from. Rationalists argue that some ideas are innate and the others come from experience. On the other hand, Empiricists believe that no ideas are innate. All ideas come from experience. They believe knowledge is derived from sense- experience.

After closely researching the two theories, I have come to the conclusion that empiricism is more plausible than rationalism.  I do believe that certain emotions, instincts, and feelings are innate. For example, every human including infants, are born with the instinct to avoid coming in contact with fire. However, instincts, emotions, and feelings are not ideas. I do not believe that an infant has the knowledge to avoid touching a stove if another person does not tell them to do so. This is because they do not see the orange flames like they can in an actual fire and cannot feel the heat the stove gives off.  After the infant touches the stove and gets a burn, they will learn never to touch a stove again. This is the concept of empiricism. The infant will not truly grasp the idea that the stove is hot until they touch it for themselves. Rationalist may believe that the infant will know not to touch the stove from birth. However, how is this possible? The infant will only learn that the stove is hot by sense-experience.

Rene Descartes uses an example in his piece “Meditations on First Philosophy,” to explain that something can go through radical changes yet remain the same thing could be derived from experience. Descartes stated, “When was my perception of the wax’s nature more perfect and clear? Was it when I first looked into the wax, and thought I knew it through my senses? Or is it now, after I inquired more carefully into the wax’s nature and into how it is known?” Here, Descartes tries to explain that this is from a rationalist point of view. However, what he fails to realize is that the wax example he provided actually supports empiricism. This example shows the forms the wax can take is not something a person has the ability to understand until they experience it for themselves. It is not something a person is born with or can be taught from others. Descartes then goes on to explain the different forms the wax can take. He discussed how it can be melted and boiled. That it is flexible and changeable.  A person cannot teach another person about the piece of wax and that it is composed of the same material in solid and melted form. It needs to be taught through the person’s senses, imagination, and the mind itself. The combination of these allows the person to get the full concept of the always changing wax.   

            Explanatory breadth discusses how one theory explains the origin of more ideas than the other theory does. Also, it discusses what the other theory fails to address. Empiricism explains the origin of ideas much clearer than rationalism. Empiricism explains that ideas come from experiences. They must connect with the world around them through sight, touch, feelings, and smell. Rationalism fails to explain where the ideas originate. Rationalist try to prove that some ideas are innate. But they do not prove how this is the case. How is a person born with certain ideas? Where do they come from? Does a higher power or God give these people the ideas? Is everyone born with the same ideas? Also, why are some ideas innate, while others come from experience? This is what rationalism fails to address, making the theory unclear.

Explanatory depth explains that one theory states the origin of certain ideas in greater detail than the other theory does. In this case, empiricism is able to do this. It is much easier for empiricists to provide examples to prove their theory such as, my previous exampled used on infants getting burned by a stove. Many people can easily come up with their own examples to prove that ideas originate through experience. Rationalism fails to provide examples due to the fact that no one really knows whether or not a baby is born with certain ideas. No one can trace back to where the ideas came from, how they were developed.

Empiricism is very simple and has few parts to it. This makes it less likely to conceal hidden errors. Empiricist are able to state the origin of ideas and provide specific examples to support their claim. They do not leave anything up to the imagination. Rationalists do. This makes their theory much more complex. They cannot state the origin of ideas in more detail than just simply stating people are born with them. Many rationalists use their own opinions to support their clam. Finally, some rationalist confuse instincts, feelings, and emotions for ideas, which should never be mistaken.  These factors make the theory more likely to conceal hidden errors. This type of reasoning is called simplicity.

            Conservatism explains that a theory is more consistent with current beliefs than another theory. Rationalism is very consistent with our current, common, sense belief. In our culture today, it is expected of people to be born with some important ideas. People should not have to learn through experience to figure out these certain ideas.  Other ideas, which are less obvious will be learned as time goes on.

1.      Empiricism and Rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.

2.      Empiricism has much more explanatory depth and simplicity, whereas Rationalism has a little more conservatism. 

3.      Therefore, Empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of ideas.