Tuesday, October 14, 2014

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

3 comments:

  1. I like how you said that rationalism is consistent with out current beliefs. It sounds like you mean that we can't answer some of our own questions about things. If that's what you mean, then I agree that we generally believe in rationalism because when we can't answer a question, sometimes we'll just say that its a natural thing and that'll be the end of it. Therefore, I do agree that we mostly belive in rationalism today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like how you defend your argument, that certain ideas like the idea of God creating everything, planets, and creatures cannot come from experiences because no one from the beginning. But I disagree with that claim because I believe there has or had to be someone who have experience something like that before for people like us today to know about. Ideas are not brought up out of the blues, someone had to have seen it before or experience before.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You stated in your blog post that there is not enough evidence to support rationalism nor empiricism. However, how are you able to agree with the rationalist standpoint if this is the case? Also, you stated that no one has experienced the beginning of time so there is no way empiricism can be proved. But if no one has experienced the beginning of time, how can you justify rationalism either? I do not believe you described your argument in a clear and strong manner with these two statements.

    ReplyDelete