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.