Empiricism VS Rationalism

[Colonello Buendia]

Who sides with whom?

I'm Empiricist in the Hume-ist mould

[Holden Caulfield]

neither, and both

[wallflower]

Empiricism and Rationalism may be often contrasted, but they aren't mutually exclusive. And both are products of an epoch whose metaphysical assertions are unsound.

I don't trust my own sensory apparatuses. I voted Rationalist.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Empiricist.

-Alex

[rouchambeau]

neither, and both
So, you're an absurdist?

[Luís Henrique]

What would we reason about, if we hadn't data from our sences?

And what would those data serve for, if we couldn't make sence from them through reasoning?

Luís Henrique

[Holden Caulfield]

thank you Luís Henrique,
im with him

[Apollodorus]

You misinterpret, comrade Henrique. The definition of empiricism is not 'all knowledge originates from perception'. Nor is the definition of rationalism 'all knowledge originates from reason'. I am no expert, but I would say they are closer to rationalism is more based upon deductive reasoning, whilst empiricism is more based upon inductive reasoning. For example, Science, an empiric discipline, relies upon the principle of conducting experiments and then determining relationships from these experiments: Isaac Newton did not conduct his prism experiment with every prism in existence, for instance. In contrast, a rationalist discipline, Mathematics, establishes truth by conducting demonstrations. There is no need to conduct demonstrations a number of times: no matter how many times you add two and two, you will still get four (human error is irrelevant). There are really two debates in philosophy about rationalism and empiricism: firstly, which is better in general (whether Mathematics is more true than Science, and so forth), and which is the better system for use within philosophy.

Obviously, I would say that rationalism is more reliable in general, but by no means 'better': both serve their purpose well. However, within philosophy (which I see as the actual debate) it is my opinion that rationalism is better, id est, philosophy should be more like Mathematics than Science.

[Colonello Buendia]

my view is that though the world may not be here what oru senses and what our indcutive arguments tell us is the best approximation we can make

[The Feral Underclass]

How does one essentially attain an understanding of truth. The answer is through both reason and experience. I think you would find it very difficult to understand knowledge through one process over another.

I would however consider myself a rationalist.

[careyprice31]

Rationalist.

I dont see how anyone can be an empiricist, honestly don't

[Dystisis]

I'm a rationalist, I think... Not sure if it matters.

Anyways, I believe in numbers, arrangement, organization, mathematics (you could also call it logic). Because that is the only thing that "transcends" sensory input. Even if our senses were giving us false information, there would still be numbers which can be translated into geometry, rythm, and patterns or organization in general. F.ex. you can't have an atom without having the "number" (amount) 1... etc.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I dont see how anyone can be an empiricist, honestly don't

It's easy, really. There is nothing that we can think of that isn't taken in by the senses. You might say an alien with six heads, but you have taken in the concept of head, six and alien with your senses. Therefore sense-data is primary, which we then post rationalise imperfectly.

-Alex

[superiority]

I dont see how anyone can be an empiricist, honestly don't

Allow me to refer you to Mr. Hume:


Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: We shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience. And this consideration, DEMEA, may, I think, fairly serve to abate our ill-will to this humorous sect of the sceptics. If they be thoroughly in earnest, they will not long trouble the world with their doubts, cavils, and disputes: If they be only in jest, they are, perhaps, bad raillers; but can never be very dangerous, either to the state, to philosophy, or to religion.

[Renewed Revolution]

Empiricist

-Bjork

[RedDawn]

I think I'm an empiricist at heart, but a materialist in practice.

/drunk

[Chom]

Rationalist.

I dont see how anyone can be an empiricist, honestly don't


Me neither. I mean, if the human mind was a blank slate or "tabula rasa" from birth, as John Locke postulated, we would be terribly unstable creatures. There are unique and innate capacities that humans expand from birth, like for example we have the capacity of learning language.

[mikelepore]

Is Empiricism the same as the Kantian notion of reason's inability to know "the thing in itself"

I read Kant's first of three Critique books, the Critique of Pure Reason, for the first time a few years ago. He regarded his position as one that fixes the deficiencies in both empiricism and rationalism. He argued that we get all the information from the senses, but the "categories" that everything must fit into are innate. Such categories as time, space, motion, cause, increase/decrease, etc. are like the building blocks of all possible thoughts. Kant made it sound like the mind at birth is an empty filing cabinet, but the files are pre-labeled, or what some people today might call hard-wiring in the brain. Sensory data comes in and goes into the corresponding categories. I'm not saying it's true, just that it was an interesting viewpoint to read. One thing that I found silly was Kant's claim that a human mind has exactly twelve major categories, which he knows for certain because he simply looked into his own mind and identified them all, as though he were incapable of making a mistake about it.

[Chom]

He argued that we get all the information from the senses, but the "categories" that everything must fit into are innate. (...) Kant made it sound like the mind at birth is an empty filing cabinet, but the files are pre-labeled

That sounds more reasonable than any other empirist statement, and for that matter, any earlier rationalist statement before Kant. Most rationalists today would follow more or less his ideas, I believe, although the categories he "discovered" are kind of lazily formulated.

[Hit The North]

Such categories as time, space, motion, cause, increase/decrease, etc. are like the building blocks of all possible thoughts.But isn't it the case that these categories, rather than being a priori, are a consequence of empirical experience. We don't understand 'time', 'space', 'motion' or any of the other categories except by living through them at the phenomenal level?

Maybe it's the case that reality is structured so that it falls into these categories of its own accord without a philosopher or other observer having to impose these categories on an otherwise disordered reality.

EDIT: That's to say, maybe the categories are innate in nature rather than innate in the human mind.

[Chom]

But isn't it the case that these categories, rather than being a priori, are a consequence of empirical experience. We don't understand 'time', 'space', 'motion' or any of the other categories except by living through them at the phenomenal level?

Maybe it's the case that reality is structured so that it falls into these categories of its own accord without a philosopher or other observer having to impose these categories on an otherwise disordered reality.

EDIT: That's to say, maybe the categories are innate in nature rather than innate in the human mind.

Well, I would say that is a quite rationalist position, that is to say that nature is already constructed according to universal laws, but I still can't accept the notion that we are just blank slates being written on. I believe we do have cognitive structures in our mind that are somehow determined (by nature) to understand and introduce natures structures in our mind. Just reflect upon the fact that we have developed sight or that we are capable of hearing. I think that is some indication that our body/mind knew the presence of these stimuli and developed such instruments. Hmm curious... don't know where I'm going with this. But clearly, we must have some kind of innate structures, since if we wouldn't we would be terribly unstable. I mean say language; there must be some kind of predisposition towards using it. Imagine if we did not...

Hmm gets quite complicated...

[Hit The North]

But clearly, we must have some kind of innate structures, since if we wouldn't we would be terribly unstable. I mean say language; there must be some kind of predisposition towards using it. Imagine if we did not...

We obviously possess innate potentialities or predispositions, but this is different to saying that we have innate cognitive structures in terms of a priori notions of 'motion', 'quantity', etc.

I mean, I'm not born able to speak a language - it's something I have to learn.

[hekmatista]

Those are the choices? Seriously?

[Chom]

We obviously possess innate potentialities or predispositions, but this is different to saying that we have innate cognitive structures in terms of a priori notions of 'motion', 'quantity', etc.

You're right, but rationalist theories (mostly in the field of cognitive psychology) have of course advanced away from the Kantian attempt of defining the innate predispositions.


I mean, I'm not born able to speak a language - it's something I have to learn.

Well, you are born with the capability of language; you are obviously not born with english, or any other language, but there surely is a predisposition towards acquiring language. I mean, even cells have the capacity of comunicating (in their form of language, by proteins or electric impulse, etc.). So I would dare to say that language (or the capacity of language) is a innate cognitive structure, or what would be a "category" in Kantian terminology.


Those are the choices? Seriously?

It has been mentioned earlier that they're not mutually exclusive. I suppose this debate is supposed to be about the "rivality" between rationalism and empiricism before Kant showed up (Descartes vs. Hume).

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well, you are born with the capability of language; you are obviously not born with english, or any other language, but there surely is a predisposition towards acquiring language. I mean, even cells have the capacity of comunicating (in their form of language, by proteins or electric impulse, etc.). So I would dare to say that language (or the capacity of language) is a innate cognitive structure, or what would be a "category" in Kantian terminology.



Yeah, but only by sensory input do you get anything worth anything. If you don't get learning by sensory input in like, the first few years, you can never learn language.

-Alex

[razboz]

Me neither. I mean, if the human mind was a blank slate or "tabula rasa" from birth, as John Locke postulated, we would be terribly unstable creatures. There are unique and innate capacities that humans expand from birth, like for example we have the capacity of learning language.

I do beleive you are wrong. Locke was not a pure empiricist, to start off with. He still beeleived strongly in the power of the rational mind. This is for example how he managed to rationally suppose god. Secondly, while physically we might be born as blank slates i think Locke supposes the existance of a soul bestowed by a Creator, which implies that the functions and knowledge derived from the soul are innate.

Also i'd like to comment that i beleive this poll to be fundamentally flawed. The dabatee in philosophy can longer be broken down into "rationalists" vs. "empiricists" like it could in the 17th or 18th centuries. After Kant (in response to Hume btw) made his great sinthesis of the two in his Critiques the debated got redefined.

As far as i understand it, and as a few others mentioned above, Empiricism and Rationalism are just two different ways of knowing, rather than two truths as was argued by the supporters of either in the days before Kant. Both are used by the human intellect at different points. Having said this, the range of applications for rationalist thought is much more limited, due ot the fact that without empirical knowledge the rational mind wonders deep into the realm of the metaphysical reaching any kind of absurd conclusion. Similarly without the rational cdapacity to process sensory information this information nwould be entirely useless. This is what kant referred to as a priori (correct me if im as wrong as i suspect i am) knowledge.

[Chom]

Yeah, but only by sensory input do you get anything worth anything. If you don't get learning by sensory input in like, the first few years, you can never learn language.

-Alex

Don't be silly. That's not logical. We develope forms of communication (which is language) by all means. How can't a human get any sensory input? Well of course, if you take a human being when it's born and rip out all his neurons so he can't get any external stimulation, then yes, he won't develope language. But then again, he wouldn't be human no more. Now you could argue that humans, as any living being, communicates somehow, but this is wrong since it's unique in humans. Several experiments with apes and other "inteligent" animals have proven that they can ask for things but not much more. Human creativity, when it comes to language, is unique.

I haven't expressed myself enough, I know, but if you really need a point to point explanation, I'll be happy to do so.


I do beleive you are wrong. Locke was not a pure empiricist, to start off with. He still beeleived strongly in the power of the rational mind. This is for example how he managed to rationally suppose god. Secondly, while physically we might be born as blank slates i think Locke supposes the existance of a soul bestowed by a Creator, which implies that the functions and knowledge derived from the soul are innate.

You've messed up philosophers. It would really be an insult towards Descartes to say that Locke managed to rationally suppose God... So it would be towards Locke too, especially if you told him humans have innate capacities.


(Empiricism and Rationalism are just two different ways of knowing, rather than two truths as was argued by the supporters of either in the days before Kant.

Yes, we are discussing mostly in this thread the question concerning if human knowledge comes solely from external stimuli, or from rational and logical deduction...


Having said this, the range of applications for rationalist thought is much more limited, due ot the fact that without empirical knowledge the rational mind wonders deep into the realm of the metaphysical reaching any kind of absurd conclusion. Similarly without the rational cdapacity to process sensory information this information nwould be entirely useless. This is what kant referred to as a priori (correct me if im as wrong as i suspect i am) knowledge.

... therefore, the cientific method today accepted is the hypothetical-deductive method. Kant is really quite original in affirming the existence of the categories, which are innate, and are filled with experience. These categories can not, by any measure, be changed by experience. This is the view that is mostly accepted, although in different terms than the Kantian, by human biology and psychology today.