Empiricism vs Rationalism

      One of the longest-lived metaphysical debates is that between rationalists and empiricists. The empirical argument is that all human ideas are gathered from experience. In other words, we are born with no intrinsic ideas. On the other hand, rationalists argue that while most of our ideas do indeed come from experience, there are some ideas within us that are not products of any experience we've ever had. In other words, some ideas are actually innate. Excluding the more biological ideas we have; I.e emotions, instincts, etc. there is nothing we can think of which is not derived, in some way from experience.
     The most famous argument against empiricism is René Descartes wax example. In this demonstration, Descartes describes the radical changes undergone by a piece of wax as it heats up. Descartes uses this example to demonstrate how incompletely we understand the physical world in comparison to our understanding of our own minds. For example, it is our perceptions which allow us to know that the two different substances which we hold in the experiment are both wax. However, this is not an intrinsic idea, as Descartes argues. Humans are not born with the ability to make these kinds of critical connections. In a well known experiment concerning children's minds, experimenters take two differently sized beakers, a tall skinny one and a shorter fat one, both with the same volume, and fill one up with water. Then, in front of the children, they pour the water from one beaker to another and ask them which had more water in it. The children always answer that the taller beaker had more water in it, even though they saw the same water go from one beaker to the other. In our lives, we learn to recognize physical and chemical changes in different objects simply through observation. For example, Descartes would never have been able to reason in his mind what a melted piece of wax would look like if he hadn't watched wax melt before.
     To analyze the form of these arguments, we must look at a few different essential qualities. First, explanatory breadth. Each argument has a similar breadth, considering they deal with the same material; all ideas. Empiricism does have an advantage as it is all encompassing, while the rationalists must state which ideas are innate, and which are not. The next element is explanatory depth, which the empiricism argument has more of. While the rationalists can state, without much further explanation that some complex ideas are simply ingrained in our genes, empiricists must seek out the experiential origin of each of our ideas. This makes for a much more complete argument. The next two, simplicity and conservatism, are fairly level between the two arguments. One could say that the empiricism debate is a bit simpler because all our ideas come from the same place, and we don't need to make a distinction between origins, but I think if people were to be polled, we'd find that the idea of empiricism is just as popular as rationalism.

1. Empiricism and Rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.
   
2. Empiricism has more simplicity, and much more explanatory depth, while Rationalism has a small advantage in conservatism.
   
3. Therefore, Empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of ideas. 
   

Rationalism and Empiricism

    Rationalism and Empiricism, to rather different theories referring to where our ideas originate.  Rationalism is the belief that only some ideas are innate, with us from birth, so to speak. The idea that we still acquire ideas from experience, yet some we are born with. Then there is Empiricism. Empiricism is the belief that we acquire all ideas from in life experiences, this is stating that NO ideas are innate. I would have to agree with Empiricism because this seems to be more explanatory and more sensible. For example, we can all have an idea of what it feels like to be cold, or warm, remember the feeling of a comfortable heat against your skin. However, it is only because when you are truly experiencing it, the impression leaves behind a memory, an idea. Such as hunger, you can remember what it felt like, empty and rather hallow, however, only when you were truly hungry did you know what it felt like, because in that moment, you were truly feeling it.
  To better explain, or better yet, use a better example than a non-quelled hunger. Let's look at language. English, French, German, Russian, Belgian, Spanish, Mandarin, Italian, Japanese. No matter where you were born, or what language you developed. You knew nothing when you were born, you had to learn from experience, as the Empiricism theory states. You did not leave your mothers womb speaking fluent German. You learned from repeating sounds your mother, or your father made. You learned and you developed, from experience.
 To further elaborate. Let's sneak a look at an idea from Descartes. The candle wax.  Candle wax is hard, and cold, but it is still wax. Yet, put it to flame and it will melt, and scald, yet again it is still candle wax. Descartes explained then that, unless this idea had all ready lied innate within us, a person without experience would not be able to tell that the melted, and hardened pieces of  wax were one in the same.


  Explanatory Breadth: The Empiricism theory will give more a "breadth" to draw out. So to speak, it gives us many a more examples on ideas and theory. It gives us a more intelligent idea on where our ideas originate. While the Rationalism theory feels more personal and intimate, it merely only makes sense when applied to instincts and feelings, emotions. Therefore, it fails to prove that some ideas are innate.

Explanatory Depth: Empiricism again takes the title. Empiricism can go into much greater detail with where our ideas come from, can give a much more compelling argument on accounts of our thoughts and intellect. While Rationalism is thus lacking.

Simplicity: Now Rationalism takes the spotlight. Rationalism is in no doubt the simpler Theory here. It has little to it's story. Short and sweet, as all it does. Empiricism goes much to far into detail to take this cake.

1. Both are fine theories that attempt to explain the origin of our ideas.
2. Empiricism, however, gives a much more compelling argument and makes much more sence.
3. Therefore, Empiricism is the better theory in this debate.

Rationalism vs Empiricism

The debate between rationalism and empiricism revolves around the concept of ideas and experiences. Rationalism argues that some ideas are innate with some exceptions involving experience whereas Empiricism argues that all ideas in fact from from experience.

With this debate I stand agreeing with empiricism more than rationalism because empiricism can relate to more than just being born with certain knowledge. With Descartes’ wax example,it proves that something internally remains the same even in a different state of being. This example however, this also shows how it derives from experience since one will not understand the concept of such change unless it happens to them directly as well.

A. Explanatory breadth- The theory of empiricism has explanatory breadth since it explains the origin of more ideas the rationalism because for example how some people are color blind and cannot tell the difference between colors however the concept of color is still an idea; certain people just cannot grasp this idea due to their lack of experience. Empiricism explains that experience derives ideas more so than rationalism because it is not based off of innate ideas since not everyone is born with the same abilities as mentioned in the color blind example. Although this is only one example, rationalism only accounts for certain things not being innate.
B. Explanatory depth- Rationalism cannot explain where these innate ideas come from within since they are claimed to be ideas you are born with; however empiricism does not exactly explain the origin of certain ideas in greater detail compared to rationalism. Empiricism may be able to produce ideas based on experience but expressing ideas to others who have not experienced said idea is vague and not as detailed as it may be to those who have experienced it first-hand. For example the idea of feeling sad over a death of a loved one is different from hearing about someone you know having a loved one die. Unless you directly experience a death you do not understand this idea in full.
C. Simplicity- The theory of Empiricism has fewer parts to it in contrast to rationalism having exceptions to the rule making it more complex. Empiricism is the concept of all of our thoughts and ideas originating in experience but these ideas can be expressed in a more similar way.
D. Conservatism- The theory empiricism proposes is more consistent with our current, common sense belief when compared to rationalism. Empiricism applies more directly to common sense in that living in these modern times there are more ideas being thought of due to all of the new and undiscovered experiences that people can now go through that they weren't able to go through prior to modern times.

1. Theory of Empiricism and Rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.
2. Theory of Empiricism have much more explanatory breadth and simplicity, whereas Theory of Rationalism is almost equal to Empiricism when it comes to Explanatory depth.
3. Therefore, Theory of Empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of ideas.

Rationalism and Empiricism

          The debate between Rationalism and Empiricism is a debate about where our ideas are derived from. Rationalists believe that some of our ideas are innate, meaning that we are born having certain ideas, and other ideas come from experience. Empiricists believe that all of our ideas are derived from experience. I have to agree with Empiricism, I believe that we gain knowledge through experience and we are not born with certain knowledge. We see in our world good and bad ideas, no one is born with these ideas but rather they learn it from the people around them. If ones family has bad ideas it’s more likely that they will also carry on these bad ideas because they learned from their family to have that idea. No one is born having the bad ideas but rather they learn it from others.
          A great example of Empiricism is Descartes’ wax theory. If someone saw a solid piece of wax and then you later saw a puddle of melted wax they wouldn’t know that it is the same substance because it looks different. They wouldn’t have the idea of wax in their mind and would believe that the substance is different. The only way they could learn the idea of the wax would be if someone showed them a solid piece of wax melting and becoming a liquid. Then they would be able to realize that the substance is the same and when a solid piece of wax is melted it becomes a liquid.

Explanatory breadth- Empiricism states that we gain knowledge and ideas from our experiences and that we aren’t born with them, while rationalism states that we are born with some ideas. Rationalism doesn’t explain what ideas are innate.

Explanatory depth- Empiricism goes more in depth than Rationalism. Empiricism explains why we need to experience something to gain knowledge and ideas about it while Rationalism doesn’t explain what ideas and knowledge we are born with.

Simplicity-Empiricism is more simple to understand because it states that we gain knowledge from experience and can be proven and told, while rationalism doesn’t explain what we are born knowing.

Conservatism- Empiricism and Rationalism are both consistent with our beliefs today. Some people believe that there are some idea that we are born knowing and others believe that we aren’t born with ideas or knowledge but rather we learn them from our experiences. People in our society believe in both rationalism and Empiricism today.

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


2) Empiricism has much more explanatory breadth, depth, and simplicity, whereas Rationalism and Empiricism have an equal amount of conservatism.

Rationalism vs Empiricism

Rationalism vs Empiricism

Our ideas and thoughts are debated to come from two different types of beliefs: rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism and empiricism differ from one another. Rationalism is believed that some ideas are natural and the rest come from our experience. Where as Empiricism is believed that all ideas come from experience. In my opinion empiricism is more plausible than rationalism. In order to understand something, you understand it through experience. To back up my opinion, Descartes uses an example to argue empiricism through an example of wax. Descartes believes that you can’t understand the idea of melted wax if you have never experienced it before in your life.  If a person has never known what melted wax was and you showed them a solid piece of wax and a puddle of melted wax they would believe that they were different. Until you brought them over to see the solid wax melt over the fire then become a puddle of melted wax then they would understand that the wax is the same even though it has changed. It’s the same material just changed and transformed to something different. His idea was the belief that until you experience it for yourself, you wouldn’t fully understand the ideas of the wax and the melted wax.

Explanatory Breadth: is the origin of ideas. Empiricism explains the origin of more ideas more efficient than Rationalism. Empiricism is believed all your knowledge comes from your experiences. However, rationalism ideas are innate. Rationalism fails to explain where the ideas come from, although it’s said they’re natural.

Explanatory Depth: is how detail an argument can dispense. Empiricism provides more detail than rationalism, even though there isn’t much information, empiricism gives more. Empiricism comes from experiences. And rationalism comes from innate. Which is more complex to understand. For example, on how empiricism explain itself, if someone where to work so hard to get into a program but in the end didn’t make it, you can’t relate to what they’re going through unless you experience what they are experiencing.

Simplicity: this has fewer assumptions that make it hard to conceal hidden errors. Empiricism is through experiences, there is nothing to question because the experience is the proof to back it up its explanation. Rationalism is innate, which you have no profound knowledge, only what you are born with.

Conservatism: this is how well an argument fits with society in its beliefs. I believe that Empiricism is a more consistent belief. Living in modern society, things are changing every year; you always have to keep up with the new ideas. But empiricism you would be learning by experiences, which everyone learns from their experiences. Unlike, rationalism its ideas that come from when you are born. But this isn’t helpful because you only know one way, and if things are changing you’ll no longer be up to date.

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

Rationalism and Empiricism

                   The debate between Rationalism and Empiricism is a discrepancy between the origin of where and how our ideas and knowledge derive from. My side on this debate is that rationalism makes more sense than empiricism does and there are some ideas that empiricism can not explain which makes the theory invalid. The reason I chose rationalism is because I believe there are a few ideas that empiricism can not explain and I believe these ideas are not learned from experience. Empiricism states that all ideas are learned from experience, no exceptions. Regardless of one's belief in god, the idea of god simply can't be a learned idea. No one has ever experienced god, yet people still believe in him...sometimes to an extreme. Another idea that can't be learned from experience is the idea of shape, or substance. One can not learn what shape is, or what substance is...there are different types of shapes and substances; but the idea of shape and substance can not be learned from experience. This idea of shape and substance is very similar to Descartes idea of extension. Extension is essentially understanding something takes up space, or the property of existing in more than one dimension. This can not be learned from experience, we can't experience the idea of something taking up space; it's something that is just known. From birth one is able to understand, regardless of natural born intelligence at the time that something takes up space, it simply can't be taught or learned from experience. Another innate idea that can't be explained by empiricism is time. The idea of "time" is just something we are born with, we don't have to learn from experience what time is...time is just an idea that we know occurs. Without even knowing what time is or the definition of time, we understand the idea of it. Throughout our life we learn how to tell time through clocks, but the basic idea of time has to be innate because without clocks, we wouldn't need to know what time it is, we just know that the day changes, it gets darker at a certain point and we put a definition on it called "time" and added a system to measure it. Clocks exist, "time" doesn't exist, but the idea of it does.

      Explanatory breadth - Rationalism explains the theory of ideas more thoroughly, although empiricism does explain the theory of the majority of ideas, it fails to explain ideas that can't be learned through experience. Empiricism simply does not explain the idea of god or godly figure, time, shapes/substance and the idea of extension. Whereas rationalism has an explanation as to where these ideas come from. They can only be explained through the concept of innate ideas.

      Explanatory Depth - Rationalism goes more in-depth than empiricism because rationalism not only includes ideas that are innate, but ideas that are also learned from experience. Empiricism simply says that all ideas are learned from experience. Rationalists explanations are more detailed because they not only explain how ideas are learned from experience, they explain that a certain amount of ideas are innate and how those certain few ideas simply can't be learned from experience.

      Simplicity - Empiricism is more simple and has fewer parts due to the fact that it believes ideas derive only from experience. Rationalism is not as simple due to the fact that it not only includes ideas that derive from experience, but ideas that can't be explained through experience alone; i.e innate ideas. What makes rationalism more complex is the concept of innate ideas, empiricism states that all ideas are learned from experience and stops at that; rationalists agree with the fact that most ideas are learned from experience but that there are a certain amount of ideas that can't be explained from experience.

      Conservatism - both theories are equally accepted in today's society, I believe good points could be argued for both empiricism and rationalism. The theories are respected in different philosopher's and could create a good debate whether which theory is more plausible.

1. Rationalism and Empiricism are the most plausible explanations for the origin of ideas.
2. Rationalism has more explanatory breadth and explanatory depth but Empiricism has more simplicity.
3. Therefore, Rationalism is the best explanation for the origin of ideas.

Rationalism and Empiricism

Rationalism and Empiricism

            In philosophy we discussed two similar yet very different arguments that attempt to convey where our thoughts and ideas originate. The first idea presented is Empiricism. Empiricism is the thought that we are all born with innate ideas. Which means all of our understanding and knowledge comes merely from and through experience. The second idea is Rationalism. Rationalism is the idea that much of our ideas as well as thought can be innate, or we were simply born with them. From my perspective I strongly agree with empiricism. I feel no individual was solely born innate. Everyone builds there knowledge and ideas through experience. To back myself up as well as the theory of empiricism I took the example that was presented to us about the candle wax. In this illustration Descartes claims that one cannot tell the difference or know the relation between a candle and a puddle of wax unless we innately know that. But as individuals we know that when a candle is burning it melts into a puddle of wax, and we know this fact because of the experience we have had watching a candle burn. There is now other way or form we can tell that a candle is the same as a puddle of wax unless we have experienced it. If the candle were to be presented to someone similar to the individuals in the cave allegory, meaning someone who has just been exposed to the world, they would have no idea that a candle and a puddle of wax is the same exact thing. Unless they were to experience this then they would know it’s the same material.

            Explanatory Breadth: The theory of empiricism conveys a whole lot more than merely Rationalism. Rationalism stands for emotions, feelings, and instinct. These are not primarily taken upon as ideas. Ideas come through experience, which simply proves the fact that no idea is innate. Empiricism can give ideas that may include feelings, emotions, and instinct but even then it comes from experience.

            Explanatory Depth: When attempting to prove an argument or idea right it must be backed up. In this case rationalism does not do that. It claim ideas are innate but does mention how so. As opposed to empiricism, empiricism claims all ideas and knowledge come from experience and explains that further with the use of Descartes theory of the candle and the puddle of wax.

            Simplicity: When compared to empiricism, rationalism is more simplistic because it contains fewer parts as well as ideas. This is because rationalism only conveys that all ideas are innate. As opposed to empiricism which explains where all ideas as well as thoughts originate from and that no one idea or thought is merely innate but much more than that. This is the reason why empiricism is much more compound idea.

            Conservatism: Rationalism as well as empiricism both still exist in our world today. They happen to both be believed in by individuals which make both theories conservative.

1

     1. Empiricism and Rationalism are two theories that thoroughly explain the origin of knowledge.

2   2.  Empiricism contains much more explanatory depth, explanatory breath, and simplicity while they are both equally conservative.

3   3. Therefore empiricism is the best explanation for the origin of knowledge. 

Rationalism and Empiricism

            According to Philosophy, there are two categories from which our thoughts and ideas come from; Rationalism, the idea that we are born with some knowledge that is innate and Empiricism, which is the idea that we are born, not knowing anything and learn everything from experience. I personally believe that we gain knowledge and wisdom from experiences throughout our lives, so Rationalism doesn’t make sense to me. I think this because of racism, no baby is born racist, or with hatred to another being. Since birth they come to a new world and experience complete new things, and don’t even think about the color of their skins or compare themselves to others, this is all taught to them.

            Another example can be when Descartes uses the melting candle. A person who has seen melt, obviously would know where the puddle of wax came from and how it got to that state but a person who has never seen a melting candle wouldn’t have an idea of what a puddle of wax is or how it got to the state that it is in, since they have not experienced it.

           

            Explanatory Breadth: Empiricism explains the origin of more knowledge and ideas than Rationalism, this is the origin of ideas. Rationalism means that some ideas are innate and some from experience, and Empiricism is the idea that knowledge is gained through experience only. It only gives the general idea and doesn’t specify.

            Explanatory Depth: It’s how well an argument explains a source better than the other. Even though they’re both pretty similar, Empiricism is a little better since it has a source.

            Simplicity: Empiricism has more simplicity and is easier to understand. It states all knowledge that comes from experience and Rationalism doesn’t.

            Conservatism: Both views are good, common theories and can be perceived well with different views but they’re pretty much the same.

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

2. Empiricism has more explanatory breadth, depth and simplicity. Rationalism and Empiricism have the same conservatism.

3. Therefore Empiricism is the best explanation of knowledge. 

Rationalism Vs. Empiricism

In the debate between rationalism and empiricism, Empiricists believe that knowledge comes from experience. While rationalist believe knowledge is stemmed from innate nature and experience.  Rationalist claims that we are born with knowledge and find answer to questions by thinking logically. Empiricist support the idea of a posteriori which means knowledge that comes after experience or dependent on experience. I definitely agree with the empiricists theories. John Locke, an empiricist said that when we were all born our minds were blank slates and over our lifetime, our many experiences were painted onto our minds creating knowledge. Therefore, when we were born we couldn't have had any innate experiences. Almost everyone learns from observation and experiment, actually witnessing things is what helps us to gain knowledge. I believe this theory is more plausible than the rationalism theory.

                Descartes’ wax theory was a great example of empiricism. He showed us that something can go through radical changes but it’s actually still the same object. At first the wax was solid and then when it was put near fire the wax melted. This is showing us that because we have all witnessed substance change, we already have the prior knowledge to know that just because the wax’s physical state has changed, it is still the same wax. And obviously if you've never been able to witness an object change its state due to temperature then you wouldn't have the knowledge to know that it was the same wax.

                Explanatory breadth: Empiricism explains that our ideas come from experiences we have had, not from innate experience. Rationalism doesn't explain how our ideas and knowledge could possibly come from innate ideas. We have to experience things to learn, knowledge won’t just appear in our brains.

                Explanatory depth: Rationalism failed to explain how when you’re born your mind could already have ideas and knowledge inside. Anyone could explain the experience they had during their life and how it helped them to gain knowledge on something.

Simplicity: Empiricism is way simpler because it states that knowledge comes from experience which is way easier to explain other than rationalism which would definitely be difficult to prove and would cause many questions.

Conservatism: Both ideas are still being discussed in today’s society. I don’t think one theory is more consistent than the other but I do believe that empiricism would be easier to prove. But I don’t think you can say which is more conservative.

1. Empiricism and rationalism are the most plausible explanations of the origin of ideas.
2. Empiricism has much more explanatory breadth, simplicity, and conservatism whereas rationalism has a little more explanatory depth.
3. Therefore, empiricism is the best explanation for the origin of ideas.

Rationalism and Empiricism

Rationalism and Empiricism

In our world today, they’re many debates about were our ideas come from and the existence of them. They fall under two ideas; Rationalism and Empiricism. Rationalism, the idea that some of our knowledge is innate or they are born within us. Empiricism is the idea that all knowledge we have comes from experience and none of the ideas are innate. My opinion on this debate is that knowledge comes from experience and I agree with the Empiricism. I believe that in order for us to fully grasp the understanding of something we have to experience for ourselves.  We can’t rely on someone’s words and what they say in order for us to understand how something is. To back up my claim, I can refer to Descartes wax example. In Descartes example he explained how if one saw a piece of solid wax and had never experienced wax melting in there life, they would not be able to know that the puddle of melted wax is the same solid wax that we have in our hand. If I was a person who had experienced melting wax I would know that even thought its shape and the features that made is wax had changed its still the same wax that we had. But until we bring the person who has never experienced melting wax to see how the wax melts once its in the fire and creates a puddle of wax then they will understand that the wax is the same just in a different form. It means that things can go through changes but it will still be the same from what it first was and one can more grasp the concept from experience then from being learned from one other person.

Explanatory Breadth:  the origin of the ideas. Empiricism explains the theory of more ideas then Rationalism because it explains more about all the ideas then Rationalism does. It says all ideas come from experience and so that covers all of the knowledge we know. While Rationalism fails to explain where the knowledge comes from even though its innate, only coves some of them.

Explanatory Depth: how much detail an argument can provide. Neither arguments really provide detail about the knowledge we are learning but I believe Empiricism does a better job at giving detail then Rationalism. Empiricism explains how it’s acquired through experience and Rationalism doesn’t provide even one detail. An example on how Empiricism explains in more detail is someone who has experienced a loss of a person, can tell someone how there feeling but unless you have experienced a loss of your own, you will never fully understand what the person is actually feeling. Everyone can know what it is to lose someone but you don’t understand it fully until you have experienced it.

Simplicity: this is how simple the argument is and the lack of assumptions it may have.  Empiricism states how all of our thoughts or ideas originate in experience. Its ideas are less likely to be questioned then the ideas of Rationalism. Rationalism says some ideas are innate but not everyone’s born with the same knowledge making is more complex to understand the type of knowledge someone may have.

Conservatism: this is how well the ideas connect to today’s society I think that both ideas are accepted within today’s society but Empiricism is more of a consistent belief. In today’s world, there are many more things to experience and learn.  The things that you understand are from seeing and learning on your own. If you never knew how to walk and someone told you it’s just by putting one foot in front of the other, you wouldn’t really understand how to walk. Until you try it out for yourself and experience walking on your own you wouldn’t understand.   Rationalism, states that some of the ideas are innate but with todays ideas and beliefs it wouldn’t connect with them as well as Empiricism does.

1.                    Empiricism and Rationalism are the most plausible theories of explanation to explain origin of ideas.

2.                    Empiricism has much more explanatory depth and simplicity, while they are both pretty conservative.

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

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

     When discussing The Origin of Ideas, the debate of rationalism and empiricism comes to mind.
 A rationalist believes that thoughts and ideas are the foundations of knowledge. An empiricist believes that the mind is a blank slate and relies on observation and experience to form knowledge. These are two contrasting views that come from philosophers like David Hume and John Locke who are on the supporting end of empiricism and Descartes who contradicts his view of rationalism with arguments of empiricism.
     In my opinion the idea of Empiricism seems to be the most plausible. Take for example Descartes' wax example: As we view the wax at a solid state we can smell its scent, there is color and to the touch it is hard. When the wax melts it is perceived by the senses simply as "changing" but the wax seen by the mind is still wax. It changes according to certain conditions, and allows for thoughts, principles, ideas which can be separated from those we create with our external senses.
      Explanatory breadth - The origin of  ideas asks questions like "where do ideas come from?" and  "what sparks human creativity?" Empiricism best answers these questions by giving examples of things like dreaming that everyone can relate to with examples that are matters of fact. John Locke's simple and complex ideas best describe the origin of more ideas. Empiricists say that we base our knowledge of complex ideas on our experience with simpler ideas like shape and color, which can be supported with ideas like the centaur. Rationalists depend on their own reasons and thoughts as evidence to support their claim, and usually the evidence cannot be tested. 
     Explanatory depth - Rationalists have been wrong about their innate knowledge which makes up half of their argument and create a statement that empiricists explain the origin of certain ideas in greater detail. Empiricism have more support for their ideas with arguments like "if someone has never experienced a certain type of impression, they lack the corresponding idea." Like indirect evidence, if we aren't at the scene of an incident we cannot trust that the news is telling the whole truth. There is no justification for lack of knowledge.
     Simplicity - Rationalism is simpler and has fewer assumptions than empiricism. Descartes believes that a person can be fooled by his senses. Many variables affect how one sees an event, like heat (i.e Mirage). People experience the same events very differently. Therefore, the senses are not to be trusted.
Hume thought that all ideas come from outward impressions that are ideas gathered through sensory experience, and inward impressions that are built on previous experience, that allow us to have ideas of things we have not/could not experience (i.e imagination). Hume addresses two places that ideas come from which makes his argument more complex.
     Conservatism- The argument that toddlers use language in ways that they are not taught, addresses how rationalism is still supported by people today.  They begin to understand grammatical rules before they even know what a noun or a verb is.Small children forming original sentences from words that they haven’t heard and putting them together precisely is an example of ideas that are naturally, genetically coded or innate.
As well as rationalism, empiricism is also still popular today if not more. Much of science is founded on empiricist principles, and would not have advanced without it.  If we base our conclusions about the world on empiricism, we can change our theories and improve upon them and see our mistakes.
Both growth and development as well as advancing sciences are important which makes rationalism and empiricism equally conservative.

1. Rationalism and Empiricism are the most plausible explanations of The Origin of Ideas

     2. Empiricism has a little more explanatory breadth and depth. Rationalism and Empiricism are equally conservative.

     3. Therefore, Empiricism is the best explanation of The Origin of Ideas

Rationalism vs Empiricism

In Modern Philosophy there are two theories that state our origin of ideas. Firstly, we have rationalism which says that some ideas are innate from birth while the rest of ideas come from experience while Empiricism states that all ideas come from experience. In this debate between the two theories I choose Empiricism. In Descartes Second Meditation he explains an example about wax and how it goes through physical change, the first state being solid and the second state being a liquid. Without experience he wouldn't have known that it is the same wax but it just changed its "body". Another example would be for whoever discovered that tadpoles evolved into frogs. They had to watch the tadpole mature and evolve into a frog through their own experience.

Explanatory breadth: Empiricism explains the origin of ideas better than Rationalism because it states that all ideas come from experience while Rationalism does not state which ideas are innate.

Explanatory depth: Empiricism explains its sources better by providing evidence and experience through discoveries of knowledge throughout history while Rationalism just states some ideas are innate while having no evidence for it.

Simplicity: Empiricism is much more simpler because it states that all ideas come from experience while Rationalism says that not only are some ideas innate but the rest of ideas come from experience. Also Rationalism just assumes that ideas are innate and has more room for its argument to crumble.

Conservatism: I would have to say that it depends on the crowd of people you are talking to about this so I say it is equal in this category.

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

2. Empiricism has more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth and simplicity while Empiricism and Rationalism are equally matched in conservatism.

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

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Empiricists think that there is no such thing as innate knowledge, all knowledge we have is through experience. While Rationalists think there is some innate knowledge, and the rest comes from experience.  In my opinion I would have to side with empiricists, I think that we gain knowledge through experience. Descartes comes to the conclusion that you can only be sure if you exist. Following his conclusion is the example on Wax. He states that wax has a certain characteristic which we use to identify it as wax. He said if it looks, smells and feels like wax, then it must be wax. However, if you melt it, it may burn and turn black, it will melt, and may give off a different odor. However, it is still wax, and we still have no problem identifying it as such. The wax can be used as a comparison to people and that you need to experience things to understand them, if you never experienced wax burning you would never know that it was the same piece of wax by the way that it looks after. People are constantly changing too, and from experience we know that someone is the same person even if they change and grow throughout life. 

A) Explanatory Breadth- Empiricism explains the ideas more than rationalism, it explains that all ideas are coming from experience and rationalism only explains that some of the ideas come from experience, we also don’t know were rationalism comes from.

B) Explanatory Depth- Empiricism explains the certain ideas more than rationalism, rationalism can't explain were the knowledge came from because they are only claimed to be ideas you were born with. While empiricism we learn from our experiences and knowledge in life.

C) Simplicity- Rationalism has fewer parts. Empiricism tries to explain ideas how all of our thoughts originate from experience; rationalism is not simple because we are not born with all the same ideas.

D) Conservatism- Nether one theory is more consistent with our current beliefs, some people agree with Rationalism while others are agreeing with Empiricism.  Therefore, nether one is more consistent than the other.

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

Rationalism vs Empiricism

When speaking about the origin of our knowledge, there are two sides of the argument to choose from.  First, there is the idea of Rationalism, which states that some ideas are innate and that we have that knowledge from birth, with other ideas being learned through experience.  Empiricism says that all knowledge is learned through experience.  In this argument, it is in my better judgement to choose Empiricism, and Descartes' wax candle theory will help show my case.  He states that there is no possible way for us to know that a wax candle melting into a puddle of wax is the same thing, unless it is innate to us.  I do not agree; if someone saw a puddle of some substance on the ground, how would they have the knowledge to say what it was and how that happened without seeing it happen before?  By this I am saying that a young child may see a brand new candle next to a puddle of wax, but until someone showed him that a burning candle results in a puddle of wax, that child would see no correlation between the two subjects.  Once the child witnesses a solid candle melt into a liquid form of wax, that knowledge will stay with him; it was just necessary for the child to experience this type of change so that the pieces could be put together in their mind.

Explanatory breadth: in this criteria, Empiricism takes the win.  Explanatory breadth is about which idea can explain more about the origins than the other.  Empiricism claims that all knowledge is gained through experience; clearly in that case, the origin is experience.  Rationalism states that some ideas are innate, while some are learned from experience; so in this case, the origin of some knowledge is experience, but there is no way to explain how someone would be born with the same knowledge on the subject.

Explanatory depth: this is how well an argument explains its sources.  In this case, no side clearly states the source of knowledge, but Empiricism does a better job at it.  Rationalism can only say that some ideas we are born with, but cannot state how or where the knowledge came from.  Empiricism can say that knowledge was gained from a certain experience, but not the source that taught the knowledge through that experience.

Simplicity: this means that whatever argument makes less assumptions and dubious statements, is simpler.  In the case of Rationalism vs Empiricism, it is very obvious that Empiricism is simpler.  By saying that all knowledge is gained through experience, it makes less assumptions and is more easily related to by the reader.  Rationalism says that some ideas are innate, but without proof, that is just an assumption.  Empiricism is simpler because it can be proved that experience brings knowledge.

Conservatism: how well an argument agrees with current society's beliefs.  In my opinion, both of these arguments are just as equally accepted by today's people, so it cannot be said which is more conservative.

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

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

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

Rationalism and Empiricism

            In philosophy, there are two different arguments that try to explain where our ideas originate.  The first idea presented is Rationalism. Rationalism states that we are born with some innate ideas while the rest of our knowledge comes from experience. The next idea is Empiricism, which states that we are born with no innate ideas and that all of our knowledge comes strictly from experience. I believe that all of our ideas are learned only through experience. Therefore, I agree with the argument of Empiricism. For example, our knowledge of certain things such as language and mathematics comes only from experience. Neanderthals and caveman knew that in order to survive they needed to communicate if there was a predator nearby or a problem occurring. So, language developed over time and has evolved into many diverse languages. Only through experience can language be learned. No human is born knowing how to speak perfect English, French or Spanish, etc. Also, mathematics or physics is not something that people suddenly understood. And people still don’t fully understand it to this day. Even the great mathematicians and philosophers of our time needed to meditate and preform many tests and experiments before fully understanding what they were studying. Pythagoras did not just wake up one morning and know the Pythagorean theorem. Although, he may have been aware that a formula existed he certainly did not know right away that A²+B²=C². He needed experience first.

            To better support the idea of Empiricism, let's dissect Descartes’s wax example. A solid piece of wax is hard and not malleable. But, when placed near a fire, its properties change to soft and malleable. Descartes states that unless this idea is innate within us, no one could tell right away that a melted piece of wax and a solid piece of wax are the same thing. A person would need to experience the wax melting themselves. Someone would need to take a piece of wax and place it near a fire. Then, they would begin to understand that although the properties of the wax begin to change, it is still nonetheless a piece of wax. But, only through experience could someone understand this idea. This is the same for all ideas.

            Explanatory Breadth: The theory of empiricism explains more ideas than the theory of rationalism. Rationalism may account for instincts, feelings and emotions but these are not considered ideas. Therefore, they cannot really prove that any ideas are innate. Empiricism, however, can give many examples of ideas and knowledge that come from experience.

            Explanatory Depth: Empiricism can explain in greater detail the origin of ideas. Rationalism cannot argue that knowledge and ideas are innate. But, Empiricism can explain in well thought out arguments how certain things, such as our intellect, comes from different experiences. 

            Simplicity: Rationalism is more simplistic and has only a few parts to it. It merely attempts to explain only some ideas. However, Empiricism tries to explain how we learn all ideas. So, It takes into account all types of experiences and perceptions and how these things shape the world around us. Empiricism is definitely a more complex idea.

            Conservatism: Both of these ideas are still alive and relevant in today’s society. While some people may still believe in rationalism, others may still believe in empiricism. Therefore, they are both equally conservative.

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

2.     Empiricism has much more explanatory depth and explanatory breadth, whereas Rationalism has a little more simplicity. Both are equally conservative. 

3.     Therefore Empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of knowledge.