Rationalism and Empiricism

The debate of where our thoughts and ideas derive from can be categorized into 2 opinions; Empiricism, the idea that all the knowledge we have is gain through experience and Rationalism, the idea that some bits of knowledge are innate or we have them since birth.  My opinion on this matter is that our knowledge is gained through experience, in other words I side with Empiricism.  In order to prove my thought I will attempt to refute Descartes wax candle example.  In this example Descartes argues that there is no way we can know that a wax candle melting into a puddle of wax can be the same thing unless we innately know it. We know that they are the same material from the experience of watching it melt in the fire.  We see as the solid candle slowly melts away and forms a puddle of wax, there would be no way that we can tall a puddle of wax is the same thing as a candle if we have not yet experienced a candle melting.  If you presented a puddle of wax and a candle to some person who has not seen either in their life there would be no way the could come to the conclusion they are the same item.  Where as if you melted it in front of them they would have a much better understanding and could tell they are the same thing.
          Empiricism also is the stronger of the 2 ideas when compare the 2 ideas:

Explanatory Breath: this category is to see which option explained the origin of more ideas. And in the case of Rationalism v.s Empiricism, Empiricism is better at explaining the origins of more knowledge than Rationalism does.  Empiricism says that all ideas come from experience this covers literally all sources of knowledge. Where Rationalism says some are innate and others are from experience,  its very vague and doesn't explain the which they are or how we know.

Explanatory Depth: this is how well an argument explains certain sources better. And in this case they both aren't very good at explaining certain forms of knowledge, but i believe Empiricism does a better job at explaining its source better because at least it explains one source where as Rationalism does not.    

Simplicity: this is how simple the argument is, the less assumptions are made the simpler the argument.  In this facet empiricism is the simplest argument it states all knowledge comes fromantic experience while rationalism says some are innate, but we don't know which ones they are and how you find them.

Conservatism: this is how well this argument fits with the societies current beliectves. And in this category it is a wash both of the views are accepted in today's society.

1. Empiricism and Rationalism and the two most plausible theories to explain the origin of knowledge
2. Empiricism has much more explanatory depth, explanatory breath and simplicity while they both are pretty conservative
3. Therefore empiricism is the best explanation of the origin of knowledge