Tuesday, October 14, 2014

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.

1 comment:

  1. Very good post! I believe your argument to refute Descartes claim was very strong. One thing I would improve on is refuting the actual claim of Rationalism

    ReplyDelete