Theftz22
Smash Lord
This won't be as organized as my usual posts.
It seems to me that rationalism has an incredibly low burden of proof while empiricism has a practically insurmountable burden of proof. All rationalism requires is that there be a single instance in which we have knowledge or concepts outside of sense experience. Empiricism requires that every single concept we use and piece of knowledge we have be had by sense experience. What argument could possibly be used to justify empiricism? Rationalists will attempt to show areas where our concepts and knowledge outstrip our sense experience, empiricists may contest this by challenging their arguments, but this does nothing to prove empiricism or to rebut rationalism. In order to prove empiricism you would have to analyze every concept that we use and piece of knowledge that we have and show that it is obtained entirely through sense experience. This includes empiricism itself. When making an argument for empiricism you must only use sense experience, if you should employ any other method you will have actually proved rationalism. You must argue by sense experience that all we have is sense experience. This seems innately impossible. This functions as both a positive argument against empiricism and as a hurdle for the empiricist in proving empiricism. It functions as a positive argument against empiricism by showing that the proposition "We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience," is self-refuting. It serves as an obstacle to the empiricist in proving empiricism by requiring them to prove that we have no knowledge or concepts other than through sense experience by use of exclusively sense experience. We should leave the empiricist to this task.
Realizing he may have created a burden of proof he cannot meet, some empiricists change their thesis to say that we could in principle have knowledge or concepts outside of sense experience, but just that he currently knows of none. Rationalists should greet this with a mellow smile (preferably while leaning back in a rocking chair). As a rationalist, the fact that the empiricist makes room for knowledge or concepts outside of sense-experience should strike us as a mission accomplished. The biggest problem we had with the empiricist was his a priori rejection of anything outside of sense experience, whether he disagrees with our specific instances is of secondary importance. Now at this point the discussion over our specific instances becomes relevant, and now we should just leave the empiricist to not letting even a single instance slip through! But he should remember, he already basically did. The rationalist should go straightaway to the topic of how the empiricist knows empiricism, as the empiricist has already conceded that showing empiricism empirically is impossible. Empiricism seems to be the perfect place to concede that non-empirical knowledge or concepts are real. Since empiricism is a specific instance, the empiricist has unknowingly conceded not only his initial thesis of his empiricism, but his reformulation too.
Any further reformulations should be greeted with not just mellow, but haughty and overbearing smiles from our rocking chair.
It seems to me that rationalism has an incredibly low burden of proof while empiricism has a practically insurmountable burden of proof. All rationalism requires is that there be a single instance in which we have knowledge or concepts outside of sense experience. Empiricism requires that every single concept we use and piece of knowledge we have be had by sense experience. What argument could possibly be used to justify empiricism? Rationalists will attempt to show areas where our concepts and knowledge outstrip our sense experience, empiricists may contest this by challenging their arguments, but this does nothing to prove empiricism or to rebut rationalism. In order to prove empiricism you would have to analyze every concept that we use and piece of knowledge that we have and show that it is obtained entirely through sense experience. This includes empiricism itself. When making an argument for empiricism you must only use sense experience, if you should employ any other method you will have actually proved rationalism. You must argue by sense experience that all we have is sense experience. This seems innately impossible. This functions as both a positive argument against empiricism and as a hurdle for the empiricist in proving empiricism. It functions as a positive argument against empiricism by showing that the proposition "We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience," is self-refuting. It serves as an obstacle to the empiricist in proving empiricism by requiring them to prove that we have no knowledge or concepts other than through sense experience by use of exclusively sense experience. We should leave the empiricist to this task.
Realizing he may have created a burden of proof he cannot meet, some empiricists change their thesis to say that we could in principle have knowledge or concepts outside of sense experience, but just that he currently knows of none. Rationalists should greet this with a mellow smile (preferably while leaning back in a rocking chair). As a rationalist, the fact that the empiricist makes room for knowledge or concepts outside of sense-experience should strike us as a mission accomplished. The biggest problem we had with the empiricist was his a priori rejection of anything outside of sense experience, whether he disagrees with our specific instances is of secondary importance. Now at this point the discussion over our specific instances becomes relevant, and now we should just leave the empiricist to not letting even a single instance slip through! But he should remember, he already basically did. The rationalist should go straightaway to the topic of how the empiricist knows empiricism, as the empiricist has already conceded that showing empiricism empirically is impossible. Empiricism seems to be the perfect place to concede that non-empirical knowledge or concepts are real. Since empiricism is a specific instance, the empiricist has unknowingly conceded not only his initial thesis of his empiricism, but his reformulation too.
Any further reformulations should be greeted with not just mellow, but haughty and overbearing smiles from our rocking chair.