Rationalism vs Empiricism, Thinking Out Loud

[Theftz22]

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.

 

[Dre89]

This debate is the new black.

Or in DH terms, it's the new God debate.

I might play Devil's advocate if no one else posts.

 

[Battlecow]

Needz moar paragraphs

I feel almost as dumb now as I did when I tried to read Ulysses six years ago

I mean, I understand it, but it makes my head hurt

 

[Lord Chair]

I concur with BC.

Too dizzy at the moment to understand it, and it looks like something that can very easily be TL;DRed.

 

[Theftz22]

Summary:

1.Rationalism has a very low burden of proof.
2.Empiricism is probably impossible to prove without inadvertently proving rationalism.
3.Empiricism is probably self-refuting.
4.Initial attempts to reformulate empiricism make it not so troublesome for rationalists.
5.Conceding 3 and 4 is also a concession of the reformulation.
6.Further reformulations will be even less troubling to rationalists.

 

[rvkevin]

I'll bite:

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…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 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.

I think this is where your case falls apart. What does it mean to say that one knows a methodology? A methodology either works or does not work (rather than true/false), so it simply means that the methodology works, that the results of the methodology reliably match nature. This is an empirical statistical observation. To know empiricism (in the broader sense) simply means to know that empiricism (i.e. science) produces results that reliably match nature. This is an empirical observation that could be shown by an empiricist. I see no reason why an empiricist (in the broader sense) would concede that showing empiricism empirically is impossible. Far from it, they are on firm footing. I suspect the misunderstanding is that you are operating under the stricter definition of empiricism here. This means that I would reject premise four from your summary.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This looks like a very good post. I will have to reply back to this later, when my cognitive function is not so ********.

I guess at first I'd like to point out that I don't believe that anyone is truly a pure empiricist at heart. At some level everyone has to rely on rationalism, in say maths for example. But rationalism, I suppose relies upon deductive arguments. And deductive arguments are largely useless when your premises are unvalidated. I suppose this is where some level of empiricism comes in for practical purposes, so that we can actually make headway and move along the road to discovering more about the universe, by validating premises of (perhaps rationalist) deductive arguments. It also allows you to weed out the crud arguments through observation. I think some level empiricism (science!) was adopted more because it's useful than because it has an exclusive stranglehold upon truth.

 

[Theftz22]

@rvkevin: I suppose you meant to say you disagree with point 5 in the summary?

Actually I realized the mistake that I made with the second paragraph is that I was using the original formulation of empiricism when saying that the empiricist conceded he cannot empirically prove empiricism. Of course on the new formulation the empiricist would just say that it is an empirical truth that he knows of no concept or knowledge that is not proven by sense experience. This was an error.

So it seems that the new formulation is not immediately conceded just by concession of the old one, but of course my point 4 still stands that the a priori rejection of concepts or knowledge outside of sense experience is gone and hence the reformulation is less troublesome for rationalists. Now we just need a single specific instance to succeed to defeat the reformulation.

This is the issue with attempting to make posts like this at 1:30 in the morning.

@Bob Jane: You seem to have some confusion about the terms here. Remember that:

Empiricism is an epistemological position that holds that "We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience."

Rationalism is an epistemological position that holds that "We have at least one source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience."

 

[rvkevin]

So it seems that the new formulation is not immediately conceded just by concession of the old one, but of course my point 4 still stands that the a priori rejection of concepts or knowledge outside of sense experience is gone and hence the reformulation is less troublesome for rationalists. Now we just need a single specific instance to succeed to defeat the reformulation.

I misinterpreted what you meant by "not too troublesome." To me, that implied that it would be an easy burden to overcome. Now, if you intended it to mean that it is merely possible that rationalism is correct, then I don't have an issue with that assessment. I would then accept 4 as saying that given empiricism, rationalism could be correct. However, I don't think that is much of a concession. There are a lot of things that could be correct, but I'm interested in what is most likely correct. Nevertheless, this would still be a concession from saying that rationalism is definitely wrong to rationalism is most likely wrong. If that is all you wanted to say, I don't have a problem with your argument. Though it isn't a problem for the empiricist (in the broader sense of the term).

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

@Bob Jane: You seem to have some confusion about the terms here. Remember that:

Empiricism is an epistemological position that holds that "We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience."

Rationalism is an epistemological position that holds that "We have at least one source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience."

My bad. I obviously don't know anything about the subject then. I will refrain from further commenting in the debate.

 

[sooshi shef]

Well if I'm understanding correctly Rationalism is based on deductive reasoning while Empiricism is based on experiences and sensory knowlege.

With this being said I can come to the conclusion that without one the other can't exist.

Example 1) In order to deduce somthing you usually need another experience. Thats how they can tie together

Example 2) For you to experience something you may have to deduce first.

This logic may seem weird but it makes some sense. So in review you can safely say that in some circumstances you may need both as one.

 

[Theftz22]

You have made the exact same terminological error that I just explained to Bob Jane.

 

[sooshi shef]

You have made the exact same terminological error that I just explained to Bob Jane.

Ooookay...this is a difficlut concept to understand so that helps a bit.

But what merits does one hold over the other?
And can a person only use one and not the other?

 

[Dre89]

The merit of empiricism is that every assertion you make is falsifiable, but you are much more limited in the assertions you can make.

Rationalism encompasses empiricism. Rationalism permits knowledge through observation and experience, but says there are other ways of attaining knowledge too.

 

[sooshi shef]

The merit of empiricism is that every assertion you make is falsifiable, but you are much more limited in the assertions you can make.

Rationalism encompasses empiricism. Rationalism permits knowledge through observation and experience, but says there are other ways of attaining knowledge too.

Okay now that makes sense. So if I were to pick one I use it would probably be rationalism.

 

[Theftz22]

Oh my. I see you came to that conclusion on quite an exhaustive study of the field of epistemology!

Dre, I wouldn't say that rationalism encompasses empiricism, they are mutually exclusive. Rather what rationalism encompasses is empirically based knowledge.

Also, it isn't the case that only empirical statements are falsifiable.

 

[blazedaces]

I have stated the basic claims of rationalism and empiricism so that each is relative to a particular subject area. Rationalism and empiricism, so relativized, need not conflict. We can be rationalists in mathematics or a particular area of mathematics and empiricists in all or some of the physical sciences. Rationalism and empiricism only conflict when formulated to cover the same subject.

A more extensive source on the subject that I believe explains each subject a bit better, no offense: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

I was having issues with your statement because of what is mentioned in the quote above, that I feel that in some subjects like mathematics, it is extremely obvious that abstract truths are formed without any sense perception, but it seemed silly to suggest that evidence doesn't have a place anywhere else.

-blazed

 

[Theftz22]

One can be a rationalist with respect to certain topics and an empiricist with respect to others, but within each given topic they are mutually exclusive.

There is no tenant of rationalism that evidence (I assume you mean empirical evidence) doesn't have any place. Empirical evidence is perfectly compatible with rationalism, it's just that rationalism does not entail exclusively empirical evidence as empiricism does.

 

[blazedaces]

One can be a rationalist with respect to certain topics and an empiricist with respect to others, but within each given topic they are mutually exclusive.

There is no tenant of rationalism that evidence (I assume you mean empirical evidence) doesn't have any place. Empirical evidence is perfectly compatible with rationalism, it's just that rationalism does not entail exclusively empirical evidence as empiricism does.

Alright, that makes sense. The way you presented it in the OP didn't convey that, at least to me. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

Found an interesting quote today, anyone care to take a guess who this is from:

But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics - indeed, of modern science altogether.

 

[ElvenKing]

@rvkevin: I suppose you meant to say you disagree with point 5 in the summary?

Actually I realized the mistake that I made with the second paragraph is that I was using the original formulation of empiricism when saying that the empiricist conceded he cannot empirically prove empiricism. Of course on the new formulation the empiricist would just say that it is an empirical truth that he knows of no concept or knowledge that is not proven by sense experience. This was an error.

So it seems that the new formulation is not immediately conceded just by concession of the old one, but of course my point 4 still stands that the a priori rejection of concepts or knowledge outside of sense experience is gone and hence the reformulation is less troublesome for rationalists. Now we just need a single specific instance to succeed to defeat the reformulation.

This is the issue with attempting to make posts like this at 1:30 in the morning.

@Bob Jane: You seem to have some confusion about the terms here. Remember that:

Empiricism is an epistemological position that holds that "We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience."

Rationalism is an epistemological position that holds that "We have at least one source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience."

Neither really seems to have an advantage on the burden of proof to me. Certainly, it is the case that there are priori concepts which are not directly connected to the observation of something in sense experience, for example, that 2+2=4, but the empiricist could argue that such knowledge is acquired through observation of sense experience, with something in sense experience triggering the realisation of the concept. The entire argument seems rather a dead end because one would have to show whether what one element of their experience, their knowledge, has been determined by sensory experience alone, or whether there is something else involved. It is certainly true that Empiricism could be shown to be false by a single instance of knowledge that was not obtained from observation, and that to prove Empiricism beyond all doubt would be rather tricky because it would require evidence that every single piece of knowledge comes from sense experience. However, to show Rationalism true is not exactly easy either, as you would have to show that there was no possibility that a instance of knowledge come from observation of sense experience.

Though, I must say, I have not encountered this definition of Rationalism before, normally I used it seen it mean something akin to "The acquiring of knowledge through reason," which is compatible with Empiricism if reasoning faculties are acquired through sense experience.