religion.

Thursday, 11 November 2010

rationalism and empiricism

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism takes places within epistemology, the branch of philosophy devoted to studying the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. The defining questions of epistemology include the following.

What is the nature of propositional knowledge, knowledge that a particular proposition about the world is true?

Knowing a particular proposition requires both that we believe it and that it be true, but it also clearly requires something more, something that distinguishes knowledge from a lucky guess. Let's call this additional element ‘warrant’. A good deal of philosophical work has been invested in trying to determine the nature of this additional element.

How can we gain knowledge?

We can form true beliefs just by making some lucky guesses. How we can gain warranted beliefs is unclear. Moreover, to know the world, we must think about it, and it is not clear how we gain the concepts we use in thought or what assurance, if any, we have that the ways in which we divide up the world using our concepts correspond to divisions that actually exist.

What are the limits of our knowledge?

Some aspects of the world may be within the limits of our thought but beyond the limits of our knowledge; faced with competing descriptions of them, we cannot know which description is true. Some aspects of the world may even be beyond the limits of our thought, so that we cannot form intelligible descriptions of them, let alone know that a particular description is true.

The disagreement between rationalists and empiricists primarily concerns the second question, regarding the sources of our concepts and knowledge. In some instances, their disagreement on this topic leads them to give conflicting responses to the other questions as well. They may disagree over the nature of warrant or about the limits of our thought and knowledge. Our focus here will be on the competing rationalist and empiricist responses to the second question.

1.1 Rationalism

To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims. The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing propositions in a particular subject area.

The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.
Intuition is a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a proposition, we just "see" it to be true in such a way as to form a true, warranted belief in it. Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premises through valid arguments, ones in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. We intuit, for example, that the number three is prime and that it is greater than two. We then deduce from this knowledge that there is a prime number greater than two. Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori, which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense experience.

We can generate different versions of the Intuition/Deduction thesis by substituting different subject areas for the variable ‘S’. Some rationalists take mathematics to be knowable by intuition and deduction. Some place ethical truths in this category. Some include metaphysical claims, such as that God exists, we have free will, and our mind and body are distinct substances. The more propositions rationalists include within the range of intuition and deduction, and the more controversial the truth of those propositions, the more radical their rationalism.

Rationalists also vary the strength of their view by adjusting their understanding of warrant. Some take warranted beliefs to be beyond even the slightest doubt and claim that intuition and deduction provide beliefs of this high epistemic status. Others interpret warrant more conservatively, say as belief beyond a reasonable doubt, and claim that intuition and deduction provide beliefs of that caliber.

Still another dimension of rationalism depends on how its proponents understand the connection between intuition, on the one hand, and truth, on the other. Some take intuition to be infallible, claiming that whatever we intuit must be true. Others allow for the possibility of false intuited propositions.

The second thesis associated with rationalism is the Innate Knowledge thesis.

The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.
Like the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis asserts the existence of knowledge gained a priori, independently of experience. The difference between them rests in the accompanying understanding of how this a priori knowledge is gained. The Intuition/Deduction thesis cites intuition and subsequent deductive reasoning. The Innate Knowledge thesis offers our rational nature. Our innate knowledge is not learned through either sense experience or intuition and deduction. It is just part of our nature. Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with us all along. According to some rationalists, we gained the knowledge in an earlier existence. According to others, God provided us with it at creation. Still others say it is part of our nature through natural selection.

We get different versions of the Innate Knowledge thesis by substituting different subject areas for the variable ‘S'. Once again, the more subjects included within the range of the thesis or the more controversial the claim to have knowledge in them, the more radical the form of rationalism. Stronger and weaker understandings of warrant yield stronger and weaker versions of the thesis as well..

The third important thesis of rationalism is the Innate Concept thesis.

The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.
According to the Innate Concept thesis, some of our concepts are not gained from experience. They are part of our rational nature in such a way that, while sense experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to consciousness, experience does not provide the concepts or determine the information they contain. Some claim that the Innate Concept thesis is entailed by the Innate Knowledge Thesis; a particular instance of knowledge can only be innate if the concepts that are contained in the known proposition are also innate. This is Locke's position (Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book I, Chapter IV, Section 1, p. 91). Others, such as Carruthers, argue against this connection (Human Knowledge and Human Nature, pp. 53-54). The content and strength of the Innate Concept thesis varies with the concepts claimed to be innate. The more a concept seems removed from experience and the mental operations we can perform on what experience provides the more plausibly it may be claimed to be innate. Since we do not experience perfect triangles but do experience pains, our concept of the former is a more promising candidate than our concept of the latter for being innate.

The Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis, and the Innate Concept thesis are essential to rationalism: to be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of them. Two other closely related theses are generally adopted by rationalists, although one can certainly be a rationalist without adopting either of them. The first is that experience cannot provide what we gain from reason.

The Indispensability of Reason Thesis: The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and deduction, as well as the ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have been gained by us through sense experience.
The second is that reason is superior to experience as a source of knowledge.

The Superiority of Reason Thesis: The knowledge we gain in subject area S by intuition and deduction or have innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience.
How reason is superior needs explanation, and rationalists have offered different accounts. One view, generally associated with Descartes (Rules for the Direction of our Native Intelligence, Rules II and III, pp.1-4), is that what we know a priori is certain, beyond even the slightest doubt, while what we believe, or even know, on the basis of sense experience is at least somewhat uncertain. Another view, generally associated with Plato (Republic 479e-484c), locates the superiority of a priori knowledge in the objects known. What we know by reason alone, a Platonic form, say, is superior in an important metaphysical way, e.g. unchanging, eternal, perfect, a higher degree of being, to what are aware of through sense experience.

Most forms of rationalism involve notable commitments to other philosophical positions. One is a commitment to the denial of scepticism for at least some area of knowledge. If we claim to know some truths by intuition or deduction or to have some innate knowledge, we obviously reject scepticism with regard to those truths. Rationalism in the form of the Intuition/Deduction thesis is also committed to epistemic foundationalism, the view that we know some truths without basing our belief in them on any others and that we then use this foundational knowledge to know more truths.

1.2 Empiricism

Empiricists endorse the following claim for some subject area.

The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.
Empiricism about a particular subject rejects the corresponding version of the Intuition/Deduction thesis and Innate Knowledge thesis. Insofar as we have knowledge in the subject, our knowledge is a posteriori, dependent upon sense experience. Empiricists also deny the implication of the corresponding Innate Concept thesis that we have innate ideas in the subject area. Sense experience is our only source of ideas. They reject the corresponding version of the Superiority of Reason thesis. Since reason alone does not give us any knowledge, it certainly does not give us superior knowledge. Empiricists generally reject the Indispensability of Reason thesis, though they need not. The Empiricism thesis does not entail that we have empirical knowledge. It entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all, by experience. Empiricists may assert, as some do for certain subjects, that the rationalists are correct to claim that experience cannot give us knowledge. The conclusion they draw from this rationalist lesson is not that we gain knowledge by indispensable reason, but that we do not know at all.

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. Then the debate, Rationalism vs. Empiricism, is joined. The fact that philosophers can be both rationalists and empiricists has implications for the classification schemes often employed in the history of philosophy, especially the one traditionally used to describe the Early Modern Period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries leading up to Kant. It is standard practice to group the major philosophers of this period as either rationalists or empiricists and to suggest that those under one heading share a common agenda in opposition to those under the other. Thus, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are the Continental Rationalists in opposition to Locke, Berkeley and Hume, the British Empiricists. Such general classification schemes must be viewed with caution. The views of the individual philosophers are more subtle and complex than the simple-minded classification suggests. (See Loeb (1981) and Kenny (1986) for important discussions of this point.) Locke rejects rationalism in the form of any version of the Innate Knowledge or Innate Concept theses, but he nonetheless adopts the Intuition/Deduction thesis with regard to our knowledge of God's existence. Descartes and Locke have remarkably similar views on the nature of our ideas, even though Descartes takes many to be innate, while Locke ties them all to experience. The rationalist/empiricist classification also encourages us to expect the philosophers on each side of the divide to have common research programs in areas beyond epistemology. Thus, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are mistakenly seen as applying a reason-centered epistemology to a common metaphysical agenda, with each trying to improve on the efforts of the one before, while Locke, Berkeley and Hume are mistakenly seen as gradually rejecting those metaphysical claims, with each consciously trying to improve on the efforts of his predecessors. In short, the labels ‘rationalist’ and ‘empiricist,’ as well as the slogan that is the title of this essay, ‘Rationalism vs. Empiricism,’ used carelessly can retard rather than advance our understanding.

Nonetheless, an important debate properly described as ‘Rationalism vs. Empiricism’ is joined whenever the claims for each view are formulated to cover the same subject. What is perhaps the most interesting form of the debate occurs when we take the relevant subject to be truths about the external world. A full-fledged rationalist with regard to our knowledge of the external world holds that some external world truths can and must be known a priori, that some of the ideas required for that knowledge are and must be innate, and that this knowledge is superior to any that experience could ever provide. The full-fledged empiricist about our knowledge of the external world replies that, when it comes to the nature of the world beyond our own minds, experience is our sole source of information. Reason might inform us of the relations among our ideas, but those ideas themselves can only be gained, and any truths about the external reality they represent can only be known, on the basis of sense experience. This debate concerning our knowledge of the external world will generally be our main focus in what follows.



so.. which side are you on? ;)

23 comments:

  1. Good stuff, Harry! I haven't fully digested it all in one pass, but I think I see myself in both camps in some way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cool story, bro!
    Following your blog

    ReplyDelete
  3. nice copy and paste off stanford.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's an amazing piece of writing for all the internet viewers; they will obtain benefit from it I am sure.

    my web page; moodle.somorrostro.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. What a mаtегial of un-ambiguity and ρreserveneѕs of
    νaluаble familiaritу about unеxрeсted fеelіngs.



    Alѕο visit my wеb blog: Americas Cardroom Poker Bonus

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi there to all, the contents present at this site are in fact awesome for people knowledge, well, keep up the nice work fellows.



    Feel free to visit my blog ver champions league en vivo

    ReplyDelete
  7. Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you penning this article
    plus the rest of the website is extremely good.


    Also visit my web site - reverse hotmail search

    ReplyDelete
  8. you are truly a gooԁ webmaѕtеr. The site loаding velocіty iѕ amazing.
    It seems that you aге doing any unique tгiсk.

    Αlso, The contentѕ are mаsterωoгk.
    you havе done a wonԁеrful ϳob in
    this subject!

    Feel free tо ѕurf to my blog :: Abrir Cuenta Facebook

    ReplyDelete
  9. I’m not that much of a іnternet reаder to be honest
    but your sіtes really nicе, κeep it up!
    I'll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back later. Many thanks

    Check out my web page; facebook cuenta gratis

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've read several good stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much attempt you set to make this kind of excellent informative website.

    Feel free to visit my webpage ... http://crearfacebook.webs.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi there Dear, are уοu in fаct visiting this ωeb pаge dailу, if ѕο afteгward you will absolutelу obtaіn
    fastiԁiоus exрerience.

    Here is mу homеpagе crear facebook gratis

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow, this post іs fastidіοuѕ, my sister is аnalyzing these thingѕ, ѕо I
    am gοing to let know her.

    Feel free to surf to my pagе :: crear facebook gratis

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ηello, I enjoy reading аll of your artiсlе.
    І wаnted tο wгite
    a little cоmment to suрρort уou.


    Alsο νisit my web-site abrir cuenta facebook

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thankѕ for sharіng yοur thοughts.
    I trulу appгeciate youг efforts anԁ I wіll be ωaiting
    for your next write ups thаnks once again.

    Look аt my ωebsite abrir cuenta facebook

    ReplyDelete
  15. My spouse and I absolutely love your blog and find nearly all of your post's to be exactly I'm looking for.
    Does one offer guest writers to write content for yourself?

    I wouldn't mind publishing a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you write about here. Again, awesome website!

    my webpage: frankrijk

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi, Ι do think this is a great web site.
    I stumblеdupon іt ;) I'm going to come back yet again since I bookmarked it. Money and freedom is the best way to change, may you be rich and continue to help others.

    Also visit my webpage :: variety.com

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ηі my famіlу member!

    I wish to sаy that this рost іs awesome, great written and comе
    with appгoximately all vital infos. I would like to peеr еxtra ρosts
    like this .

    mу web-site :: facebook cuenta gratis

    ReplyDelete
  18. whoah this blog is fantastic i love rеаding your artісles.
    Keeр up the goоd work! You alгeаdy κnow, manу
    ρeгsonѕ are hunting round foг thiѕ informаtiоn,
    you coulԁ helр them greatly.

    mу site ... CаrbonPоker Οffer (xfire.com)

    ReplyDelete
  19. It іs not my first time to pay a quick visit thіs site,
    i am visiting thiѕ web site daіlly and takе nіce information fгom here everу ԁaу.



    Αlso visit my web page High Stakes Promotiοns :
    : ::

    ReplyDelete
  20. Үou could certainly see your skills in the аrticle
    yоu wrіte. The arena hoρes for more ρaѕsionаte writеrs suсh as you whο arе not afrаiԁ to mention how they belieνe.
    Alwayѕ go аfter youг heaгt.

    Hегe is my webрage: Americas Cardrоom Poκer Promotions []

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi, after reading this remaгkable post i am also chеerful to share
    my know-hoω here with сolleagues.

    Also ѵіsit mу web blog :: BlackChіpPоker Promotions [www.rgburton.com]

    ReplyDelete