Empiricism and rationalism are key epistemological positions that attempt to study nature and explain the sources and limits of knowledge. These positions have sparked ideological divisions among philosophies in their bids to explain the source of knowledge. Fundamentally, empiricism is grounded on the idea that experience is the primary source of knowledge, while rationalists argue that there are numerous ways other than experience by which knowledge can be gained. Rationalism is anchored on the view that knowledge is innate (Vanzo, 2016). Empiricism is superior to rationalism because it argues that the origin of the human knowledge is the sense of experience, data, and understanding of the world, which provides critical information about how the world works, and its hidden natural laws. That knowledge is directly responsible for human progress in various fields, ranging from psychics to astronomy. Rationalism, which is based on knowledge a priori, is based on intuition and other claims, which are hard to verify, making such knowledge prone to disputation. Innate knowledge, as claimed by rationalists, is not objective as different people can have different innate knowledge, but an experiment under controlled conditions can always produce the same results. Amid contrasting points of views and philosophical thoughts, this paper sheds more light on why empiricism is superior to rationalism.
Why Empiricism Is Superior to Rationalism
Firstly, empiricism is the better theory because it is simpler. Empiricists posit that knowledge is observable and does not do anything unless it is invoked by experience (Webb, 2018). Unlike rationalists who argue that knowledge is innate, empiricists perceive sources of knowledge as active processes that seek to benefit those who possess it. Observation is critical in the acquisition of knowledge because it triggers perception by the different sense mechanisms. The brain only interprets these sensory perceptions to yield knowledge, thereby watering down the concept of innate knowledge. Rationalists opine that knowledge is innate, but this position seems to downplay the purpose or actual source of knowledge. Muscle memory and the mental faculties of human beings are developed through exposure to various stimuli. Human beings must interact with their environment for them to augment the knowledge they possess. Otherwise, without experience, the memory of facts or certain concepts may be erased from the human mind (Webb, 2018). Therefore, empiricism is the better theory because it defines the source and limits of knowledge. Innate knowledge may be limited, but knowledge built upon experience and empirical evidence is long-lasting.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, empiricism offers a better description of the linkages of imagination, experience, and knowledge. Imagination is sparked from experiences in daily life, and this is the source of knowledge (Bies, Cook & Duffull, 2016). Without experience, it is difficult for an individual to imagine anything other than what is available in their immediate surroundings. Whereas the human brain is complex and with a unique capacity for sensory and interpretation of phenomena, these functions must be supported by experience for them to be meaningful. For instance, when a child is born, it does not talk or walk immediately. The child has to develop some experience from interactions with the environment, particularly parents or caregivers. As the child grows and interacts with the environment, they imitate their elders and gradually learn to pronounce words. They also learn the names of the objects in their environment. Moreover, exposure to the environment triggers the child’s imagination making them ask questions in a bid to understand why things happen the way they do. If the child were born blind, he would never know what the color blue looks like because they do not have the capacity to practically visualize it. The child will never possess knowledge of color, suggesting that empiricists are right. This implies that children must first gain experience to stimulate their imagination and learn to do simple things. Rationalists have been unable to satisfactorily explain the link between imagination, experience, and knowledge hence inferior to empiricists (Bies, Cook & Duffull, 2016). They posit that knowledge is innate and is self-sufficient in creating imaginations. They fail to recognize that human beings are active beings whose development depends on building their cognitive power. Knowledge may be innate, but it has to be built upon by experience for it to be meaningful and be embedded in the long-term memory of its bearers.
Induction also proves that empiricism is superior to rationalism. Inductive reasoning enables human beings to make sense of the data they gather from experience. Induction is not made possible by innate knowledge but rather by experience. For instance, a statement such as “the sun will rise tomorrow” can be inferred based on yesterday’s experience but not on innate knowledge (Zalabardo, 2016). In essence, empiricists argue that knowledge should be backed up by empirical evidence which may either be direct or through inductive reasoning. The sense of perception helps people understand and know things. For instance, people know that a chalkboard is yellow and rubbed chalkboard is white. However, no person can prove that these perceptions or knowledge agrees with the subjects. Persons can only perceive but cannot prove that after leaving the classroom, the rubbed chalkboard stays white. In this sense, they perceive first before knowing, which shows that empiricism is right.
Empiricism is superior to rationalism because it has led to the development and furtherance of scientific principles. Mathematical and scientific concepts cannot be perceived or developed by intuition. They must be demonstrated through experiments, trials, and error to establish their validity. Many of the scientific principles in practice today are founded on empiricist principles (Young, 2017). Scientific ideas such as Newtonian laws began as abstract empirical theories but were built upon to lead to quantum mechanics among other principles that continue to impact human lives today. Primarily, empirical theories are based on tenets that human beings can relate with in their day to day experiences. Rationalists tend to be more theoretical with many limitations to the application of their principles. However, empiricists are superior because they provide more cogent explanations to cause and effect relationships. Because of empiricists, individuals can identify their mistakes and change their behaviors due to the practical aspect of the knowledge put forward. On the other hand, rationalists propose the existence of certain knowledge even without sufficient proof of it, and therefore, reliance on rationalist perspectives may lead to wrong conclusions (Young, 2017). For instance, rationalists argued that it was impossible for a vacuum to exist because it was rationally absurd for a vacuum to be present on earth which was entirely occupied with matter in gaseous, solid and liquid states. Nevertheless, empiricists would later demonstrate that a vacuum could exist.
The superiority of empiricism over rationalism is also evident in its consistency. Empiricists are fairly consistent in the advancement of their principles and backing of their claims. Moreover, because of the practical truth and applicability of the empirical theories, empiricists tend to attract support from other empiricists who research to advance the basic principles that are put forward (Young, 2017). Consequently, the field of science has greatly expanded and played a central role in modern civilization. On the other hand, rationalist arguments are full of inconsistencies and counterarguments hence undermining their believability and applicability. For instance, not all rationalists agree on innate knowledge. Plato, one of the renowned rationalists, believed in reincarnation and forms whereas Descartes, another rationalist, neither believed in reincarnation nor forms but in the existence of a soul. This indicates the lack of consensus about the existence and nature of reality and the self. It is inconceivable that rationalists disagree on such matters and still claim existence of innate knowledge about them. From their arguments, it would be expected that universal principles will guide rationalists because innate knowledge is constant.
Conclusion
The battle between empiricists and rationalists about the origin of human knowledge is intense. However, it is the empiricists who win the war based on the fact that they are more precise and reasonable on the matter of the origin of knowledge as outlined in this text. Empiricists are simple because they claim that knowledge is observable and cannot do anything unless it is activated by experience. Moreover, empiricists give a better explanation of the relationship between imagination, experience, and knowledge by arguing that experience triggers imagination, which creates meaningful knowledge. Induction also proves that empiricism is superior to rationalism. Indeed, inductive reasoning enables human beings to make sense of the data they gather from experience. Induction is not made possible by innate knowledge but rather by experience. Additionally, empiricism has led to the advancement of scientific principles because it is based on measurable truths, unlike rationalism, which is mostly theoretical with limited application. The development of science and mathematical concepts cannot be based on intuition. Lastly, empiricism is superior to rationalism because it is consistent, unlike the latter, which is full of inconsistencies, critiques, and counterarguments. Consequently, empirical concepts are more believable than rationalist perspectives.
References
Bies, R., Cook, S., &Duffull, S. (2016). The pharmacometrician's dilemma: the tension between mechanistic and empirical approaches in mathematical modeling and simulation–a continuation of the age ‐ old dispute between rationalism and empiricism?. British journal of clinical pharmacology , 82 (3), 580.
Vanzo, A. (2016). Empiricism and rationalism in nineteenth-century histories of philosophy. Journal of the History of Ideas , 77 (2), 253-282.
Webb, W. (2018). Rationalism, empiricism, and evidence-based medicine: a call for a new Galenic synthesis. Medicines , 5 (2), 40.
Young, M. T. (2017). Nature as Spectacle; Experience and Empiricism in Early Modern Experimental Practice. Centaurus, 59 (1-2), 72-96. doi:10.1111/1600-0498.12155
Zalabardo, J. L. (2016). Empiricist Pragmatism. Philosophical Issues, 26 (1), 441-461. doi:10.1111/phis.12071
