Empiricism is a theory in philosophy that states that all human knowledge comes from sensory experience. It is one of the views of epistemology, which is the study of the nature of knowledge and belief. Other views are essentialism, constructivism, idealism, rationalism, perennialsm, and progressivism. Empiricism relies more on empirical evidence to form ideas rather than on traditions (Thomas, 2014). This theory tends to lay emphasis on evidence, usually from experiments. Empiricists often believe that all forms of knowledge must be tested against the natural or pre-existing ones rather than depending entirely on reasoning. According to this theory, knowledge and information is not constant and they keep changing due to new discoveries. Rationalism, on the other hand, is the epistemological view that upholds reason over experience as a source of knowledge. Rationalists tend to have a logical approach to information and knowledge, and usually try to reason instead of relying on memory (Scheibe, 2012). This paper places empiricism as the better theory following Ockham’s razor which advices to pick the simpler theory when deciding between two competing theories that describe the same phenomena.
Empiricism first came into existence when the Sophists rejected the speculations of the rationalists. They instead ventured into arguments and requiring proof of any philosophical claims put forward by rationalists. According to them, human concepts are a result of images in memory, past experiences, as well as knowledge. Empiricists argued that whatever form of human knowledge must be subconsciously existing in their memory after an experience, and its application is a use of previous occurrences rather than belief and nature. For them, at birth, the human mind is blank and considered a clean slate. All concepts that may later get stored in the human mind are a result of sensory experience.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As empiricism progressed into the medieval era, the belief that knowledge was previously an experience became even stronger. They claim that everything in the intellect must have previously been in the senses. Even human belief in things unseen like angels and demons originate from a similarity in things seen before. Empiricists can be said to be practical people, and do not follow or accept any form of knowledge without scientific proof. They prefer observation to logical reasoning. Some philosophers like Francis Bacon even went as far as saying that only empirically based knowledge was worth having. Some argued that senses may give an idea, but the actual knowledge is from memory when a thinker associates certain occurrences with names previously assigned to them.
Rationalists, unlike empiricists, claim that all knowledge stems from reasoning. They dismiss the idea that knowledge comes from senses because whatever information that may seem stored in the memory, needs logic for interpretation (Nelson, 2012). Otherwise, we would all have clouds of images stored in our minds without the simplest idea what they meant or signified. All the concepts that we are born with and those that we acquire through experience, need to be certified by reason, at least according to rationalists. However, there is innate knowledge, which rationalists refer to as concepts one is born with and ready for use at birth. This seems confusing as they seem to be supporting empiricism in a way. Rationalism therefore becomes a bit complicated.
Rationalists give certain categories of space and time as being innate knowledge. They explain that we tend to associate some occurrences with others, termed as cause and effect (Scheibe, 2012). This, in effect, has been able to shape our experiences of the world. We tend to think that certain events occur because of others. Or that if one event takes place, another one most definitely will follow suit. This eventually forms a sequence of events in our subconscious minds, and we begin to associate various occurrences with others. In the perspective of a rationalist, we experience certain things that need an explanation for their happening. For innate knowledge, the logical reasoning is not always needed, but somewhere at the back of events there is an explanation for everything that happens.
While rationalism may aim at giving explanations, it has many entities making it hard to understand. Empiricism is simpler. Empiricism is straight forward; knowledge is attained through experience. This is very precise. Rationalism tells us that knowledge is from logical reasoning. It then goes ahead to slightly contradict itself saying there is a form of knowledge that is innate. This then become a bit confusing because it alludes that there is information that actually exists from experience. This, on part, supports the empiricism theory.
Another proof that empiricism is superior is in the identity of colors. One can only be able to clearly define a color if they have encountered it before. This kind of knowledge is then stored in the brain. A blind person, never having had to experience this before, is not in any way capable of telling the colors, no matter the logical reasoning a rationalist may try to use. The same may also work for the deaf. We can only describe certain sounds because we have experienced them before and the knowledge still lingers in our minds. A deaf person will never know the sound of a siren no matter the logic that is applied to help them learn.
Empiricism is superior because of the advance of science. As stated earlier, empiricism believes that no knowledge is constant and information changes frequently. This is supported by scientific discoveries that are made very often. Such discoveries either cement the already existent knowledge, improves it, or discards it in totality (Thomas, 2014). With science, knowledge is never permanent, and people are usually asked to be open minded when it comes to scientific research. Empiricists principles are the foundations of science, and much of it would have failed to advance without the principles in place. If we adopt the mindset of empiricists, then we most probably will spot our mistakes and eliminate them as well as improve on our knowledge. This may not be the case for rationalists. Once they give a logical reasoning for a phenomenon, they stop at that, giving no room for further research and improvements.
The issue of innate knowledge has divided rationalists. Some rationalists like Plato believe in reincarnation and forms whereas his counterpart Descartes neither believes in reincarnation nor forms. These are the same philosophers who tried to convince people that innate knowledge explains these two phenomenon. So where is the lie? Is innate knowledge partial? These two have different beliefs about the self, the nature of reality but conform to the same theory of rationalism. Some have even given wrong information about innate knowledge. For example the claim that a vacuum could not exist because the idea was rationally absurd. This has long been proven to be false and a vacuum can exist. This goes to show that sometimes reason can fail and experience comes in handy. Empiricists, through scientific experiments have been able to prove the existence of vacuums.
In empiricism, imagination and experience are key. We may imagine certain things that we have not seen before. But from experience, we have seen what their other forms look like and we are able to deduce from that. Our experience of bad and crooked lines gives us an idea of what a straight line should be. With that information in mind, we then proceed to try out different lines until we get our desired straight line. Even then, this line is not final. With research and constant experimenting, we may come up with better, improved lines that disapprove the previous ones (Thomas, 2014). In rationalism, there may be a discussion about what seems better from a given set of lines, and we settle for what is best. This does not give room for imagination neither does it allow future changes with scientific innovations.
In conclusion, philosophy is broad, and so are the theories of essentialism. Different philosophers subscribed to different schools of thought and each tried to persuade people into believing theirs. Empiricists have been known to believe in experiences and imagination as a source of knowledge. Francis Bacon, also known as the father of empiricism, totally dismissed other theories as he believed that only empirical knowledge was worth having. Rationalists like Plato, on the other hand believed that every phenomenon had a logical reasoning. All that happened, even what we experienced had an explanation. They did not believe that information stored in the mind could be useful if it did not have an explanation to it. However, they partly sided with empiricists with their idea of innate knowledge. Empiricism therefore seems like a better theory of knowledge because it is simple, straight forward, and has no challenges. Empiricists have explained their theory clearly, even with examples to back them up. Rationalists have even shown division amongst themselves in their explanations, making it hard to adopt any of their reasoning. From examples like the one for color and sound, empiricism argument won me over as it was convincing enough. It is also true that science keeps changing and innovations happen daily, there no type of knowledge is constant like rationalists allude.
References
Nelson, A. (Ed.). (2012). A companion to rationalism . John Wiley & Sons.
Scheibe, E. (2012). Between Rationalism and Empiricism: Selected Papers in the Philosophy of Physics, Chapter III Reconstruction.
Thomas, J. (2014). The minds of the moderns: rationalism, empiricism and philosophy of mind . Routledge.
