Rationalism –versus- Empiricism Philosophy – Epistemology

The poster boy of rationalism A Priori Knowledge v. A Posteriori Knowledge A Priori Knowledge: (Conceptual Truths) Knowledge is innate – either knowledge we are born with or concepts that are presumed by all as knowledge For Example: Don’t get hung up on the idea that you learned what a triangle is because someone showed you – it seems like you learned it through your senses. BUT what makes a triangle a triangle is based in the concept of the triangle, not our experience of a triangle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C-s4JrymKM

The poster boy of empiricism A Priori Knowledge v. A Posteriori Knowledge A Posteriori Knowledge (Empirical Truths) – Stresses the role of sense experience in knowledge and plays down the role of reason. All ideas come from experience – either directly, or by abstracting from experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bwoVE YEdok

Rational (A Priori) versus empirical (A posteriori) “All Triangles have 3 Sides” You don’t know this from comparing actual triangles, you know by analyzing what the words mean. “A Vixen is a Female Fox” This would be true if no foxes existed because that’s just what “vixen” means. “2+2=4” A conceptual truth “There is a table in this room” We have to look around the room to see whether this is true. “I am wearing shoes” We have to look at my feet to confirm. “Keep calm and buy our balls are words on a blue t-shirt in this room” We have to look around to find the blue t-shirt in this room.

Idealized rationalism Idealized rationalism . (“Idealized” because the following is mostly true, but there may be some rationalist who disagree) 1. Through reason we can know fundamental informative truths (a priori). We have knowable truths independent of experience that tell us facts about the world, such as: “A bachelor is an unmarried male.” 2. Rationalist stress logical/mathematical reason as a model for knowledge. This is definitely what we saw with Descartes – his method was very much like what you find in geometry. Start with something that has to be true, (i.e.: axioms and theorems) and then base the rest of your knowledge on that… I think, I exist. 3. They play down natural sciences as based on sense observation. It is NOT that they don’t find science interesting or useful, but they think all knowledge that comes from science is “suspect,” and we can be wrong about it in a way that we can’t be wrong with rational knowledge. (Math/Logic provide real knowledge and science is only okay knowledge.) 4. We can have INNATE and INTUITIVE knowledge gained through thinking.

Idealized empiricism . (Same deal, not every empiricist will agree with all of this, but it gives a nice general picture.) 1. Empiricists deny that truths are a priori. All informative truths are known as a posteriori or they rely on sense evidence for truth. 2. They de-emphasize the role of logical/mathematical reasoning. They think it is very important, but don’t think it leads to truths about the world. (They know you can’t do science without it, but they think it isn’t as important as learning facts about the world.) 3. They stress the role of natural sciences as based on sense observation. The kind of knowledge they are really interested in tells us about the world – and that’s what science gives us. There are NO innate ideas. Every idea we have, we gain through SENSES and EXPERIENCE.