Rationalism Vs. Empiricism

Rationalism vs Empiricism

Name

School Affiliation:

Date:

Rationalism vs Empiricism

Epistemology is a branch within the field of philosophy which is concerned with the study of sources, nature and limits of knowledge. Epistemology looks at the study of knowledge through two lenses- rationalism and empiricism. Simply put, empiricism and rationalism are sub-branches of epistemology and they are concerned with the study of knowledge. In a bid to study knowledge, philosophers must first answer three key questions- how can knowledge be gained? what is the nature of propositional knowledge? and what are the limits of the knowledge people have? Empiricists and rationalists differ primarily on the method or means through which we obtain knowledge. The essay that follows looks at the difference between empirical and rational views and methods of research.

1. Rational view and method of research

Rationalists are known to adapt at least one of three central claims. The claims are represented by theses and they include intuition/deduction thesis, innate knowledge thesis and innate concept thesis. Firstly, the intuition/deduction thesis opines that some propositions in a particular field, S, can be known by us through intuition, while others can only be known by being deduced from the induced prepositions (Creswell, 2013; 33). Intuition is considered to be a form of rational insight. On the other hand, deduction is a process through which we derive conclusions based on intuited premises through valid arguments. For this to work, a basic assumption is made in which it is assumed that if the premises are true then the conclusions derived from these must also be true. Intuition and deduction equips learners and scholars with knowledge which is gained independent of sense experience.

Secondly, rationalism is associated with the innate knowledge thesis. According to Pritchard (2009), innate knowledge thesis argues that we have some knowledge of some truths in a subject area, S, as a part of our rational nature. Similar to the intuition/deduction thesis, this theory also asserts that knowledge can be gained independent of sense experience. However, this theory differs from the intuition/deduction theory in way it explains how knowledge is gained. Whereas intuition/deduction theory stipulates that knowledge is learnt through deduction or intuition, innate knowledge teaches that knowledge is never learnt because it is part of human nature.

Thirdly, the innate concept thesis posits that humans have some form of concepts which they employ in a given field, S, as part of the human rational nature (Pritchard, 2009, p.86). According to this thesis, here are some of the human concepts which are not gained from experiences. These concepts are part of our human nature and they can be easily triggered by sense experiences which might bring the innate concepts to consciousness. In this case, sense experience neither provide the concepts nor determine the nature or type of information these concepts contain. The strength and content of the innate concept thesis varies markedly with the concepts that are claimed to be innate. Bearing in mind that human experiences vary from time to time, former experiences are more promising candidates of being innate compared to latter experiences.

1. Empirical view and method of research

This thesis posits that there is no source of knowledge in S other than sense experience. Empiricists reject the premise set by proponents of innate knowledge and intuition/deduction theses. Further, empiricists believe that our knowledge is dependent upon sense experience. Furthermore, they also deny the assertions made by Innate Concept thesis in which it claims that we have innate ideas in different subject matter. In this regard, empiricism emphasizes on the fact that knowledge can only be gained by experience (Creswell, 2013, p.35).

Despite the fact that the two branches of epistemology carry some differences, the two need not to conflict. Matter of fact, it is possible to apply rational views and methods of research to one field of study and apply empiricism to other fields. It is apparent that the two schools of thought conflict only when formulated to address the same subject. Therefore, the fact that philosophers can be both empiricists and rationalists negates the need to distinguish philosophers into two distinct groups- one with empiricists and the other with rationalists. Furthermore, it is also worth noting that the classification of the sources of knowledge under rational and empirical views is neither conclusive nor exhaustive because there are other sources of knowledge which are outside these two views. For example, some do claim that knowledge can be gained through divine revelation. In this example, it is clear that neither sense experience nor reason is involved (Alexander &Weinberg, 2007; 63).