Peace....



From: http://www.theology.edu/logic/logic4.htm


"D. Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Theories of knowledge divide naturally, theoretically and historically into the two rival schools of rationalism and empiricism. Neither rationalism nor empiricism disregards the primary tool of the other school entirely. The issue revolves on beliefs about necessary knowledge and empirical knowledge.

1. Rationalism

Rationalism believes that some ideas or concepts are independent of experience and that some truth is known by reason alone.

a. a priori

This is necessary knowledge not given in nor dependent upon experience; it is necessarily true by definition. For instance "black cats are black." This is an analytic statement, and broadly, it is a tautology; its denial would be self-contradictory.

2. Empiricism

Empiricism believes that some ideas or concepts are independent of experience and that truth must be established by reference to experience alone.

b. a posteriori

This is knowledge that comes after or is dependent upon experience. for instance "Desks are brown" is a synthetic statement. Unlike the analytic statement "Black cats are black", the synthetic statement "Desks are brown" is not necessarily true unless all desks are by definition brown, and to deny it would not be self-contradictory. We would probably refer the matter to experience.

Since knowledge depends primarily on synthetic statements -- statements that may be true or may be false -- their nature and status are crucial to theories of knowledge. The controversial issue is the possibility of synthetic necessary knowledge -- that is, the possibility of having genuine knowledge of the world without the need to rely on experience. Consider these statements:

1) The sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.

2) Parallel lines never meet.

3) A whole is the sum of all its parts.

Rationalism may believe these to be synthetic necessary statements, universally true, and genuine knowledge; i.e., they are not merely empty as the analytic or tautologous statemenst (Black cats are black) and are not dependent on experience for their truth value.

Empiricism denies that these statements are synthetic and necessary. Strict empiricism asserts that all such statements only appear to be necessary or a priori. Actually, they derive from experience.

Logical empiricism admits that these statements are ncessary but only because they are not really synthetic statements but analytic statements, which are true by definition alone and do not give us genuine knowledge of the world.

GENUINE KNOWLEDGE

Rationalism includes in genuine knowledge synthetic necessary statements (or, if this term is rejected, then those analytic necessary statements that "reveal reality" in terms of universally necessary truth; e.g., "An entity is what it is and not something else.")

Empiricism limits genuine knowledge to empirical statements. Necessary statements are empty (that is, they tell us nothing of the world).

Logical empiricism admits as genuine knowledge only analytic necessary (Black cats are black) or synthetic empirical statements (desks are brown). But the anyalytic necessary statements or laws of logic and mathematics derive from arbitrary rules of usage, definitions, and the like, and therefore reveal nothing about reality. (This is the antimetaphysical point of view). "

(End of excerpt)



So, when determining what to believe do you prefer to figure things out using logic and reasoning, or would you rather rely on experience??



Moat
"Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.
Original Post
Empiricist.... don't you have to have the experience and cultivation of determining the color of a thing and labeling it before defining it?

How do you know black cats are black unless you define black... and define it culturally? e.g. the experience feeds your "rationalist" mind...
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
dance ooooh I love it! Let me think about it a minute K?

19 I'll be back to comment..


So...was the thought process that you used in coming up with an answer to this question more of a rational thought process or an empirical thought process?

19

Incidentally, is it claimed that rationalism, as concieved of here, is not empirically based? And if not, how did it arise historically? I have a hard time imagining that it just sprung up out of a vacuum...

Even if it is somehow inherient in how our brains work, then that still must be tied in with our long evolutionary history, and the empirical challenges that we as a species have faced and overcome to survive.

If the niches that we have occupied over the millenia have equipped us with the ability to have knoweledge that transcends our immediate reality, and if our thought processes (that we deem rational and universal) actually have wider application outside of our immediate experience and environment, then we are indeed fortunate. (Is logic and mathematics as we concieve of them really as universal as they seem to us?)
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
dance ooooh I love it! Let me think about it a minute K?

19 I'll be back to comment..


So...was the thought process that you used in coming up with an answer to this question more of a rational thought process or an empirical thought process?

19


It was empirically rationalized.... Big Grin

quote:


Incidentally, is it claimed that rationalism, as concieved of here, is not empirically based? And if not, how did it arise historically? I have a hard time imagining that it just sprung up out of nothing...


That was essentially the point I was trying to make... I have a hard time with the concept of knowledge a priori
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
dance ooooh I love it! Let me think about it a minute K?

19 I'll be back to comment..


So...was the thought process that you used in coming up with an answer to this question more of a rational thought process or an empirical thought process?

19


It was empirically rationalized.... Big Grin

quote:


Incidentally, is it claimed that rationalism, as concieved of here, is not empirically based? And if not, how did it arise historically? I have a hard time imagining that it just sprung up out of nothing...


That was essentially the point I was trying to make... I have a hard time with the concept of knowledge a priori


As do I. It seems to me that what we consider as a-priori knoweledge was gained through many, many years of painstaking experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
Empiricist.... don't you have to have the experience and cultivation of determining the color of a thing and labeling it before defining it?

How do you know black cats are black unless you define black... and define it culturally? e.g. the experience feeds your "rationalist" mind...



The statement about the cat is a tautology which means that it verifies itself. The qualities of the cat may vary, even the color, but by definition if the black is black, the cat must which is black must in fact be black no matter what it means to be black...

Why?? Because the statement provides that the cat is black....


To deny this statement one would have to argue that the black cat is not black...


Rationalism does not necessarily require experience, it only requires experience for expression and to have meaning..



Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Saracen:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
Empiricist.... don't you have to have the experience and cultivation of determining the color of a thing and labeling it before defining it?

How do you know black cats are black unless you define black... and define it culturally? e.g. the experience feeds your "rationalist" mind...



The statement about the cat is a tautology which means that it verifies itself. The qualities of the cat may vary, even the color, but by definition if the black is black, the cat must which is black must in fact be black no matter what it means to be black...

Why?? Because the statement provides that the cat is black....


To deny this statement one would have to argue that the black cat is not black...


Rationalism does not necessarily require experience, it only requires experience for expression and to have meaning..



Moat


You're speaking of origins aren't you...? I'm trying to figure where you're going with this...

One can proclaim a thing...

ummm... "Be and it is".... the meaning is ascribed AFTER the declaration?


Therefore I create the term black... and therefore the name ascribed to the color we've come to know as black is black?

The problem I have with this is this gets me thinking about the origin of "creativity" though a thing may have not been seen before..... the elements of such have always been present....

creation is not culled from nothingness... nothingness is material...

therefore black is black because black is substance..

black is an experience from which one creates...


Which is why when ricardo says this:

quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:

.....It seems to me that what we consider as a-priori knoweledge was gained through many, many years of painstaking experience.



nothing comes of creation from nothing... knowledge does not spring out of nowhere... there is always a substance.. an experience... something tangible to pull from... sometimes many years... at times not... but never spontaneously combusted! Big Grin


remember?

the womb of space existed... that opposite passive energy (oxymoron?) existed... it was real... it was substance...

where was light prior to its formation....? the material for light was in the darkness...

okay...


I'm getting all off track but I hope you see my point... you know I type in streams of thought sometimes..... bear with me..
quote:

Originally posted by Khalliqa
nothing comes of creation from nothing... knowledge does not spring out of nowhere... there is always a substance.. an experience... something tangible to pull from... sometimes many years... at times not... but never spontaneously combusted!


If this is truly the case, then how does one define instinct? Intuition? Can experience be gained through the subconscious?

Or do we all have the memory of an elephant?
Peace....


quote:
You're speaking of origins aren't you...? I'm trying to figure where you're going with this...



I am speaking more about processes. The rationalist thinks along the line of mathematical deduction, or simply deduction. Using this method of thinking the mathemitician can lead the fields of research. the rational thinker can move beyond experimentation to ascertain information. The problem arises when the Empiricist requests verification of analytically deduced facts...

Certian researchers are limited to what they can cite in a study. If he can't cite it, then it cannot be considered valid, no matter how much sense it makes.

Backed into a corner this way of thinking comes out fighting by attacking the premises posed by the rational thinker. They will go as far as attacking well established facts in order to make the point that we cannot just think our way into truth we must verify it by turning over the information to laboratories so that it can be tested.

Now, I have no problem with testing. I have a problem with allowing others to verify truth for me when logic alone is sufficient.



Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Saracen:
Peace....


quote:
You're speaking of origins aren't you...? I'm trying to figure where you're going with this...



I am speaking more about processes. The rationalist thinks along the line of mathematical deduction, or simply deduction. Using this method of thinking the mathemitician can lead the fields of research. the rational thinker can move beyond experimentation to ascertain information. The problem arises when the Empiricist requests verification of analytically deduced facts...


Ummm... how doesCIRCULAR thinking lead to opening new fields of research?????? How is there value in something like this?

quote:
Certian researchers are limited to what they can cite in a study. If he can't cite it, then it cannot be considered valid, no matter how much sense it makes.

Backed into a corner this way of thinking comes out fighting by attacking the premises posed by the rational thinker. They will go as far as attacking well established facts in order to make the point that we cannot just think our way into truth we must verify it by turning over the information to laboratories so that it can be tested.

Now, I have no problem with testing. I have a problem with allowing others to verify truth for me when logic alone is sufficient.



Moat


Logic must have value... a premise is not circular.. I agree with the limit of research but empirical breakthrough does not come with limited thinking... it comes with new premises that prove themselves over time...

Galileo?
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:

Originally posted by Khalliqa
nothing comes of creation from nothing... knowledge does not spring out of nowhere... there is always a substance.. an experience... something tangible to pull from... sometimes many years... at times not... but never spontaneously combusted!


If this is truly the case, then how does one define instinct? Intuition? Can experience be gained through the subconscious?

Or do we all have the memory of an elephant?
Hopefully we do not have the memory of an elephant... It's not all its cracked up to be... Razz

One could argue that our instinct has been preplanned for millenia before now through the genes of our ancestors....

One could argue that intuition is based off of past conscious and subconscious experiences and retained lessons from them...

could they not?
I've had a problem accepting love in the past. I believe it was because I was approaching accepting love empirically, I needed evidence, because obviously I either hadn't experienced it, or didn't understand the experience. When I began to rationalize, love became more easy to accept.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×