Rationalism and Empiricism

Arguing for Empiricism

Empiricism and rationalism are the two main theories which try to explain where our ideas come from. The two theories conflict on whether humans have innate knowledge or not. Rationalists believe that humans have innate knowledge of fundamental ideas, where empiricists believe there is no such thing. Empiricism states that all ideas come from experience and no ideas are innate. Rationalism is defined as some fundamental ideas are innate. In my opinion, the most plausible is the theory of empiricism.

The theory of empiricism is able to explain the origin of more ideas than the theory of rationalism. This means empiricism has a better explanatory breadth. Rationalism can’t explain the ideas of seeing color or feeling roundness. For example, you can only come to the conclusion that something is red if you’ve experienced a red object before using your senses and determined that it matched. Also, after finding the answer to Molyneux’s Problem by doing experiments, it is impossible to distinguish the difference between a cube and a sphere if you haven’t experienced them before.

The detail in which empiricism goes into when explaining the origin of ideas is much greater than rationalism, this is called the explanatory depth. Empiricism explains the origin of ideas more completely. For example, math and science can be tested using experiments. The observations from the experiments come from using the senses and experiencing the experiment. Although math and science would still exist if we couldn’t sense it, our experiences with them can help us understand them in greater detail.

The simplicity of empiricism also makes it seem more plausible. All ideas come from experience and can only be separated or combined. Where rationalism states that it is true that we can come up with ideas through experience, but we are also are born with innate knowledge. Since rationalism contains one more piece in the theory and has more to it than empiricism, it is more complex. Empiricism makes fewer assumptions in the theory, so it is less likely to be able to find hidden errors in it.

Accepting the theory of empiricism is easier than rationalism because it agrees with with is previously thought. In other words, it’s a conservative theory. For example, even if you have a college degree you could lose the job to someone with more experience than you because it is the best way to learn. Being in the actual experience and using all five senses is the best way to learn because you absorb everything. Since you’ve done or been through the experience before you have more knowledge about that experience, so the more experience the better.

Rene Descartes’ example of wax remaining the same, but going through such radical changes can actually be derived from senses. If you do this experiment and see that the wax melts, then its easy to see it is not the same solid wax because it’s a melted version of it and until it gets cooler and hardens it is different than when it was solid. It help to describe or name the wax more carefully at first so i would be easier to see that is not the same. For example, calling it a solid piece of wax at first instead of more broadly just wax.

-Empiricism and rationalism are the most plausible explanations of where our ideas originate from.

-Empiricism has more explanatory breadth, explanatory depth, simplicity and conservatism.

-Therefore, empiricism is the best explanation of where our ideas originate from.

In conclusion, the most plausible theory for answering the question, "Where do our ideas originate from?" is the theory of empiricism. This is shown by using explanatory breadth and depth, its simplicity and the conservatism of the theory. Also by using the Inference to Best Explanation argument.