Poll: The superior epistemology is
Back
to top
Rationalism vs Empiricism
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
I want you to pick your preferred epistemology, explanations below
Rationalism: True-statements are synthesised through induction/deduction on immutable and self-evident axioms and these statements are true regardless of our subjective sensory experiences. Fields: Philosophy, Mathematics
Empiricism: Knowledge is gained exclusively through our sensory experience which is verified by repeated observation, knowledge which is incapable of being tested for or observed is an absurdity Fields: Science, Engineering
Rationalism: True-statements are synthesised through induction/deduction on immutable and self-evident axioms and these statements are true regardless of our subjective sensory experiences. Fields: Philosophy, Mathematics
Empiricism: Knowledge is gained exclusively through our sensory experience which is verified by repeated observation, knowledge which is incapable of being tested for or observed is an absurdity Fields: Science, Engineering
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by l'etranger)
I want you to pick your preferred epistemology, explanations below
Rationalism: True-statements are synthesised through induction/deduction on immutable and self-evident axioms and these statements are true regardless of our subjective sensory experiences. Fields: Philosophy, Mathematics
Empiricism: Knowledge is gained exclusively through our sensory experience which is verified by repeated observation, knowledge which is incapable of being tested for or observed is an absurdity Fields: Science, Engineering
I want you to pick your preferred epistemology, explanations below
Rationalism: True-statements are synthesised through induction/deduction on immutable and self-evident axioms and these statements are true regardless of our subjective sensory experiences. Fields: Philosophy, Mathematics
Empiricism: Knowledge is gained exclusively through our sensory experience which is verified by repeated observation, knowledge which is incapable of being tested for or observed is an absurdity Fields: Science, Engineering
0
reply
(Original post by stillridin)
plato was wrong about the world of the forms
plato was wrong about the world of the forms
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by stillridin)
plato was wrong about the world of the forms
plato was wrong about the world of the forms
0
reply
Report
#5
Not sure it is a valid distinction, I know of no philosopher who has not achieved knowledge through one of the two methods. Even empiricism rests on fundamental assumptions and frames of reference.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by l'etranger)
I want you to pick your preferred epistemology, explanations below
Rationalism: True-statements are synthesised through induction/deduction on immutable and self-evident axioms and these statements are true regardless of our subjective sensory experiences. Fields: Philosophy, Mathematics
Empiricism: Knowledge is gained exclusively through our sensory experience which is verified by repeated observation, knowledge which is incapable of being tested for or observed is an absurdity Fields: Science, Engineering
I want you to pick your preferred epistemology, explanations below
Rationalism: True-statements are synthesised through induction/deduction on immutable and self-evident axioms and these statements are true regardless of our subjective sensory experiences. Fields: Philosophy, Mathematics
Empiricism: Knowledge is gained exclusively through our sensory experience which is verified by repeated observation, knowledge which is incapable of being tested for or observed is an absurdity Fields: Science, Engineering
If those are the only two options, surely you would have to be a rationalist! There isn't any real sense in thinking that maths or logic are empirical, yet science and engineering both rely on maths and logic. In that sense, maths and logic are more fundamental notions we simply can't do without. Also, it does seem that the 3 laws of logic really are just self evident axioms in that they can neither be proved or disproved. So, with the options given, I think you have to side with rationalism.
However, if the options were expanded I would be a scholastic.
Like the rationalists, Scholastic philosophers hold that there are metaphysically necessary truths which can be known with certainty, but they reject the rationalist view that such truths are innate or that metaphysics is an essentially a priori discipline. Like the empiricists, Scholastic philosophers hold that our concepts and knowledge derive from experience, but they also reject both the empiricists’ desiccated conception of “experience” and the empiricist tendency to conflate the intellect and the imagination. They regard the intellect as capable of “pulling out” from experience far more than either the rationalist or the empiricist supposes. Hence they reject the assumption that if a proposition isn’t empirical in the thin empiricist (as opposed to thick Aristotelian) sense of “empirical,” then it must be a matter of “conceptual analysis,” with the only remaining question being whether “conceptual analysis” is to be understood in rationalist, Humean, Kantian, Wittgensteinian, Strawsonian, or Frank Jackson-style terms.
0
reply
Report
#7
Rubbish poll. In spite of deep contradictions between the two, they're both still reductionist.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by l'etranger)
I want you to pick your preferred epistemology, explanations below
Rationalism: True-statements are synthesised through induction/deduction on immutable and self-evident axioms and these statements are true regardless of our subjective sensory experiences. Fields: Philosophy, Mathematics
Empiricism: Knowledge is gained exclusively through our sensory experience which is verified by repeated observation, knowledge which is incapable of being tested for or observed is an absurdity Fields: Science, Engineering
I want you to pick your preferred epistemology, explanations below
Rationalism: True-statements are synthesised through induction/deduction on immutable and self-evident axioms and these statements are true regardless of our subjective sensory experiences. Fields: Philosophy, Mathematics
Empiricism: Knowledge is gained exclusively through our sensory experience which is verified by repeated observation, knowledge which is incapable of being tested for or observed is an absurdity Fields: Science, Engineering
Even the most general and abstract subject-matter of metaphysics involves consideration of presuppositions of scientific thought. It does not so much optimistically attempt to derive knowledge beyond the bounds of experience as it does to determine the scope and validity of such absolute assumptions. In fact, we cannot even hope to do such things if the source of our knowledge is unknown.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
