Rationalists & Empiricists Fail Critics’ Tests as Reality Checks

Rationalists & Empiricists Fail Critics’ Tests as Reality Checks

Chrissy Luckie

HCC.edu

Rationalism & Empiricism Fail Best Critics’ Test as Reality Checks

 Rationalism and Empiricism denote two distinct points of view on the true nature of knowledge. As the first label implies, Rationalism theories suggest rational thought process that relies on logic is our only path to knowledge. Empiricists say ‘sense experience’ by external stimuli taken in through our 5 normal senses is the only way to gain true knowledge (Lawhead, 2013; Boyd, 2013). This writer rejects and accepts various aspects of both Rationalism and Empiricism for very different reasons discussed in more detail below.

Rationalism Drawbacks

A Rationalist relies on 3 main concepts that arrives at the same result: a) Deduction – applies concrete precepts; b) Innate ideas – from prior lives or a higher power to explain why some possess more talent than others with the same exposure to certain tasks. Examples might be playing musical instruments or ability to write poetry; and, c) Reason – utilizes logic to draw inferences. For instance, standardized math says 3-1=2. Ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras devised his famous Pythagorean Theorem from that very concept. So, Rationalists require no prior experience to “know” 2 pies are left if they eat 1 today. This suggests a priori knowledge is mandatory prerequisite to apply the best theory to solve problems. It’s also where Rationalism’s worst defects lie: How to define a core question with no experience for direction.  Who can say 1 taken away from any sum leaves 2, if they never began with several items reduced in some way over an entire lifetime of prior conscious existence? Besides this, even if ‘innate ideas’ do exist, logic alone has shown itself dead wrong in many instances.

Spontaneous generation is perhaps best proof of Rationalism’s drawbacks. It appears ludicrous now, but for thousands of years, people thought life could generate by itself from inert matter like wood. In fact, Aristotle was the purveyor of those views that rested on ideas expressed by Hippolytus, et al., that stressed life emerging from slime, mud or dirt exposed to the sun. So, Aristotle reasoned maggots grow on dead meat by themselves. This hypothesis survived centuries after he died up to the 1700s in some cases. Louis Pasteur’s famous experiment proved maggots don’t grow on meat packed in airtight spaces. Advent of microscopes then took over the show by one look at the complete process of microbes conceiving maggots – not dead meat (Andrews, 2010).  

Aristotle was also main proponent of what experts call ‘Flat Earth’ Theory, as scientists once thought all normal human cells contain 44 chromosomes. These are but 3 samples from a long menu of once universally accepted logical theories proven 100% wrong. So, this writer is convinced that reason is no more – or far less- reliable than common sense and experience.

Empiricism Criticism

Pure Empiricism theories rely on experience to ensure a fact is true. This view rejects absolute certainty as mandatory perquisite of true knowledge and suggests the past is sole guide ever qualified to lead future progress. This position evokes criticism on two bases that stem from proven unreliability of experience and no guarantee that history will repeat itself in all cases. Rationalists maintain its impossible to gain truth from experience alone, since many concepts are unknown in humanity’s entire course of prior existence.  Moreover, experience is subjective and thus irreducible to a singular collective expression. But Empiricists ask how formulas are devised absent experience and suggest reason can be applied to extrapolate true knowledge from past sense impressions.

In my view, these two sets of questions are best addressed by Immanuel Kant’s theory dubbed Constructivism. As its name suggests, Constructivists claim both Rationalism and Empiricism offer some insight, but neither one is 100% right. Rather, Kantians insist knowledge doesn’t exist (Rationalism) nor believe we receive it passively (Empiricism). Instead, true insight is constructed from steadfast memories stuck in the head. I’d even suggest experience doesn’t have to be firsthand but can develop vicariously. How else do infants reach adulthood unless they listen to parents who preach against desire to play on an interstate highway or pick up a pretty red-hot wire that conducts enough current to knock ‘em dead on the spot? Likewise, what’s left to grownups to revise old ideas and find a new way to solve age-old problems like infectious disease epidemics that leaves millions of fellow citizens devastated? Experience and sensory input are the raw materials from which reason and logic are created.