Rationalism vs Empiricism

[Antinark]

The Epistemological Debate

 

Does true knowledge come from intraspective or observation? Can we trust our senses? Can common sense prevail over law? These are some of the questions i want to touch upon in this debate.

 

Empiricism is the philosophical beleif that all knowledged is sourced in observation and in experiments. Founded by the natural greek philosophers like anaxogoras and empledocles, and popularized by the great athenian philosopher Aristotle, it has had a heavy influence on sciences such as chemistry, and it is attributed with great discoveries such as the atom theory by democritus. Analogy: humans are a dry sponge, just waiting to absorb information from the outside world.

 

Rationalism is the philosophical beleif that all knowledge is sourced in rational thinking and reason. Seemingly founded by Plato and first popularized by Renes Descartes and Spinoza, rationalism dictates that the solution to any problem can be acheived through insight and reason. Perhaps it can be epitomized by Hegel's dialectal logic that states the need for thesis, antithesis and sythesis to conjure and sort of solution, rationalism doesn't necessarily outline how to reason, but that you NEED to reason. Analogy: Humans are like a broken clock, you need remove the knick knacks, study them from all angles for error, and then place them back in their proper places.

 

 

The lines are often blurred by these two philosophies. Most rationalists emphasize the importance of the senses in order to question all the angles of the problem. While most empiricists recognize that all human actions are indeed dictated by human reason.

 

But the question is, where is information really sourced?

 

Does the brain tell the eye to see the apple, or does the apple tell eye to see it?

 

I will represent my views shortly.

 

Edited September 7, 2005 by Antinark

[jheath]

Heh... I remember debates like this in my highschool philosophy course. Those debates are the primary reason I find it difficult to take philosophy seriously. I mean no disrespect, but when I read a question like "does the apple tell eye to see it?" I don't know whether to giggle or groan. However, I will make a serious attempt to tackle the issue, since it is actually quite interesting.

 

The issue of where knowledge comes from (or "true knowledge", as Antinark puts it) depends in large part on our definition of what knowledge is. Wikipedia is, as always, a good place to start:

 

 

Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through deductive reasoning (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value.

 

There are two things of note in this definition:

 

• It claims that knowledge comes from both observation (a posteriori) and reasoning (a priori). So its answer to Antinark would be that true knowledge comes from some combination of the empirical and the rational.
• It points out that gaining knowledge is a creative process, since making interconnections between details creates additional "value."

The second point is the key to understanding the relationship between observation and reasoning. Observation gives us information, details about the physical world; reasoning is the means of processing that information to create valuable knowledge. Observation will tell us the apple is there; reasoning will tell us whether that is significant in some way. For the cimematically inclined, observation will tell us that the spoon is bending; reasoning will tell us that there is no spoon. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

What makes the relationship between "the empirical" and "the rational" interesting is that observation is not the only source of information... reasoning can also be a direct source. Consider mathematical knowledge, where proving theorems involves only logical analysis using hypothetical axioms, requiring no observation of physical reality. Some information (such as the properties of infinite dimensional Hilbert space) would be impossible to learn through observation, yet I would argue that our knowledge of (unobservable) infinite dimensional geometry is just as valid as our knowledge of (observable) three-dimensional geometry.

 

It is possible to argue that mathematics is solely a human construction, and that when it comes to the real world empirical knowledge is king. Yet even in the physical sciences it is possible to use logic as a primary source for information. Consider, for example, the famous "thought experiments" that formed the foundations of relativity and quantum mechanics. In the case of QM, empirical observations of blackbody radiation provided clues that classical physics was incorrect, but the theory of quantum mechanics was formulated almost entirely through the power of logical reasoning. Special relativity, on the other hand, was a logical exercise in Einstein's mind from the beginning.

 

Of course, it is always possible for our reasoning to be incorrect. Scientists and mathematicians, like all humans, can frequently arrive at the wrong conclusions through flawed logic. That is why empirical evidence is so valuable as a "reality check," to make sure our knowledge has a firm foundation in fact. But make no mistake: empirical observation provides us with information only... it is through reasoning that we can turn that information into knowledge.

 

 

*waits patiently for Cerbera and Mortukai to shred this post to ribbons*

 

[Mortukai]

 

*waits patiently for Cerbera and Mortukai to shred this post to ribbons*

Heheh. Nah, I agree with pretty much most of what you said.

 

I would have said much the same thing, only from a different angle. That angle, is this:

 

My biggest problem with these sorts of questions is that they start from a flawed assumption. In fact, pretty much all the "perplexing" philosophical issues, from "other minds", to "the problem of induction", all are only difficult to answer when you start from this same flawed assumption. And that assumption is that we, as humans, are in some way seperate from the rest of the world.

 

When you assume that we are seperate, you get into all sorts of problems. "How do I know what is real?" "How do I know if I know that?" "How do I know if I'm real?" "How do I know if I know that?"

 

As to this question, re "what is knowledge", the answer is drastically simplified and far more satisfactorily coherent when we start with the assumption that we are NOT seperate, from the physical world. When we accept the physical reality of our condition, it's much easier to answer these sorts of questions. Knowledge is electro-chemical neural networks. Knowledge is not some fanciful intangible "thing" out there and all around us, it exists solely by virtue of axonal connections in our brains which are formed by nothing more elaborate than the physics of our universe. "Knowledge" is merely the name we give to the effect we can experience of a bunch of a certain type of cell all firing chemical signals to and for according to the deterministic laws of physics. "Knowledge" is no less a thing, nor any more amazing or unintelligible, than auroras of light, formed by the physical laws of how light energy interacts with matter energy in certain conditions.

 

To bring this out of the biological anatomy of the brain then, and look at it within the light of conceptual logic, we can easily see how "knowledge" is both "empirical", and "rational", in that it is formed by physical "information" coming into the brain, and the myriad of physical processes this effect causes after the fact. Like firing a rubber ball into a small room at high speed: the ball entering the room can be thought of as "empirical" knowledge, and its subsequent bouncing around inside --and all the sounds and echoes it creates-- can be seen as "rational" knowledge. Any attempt to define knowledge as one or the other would be fantastically impoverished.

 

Every philosophical problem can be solved by nothing so grand as merely admitting that we humans are not in any way seperate from the physical reality we inhabit.

[Leftcoast]

 

When you assume that we are seperate, you get into all sorts of problems. "How do I know what is real?" "How do I know if I know that?" "How do I know if I'm real?" "How do I know if I know that?"

 

I'm not big on philosiphy, so I let the anthropic prinicple answer these kinds of questions, "The universe works the way it does; other wise, we would not exist to observe it in the first place". For a better explanation google "anthropic prinicple", too long for me to explain.

[spoof]

 

empirical observation provides us with information only... it is through reasoning that we can turn that information into knowledge.

 

Any argument pertaining to knowledge has come from a human being, therefore is a subjective perception. Many may attempt to use logic so as to claim objectivity, but any individual who is less than omnipotent can be said to be flawed. The last time I checked, no truly omnipotent individual is currently espousing their views in journals or anywhere on the intraweb.

 

People, events, objects and actions are relative to those who perceive them as such.

 

If one (subjective) argument is more appealing to us than another, that does not make it correct.

 

If we delve into all that Kantian Metaphysics stuff, we can ask the question:

 

Is this chair, really a chair? (etc.)

 

 

I'm a big fan of perceptionism (if you want to call it that), but if everything is merely a subjective construct, then why such a diversity and complexity? Allow me to extrapolate:

 

If nothing exists outside of our own subjective interpretations, and the world and everything in it is merely a construct of our own making; that would mean we are all exceptional to say the least.

 

If we as an individual have managed to perceive the wheel, industrialisation, the computer, the works of Shakespeare, the art of da Vinci etc.; we ourselves must be of an intellect to be revered.

 

If the world as I know it is merely a construct of my own imagination, then why am I not as smart as the combined intellect of all those people who have made such contributions? The only answer I can come to is that life as I know it is not merely a construct of my own doing.

 

There are people, objects, events and actions that exist outside of my own perceptions and consciousness.

 

If knowledge and also the consequences of such knowledge were merely a figment of my imagination, I am surprised that my imagination couldn't perceive me as owning a Ferrari and never paying taxes. Know what I mean

 

 

@jheath

 

Information is still subjective, because it is only "real" based on our own perceptions of what is "real". Knowledge is merely such perceived information as useful in a particular context. The term useful is always going to be subjective.....therein lies the rub

 

 

 

[jheath]

 

Any argument pertaining to knowledge has come from a human being, therefore is a subjective perception. Many may attempt to use logic so as to claim objectivity, but any individual who is less than omnipotent can be said to be flawed. The last time I checked, no truly omnipotent individual is currently espousing their views in journals or anywhere on the intraweb.

...

If one (subjective) argument is more appealing to us than another, that does not make it correct.

 

I'll admit that observations are usually colored by the subjective nature of the observer. I'll also concede that we can and often do reason incorrectly, use flawed logic, and let our preconceptions influence our conclusions. I strongly agree that the "appeal" of an argument has no bearing on whether it is ultimately correct. But I disagree with the supposition that only perfect beings would be able to use logic confidently.

 

Let's take our knowledge of mathematics. After all, the value of PI does not change depending on whether I am smart or stupid, an atheist or an evangelical. Pythagoras' theorem for flat surfaces remains just as true whether or not I personally like it. My subjective nature doesn't change the laws of mathematics. If I were to be influenced by my feelings to the point where my logic became flawed, my thinking would simply be wrong, and demonstrably so, since I wouldn't be able to get my conclusions to work with any of the existing body of knowledge of mathematics, consisting of proven theorems. The beauty of logical systems like mathematics is that they are rather "idiot proof".

 

Let me give an example. One of the questions on a middleschool geometry exam involved working out the shape of a parabola meeting a set of conditions (y-axis intercept = blah, minima touches the x-axis, passes through a certain point.) I could easily picture what the parabol should look like, so I quickly sketched it out for myself before starting. When I worked out the math, however, I was surprised to see two solutions after factoring: two different parabolas fit the conditions. One was the parabola I had sketched out, but the other I had completely overlooked. Math, when handled with a minimum of understanding, was immune to my idiocy. I didn't need omnipotence to get the question right, just basic competence.

 

Another more famous case in point is Euclid's fifth postulate. Many often point to it as an example of the fallibility of mathematics as a human invention; I see it as an example of the system's incredible power. When Euclid was laying down the fundations of geometry more than two millennia ago, he based it on five postulates. He was able to prove the first four with ease, but the proof of the fifth, regarding the non-intersection of parallel lines, eluded him. He was absolutely certain that the fifth postulate was correct -- it only made sense -- but try as he might he could not prove it based on the other four. For the next two thousand years, some of the most brilliant mathematicians in the world tried and failed to prove it. Those who thought they had were inevitably proven wrong by peers who examined their work and found the logical flaws. Eventually, a trio of mathematicians independently discovered that the fifth postulate was indeed not part of absolute geometry, and this realization opened the floodgates of discovery as non-Euclidean geometry rushed on to the scene. Euclid's understanding of geometry was far too primitive to envision the radical consequences of non-Euclidean spaces (which forms the basis for advanced theories such as Einstein's General Relativity), yet his own axioms would not let him prove the unprovable, no matter how hard he tried. The integrity of the system survived the mistaken intellectual attacks of some of the finest mathematical minds over the centuries, because its logic was not subject to the fallibilities of its creator.

 

There is something incredible about mathematics, something in its awesome constructs that defies our intellectual limits and transcends humanity. As a mistress it entices us with its sheer beauty and spectacular magnitude, with its promise of wondrous advances in understanding, if only we could work out her theorems correctly. As an atheist and a rationalist I am not inclined to religious feeling, yet I am firmly convinced that the language of mathematics is a language fit for Gods, its power woven into the very fabric of the rich tapestry we call the universe. How wonderful, then, that we are able to speak it.

Edited September 12, 2005 by jheath

[spoof]

 

But I disagree with the supposition that only perfect beings would be able to use logic confidently

 

Considering the gusto with which many a D&D post has been made, I would never argue with such a sentiment. Apparent confidence often is far superior to actual contribution

 

 

However, it appears that we are approaching the subject matter from very different angles. My contribution stemmed from a philosophical viewpoint, whereas your viewpoint originated from a mathematical - what we know to be true / constant direction.

 

 

What I was attempting to bring into question was the epistemology of knowledge itself, i.e. what we know to be true.

 

What if the universal constants that any given mathematical arguments were based on were actually inaccurate? What about if tomorrow all mathematics and physics of the universe as we knew them were turned on their head?

 

 

There is something incredible about mathematics, something in its awesome constructs that defies our intellectual limits and transcends humanity. As a mistress it entices us with its sheer beauty and spectacular magnitude, with its promise of wondrous advances in understanding, if only we could work out her theorems correctly. As an atheist and a rationalist I am not inclined to religious feeling, yet I am firmly convinced that the language of mathematics is a language fit for Gods, its power woven into the very fabric of the rich tapestry we call the universe

 

I always thought that I could compose a decent paragraph, but if the above was a women, I'd definitely want to date it

 

[jheath]

 

What I was attempting to bring into question was the epistemology of knowledge itself, i.e. what we know to be true.

 

What if the universal constants that any given mathematical arguments were based on were actually inaccurate? What about if tomorrow all mathematics and physics of the universe as we knew them were turned on their head?

Howdy spoof,

 

I suppose in my post I was attempting to show how we can develop extremely powerful systems of knowledge with a high degree of certainty (such as mathematics) despite the fact that we are not omniscient, provided we accept the logical foundation upon which all "logical reasoning" is based. If we accept that foundation (as I implicitly did in my post), then suddenly a great deal of knowledge is no longer just a matter of opinion, but readily provable, or at least disprovable, given at least a minimum of reasoning ability. I would continue from there to say that not just mathematics, but almost all knowledge can be (and dare I say should be) evaluated through the lens of logical reasoning.

 

Your post, on the other hand, asks the much deeper question of how confident we can be in that foundation, built as it is by fallible human minds. Why put so much trust in logic?

 

Unfortunately, here I am out of my intellectual depth. I can't think of a good way to justify logic for its own sake without attempting to use logic; after all, using logic to justify logic would just lead to a self-referential mess. Perhaps one of the other members of the forum can tackle this one better than I can. My instinctive answer is simply a pragmatic one: "because it works."

 

Logical thinking works in the real world; it serves as a great tool in keeping us alive. For example, observation would tell me that fire burns things, so it is only logical to avoid throwing around lit matches if I want to avoid having my house burn down. Acting illogically in this case could have disasterous consequences.

 

Of course, I realize that pragmatic experience isn't a particularly good justification. After all, I won't argue that logic is 100% failsafe, particularly when we have limited intelligence and don't have all the facts at our disposal. Eating food to avoid starvation is normally logical if we want to stay alive, but not if the food is secretly poisoned. Similarly, assuming a spoon exists is normally quite logical if you have it in your hands, but not if you live in the matrix. Indeed, it would be quite possible to generate, in a "reality" such as the matrix, worlds where logic isn't rewarded pragmatically, where thinking logically would produce results that don't accord experience. This wouldn't undermine logic or make it wrong, but rather just remove the rewards inherent in using it. The more interesting scenario would be a matrix where logic is rewarded inside the fictional world, a creation of the rules of the program, while outside the matrix the rules of logic do not apply. I suspect that such a scenario is impossible. I have the feeling that logic transcends our observed reality; that the foundation of logic would be just as true no matter what our reality turns out to be. Unfortunately, I lack the intelligence to back up that conviction with a solid argument.

 

 

There is something incredible about mathematics, ... *snip*

 

I always thought that I could compose a decent paragraph, but if the above was a women, I'd definitely want to date it

 

Ha... thanks. I guess. I think I got a little carried away when I wrote that one. Glad you liked it.