Writeup on ‘Relevance of empiricism/rationalism debate for science’

Name: Parijaat B. Mitra ID No.: 2018A3PS0402H

Course Title: Humanistic Theory of Science and Technology Course No.: BITS F399

Empiricism and rationalism both are an integral part of the modern science and technology. Both of
these have contributed a lot to bringing science and technology to their current level. These are two
schools of thought where people are concerned about how they acquire knowledge and from where
the thoughts in their mind originate. This topic touches upon some very important questions like
‘Where does knowledge originate?’ and ‘Do we already have some knowledge when we are born?’

This debate on empiricism and rationalism comes under ‘Epistemology’, which is a branch of
philosophy that is devoted to studying the nature, sources and limits of our knowledge. It talks about
the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience to gain knowledge. The rationalist
side claims that we can gain knowledge independently of sense experience whereas the empiricists
claim that knowledge could not be gained without the use of sense experience. This disagreement
between Empiricists and Rationalists raises a very fundamental question, i.e.-How do we gain
knowledge?

Rationalism is concerned with apriori knowledge (knowledge gained without experience and gained
completely through reasoning). This apriori knowledge is not because of our senses, instead these
are due to our ability to reason and connect various ideas. Consider mathematical or logical
knowledge, these are solely due to our ability to reason. For example, take this statement that “All
triangles have three sides”, this doesn’t point to any experience as there are no triangles in the
universe as such. We can also consider the statement that 1+1=2 but this in no way demonstrates
that we know this from experience. We can verify the statement though by considering we have one
apple and someone gives us another apple and as a result we now have 2 apples but this fails to
demonstrate that we didn’t have a prior knowledge of the same or that this statement is an
empirical one. All logical statements like x = x can also be considered, no entities in this world are
both x and not-x. While this can be known by experience but it is not about experience.

Now let’s discuss about the most famous supporter of Rationalism-

René Descartes (1596–1650)-

He was the modern rationalist and has been given the title 'Father of Modern Philosophy.' Descartes
thought that eternal truths and the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of the sciences
can be attained through reason whereas other knowledge such as the knowledge of physics are
aided by experience of the world and scientific method.

He also put forward the point that although dreams appear real as though they were sense
experience, these cannot give us knowledge. Also, as illusions exist, the sense experience itself can
be doubted. Thus, Descartes deduced that a rational person should doubt every belief about sensory
reality. Many of his works such as Discourse on Method, Meditations on First Philosophy,
and Principles of Philosophy showed the same. According to him, truths that are attained by reason
can be broken down into elements that our intuition can grasp, which, through a purely deductive
process, which result in clear truths about reality. Thus, he argued that as a result of his method,
that reason alone can be used to acquire knowledge, and that this could be done independently of
the senses.

For instance, his famous dictum, cogito ergo sum or "I think, therefore I am", is a conclusion
reached apriori. Thus, he doubts his own existence, and proves that an "I" exists to do the thinking.
Descartes thus showed a metaphysical dualism, distinguishing between the human body("res
extensa") and the mind("res cogitans").

Empiricism denies the rationalist distinction between empirical and apriori knowledge. All
knowledge arises through and is reducible to sense perception is what an Empiricist would say. They
mainly state that we are born as a ‘tabula rasa’ or an empty slate and we acquire all knowledge
through experience. According to them all knowledge is aposteriori knowledge (Knowledge gained
through sense perception or through experiencing a phenomenon). Thus, there is no knowledge that
comes through reason alone. It is neither the existence of reason nor that reason has a role in
knowledge acquisition and manipulation, is denied by empiricism. Rather it denies that reason can
provide some knowledge that experience cannot. All empiricists acknowledge that human beings
possess reason and it is the instrument that allows us to manipulate and augment the knowledge
that experience provides. Knowledge, however, has its origins in experience rather than in reason is
what empiricism states. For example consider the statement “A red apple” in this, we can not
identify an apple without actually seeing (or experiencing) it beforehand. We also cannot know that
it is red from reason alone. So this is a classic example of empirical knowledge.

Now let’s discuss about the most famous supporter of empiricism-

John Locke (1632-1704)-

John Locke was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential
of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism". He is considered as
the first British Empiricist, following in the tradition of Sir Francis Bacon. One of Locke's main goals in
the text is to determine what can be claimed legitimately and what cannot. Locke saw a human
being as a blank slate or blank tablet at birth (tabula rasa). To Locke, this means that we come into
the world without any understanding inside of us, like a blank piece of paper where nothing has
been written yet. We can only reason based on what we experience and what we learn. So, if a
human being is a tabula rasa from day one, they can only know things based on interactions with the
world. It may help to remember the views of John Locke by thinking of how we might test a key in
the lock of a door as a way to develop knowledge.

Thus our claims and any knowledge that we may have are due to both rationalist and empiricist
methods. Hence both are equally important in science as an idea or experience leads to a chain of
other ideas that finally take shape of complex ideas or theories.