CreateDebate


Debate Info

2
2
Empiricism Rationalism
Debate Score:4
Arguments:4
Total Votes:4
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Empiricism (2)
 
 Rationalism (2)

Debate Creator

OliverJDH(131) pic



Empiricism vs Rationalism

For those of you who don't know or aren't sure, here are a couple of very broad defintions:

Empiricism: All knowledge is derived from sensory experience.

Rationalism: All knowledge can be attained through the exercise of reason.

Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are famous rationalist philosophers.

Locke, Berkeley and Hume are famous empiricist philosophers.

I would count myself as an empiricist and am very interested to find out on which side of the debate CD members fall.  

Empiricism

Side Score: 2
VS.

Rationalism

Side Score: 2
1 point

I was hoping there was a community of philosophers on this site...it seems I am alone in my interest...

In an attempt to get the ball rolling before I abandon my debate to die its silent death I'll put forward the following:

All logical arguments must begin from a premise that has been verified by observation. For example, consider the syllogism:

1."Socrates is a man"

2."All men are mortal"

3."Socrates is mortal"

The premises here (1 and 2) could not have been deduced logically. It could not be known that Socrates was a man without first observing Socrates. Without this premise the inference could not have been made to the conclusion (3).

Therefore the Rationalist claim that all knowledge can be attained through deductive logic is flawed, as the very logic they employ is reliant on knowledge first gained through observation.

Side: Empiricism
1 point

The premises here (1 and 2) could not have been deduced logically.

Actually, it can be deduced logically.

An example of a deductive argument:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

It could not be known that Socrates was a man without first observing Socrates.

How could you assume that all men are mortal based on an observation of one man?

Side: Rationalism
OliverJDH(131) Disputed
1 point

Actually, it can be deduced logically

How could the premise "Socrates is a man" be deduced logically, except through inductive reasoning?

How could you assume that all men are mortal based on an observation of one man?

You can't - and this isn't what I'm arguing. I am arguing that you can only know "all men are mortal" through inductive reasoning i.e. observation. You would have to have observed many men to reach this conclusion. In my previous argument I simply argued that you cannot know Socrates is a man without first observing Socrates. That is to say, no amount of reasoning without observation will give you reason to believe Socrates is a man.

Side: Empiricism

Although philosophy generally isn't something of interest, epistemology is the most unique area of inquiry.

Inductive and deductive reasoning both have merits in studying knowledge.

Empirical reasoning has merit for observing unmotivated objects such as particles in a physics or chemistry lab whereas rationalism has merit for deducing motivated objects such as humans in society.

Side: Rationalism