8 ms·
Rationalism vs. Empiricism
- mannykannot 9y agoEmpiricism is the rational choice!
- ixxie 9y agoBoth lose out to pragmatism in my opinion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism
- jadbox 9y agoSomething of an Achilles heel to pragmatism is that it can lead those that follow the principle concretely to never seek to take the long jumps in innovation or product design... those pragmatists are doomed to incrementalism. Now incrementalism is not bad in itself; on the contrary it is more often useful than other approaches. However, sometimes you cannot increment and climb your way to the next great invention, company, or just reaching success. Sometimes it takes faith... and risk to reach those high places. Pragmatism doesn't forbid risks or leaps, but it's doctrine is to look at your feet, take small steps, and measure success of each incremental step. I say the best executive combos are one person who is idealistic rationalist (the Visionary), one experienced pragmatist (the Voice of reason), and a grounded traditionalist empiricist (the Sergeant). The Visionary pulls the Voice to take direction leaps as needed, and the Voice develops reasonable as-incremental-as-possible steps to get there. The Sergeant is meticulous in the day-to-day work, doesn't care much of the future, and deals with the active problems that need to be addressed. The Voice relies on data from the Sergeant to judge how well things are progressing. The trick is embodying all three characters. There are times to be a dreamer to know your future. There are times to just work and not think about tomorrow, and times to reflect over the past and determine the next small steps forward.
- coldtea 9y ago>Something of an Achilles heel to pragmatism is that it can lead those that follow the principle concretely to never seek to take the long jumps in innovation or product design... those pragmatists are doomed to incrementalism. That's why I'm in favor of real-world-ism. In the real world and actual practice we are Rational, Empiricist and Pragmatist in various degrees, not one or the other. We can also be totally irrational or visionary or whatever.
- ixxie 9y agoYou are conflating the colloquial sense of pragmatism with the technical philosophical sense of pragmatism.
- osullivj 9y agoMy director of studies, Eddie Craig [1], used to assert that there are sound pragmatic reasons for rejecting pragmatism. I think he was only half joking... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Craig_(philosopher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Craig_(philosopher)
- chongli 9y agoWe need all three. Pragmatism for the incremental progress and reason for the disruptive changes. Empiricism being used in both. "There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn, nonetheless, for the latter." Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Address to the Faculty"
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- blackstampede 9y agoWhy would they be mutually exclusive?
- simonh 9y agoEither it is possible to know certain things from rational consideration alone without reference to the evidence of our senses, or it isn't.
- coldtea 9y agoSimilarly, either it is possible to know certain things from observation of sensory input alone without reference to a ration framework of consideration, or it isn't. And seem both cases seem unlikely, it seems that empiricism and rationalism are more complimentary (AND) than XOR.
- MacsHeadroom 9y agoBecause "Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience." Either there is knowledge absent sense experience or their is not. This is where the philosophies differ and where mutual exclusion arises.
- empath75 9y agoI'm not sure why you're excluding the possibility of both. Math is largely based on reason, and I think most empiricists believe that mathematicians have knowledge not based on sense experience.
- paulpauper 9y agothat is what Kant argued regarding the synthetic priori . You cannot know the thing-in-itself.
- marksc 9y ago>most empiricists believe that mathematicians have knowledge not based on sense experience. Even the knowledge that 1+1=2 comes from sensing objects in the world. If you'd never seen more than 1 thing ever you would have no sense experience to base your conceptual framework of addition on. All knowledge -mathematical or otherwise- can be traced back to sense experience. Your ability to reason mathematically comes from your experience of the world and from your experience of your own thoughts. Intuition is fundamentally a sensory experience.
- Nomentatus 9y agoIt's always astonishing to me how many well-educated people actually conflate "Reason" (rationalism at its extreme) and empirical/experimental investigation (empiricism at its extreme.) At humanist meetings I attended - and in their writings - nothing was more common than to declare the importance of "reason" when pointing instead to empirical methods (that contradict the elaborate reasoned arguments of Medieval Monks or intelligent design proponents.) The ancient Roman Church didn't shy away from reason, they adored it. Reason and empiricism would best be described as ancient enemies, not as the same thing.
- cousin_it 9y agoThe funny thing is that empiricists (Locke, Hume, Francis Bacon "the father of the scientific method", etc) didn't accomplish much in science, even though they were clearly smart and tried hard. While deeply religious rationalists (Descartes, Leibniz) pretty much created science and were successful at everything they touched. It's utterly unreasonable to believe that the world is built on harmony that can be understood by the individual human mind. But that unreasonable belief is very helpful for discovering things, even at the highest levels, while having beliefs like "all knowledge is social" is like slashing your own tires.
- paulpauper 9y agoyou cannot really compare mathematical accomplishments to continental philosophy . They are different domains. But Bacon is credited with creating the scientific method.
- osullivj 9y agoEmpiricism's contribution is the emphasis on testing hypotheses. Provando e reprovando (test and test again) as Galileo said. That approach was brought to it's finest pitch with Popper's Falsificationism. But hypotheses need to come from somewhere. You're right to point to religious rationalists; I'd mention Newton too. Einstein's "god doesn't play dice", or the commonplace platonism of mathematicians is the same thing - an empirically unsupported metaphysical assertion.