Name: BRUM, Nicolas G.

Section: B72

INSTRUCTIONS: Read the different statements below and answer the succeeding questions. In

answering, take note of the three discerning points between empiricism and rationalism.

1. When you are studying or reviewing lessons, are you more likely to take the rationalist

viewpoint or empiricist viewpoint? Why?

The debate between rationalism and empiricism is about how much we rely on sense

experience in our quest for knowledge. According to rationalists, there are significant ways in

which our concepts and knowledge are acquired apart from sense experience. Empiricists

argue that our concepts and knowledge are ultimately derived from our sense experiences.

Rationalists generally form their opinions in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases

where the content of our concepts or knowledge exceeds the information provided by sense

experience. Second, they build accounts of how reason, in various forms, provides that

additional information about the world. Empiricists present opposing points of view. First, they

develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, to the extent
that we have it at all. Second, empiricists criticize rationalists' accounts of how reason is a

source of concepts or knowledge.

2. How do you apply empiricism and/or rationalism in studying your lessons? Be specific

and concrete. Try to remember your habits and how you make sense of the lessons.

In order to look for truth, we must first presume that it exists. It is illogical to begin with

the proposition that "Truth does not exist," because if we hold that it is untrue, then truth may

indeed exist. In stark contradiction, if we claim that the statement is true, it is self-contradictory.

As a result, rational thinking demonstrates that "Truth exists" is a necessary truth. There is

simply no way to think otherwise. We can see that the literal definition of empiricism is

instantaneously false because we arrived at a truth through nonsensical experience. Not all

knowledge is derived from sensory experience. Only by placing sense experience within a

rational framework can we make sense of the world. Unfortunately, most science is not rational.

We cannot be certain that there are no black swans out there, no matter how many white swans

we see. Science, on the other hand, has the ability to disprove theories. For example, if we

hypothesize that a 5 kg weight falls half as fast as a 10 kg weight, we can quickly disprove that

hypothesis. Finally, it is only logical to reject empiricism in favor of rationalism. Even if we could

devise a scientific experiment that demonstrated that science worked, we would be engaging in

circular logic, which is equivalent to saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

3. Is it possible to make use of both philosophical approaches? Why or why not?

I personally believe that it is impossible to make use of both empiricism and rationalism

as a combined philosophical approach. Rationalism and empiricism are two philosophical

approaches to comprehending our surroundings. They are frequently contrasted because their
approaches to knowledge are so dissimilar. Empiricists believe that we learn about our world

through previous experience, whereas rationalists believe that reason is the foundation of all

understanding. Both perspectives can help someone gain knowledge, but they have drawbacks.

Perception is not universal: what one person perceives to be true may be false to another. A

book, for example, may be red for one man but green for another. Does this imply that the book

is green because one or more colorblind people perceive it to be so? Furthermore, perception is

influenced by external factors: the same experiment performed under different conditions

(temperature, for example) can produce unexpectedly different results. Rationalism holds that

people are born with innate ideas, truths in a specific subject area (such as math concepts), and

that we only need to bring them to the surface. However, as philosopher John Locke suggests,

there are "idiots" who are unaware of – and cannot comprehend – basic concepts, contradicting

the universality of innate ideas. Furthermore, laws or logic used to describe the world are not

infallible because they can be based on human misconceptions; otherwise, scientists would not

conduct experiments and would instead rely on logical arguments.