The Instigator
tahirimanov
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Andrew_Wallace
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Rationalism (PRO) vs. Empiricism (CON)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 73056
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

tahirimanov

Pro

Rules:

1. First round is for introduction, definitions.
2. All sources must be cited.
3. The debate is about whether there are various ways for knowledge (dependent or independent of sense experience) or sense experience is the only (or main) source for knowledge.

Introduction:

In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not necessarily sensory but intellectual and deductive".[1]

To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims[2]:
(a) The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions. Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori, which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense experience.
(b) The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature. Like the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis asserts the existence of knowledge gained a priori, independently of experience. The difference between them rests in the accompanying understanding of how this a priori knowledge is gained.
(c) The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature. According to the Innate Concept thesis, some of our concepts are not gained from experience. They are part of our rational nature in such a way that, while sense experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to consciousness, experience does not provide the concepts or determine the information they contain.




[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://plato.stanford.edu...

Andrew_Wallace

Con

empiricism
/ɛmG2;p=8;r=8;G6;s=8;zəm/
noun
1. (philosophy) the doctrine that all knowledge of matters of fact derives from experience and that the mind is not furnished with a set of concepts in advance of experience

http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
tahirimanov

Pro

tahirimanov forfeited this round.
Andrew_Wallace

Con

Andrew_Wallace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tahirimanov

Pro

tahirimanov forfeited this round.
Andrew_Wallace

Con

Andrew_Wallace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tahirimanov

Pro

tahirimanov forfeited this round.
Andrew_Wallace

Con

Andrew_Wallace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tahirimanov 1 year ago
tahirimanov
Sorry I had to fortify, I was busy at work, and I totally forgot. Please post your argument, and I will post my with rebuts in third round. Sorry, again.
Posted by footballchris561 1 year ago
footballchris561
While empiricists are often rationalists also many deny rationalism. Complete rationalism is ridiculous without some empiricism. Without any empiricism you basically just believe in idealism.
Posted by DangerRingo6 1 year ago
DangerRingo6
I would love to accept this debate. Before I do, however, I have a major issue that needs to be resolved.

Rationalism, in your definition, is only the definition when rationalism is used as a method. The actual stance on epistemology is the very definition which is stricken through. Rationalism is the belief that knowledge comes from within, and empiricism from the outside.

Are you debating the METHOD of rationalism versus the EPISTEMOLOGY of empiricism? Because there's no debate there. Most empiricists, if not all, are rationalists in their methodology.

Could you clarify?
Posted by tahirimanov 1 year ago
tahirimanov
Claim is already in topic,
Rationalism claims that, there are various ways our knowledge gained (independent of our sense experience)
Empiricism claims sense experience is the only (or main) source for knowledge.
Posted by sengejuri 1 year ago
sengejuri
I don't think anyone would accept a debate without knowing what the opponent is claiming.....
Posted by tahirimanov 1 year ago
tahirimanov
@sengejuri, I am debating for rationalism, and I think I already said I will post my claim in second round.....
Posted by sengejuri 1 year ago
sengejuri
I'll take this but you have to clarify your claim.....
Posted by tahirimanov 1 year ago
tahirimanov
I do not claim anything, yet. First round is introductory, small information about rationalism. I will post my claim in second round.
Posted by pixelmagic 1 year ago
pixelmagic
You don't state what the point of the debate is or what you are trying to prove. The debate topic seems to be a false dichotomy to me and I agree with footballchris561.
Posted by footballchris561 1 year ago
footballchris561
Rationalists use empirical knowledge in order to deduce a hypothesis. Unless you claim that this knowledge comes from nothing?
How can knowledge not be sensory?

I'm not very familiar with the concept of rationalism. It seems like you are claiming that this knowledge comes from nothing.
No votes have been placed for this debate.