Which source of knowledge is superior (1 Viewer)

[flaganarchy]

Empirical Evidence or Rational Thought

 

[Iron]

The supremacy of technology tends to prevent people from recognising anything that cannot be explained in terms of matter alone. Yet knowing is not simply a material act, since the object that is known always conceals something beyond the empirical datum. All our knowledge, even the most simple, is always a minor miracle, since it can never be fully explained by the material instruments that we apply to it.

 

[loquasagacious]

Empirical Evidence or Rational Thought

In an epistemological* or scientific sense?

In my opinion both rationalism and empiricism are required modes of thinking however in terms of usefulness empiricism is the greater of the two. A theory is great, evidence is better. Certainly for society to progress we need to develop theories and ideas, a process involving rationalism. However these theories/ideas need to be tested, enter the scientific method and statistics, in other words enter empiricism.

The biggest problem is that people seem happy to critique theories but to accept data. This ignores the myriad issues which can effect the validity of data and the conclusions drawn from it. Data is not a definitive silver bullet - but it still beats theories.

*Theory of knowledge

 

[flaganarchy]

Come to a rational conclusion which is then to be tested through gathering evidence?

or

See what is happening around us then try create a logical theory which explains it

 

[loquasagacious]

Come to a rational conclusion which is then to be tested through gathering evidence?

or

See what is happening around us then try create a logical theory which explains it

Both

EDIT: note that as data-sets become large and complex it is impossible to simply look at them and develop a theory, the patterns and relationships are just to hard to identify. So how then do we select the parts of the data that we look at? Even if it's subconscious we tend to approach data with a theory in mind already.

And of course there is the issue of data collection - sometimes it's simply not there for us to look at, ponder and await epiphany. Or there are many many data-sets available, which do we chose? This often necessitates the forumulation of a theory and a question prior to collecting data.

 

[jules.09]

Empirical Evidence or Rational Thought

I suppose in the sense of a philosopher or a scientist, then empirical evidence is superior..

But this being said, it's crucial that we are able to extract ourselve so to speak, from our physical environment, and make new advances and deductions mentally.

In this day and age, I would suppose that having knowledge, is basically having Google at your fingertips, but how you utilise this knowledge, is entirely different. How do you process this information, how do you interpret it, what will you do with it?

So from this point of view, rational thought needs to precede empirical evidence so..

I go for rational thought.

 

[Kwayera]

In an epistemological* or scientific sense?

In my opinion both rationalism and empiricism are required modes of thinking however in terms of usefulness empiricism is the greater of the two. A theory is great, evidence is better. Certainly for society to progress we need to develop theories and ideas, a process involving rationalism. However these theories/ideas need to be tested, enter the scientific method and statistics, in other words enter empiricism.

The biggest problem is that people seem happy to critique theories but to accept data. This ignores the myriad issues which can effect the validity of data and the conclusions drawn from it. Data is not a definitive silver bullet - but it still beats theories.

*Theory of knowledge

Theories in the colloquial sense, I think you mean, given in science there are no theories without data. Be careful when bandying about the term "theory" in the context of knowledge and scientific thought.

 

[loquasagacious]

Touché. Replace with hypothesis for scientific thought.

 

[KFunk]

Empirical Evidence or Rational Thought

You need both IMO. Empirical observation in the absence of mathematics, a priori philosophy, and theory in general is likely to yield a fairly minimal science.

An interesting question one might ask is whether we can do away with either, e.g. follow Mill in holding that all knowledge is derived from experience (deductively/inductively). Also, for a thinker like Kant the lines can become a little blurry since he holds that space and time are essentially productions of the mind which act as the conditions (of the possibility) of any sensory representation whatsoever. How do we distinguish between the empirical and rational components of a science when things as basic as time and causation are viewed as being imposed on things-in-themselves (whatever the hell they are) by the mind.

Following Kant one might also argue that certain kinds of knowledge are unattainable through empirical means alone. In particular, one may argue that one can never have knowledge of universal (e.g. all A's are B's) or necessary (it is necessarily the case that if A then B) propositions solely through empirical observation.

Unless you can argue that all knowledge is empirical (or rational/ a priori, that is, obtained prior to experience) then I think it is silly to quibble about which form of knowledge is superior. Instead, I find it much more interesting to inquire, as Kant did, into the limits of, and relation between, different kinds of knowledge.

 

[SylviaB]

Silly question really because without rational thought and inquiry, empirical evidence cannot be used properly.

That being said, with only thought and no evidence, all you're really going to get is speculation.

 

[Cookie182]

You need both IMO. Empirical observation in the absence of mathematics, a priori philosophy, and theory in general is likely to yield a fairly minimal science.

An interesting question one might ask is whether we can do away with either, e.g. follow Mill in holding that all knowledge is derived from experience (deductively/inductively). Also, for a thinker like Kant the lines can become a little blurry since he holds that space and time are essentially productions of the mind which act as the conditions (of the possibility) of any sensory representation whatsoever. How do we distinguish between the empirical and rational components of a science when things as basic as time and causation are viewed as being imposed on things-in-themselves (whatever the hell they are) by the mind.

Following Kant one might also argue that certain kinds of knowledge are unattainable through empirical means alone. In particular, one may argue that one can never have knowledge of universal (e.g. all A's are B's) or necessary (it is necessarily the case that if A then B) propositions solely through empirical observation.

Unless you can argue that all knowledge is empirical (or rational/ a priori, that is, obtained prior to experience) then I think it is silly to quibble about which form of knowledge is superior. Instead, I find it much more interesting to inquire, as Kant did, into the limits of, and relation between, different kinds of knowledge.

My friend and I discussed an interesting topic the other day: Is all knowledge of self a priori? Can you know who you are without ever having any experiences?

 

[Serius]

My friend and I discussed an interesting topic the other day: Is all knowledge of self a priori? Can you know who you are without ever having any experiences?

I would say empiricism is a more robust school of thought concerning knowledge, empiricism had a very powerful impact on the scientific method in that anything scientific must be testable and it must be falsifiable [that is, there needs to be an approach or a series of experiments that can be performed in attempts to disprove the theory... see: karl popper].

Rationalism also has a strong case of being a superior source of knowledge because all science of 'supposed' to be deductive. We use rationalise different approaches and theorise what could be the cause of them, then we do an empirical study on it to determine wtf is going on and if our hypotheses are true.

BTW this is all very old stuff, the rationalism vs empiricism war was about 300yrs ago and was pretty much over about 100yrs ago where everything sort of blended together into a new way of doing things, the "Scientific method" which is what we use now.

 

[KFunk]

My friend and I discussed an interesting topic the other day: Is all knowledge of self a priori? Can you know who you are without ever having any experiences?

Let me turn it around - is any knowledge of self a priori? Most beliefs and values stand in relation to the external world. I would also deem one's actions and emotional experiences to be fairly central to one's person. We are world-situated beings. Furthermore, we are embodied.

 

[withoutaface]

Empirical Evidence or Rational Thought

You verify rational thought through empirical evidence to support it.