Knowledge Acquisition: Empiricism vs Rationalism

For this critical analysis essay, I am writing on the following discussion post: "Rationalism is more via[b]le than empiricism in regards to knowledge. Empiricism may have the data and research to support its claims, but Rationalism strives to prove its evidence through reason. Using the example in our text book, the number 2 can never be greater than the number 3 - it is just plain illogical and does not make any sense to think or state that. Our reason for defending this claim is that using our priori, or from the former, states that we do not physically have to experience the number 3 being greater than the number 2 (the nature of numbers is gray area). Using our existing knowledge of the situation, we can come to a solid conclusion that 3 is greater than 2, without seeing any empirical evidence.

"Our textbook also uses another great example when speaking about mathematics and Euclid's theorems. The fact that his mathematical proofs in geometry discovered 2000 years ago are still being used in the geometry classes in our day and age goes to support that some knowledge is timeless and unchanging. Rationalism may edge out empiricism because empirical inquiries produce beliefs while Rationalism produces truths (Rauhut, 72). It certainly could not hurt to have sufficient knowledge in both Empiricism and Rationalism. Arriving at a conclusion using evidence and data is formidable but being able to provide a concrete reason to support that data makes for a good argument."

For week 5, we went into depth on the topics of Empiricism and Rationalism, two important and differing theories of knowledge acquisition. Empiricism focuses on gaining information and knowledge through specific experiences in perception. Evidence for this theory ...

... middle of paper ...

...swers many necessary truths. The author of the discussion post did an excellent job at showing and explaining his viewpoint, and included fair examples to back up his claim. Although there were some issues, he expressed himself clearly. It is all a matter of personal choice when it comes to choosing the "right" theory, but I think using both theories together make for a stronger case.

Works Cited

• Cho, A. (2011, September 22). Can neutrinos move faster than light?. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/neutrinos-faster-than-light/

• Necessary/contingent truths. (1994). The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1994, 1996, 2005. Answers.com http://www.answers.com/topic/necessary-contingent-truths • Rauhut, N. C. (2011). Ultimate questions: Thinking about philosophy. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.