Category: Empiricism

Introduction: Where the Argument Stems from

Years after the era of debates on whether scientific investigation or a prior method should be used as a cornerstone of philosophy and the means to obtain a crystal clear truth, it seems that the concepts of Peirce have considerably more longevity and are more tied with the modern idea of a common sense than those of his opponent William James.

However, it is still questionable that all the ideas offered by Peirce have stood the time test and are still just as doubtless. Taking a closer look at some of Peirces arguments, one can possibly see whether James Peirces ideas are still just as impressive as they were decades back.

The Ultimate Problem-Solving Method Works

According to Peirce, every single problem, even the one concerning the realm of metaphysics, can actually have a solution once the practical consequences of following various ideas are considered fully. As the philosopher explained, this postulate, being an integral part of Pragmatism as a philosophical tradition, serves as the ultimate way to see the connection between the action and its consequence.

Indeed, if taking a closer look at the way things work in real life, one can claim with certainty that there are always the predictable outcomes for each situation. Consequently, if making a list of all the possible moves and the probable results which these moves will lead to, one is bound to come up with a more or less adequate solution. Therefore, Peirces method can be considered valid.

When Practical Consequences Cannot Be Figured out

However, when applying Peirces ideas into practice, one is bound to see that a complex conflict is likely to appear. On the one hand, considering all existing means of solving the issue does lead to understanding the results of these solutions; however, one can never tell if not a single opportunity has been missed.

Despite the fact that a human brain is really a natures work of art and a wonderful mechanism for dealing with all sorts of puzzles, it still has imperfections, which means that certain methods of solving a problem can simply slip ones mind.

Moreover, knowing all possible solutions presupposes learning all information on a certain issue, with all the connections to seemingly irrelevant things, which is practically impossible. With the limitations of a human brain, even the use of a certain mechanism, e.g., a computer, does not seem reasonable.

Conclusion: Being a Part of the Solution

Therefore, it can be concluded that James Peirces arguments are yet to be discussed and need solid proofs. When applied in a certain context, the idea that every single problem can be solved once predicting its consequences might be right, yet as a common truth, this statement seems a little bit too far-fetched.

However, the factors of the situation are to be taken into account as well; once learning all the causes, as well as the prerequisites of a certain event, it can be predicted quite easily. Nevertheless, what the supporters of the given argument miss is the fact that keeping the track of all the factors and elements concerned is hardly even possible. Therefore, it seems that Peirces idea lacks essential details or more reasonable grounds.

Introduction

Empiricism deals with assertion that all that is in the world and beyond is known through the senses. To the empiricists, especially of the modern era, there was no other way of gaining knowledge except through the sense perception.

Postmodernism has been the branch of knowledge that questions the previous approaches to knowing and advocating for pluralism in epistemology instead of relying on only one epistemological approach, empiricism is incorporated into postmodernism (Brooker 1996).

Epistemology is mainly interested and concerned with the nature and the scope that knowledge can cover and the various limitations to attaining knowledge. Mainly epistemology deals with the various philosophical questions like whether knowledge is possible, if so what is it? How is it acquired? and if we really know then how do we know what we know? (Sosa 2004).

Empiricism deals with a specific method of attaining knowledge and its proponents claim and endeavour in proving that actually, knowledge emanates from our senses and all that we know is from sense perception. Most of the proponents lived during the modern era.

Having observed how the various school of thoughts clashed over which was right in its endeavour to seek the method of knowledge attainment postmodernism thinkers sought out to harmonize these school of thoughts.

Eventually, the postmodernists came to agree that no single school of thought could claim monopoly of providing the source of knowledge. Postmodernists therefore united many of these schools of thought views to state that knowledge is gotten from many sources (Grenz 1996).

Empiricism as a Source of Knowledge

As observed, empiricists entirely dwell on the senses. The renowned British philosopher John Locke, who was once an assistance of Francis Bacon before his death, is the pioneer of British empiricism. In his empiricism illustration, he adopted the case of a child at birth to support empiricism as the only source of knowledge.

He stated that at birth, the mind of a human being is tabula rasa- empty blanket. He said that the brain of a person at birth is like a plain white paper. As one grows experiences are written on the white sheet of paper, which is the brain. The brain is fed by experiences and its work is like that of a machine, processing the raw data given.

Locke believes that the world is physical and thus in his account of solving the mind body problem, he says that the mind and body are just one and the same thing and continues to expound by saying that the mind is just an attribute of the body so physical rather than spiritual. The postmodernists have posed the question, if the mind is physical and the brain is empty, then how does a young baby know ho to suckle? (Reck 1963).

Another empiricist by the name Bishop George Berkeley asserts that there is only one source of knowledge in the universe and that is empiricism. He stated that to be is to be perceived, that is to say, for a thing to be said to exist it must be perceived first. He states that if something is not perceived then that thing is inexistence.

To him the idea of God is conceived out of premeditated intuition and goes on to state that the phenomena that occur unexplained are occasions when God intercedes on behalf of man thus acts of God. The postmodernism have come to pose the question, when a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to witness, does that mean that the tree did not fall? (Richardson 2007).

Francis Bacon developed a new method. He said we should refrain from using myths, ideas and notions only. Knowledge cannot be coming from universal particulars to universal general and still call it knowledge as that is commo0n sense knowledge as in the case with deduction method of inference. He developed and popularized the inductive method of inference.

That is you start by assembling all that you know of which is mainly the general knowledge. Then you expose the assembled knowledge to rigorous analysis eliminating the inconsistent facts one by one until you arrive at a particular truth.

This method developed by Bacon which he called the scientific method entails lots of experiments and observation. It has close connections with modern science also involves extensive and intensive research, experimenting and observation (Furmerton, 2006).

David Hume another of the modern empiricists came up with a rather sceptical approach. He says what we know is gotten from the experience of engaging in every days lifes activities. To him every society is peculiar to its knowledge due to exercising its cultures. To Hume universal truth is impossible as every society is different from the other.

Knowledge as par his argument is derived from customs and belief. He further states that all that we know is from general norms, intuition and instincts. Hume was an influential person and his sceptical approach negatively affected science as he argued there is no need of scientific investigation.

Postmodernism and Empiricism

Empiricism has been widely regarded as the method of science thus an authentic and credible source of crucial information. Its method of emphasis on the integral role played by experience and evidence as presented especially through sense perception closely resembles scientific methods and principals.

Postmodernism argues that a method, empiricism is a credible source of knowledge though not the only source of knowledge (Jencks 1996).

Against empiricism, postmodernism argues that human beings senses are sometimes deceptive and thus not always reliable. They cite the case of illusion as and hallucinations as a credible reference. Sometimes due to psychological disorders, people tend to claim to observe objects and spirits like ghosts.

If empiricism was the taken as the only source of knowledge, then in that particular cited case, the knowledge obtained will be misleading. Post modernists also points out the case where motorists tend to perceive pools of water on a highway in a sunny day, but on reaching there no water is seen.

The reflected light rays in form of a mirage can also be cited as a case where senses cannot be trusted. Medical disorder is another basis for disapproving empiricism. Persons with epilepsy at times tend not to realize they are burning yet they are on fire.

Postmodernists have in their quest to look for a reliable source of knowledge borrowed heavily from empiricism and rationalism which sharply contrast each other. Postmodernism thus believes in the diversity of the sources of knowledge and instead of coming with a different view unifies the two major sources of knowledge.

Rationalism is the school of thought which hold that knowledge is purely derived from thinking and not senses. Rationalists believe what we see or experience is facilitated by the mind.

The world like Plato put it is a representation of a pure form in the mind, he further goes on to illustrate that when a cup in the physical world breaks into pieces the idea of a cup still remains in the mind as the real perfect cup is in the realm of ideas and cannot be crashed. We thus make and develop things as they are presented to us by the mind. God to Plato is thus a perfect being in the realm of ideas.

Rene Descartes is probably the most renowned protagonist of the rationalist theory of knowledge. He was a French mathematician. Descartes states that knowledge begins with the doubt of ones existence. His Methodic Doubt method was employed in that he first doubted the existence of everything in the world including his own existence.

He then proclaimed cogito ego sum loosely translated as I think therefore I am. (Huemer 2002)To him, doubting his own existence is enough proof of his existence. In knowledge about the mind he propagated the Cartesian Dualism. Cartesian Dualism holds that the mind and only the mind is capable of generating knowledge.

The body houses the mind yet not related at all as they are two different entities, the dualism applies in that although each is independent of the other and the mind being the purely thinking agent, the two interacted through the pineal gland.

However, he never explained what kind of interaction I was. Descartes refers the think thing as the cogito. Descartes unlike the empiricists insisted that knowledge was only possible through the use of deduction method of inference.

Others like Spinoza and Leibniz who were also rationalists came up with different unique methods of explaining their explanation for the mind being the main source of knowledge and not the body that is empiricism.

Spinoza came up with the parallelism theory where he stated that the body and mind were actually two different entities with no common traits, they are at all times in parallel operations and their interaction can be explained in a kind of diffusion. Leibniz proposed the theory of monads where these monads were small tiny objects in spontaneous flux state.

The postmodernists credit Leibniz for formulating a method like the one discovered later involving atoms. Rationalists thus strictly advocated for the use of thinking as the main source of knowledge. Immanuel Kant though a rationalist, who is credit for coming up with a kind of a Copernican revolution, was the first person to clearly-show that these two rival schools of thought could actually be united.

With his transcendental series, he showed that the senses provided for the experience and then the mind processed these raw experiences and produced them as finished products. His Copernican Revolution was for saving science and philosophy from Humes scepticism, which had resulted to the stopping of all scientific investigations (Feldman 2003).

Empiricism has advocated for a singular method as the source of knowledge while postmodernism advocates for pluralism as a broader way for looking at sources of knowledge. In empiricism there is no accommodation of pluralism as this source advocates for senses alone and has been at loggerheads with rationalism.

Pluralism portrayed in postmodernism accommodates both these rival schools of thought as sources of knowledge. Post modernism is thus wider, has more depth and can explain for phenomena from both sides, as rationalist and as empiricists.

The postmodernism as source of knowledge is also more refined and less ambiguous, this can be attributed to the fact that postmodernism came much later than the modern empiricism. This accorded the postmodernism scholars more time and a wide range of knowledge bank to compare and contrast (Cahoone 2003).

To explain the phenomena of love, this cannot be explained by either rationalism or empiricism, postmodernism has employed intuition as a source of knowledge. Intuition is the art of understanding without much effort.

This kind of knowledge is a priori or at other times experiential of certain characterized beliefs, which have immediate impacts. It is a much-debated branch of knowledge that cannot be explained without controversy (Audi 2011).

Conclusion

Epistemology entails the learning of knowledge. In epistemology, there are various sources of knowledge like rationalism, empiricism, scepticism, idealism and intuition whose theorization, development and propagation was highly witnessed during the era of modernism.

Postmodernism tries to study these theories wholesomely to come up with a theory of knowledge that is more credible and authentic. Empiricism is such one theory that is incorporated in postmodernism as postmodernism takes a pluralist approach.

In the study of knowledge, empiricism and post modernism are important schools of thought that contribute a lot into the field. They compliment one another, one having been largely practiced in the era of modernism while the other in the postmodernism era. They illustrate the growth of knowledge from one epoch to the other (Alcoff 1998).

Reference List

Alcoff, L., 1998. Epistemology: The Big Questions. Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishers.

Audi, R., 2011. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge 3^rd ed. New York, Routledge.

Brooker, P., 1996. Modernism/Postmodernism. New York, Longman.

Cahoone, L., 2003. From Modernism to Postmodernism. Malden, Blackwell Publishing.

Feldman, R., 2003. Epistemology. New York, Prentice Hall

Furmerton, A., 2006. Epistemology. Malden, Blackwell Publishing

Grenz, J., 1996. A Primer on Post Modernism. Michigan, Erdmann Publishing Co.

Huemer, M., 2002. Epistemology: contemporary readings. Abingdon, Routledge.

Jencks, C., 1996. What is Postmodernism. Michigan, Academy Editions.

Reck, A.,1963. Studies in Recent Philosophy. New York, Springer,

Richardson, A., 2007. The Cambridge Companion To Logical Empiricism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Sosa, E., & Villanueva, 2004. Epistemology: Volume 14. Malden, Blackwell Publishing.

Having obtained the ability to think, man also obtained the need to discover the nature of things and the world around him. Studying it, obtaining new and new facts, enlarging his knowledge, man started to think not only about the principles of the functioning of the surrounding world, but about the ways his percepts the information and about the nature of the acquired knowledge. At that moment, philosophy in general, and epistemology in particular, appeared. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources?(Epistemology, 2005, para. 1). People were not satisfied with the unknown nature of knowledge they obtained, giving their own theories in order to explain the process.

Rationalism was one of the first attempts to classify knowledge and the way people obtain it. The main thesis of it states  some propositions in a particular subject area, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions (Rationalism vs. Empiricism, 2013, para. 12). The main source of obtaining knowledge is proclaimed to be human mind, which can make prepositions on the basis of some facts or intuition, which tends to be one of the main issues in the rationalism. With the help of deduction, man can make obvious conclusions and obtain knowledge about the things, he has never seen.

Empiricism, on the contrary, states that our feelings can be the only reliable source of getting knowledge  we have no source of knowledge or for the concepts other than sense experience (Rationalism vs. Empiricism, 2013, para. 30). Consequently, only having acquired definite knowledge about the subject, only having seen it and having obtained the sensual experience about it, we can gain some true knowledge. Sensual experience is the key point in the empiricism, and the only way to obtain new ideas. Empiricism denies the human ability to form new, clear and, what is the most important, true image about the nature of things just making suppositions, based on mans thoughts and conclusions, not on the sensual experience.

Two polar ways of the world perception and cognition appeared. People wanted to understand the way they get knowledge. That is why, debates between rationalists and empiricists had been going on through the centuries. Over the years, in epistemology their dispute obtained some new character. The new problematic issues like the nature of our reality and the existence of God appeared. Their debates came to metaphysics level. Still having the human knowledge as the main topic for consideration, they, however, discuss more abstract terms as freewill and relation between the mind and body (Rationalism vs. Empiricism, 2013)

Epistemology, as the main branch of the philosophy, helps people to discover not only the world around them, but to reveal some peculiarities of the way they study this world. Constant debates between rationalism and empiricism only lead to the further development of the human thought and better understanding of the nature of things.

Reference List

Rationalism vs. Empiricism.(2013). Web.

Epistemology.(2005). Web.

On this assignment, I’m going to Exploration and research what is Rationalism, Empiricism and industry revolution. What’s the definition of these words? What’s the relationship with Social Science, how is that work is our Society? First, what is Rationalism? In philosophy, rationalism is the epistemological view that ‘regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge'[1] or ‘any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification’.[2] More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory ‘in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive’.[3] retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism. When it comes to rationalism and empiricism, Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke have to be said. They are the representatives of rationalism and empiricism, respectively. In rationalism, knowledge falls from the sky. Once you have mastered the principles, you have mastered the world. Rationalist thinking is like a person flying into the air and looking at the world from the perspective of God. In the process of overlooking, it seems to see the laws of the world, and then return to the ground. The rules of this world operation are put to use in the real world. For Thomas Paine, everyone is written into the American Constitution, the French Declaration of Human Rights. This is an example of a set of theoretical principles he has mastered and applied to human political life. This is an example of a set of theoretical principles he has mastered and applied to human political life. Because since the scientific revolution, we have known that after Newton had some formulas for nature and physics. These formulas are applied to the humanities and social sciences. Use these formulas to observe the human world and find that these formulas can also solve the problems of human society. Now that I have mastered the formula of human society, I will substitute it into it. Then problem can be solved. That’s why Paine wrote the constitution and allowed future generations to modify it, because he knew that the times would advance and the problems he faced would be different. He could make some minor adjustments to the principles.

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasises the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[2] However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3] retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism. For Burke, the way to obtain wisdom is not just rational thinking, not formulaic thinking. Burke believes that the world is complicated because everyone is different. Everyone is not only rational, but also emotional. People cry and laugh. So Burke believes that the way to master the world is to study from the experience of each individual, so as to master the world. He emphasizes practical wisdom. He believes that wisdom comes from practice. There are two sources of practical wisdom, one left by the ancestors and the other obtained by the wisdom of the crowd. From the on 1215s to the on 1689. It all shows the empiricism. In Britain and the United States there will be a jury system, which is also an example of wisdom gathering people. And unlike today, people think that a political party is for the benefit of their own party. Burke thinks that a political party is composed of a group of people with rich political experience. They will discuss what is best for their country.

The Industrial Revolution, now also known as the First Industrial Revolution, was the transition to new manufacturing processes in Europe and the United States, in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, the increasing use of steam power and water power, the development of machine tools and the rise of the mechanized factory system. The Industrial Revolution also led to an unprecedented rise in the rate of population growth. retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution. It created an era when machines replaced manual labor. This was not only a technological revolution, but also a profound social change. Take the steam engine as a sign. From the perspective of the social system, the industrial revolution has eliminated the backward self-cultivating peasant class. The industrial bourgeoisie and industrial proletariat have grown stronger. The first industrial revolution brought infinite convenience to today’s society. Is the beginning of everything. Our current cars, trains, and ships all started with the first industrial revolution. It was also because of this revolution that Britain became the leader of the world at the time. The first industrial revolution also led to a substantial increase in population. It has promoted the progress of human society.

The age old debate of whether or not human beings are born with innate knowledge or if all knowledge is gathered through experience, found in Rene Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, has raged on for as long as man has thought to question his own existence. As these two papers battle over the reliability of the senses, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the correctness of John Locke’s proposition that the senses can be trusted as a suitable foundation for knowledge. This paper will first begin by setting the stage for the juxtaposition of nativism and empiricism in regards to human sensation; through explanation of the key elements found in both philosopher’s perspectives, a greater contextual understanding will be exhibited in order to aid further in-depth analysis of these two contrasting viewpoints. The paper will then introduce a three-tiered argument for the validity of John Locke’s view of the senses as trustworthy agents in the acquisition of knowledge. Then, Descartes’ dream argument will be examined and rebutted from an empiricist perspective (Descartes, 1968, p.97). In conjunction with a restatement of the thesis, the paper will ultimately conclude with a retrenchment of the argumentative logic. Comment by Phil Bériault: These intro sentences go a little over the top with the rhetoric. It’s good to try to get the reader interested, just try to do it in a way that reflects how you would actually talk about it. Comment by Phil Bériault: For a paper this length, it would have been better to simply state the topic, and the point that you will be making. That said, this portion of the intro is well written, and would absolutely be fitting for a longer paper on this topic.

In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes presents what he believes to be an accurate critique of reality itself (Descartes, 1968, p.97). Descartes begins his train of thought on the nature of human knowledge in Meditation 1 and begins to introduce the reader to situations in which the human senses lack reliability. Scrutinizing the dependability of the human senses, Descartes suggests that because “there are no conclusive signs by means of which one can distinguish clearly between being asleep and being awake” that the sensory system’s ability to provide real knowledge must be doubted (Descartes, 1968, p.97). He extrapolates this distrust in the senses as he continues applying doubt to sciences such as geometry, concluding that even though numbers and shapes operate in dreams as they do in real life, that it is possible that a powerful being, such as an all-powerful God, could manipulate Rene’s understand (Descartes, 1968, p.98). Descartes decides that since he believes it is out of God’s nature to deceive him, he will operate under the assumption that the good God he believes in does not exist, but instead “some evil demon, no less cunning and deceiving than powerful” is found in God’s place (Descartes, 1968, p.100). This malicious deity deceives the senses of Descartes, forcing doubt upon all aspects of his reality, even in regards to the most rigid scientific disciplines like mathematics (Descartes, 1968, p.100). Descartes departs under the assumption that everything he previously thought to be true cannot be trusted, and therefore sensory experience is not a reliable vessel of knowledge because of the doubt associated with it (Descartes, 1968, p.100). Comment by Phil Bériault: This isn’t really accurate – his target is knowledge, not existence itself (remember, he takes his own existence as the thing that he can be most certain of). Comment by Phil Bériault: Remember to explain the quotes that you use. Comment by Phil Bériault: You should address the author by their last name. Comment by Phil Bériault: Excellent exposition of Descartes! The only way to improve would be to explain the quote you use above – why does Descartes think we can’t really tell if we’re asleep or awake?

John Locke’s perspective of knowledge and the methods in which human beings obtain it appears in Chapter 11, titled Of our knowledge of the existence of other things in his popular work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. John Locke outlines the empiricist perspective regarding epistemology, and advocates for the reliability of the human senses when it comes to knowledge procurement. Using a multi-faceted approach, Locke tackles the nature in which human being’s senses gather information in an attempt to provide justification that the human experience can and should be trusted as a foundation for knowledge. Locke begins to argue his case for the senses when he discusses how the senses act as the basis of every human interaction, asserting that “For we cannot act anything, but by our faculties; nor talk of knowledge itself, but by the help of those faculties, which are fitted to apprehend even what knowledge is” (Locke, 1689, p.286). He goes on to support his position using a variety of complex arguments, including; the distinction between physical sensation and memory, the priority of sensation stimuli over reflections of ideas, and finally the idea that our own sensory experience can “in many cases bear witness to the truth of each other’s report” (Locke, 1689, p.287-289). Locke proves beyond a reasonable doubt that empirical sensations accurately represents the human reality for three main reasons. First, the very existence of the senses suggest they are real. Second, many people can interact with objects at the same time and share similar sensory experiences. And third, everything known is known through the senses, and human biology is largely constructed in order to support human sensory features. Comment by Phil Bériault: It might have been better to simply select one of these arguments, and to give a brief explanation of it. For example, you can say that he makes a variety of arguments, such as x and y, but that you find z most interesting, and then give an exposition of z Comment by Phil Bériault: This may be a bit too strong of a thing to assert. It would be better to simply state that he offers convincing arguments. Comment by Phil Bériault: Very good work on explaining Locke’s position! It can be difficult to explain an argument that relies on so different aspects, and you do a good job of it. My only suggestion is the one I make above on the previous page.

While the discussion on the trustworthiness of the senses is a worthwhile debate, one of the major arguments in favor of empiricism is quite simple; by the very nature of existing the senses suggest their own reliability. The concept that one can change the appearance of a piece of paper and the paper retains this mutation supports the idea that human beings ought to trust their senses (Locke, 1689, p.287). As Locke puts it, “Nobody can, in earnest, be so skeptical, as to be uncertain of the existence of those things which he sees and feels” (Locke, 1689, p.285). While we think, which is outside of our senses, we also make audible our thoughts and use our touch, sight, smell, and hearing to accomplish the outcomes we desire in our thoughts. Why wouldn’t the human senses provide accurate information about the world when the senses are the only medium of interacting with it? (Locke, 1689, p.288). Comment by Phil Bériault: Interesting line to take! Comment by Phil Bériault: Can you explain why? Comment by Phil Bériault: Do you mean to say the we say them out loud, or that we can hear them? You may want to consider using a different word here. Comment by Phil Bériault: You shouldn’t rely on rhetorical questions to make your point, and if you are going to use them, you need to answer them yourself. And you definitely shouldn’t end a paragraph with them.

Another compelling argument made by Locke is found in his commentary on the similarity of stimuli during shared experiences (Locke, 1689, p.287). Locke shows how certain experiences elicit the same reaction in almost all human beings; using the example of a fire, Locke describes that regardless of the individual belief in the fire’s ability to burn one’s hand, that the fire will in fact burn the hand (Locke, 1689, p.287). Recalling the page metaphor, as Locke writes on the page, he modifies its appearance (Locke, 1689, p.287). Until the form is changed, or the appearance is modified further, the page will not only stay the same form and appearance as Locke left it but will also remain the same for all those who observe the page afterwards (Locke, 1689, p.288). What’s even more indicative of the trustworthiness of the senses is that if another person proceeds to change the paper, Locke can interact with that person’s contribution in the physical realm. The idea that human beings can interact with each other as seemingly independent actors with unique sense output while still sharing empirical stimuli suggests that the senses are a suitable foundation for knowledge (Locke, 1689, p.288).

Not only do the senses make sense (Locke, 1689, p.285), and not only does the shared nature of empirical experience suggest sense validity (Locke, 1689, p.287), but in the end, sensory information – identified as both pure sensation and reflection of sensation – makes up the entirety of what constitutes human beings (Locke, 1689, p.290). The entirety of the human biological scheme is oriented in a way to support the senses. The functions of the body are not merely to support the brain but to also support the hands, feet, eyes, ears, mouth, vocal cords, the tongue, and many other organs involved in gathering sensory information. The very potential for human beings to feel pain on the extremities suggests that the human sense organs are prioritized by the body because they maintain a stable relationship with reality (Locke, 1689, p.287).

Descartes main argument against Locke’s empiricist perspective is the dream argument (Descartes, 1968, p.97). The argument posits that because one can’t distinguish from being awake or being asleep that there is reasonable doubt that the human senses provide factual knowledge (Descartes, 1968, p.97). However, upon closer examination of this analogy by Locke, the entire dream argument proves to paint a poor picture of the supposed limitations of human sense perception for two specific reasons. The first; human beings can retroactively realize they were dreaming – while some can actually become aware of their dream state mid-dream, most people upon waking from a dream are clearly able to distinguish it from reality. The second; all dreams maintain sensory channels, regardless if they respond correctly. All dream content, motifs, characters, and settings are drawn and constructed using sensory information, implying that dream content is likely drawn from a chaotic conjunction of what Locke describes as the memory of the past existence of ideas (Locke, 1689, p.290). Rather, the fact that the senses exist in dreams at all, albeit modified, seems to support Locke’s view that when not dreaming, humans possess senses which function properly in reality and can be relied upon to return factual information about one’s surroundings (Locke, 1689, p.285). Descartes’ dream argument fails at inspiring reasonable doubt in the human senses when analyzed through an empiricist perspective, and actually ends up indirectly supporting the legitimate relationship between human sense perception and knowledge (Descartes, 1968, p.97). Comment by Phil Bériault: The important question if you could tell while your dreaming. To ignore lucid dreaming for a moment, one way to understand Descartes is as asking us to ponder what good or senses are, if at any moment we can wake up and realize it was a dream? How can you trust your senses in this moment if it’s possible that you can wake up later and realize that you were dreaming? Comment by Phil Bériault: Very interesting and compelling argument to make! In order to make it even stronger, it would help to consider a little more about the “when not dreaming” aspect of your argument, along with my comment above, as well as what Descartes says on 97 (since he kind of considers this line of reasoning).

Through an exposition of both Descartes’ and Locke’s perspectives, the contrasting viewpoints on the reliability of sense perception was displayed. Then the validity of Locke’s empiricist view of the human senses as trustworthy was supported by three major arguments and a rebuttal, all drawing from Locke’s own points as justification, which included; the mere existence of the senses, the potential for interactive shared experiences, the composition of the human body itself, and finally a complete rebuttal of Descartes’ dream argument (Descartes, 1968, p.97). By presenting a thorough, comprehensive argument, this paper takes Locke’s lens and decidedly argues that human beings should trust their senses as a suitable foundation for knowledge.

Comment by Phil Bériault: Excellent work! You really did a fantastic job of exposition, and in writing the paper (with the exception of the opening sentences, which are a bit over the top). Your argument that you make in the end about the relationship between dreams and our senses is also compelling, and you can look to my comments on it to see how to make it stronger.My only suggestion would be to maybe focus your exposition on a specific aspect of Locke’s argument (as I commented on it above), and to use the extra space to build up your own argument a bit more. Or at the very least, to attempt to edit down the exposition of Locke to be a bit briefer to give your own argument more space.85/100

References

1. Descartes, R. (1968). Descartes: Discourse on Method and the Meditations. Penguin Group.
2. Locke, J. (1689). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Hackett Publishing Company.

In art, the first lesson taught is to not focus on small details instead to stop and examine the overall structure and form of what is being captured. Focusing on a single detail can provide some information about the form, but it is not enough. To overcome this issue, artists study the fundamentals such as anatomy, lights, and perspective. Similar to artists, philosophers aim to see the overall form without getting too caught up on the individual details. In epistemology, the beliefs of rationalism and empiricism attempt to answer the question of how knowledge is truly attained.

One outlook of philosophical epistemology is rationalism. Rationalism is the outlook that knowledge, actions, and beliefs should be based on logic and reason. A few sources of knowledge that rationalists claim are innate ideas, intuitions, and deduction (Fieser). The notion of innate ideas describes how people are born with knowledge independent from sense experience. An example of an innate idea can be the existence of God or the laws of nature. While intuitions are the information gained without any conscious reasoning, they are often described as having a gut feeling or inner voice. An example of intuition is love at first sight or simply having a strong feeling that one belongs with a person they have just met and knows nothing about. At times, it feels as if intuition is like a higher instinct that warns and guides. Alternatively, a deduction is the reasoning used to reach a logical and true conclusion. Deductions begin with a hypothesis then an examination to reach a logical conclusion. An example of a deduction comes from Socrates, “All humans are mortal. I am human. Therefore, I am mortal.” However, if the original hypothesis is not true it is still possible to reach an untrue but logical conclusion. A major strength of rationalism is that it gives mind authority over other senses, human senses can be unreliable sources of information at times making it difficult to truly trust them. If we can see, touch, smell, feel, or hear something then we must know it. Well, no not really, our senses fail us all the time. For example, the popular face or vase optical illusion deceives the eye by combining shapes with positive and negative space. The brain processes the information gathered by the eye and creates an understanding of the illusion that does not match the actual image. No matter how well we understand the effects behind the optical illusion, we are still easily tricked by them. Furthermore, rationalism offers an alternative to religious explanations and appeals to God. In spite of the fact that many religions see it as a duty to help the sick and less fortunate, their methods of help are limited to faith and prayer. Attempting to solve human problems, such as treating diseases, with religious practice keeps civilizations at a standstill and hinders progress. The most significant benefit gained through rationalism is the encouragement to think for ourselves, to look at all of the evidence and come to logical conclusions. Yet, no outlook is completely free of error. A major weakness of rationalism is that thinking on its own is not enough, thoughts cannot always be applied to material reality. If one relies completely on reason, they can lose their sense of reality. Sensory experiences give evidence needed to confirm beliefs. For instance, if a person saw a pear among a variety of fruit, logic tells the person that it is actually a pear, yet it can be made out of plastic only designed to look incredibly realistic. Without experimenting with the senses of taste and touch, an incorrect conclusion is reached. In addition to this, rationalism cannot always be put in practical use. To illustrate this is the statement 1

Another outlook that challenges rationalism is empiricism. Empiricism is the belief that knowledge should be based on experience and observation. Unlike rationalists, empiricists reject the notion that ideas and concepts are inborn, rather, minds are blank slates from birth. This origin of innate ideas can be explained through experiences shared later in life. The world affects perceptions thus the idea of God is not an innate idea. To further expand on this, if people are all born with innate ideas, why do they take so long to show it? Why must children need to learn how to speak or walk if they already have this knowledge at birth? Rather than deduction, empiricism argues that knowledge is acquired through induction. Induction is a form of reasoning in which assumptions of an argument support a conclusion but do not necessarily ensure it to be correct (Inductive Logic). Very few ideas, if any, are proven, nothing can be known with 100% certainty. Sense perception allows a person to know if the color of an apple is red and that the color of a banana is yellow, but there is doubt that the perceptions of these fruits align with the actual fruit. If the person were to look away from the fruit, there is no way to prove that it will remain the same color or if it even exists after they are no longer there to perceive it. Moreover, if a person eats an apple and feels energized: they infer that all fruit they eat will also energize them. First, knowledge is perceived, then inferred, this is how knowledge is gained. A major strength of empiricism is finding truth through proving and disproving theories to explain how the world works. For example, Galileo argued that beliefs must be tested rigorously to ensure that they work within the laws of physics (Haigh). Reason alone determines a reasonable subjective perception but it cannot determine if something is true; whereas empirical testing can determine what reality is. Empiricist beliefs help advance an understanding of the world. General laws about nature are made by observing changes and development in the environment. To base conclusions on empiricism, allows people to see mistakes that help them improve on and change theories. However, empiricism still has its flaws. Take for instance, people having lucid dreams while they are sleeping where they experience things that do not exist. In lucid dreams senses are often heightened to an extreme than they would be in real life (All About Lucid Dreaming). If these dreams feel like reality, how does a person know that what they are currently experiencing is not a dream? There is no way to know if what they are experiencing is in fact reality. Recall that empiricism maintains that all knowledge is gathered through experience, if true, how are mathematics and logic gathered? Mathematical knowledge cannot be derived from sense experience as it would provide potential knowledge to an extent.

When speaking about either of these outlooks on philosophy, it is impossible not to mention the prominent philosophers behind each. The French philosopher from the 17th century, Rene Descartes, answered the question of how the act of thought is proof of our existence in his belief “I think therefore I am.” Accepting this belief into consciousness is the first step to attain certain knowledge. This is further seen in his Meditations on First Philosophy where he makes arguments in favor of rationalism. In his famous wax argument, Descartes experiments how his senses deceive him about the nature of what wax is. He observes, “But as I speak these words I hold the wax near to the fire, and look! The taste and smell vanish, the colour changes, the shape is lost, the size increases; the wax becomes liquid and hot; you can hardly touch it, and it no longer makes a sound when you strike it” (Descartes 7). Under the fire, all of the features he saw have changed, such as the hard texture that has now become soft. Yet, he concludes that it is still the same piece of wax that he first began with but this knowledge cannot be understood through our senses as they have easily changed. The only true conclusion that he can come to is that the wax is extended, flexible, and changeable. By allowing himself to be guided by his imagination and senses, his perception of the wax is imperfect, but by allowing himself to be guided by intellect and scrutiny, his perception is clear and refined. He concludes, “I now know that even bodies are perceived not by senses or by imagination but by the intellect alone, not through their being touched or seen but through their being understood; and this helps me to know plainly that I can perceive my own mind more easily and clearly than I can anything else” (Descartes 8). Descartes reflects on how easy it is to be deceived and how he cannot rely on any evidence gathered by his senses. Though he sees the color and shape of the wax, it is his intellect that perceives what it actually is. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, by English philosopher John Locke, he rejects rationalism in favor of arguing in favor of two sources of ideas, sensations and reflections (Locke). He states, “Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters” (Locke). This is the concept of tabula rasa, meaning that the mind is hypothetically a blank slate at birth, and that sensory knowledge is the only knowledge possible (Klus). He further stated that some knowledge is gained through sensation, some from reflection, and some from both. In sensation, we perceive information from the world around us through the five senses, while reflection required inward contemplation to receive thoughts, doubts, and wills.

After analyzing both rationalism and empiricism comes self-reflection. Which one am I? There are advantages and limitations to both outlooks. While rationalism uses reason to draw together truth and knowledge, empiricism uses our senses to better understand the world around us. Neither outlook denies the significance of logic or sensory experience, they just value one over the other. Through time, both outlooks have converged as the rational argument requires logic and an empirical argument begins with logic and continues with the basis of observation. Unlike Descartes or Locke who saw a major dilemma with picking one as the sole source of knowledge, I cannot say I agree with either as their work has shown me how I can find a balance between both. The power in the simple logic of Descartes’s statement, “I think therefore I am,” resonates deeply with the influence that our attitude and thoughts can have, as our mind is, so is our life. Though, at times when our feelings, thoughts, and opinions can distract and confuse us, it would be best to use logic to reach a conclusion. Though, sensory experience allows for mistakes and questions that further develop a more accurate conclusion. To conclude, after much research and analysis, I have to say that I lean towards a middle where reason and experience come together to reach a conclusion.

Introduction

Science, a combination of discoveries and mysteries, is undoubtedly one of the most visible manifestations of the human intellectual potential, but in the meantime, a lantern for mankind. If used wisely, science represents an unperishable source of knowledge and progress, but most importantly, a powerful weapon that permits man to be ahead of his time. The concern for such a rightful use of anything scientific certainly explains why Rabelais (2004) pointed out, “as the wise man Solomon saith, Wisdom entereth not into a malicious mind, and that knowledge without conscience is but the ruin of the soul, it behoveth thee to serve, to love, to fear God, and on him to cast all thy thoughts and all thy hope” (p.186). Although Rabelais’s (2004) ideas suggest a rather spiritual perception of science (referred to as knowledge), what they mostly show is that knowledge is a path towards hope, which in turn makes all things possible. In short, scientific prowess has permitted to achieve great exploits throughout man’s history, some of them considered as miracles.

However, as advocated by a movement of philosophers (the enlightenment philosophes), knowledge cannot be said to exist if it is not subsequent to any experimentation, or else, observations that confirm its validity. In other words, knowledge should rely on solid evidence before it can be considered to be reliable. This doctrine, which emerged during the enlightenment, is known as empiricism: the belief that the foundation of an idea is based on nothing but practical experience. Still, before tackling this issue more deeply, one can note that so many important questions need to be raised.

Indeed, some of these questions are following: How worthy is a piece of scientific writing – especially in the humanities – that does not rest on solid evidence? From the same perspective, how to determine whether a researcher’s work is based on ascertainable evidence or not? What then is evidence? Besides, how did it come to be perceived by the enlightenment philosophers as fundamental to empiricism and a sine qua non for the establishment of knowledge? These are some issues that the present paper will attempt to address. What follows therefore is a series of headings and sub-headings, each examining a specific aspect of the major issues in this discussion, i.e. the enlightenment, empiricism, knowledge in relation to evidence, but mostly, how empiricism and the belief it involves apply to the field of linguistics.

The Enlightenment

The eighteenth century is generally thought of the as the century of philosophy, in reference to the significant philosophical production associated with the enlightenment. This great movement, essentially philosophical, emerged in the early eighteenth century and culminated for decades before it was brought to an end around the end of the century. Still, some scholars would argue that Isaac Newton’s (1687) Principia Mathematica is the work that has set the foundations of the enlightenment as a movement. The enlightenment is mostly thought of as involving significant social progress. That is certainly why most of its thinkers would argue that it was not an epoch or the indicator of a particular period throughout the evolution of mankind but rather a process towards significant social change.

The enlightenment was marked with liberation from medieval beliefs, religious dogmas imposed by the Christian church, and the ideas propagated by Plato and Aristotle, who had remained uncontested for long. Immanuel Kant (1784), an influential enlightenment philosophe, described the enlightenment as follows:

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!” (Kant, 1784)

From the previous lines, one can figure out that the enlightenment was in its essence a revolutionary concept. Indeed, philosophers during that time sought collective awakening by inciting individuals to some form of intellectual struggle, where all dogmas (religious, ideological, and mostly political) would be challenged or regarded with a critical mind. More precisely, this hostility to the “unverified” phenomenon aimed at various sociocultural states of affairs, notably traditions, superstitions, prejudice, myth and miracles, all considered as carriers of authority. (Bristow, 2017)

Furthermore, one of the major reasons why the enlightenment philosophes saw the urgency of getting rid of the medieval philosophy was that the principles of some philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle had been accepted for centuries with no possible rejection. That is, no philosopher could reject or critique his predecessors’ ideas. It was clear that this situation had become unacceptable; hence the following views from Immanuel Kant (1784):

“Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! […] For enlightenment of this kind, all that is needed is freedom […] freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters.” (Kant, 1784)

Now, what is important to note about the enlightenment is that it was perceived by its philosophes as a driver of change and progress, one that was meant to gradually render individuals self-directed and self-confident in the way they think and do things. This, therefore, was shown in two major ways.

Réné Descartes and Rationalism

So far in this paper, most of the discussion has dealt with the exploration of the concept of enlightenment and the importance of knowledge, the true knowledge. Yet, another important section of the discussion should be based on describing how to arrive at knowledge, with the aim of placing a considerable focus on empiricism on the one hand and the role it plays within the discipline of linguistics on the other hand. Therefore, as a means to that end, it would be judicious to touch on the notion of rationalism, since it represents, in a way, a bridge towards empiricism.

The main spirit of rationalism is that reason, instead of the physical world, is the sine qua non for establishing facts and arriving at the truth. To be more precise, nothing but reason can lead to knowledge. The advocate of this belief was the French philosopher Réné Descartes (1596–1650) who is often considered as the “father of modern philosophy”, although it is believed that before him, Plato (c. 427-347 BC) had also been an important figure of rationalism (Miles, 1999). The fundamental principle underlying Descartes’ (or the Cartesian) rationalism is not difficult to understand. To put it simply, Descartes had recourse to a method of doubt, i.e. scepticism, in order to attain the certainty he had been searching for. Indeed, as subsequent sections in this paper will show, scepticism is a method called on by both rationalists and empiricists as a means to an end, though the two categories of philosophers do no not necessarily make the same use of it.

In a nutshell, Descartes’s rationalist works lead him to a dualistic doctrine built upon mind and matter. This spirit of the dualistic doctrine lays in Descartes’ (1998) “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am), which is illustrated in what follows:

“…I noticed that, while I wanted thus to think that everything was false, it necessarily had to be the case that I, who was thinking this, was something. And noticing that this truth—I think, therefore I am—was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics were incapable of shaking it, I judged that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.” (Descartes, 1998)

John Lock and Empiricism

Empiricism is usually associated with thinkers such as Francis Bacon (1561–1626), John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753), David Hume (1711-1776), among others. Still, though Bacon represents a pioneer of the movement, Locke, however, tends to be considered as the most prominent advocate of empiricism. Locke’s (1999) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding has played an important role in laying the foundations of empiricism, without, however, being an absolute rupture with Descartes’s rationalism. Indeed, although Locke and his fellow empiricists suggested that knowledge comes from sense-experience rather than reason, it is important to note that some aspects of Locke’s work were refinements of Descartes’ scepticism.

The empiricist movement, paired with the emergence of the a new form of science, brought with it a great deal of new habits, new reactions to presuppositions, methodology based on a priori, and all kinds of dogmas. This suspicion of a priori judgements was proved to be effective, for instance, in natural science by Newton, but also—significantly—by Locke (Bristow, 2017). Locke believed in a new way of viewing science, a way which would revolutionise both theoretical methods and practical applications of research, the systematic quest for truth.

Moreover, in identifying the patterns of the theory of knowledge, just like in most of his works on empiricism, Locke was confronted with the problem of deconstructing the idea received on innateness as a criterion for knowledge. Again, the influence of Locke’s (1999) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was fundamental in this deconstruction endeavour. This book suggests that human understanding has limits and that those limits can only be transcended on the basis of rigorous experimentations and the necessity for evidence. Additionally, Locke advocates that ideas, which represent the source of human knowledge, can themselves be derived only from senses, and that there is no way idea could be innate. He affirms:

“The way shown how we come by any knowledge, sufficient to prove it not innate. It is an established opinion amongst some men, that there are in the understanding certain innate principles…It would be sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this supposition, if I should only show…how men, barely by the use of their natural faculties, may attain to all the knowledge they have, without the help of any innate impressions; and may arrive at certainty, without any such original notions or principles.” (Locke, 1999)

Furthermore, in The New Organon, Bacon (2017), another important figure of empiricism, identified three major principles underlying the existence of science as it was meant to be from a purely empirical perspective. These principles regarded the fact that the empiricist should consider science as: (i) “founded on empirical observation and experimentation;” (ii) “arrived at through the method of induction;” and (iii) “as ultimately aiming at, and as confirmed by, enhanced practical capacities.” (Bacon, 2017)

All the ideas developed in this section contribute to showing that science, after the emergence of empiricism, had become systematised and was therefore meant to rely on evidence. Thus, how does empiricism apply to linguistics?

The Relations between Linguistics and Empiricism

Linguistics is most commonly defined as the scientific study of human language. But the question is to know whether or not this definition emphasises the fact that linguistics is involved with one of the most—if not the most—intriguing human behaviours: language. Indeed, definitions of language provided by several linguists illustrate enough the complexity of this phenomenon. For instance, Chomsky (1957) asserts that “A language is a set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length and constructed out of a finite set of elements.” Additionally, Ronald Langacker (1967 as cited in Matrood, 2010) considers that “language is a device that establishes sound meaning correlation, pairing meaning with signals to enable people to exchange ideas through observable sequences of sound”.

Linguistics, therefore, is the scientific study of that complex human behaviour (i.e. language) defined above. For this reason, Nasr (1984) observes that “Linguistics deals with human language as universal and recognizable part of human behavior and human capabilities.” It is a discipline that serves three major functions: (i) to observe languages and to describe them accurately, (ii) to find generalizations within what has been described, and (iii) to draw conclusions about the general nature of human language (Hana, 2011). In addition, linguists cherish the desire, through the number of works produced in the discipline, to discover one day the proto-language, i.e. the very first language used by man to communicate. Achieving this aim would help to understand better how languages have evolved and to eventually identify their correlations.

A special emphasis, however, has been placed on the scientific nature of linguistics in this discussion. But what does this imply? In fact, by scientific study of language is meant its “investigations by means of controlled and empirical verifiable observations and with reference to some general theory of language structure. It is a field that deals with the scientific description and analysis of language” (Lyons, 1968)

Thus, it becomes legitimate to affirm that this scientific property of linguistics makes it a discipline to which the importance of empiricism is undeniable. More precisely, linguistic argumentation is a systematic process which needs evidence for its findings to be reliable. However, one may easily think or assume that because linguistic research often has recourse to the philosophy of language, the linguist, therefore, need not base his conclusions on evidence. But viewing the issue from that angle would simply be wrong. Although the philosophy of language is a rhetorical device used in linguistics, it remains an important method for argumentation, and the need for argumentation alone makes linguistics a discipline that can hardly do without evidence.

But does this imply that much has been said about evidence in the literature, especially from a linguistic point of view, so that it need not be highlighted in this context anymore? Alternatively, is it still pertinent to ask, “What is evidence?” and “How well can linguistics do without it?” if ever it can do so.

Now, it should be clarified that there is a perspective from which linguistics and empiricism may not necessarily go hand in hand. This happens when the issue of observation comes in. That is, what comes before and after the observation phase? What influence does it have on the process of searching for the truth and establishing knowledge? What is the power of experimentation? Ultimately, what if evidence is missing?

The following sections will tackle these issues as well as the one regarding the role of evidence in linguistic research through the examination of two important methods of research: deduction and induction.

Deduction vs. Induction: Where to Locate Linguistics?

If the Baconian motto that “knowledge is power” is accurate, then it should also be admitted that evidence is the essence. But how to arrive at the truth—and find evidence for it—is what has often led the enlightenment philosophes to diverging opinions, hence the deductive and the inductive methods of research. For instance, Francis Bacon (1620) asserted:

“There are and can only be two ways of investigating and discovering truth. The one rushes up from sense and particulars to axioms of the highest generality and, from these principles and their indubitable truth, goes on to infer and discover middle axioms; and this is the way in current use. The other way draws axioms from sense and particulars by climbing steadily and by degrees so that it reaches the ones of highest generality last of all; and this is the true but still untrodden way.” (Bacon, 1620)

Now, how does knowledge of nature come to be acquired? The answer to this question also appears to provide information on whether or not linguistic research relies on evidence and as to how the latter can strengthen the truth. Basically, the difference between deduction and induction resides in their evolutionary status, i.e. whether they are designed to be static or dynamic. Indeed, deduction is meant to be definitive, or else, findings arrived at through deduction are meant to be definitive findings, most of the time. However, induction or an inductive result is subject to perpetual change. That is certainly why induction starts from general observations of how various phenomena evolve.

Consequently, this state of affairs explains why linguistic research tends more to be inductive, rather than deductive. One of the best illustrations of the reason why linguistic research should be inductive is provided by ethnolinguistics, the branch of linguistics which has to do with the study of the relations between communities’ languages and their cultural behaviours. Indeed, ethnolinguistic research cannot be based on a priori judgements. What they require instead is careful observation of how different communities behave, with the researcher being expected to integrate and be part of the community under study. Only such a conduct—for the sake of reliability—can permit to identify patterns in the daily life of communities or ethnic groups. Thus, from general observations of behaviours, the ethnolinguist heads towards specificity and principles that will allow him to provide explanations. But most importantly, evidence for the findings of the research will be derived from the observations that have gone along with the research because, after all, evidence represents the key.

Last but not least, and as mentioned earlier in this discussion, some scholars would argue that empiricism does have limits in the humanities, and particularly in linguistics. Indeed, the reason they put forth is that while the “sciences” are involved with “patterns and regularities”, the humanities, however, have to do with “interpretations and the exceptional”. In other words, the “sciences” are rigorous while the humanities are flexible (Bod, 2015). From this perspective, Bod (2015) further asserts that “The sciences aim for objectivity while the humanities are subjective and speculative.” This view is, therefore, the reason why it has often been assumed that the relation between the humanities (in this context, linguistics) and empiricism is not a matter of essentiality. Still, whether this claim is receivable or not should be examined with some scepticism.

Conclusion

This discussion has dealt with the role played by empiricism in the humanities in general, and linguistics in particular. In order to make this argumentation as coherent and organised as possible, the enlightenment has been explored first, including most of the major concepts that related to it. Among those concepts, light was shed on rationalism and then the concept of empiricism was examined. All the essential notions being covered, the discussion, therefore, emphasised on the implication of evidence within the scope of linguistics. It has been shown that evidence is essential to linguistic research in that it bring the virtue of reliability. Finally, and with certitude, it could be said that science without evidence is comparable to a human body with no traces of life.

References

1. Bacon, F. (1620). The New Organon: or True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature.
2. Bod, R. (2015). A Very Short History of the Humanities: Patterns versus Interpretations. University of Amsterdam.
3. Bristow, J. (2017). Enlightenment. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/enlightenment/.
4. Chomsky, N. (1965). Syntactic Structures. Paris: Mouton Publishers.
5. Descartes, R. (1998). Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Indianapolis. Hackett Publishing Company.
6. Hana, J. (2011). Introduction to Linguistics – Basic Concepts of Linguistics.
7. Jin, M. (2017). Critique and Feminist Theology: A Study on the Characteristics of the Critical Feminist Subject and Her/His Action in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Zürich. LIT VERLAG.
8. Kant, I. (1784). An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’. Konigsberg.
9. Locke, J. (1999). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the Pennsylvania State University. Electronic Classics Series.
10. Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: the University Press.
11. Matrood, S. (2010). Interjections in English: An Interlingual Pragmatic Study. University of Al Qadisiyia.
12. Miles, M. (1999). Insight and Inference: Descartes’s Founding Principle and Modern Philosophy. University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/9781442676190
13. Nasr, R. (1984). The Essentials of Linguistic Science. London: Harlow Longman.
14. Rabelais, F. (2004). Gargantua and Pantagruel: Five Books of the Lives, Heroic Deeds and Sayings of Gargantua and his Son Pantagruel. Vol. 5. ISO-8859-1

Throughout the past few weeks I have learned many things regarding the principles of empiricism individually and as a class. We, as a class have also discussed how these principles have been applied by different philosophers throughout history. In this reflection I will share the main principles of empiricism and how these principles were used by three key philosophers of the 17th and 18th century. I will also explore the conclusions that I have personally gathered from studying this topic.

Empiricism is the belief that human knowledge is gained through sense experience. This knowledge is “a-posteriori” which is a Latin word that literally means “from the latter’. (Merriam Webster) What this means for empiricist theory is that humans do not have any innate ideas or intuition and are therefore born with their mind as a blank slate. In the empiricist view anything we know in life comes from our own life experience.

The first person to introduce empiricism to the public was an English physician named John Locke. He got his ideas by reading Descartes’s work and problem solving by using the principle of Ockham’s razor. This principle, in plain terms, says that between two options the simple answer is probably correct. (Palmer 2016, 76) The first theory that Locke used was that the human mind starts as a blank slate. He says “Whence has it (the mind) all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer in one word, from experience.” (Palmer 2016, 76)

The next step in Locke’s theory brought him to simple and complex ideas. Simple ides are those that do not need to be analyzed further such as something solid or the color blue. On the other hand, there are complex ideas. These are compounds of simple ideas, like the idea of beauty, gratitude or relationships. Building on that idea Lock moved on to primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are believed to be properties of objects while secondary qualities are the sensations that are created by objects. For instance, the weight, size and shape of a banana would be its primary qualities, but the color, smell and taste would be its secondary qualities.

Locke believed that the secondary qualities of objects aren’t really there, they are just our perceptions of its primary qualities. This is what philosophers have categorized as representative realism. The issue with this idea is that you can’t perceive certain things about an object while completely ignoring others. If I look at the banana I mentioned earlier, I can’t see it without color. Therefore, my perception is influenced by the secondary qualities whether I want it to be or not. .

This is the exact reasoning that brought Irish minister George Berkeley into the picture of empiricism. He believed that Locke’s errors could be easily solved by applying Ockham’s razor more aggressively. He did this by applying it to the idea of material substance. This new idea was extremely radical because it viewed any physical object as simply the total combination of our sense data, and our sense data was just made up in our mind. This meant that physical objects exist only as perception in human consciousness.

This philosophy is categorized as a form of idealism since it prioritizes the mental world over the physical world. In essence this theory can be put into the phrase “esse is percipi” or “to be is to be perceived.” (Palmer 2016, 85) Berkeley also puts a big emphasis on language as way for us to understand our sense experience with other people, which is important since he believed we are only perceiving these senses! The most serious issue with Berkeley’s theory however is this: If things only exist in sense data and aren’t actually real, where does the sense data come from?

Berkeley answered this question by saying that God gives us the orderliness of sense data by constantly perceiving it. This brings up an obvious issue; If everything must be perceived to exist, how can we perceive God? Berkeley admitted that God cannot be perceived but instead put him into a nonexistent category so that his theory would make sense. Luckily, Berkeley’s empiricist successor was not content with this explanation and continued to question this theory.

The final empiricist was a librarian named David Hume. While Hume agreed on the general ideas on empiricism such as the “blank slate”, the use of Ockham’s razor and the view of knowledge coming from sense data, he did not agree completely with his empiricist predecessors. What he added to the theories of Locke and Berkeley was the idea of analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are characterized 4 key things. One, their negation leads to a self-contradiction. Two, they are a-priori. Three, they are true by definition. Four, they are necessarily true and finally five, they are all tautologies. Or more simply, the predicate only says what is already in the subject. (Palmer 2016, 91-92)

In this view, even though there is a priori knowledge it can never be about anything but itself. Moving on to synthetic propositions is easy since they are just the opposite of analytic propositions in every way. According to Hume these two propositions are the only kinds of meaning that one can have in empiricism. The theory then disproves the essence of God. For example, saying “God exists” and then negating that statement does not make a self-contradiction. And since the idea of God can’t be traced to sense data Ockham’s razor must be used.

Since Hume used Ockham’s razor to undermine Berkeley’s idea of empiricism, he developed what is known as radical empiricism. Hume believed there was no need for connection between any cause and any effect, only an expectation in the mind which was a figment of the human imagination. This view easily leads to skepticism since it seems as though in Hume’s theory there is no self or sense of self.

It is easy to start learning about radical empiricism and start questions anything and everything in the world around you. While that may be useful in some areas, I think it can also be harmful in experiencing your life as it is right now. It’s interesting to think like an empiricist that a posteriori knowledge is the only kind of knowledge that is really worth anything, but personally I disagree. While your sense data may play a larger role on how you perceive things, I can’t help but think we aren’t completely a blank slate to begin with.

Of these three philosophers I think I would lean most towards Berkeley’s theory. Even though I may not personally believe in the same concept of God as he did, I understand where he was coming from. There is something comfortable about a view of life where there is a recognizable unknown in the form of a God as opposed to Hume’s view, where it seems as though everything is unknown. Regardless, I believe knowing about these empiricist theories will help me evaluate other complex issues in my life. These theories have also opened my eyes to the idea of physical objects being less literal, and more a personal opinion.

Both empiricism and theory are fundamental components that contribute significantly to the realm of sociology, however, I believe that more empirical research is needed within the discipline. To defend this position, I will be structuring this paper by: Firstly, discussing the limitations of sociology as a theoretically-rich discipline due to the increasing demands of advanced theoretical development and nuanced research put forth by Healy (2017), Besbis and Khan (2017); and 2. Argue that the discipline should consist of a more empirical-based structure by reviewing the argument and the fundamental concepts featured in Rutherford’s (2012) Kinky Empiricism.

Advancing theoretical development in sociology has generated a theoretical-rich field which Besbris and Khan (2017) argue (using Bourdieu’s capital to demonstrate) counterintuitively depletes the field theoretically, as concepts are drained of their content to meet advancing theory, which produces ambiguousness and a magnitude of rigid theoretical frameworks only appropriate to singular cases. This notion is analogous to Healy’s (2017) nuance traps, who argues theoretical glossing of empirical findings is counterproductive and leads to inflamed nuanced concepts which lose their substance (Healy 2017; Besbris and Khan 2017). Like myself, Healy (2017), Besbris and Khan (2017) argue that theory is important to sociology, however the discipline should contain a less theoretically saturated nuanced structure (as theory is reformulated it loses conceptualisation, thus becoming counterproductive) and consist of more empirically-rich approach by requesting that the majority of academia should be detailed; as science is the formation of innovative empirical discoveries (Besbris and Khan, 2017).

Extending on this trajectory, Rutherford (2012) discusses the demand for empiricism to reclaim its position by arguing we must further discuss the synergistic interaction of social phenomena on multiple scales and levels. Rutherford formulates ‘Kinky Empiricism’, is founded on an anthropological structure attuned to ethical, analytic, and reflexive variations which effectively create a research method allowing one to understand the position of the subjects in question (Rutherford, 2012). Correspondingly, by bringing ethnography into play, we can clearly comprehend vital descriptions of social phenomena, lived experiences, perspectives and realities of the subjects being studied (Rutherford, 2012). Through this trajectory, empiricism is not only a vital component of social research which illuminates the patterns, issues, phenomena and the essence of social world, but ironically adds theoretical contribution and proves/disproves theory. Empiricism is not only a compulsory instrument necessary to investigate the social world but is fundamental to the contribution and generation of knowledge within the discipline.

To conclude, both theory and empiricism are fundamental components that contribute significantly to the realm of sociology, however I believe more empirical research is required within the discipline. In defending this position, throughout this paper I have firstly discussed the limitations of sociology being a theoretically-rich discipline through arguments put forth by Healy (2017), Besbis and Khan (2017), who argue that the demands of theory development and nuanced structure counterintuitively deplete the discipline theoretically. Secondly, I have argued that the discipline should consist of a more empirical-based structure by reviewing the argument behind, and core concepts featured in Rutherford’s (2012) Kinky Empiricism.

A particular scene in the global franchise ‘The Hunger Games’ features the character ‘Peeta’ conversing with the character of ‘Katniss’ after being rescued from a facility that ‘conditioned’ him and used psychological torture to change his personality and beliefs, shaping him into an entirely different person with different values. In the scene he appears to be battling the things that he has been ‘taught’ and ‘conditioned’ to believe and the knowledge of the person he was before this.

Rationalism is the idea of being able to logically and rationally think about our actions and their consequences. We have innate knowledge that enables us to think rationally, and that this rationalism is what makes us human. As proposed by Plato and his idea of the ‘tripartite soul’.

Other philosophers who supported the idea that rationalism is what makes us human are René Descartes and Wilhelm Leibniz. Though their ideas differed in the sense that Plato looked up toward some eternal and intangible ‘forms’ while Descartes and Leibniz focused their arguments on the laws of logic. Descartes is often credited to be the father of modern philosophy as well as being a famous mathematician, so it makes sense that he would base his ideas on logic rather than faith.

Empiricism opposes the idea of rationalism, stating that we are born without any ideas in our mind; as a blank slate (Tabula Rasa). Everything we know and believe comes from our experiences of the world. However, known philosopher Immanuel Kant argued against the concept of ‘Tabula Rasa’ instead proposing that we must have some inbuilt knowledge of faculties that enable us to process the experiences.

It also completely rejected the notion that any aspect of us came from a higher being. Instead, many scientists and philosophers started to formulate their ideas using observations of the world instead of religious teachings. Plato’s idea of the tripartite soul states that there are three parts to the human soul – logical, spiritual and appetitive – and that the logical part is exclusive to humans. Plato believed that humans are the only beings that are able to think logically and analytically, thinking about our actions and their consequences instead of just acting on impulse or instinct.

The issue with this idea is that many people would argue that few animals also have the ability to analyse situations and base their actions on what they believe will happen if they do so. There is also the issue of religious influence. Not everyone believes that the soul is real. So saying that the logical part of our supposed soul is what makes us human, and differentiates us from every other species on the planet is not something most atheists would consider to be true or a reliable theory.

Although theists might agree, since some religions believe that humans are the only creatures that have a soul all together. Personally, i don’t think rationality is exclusive to humans, nor do i think it is necessarily what “makes us human” because rationality can be taught. And some people just don’t think rationally to begin with, Instead acting on impulse or what Plato would call the ‘appetitive’ part of the soul.

The idea of Empiricism dates back to Aristotle and states that all of our knowledge is based on experience, that we learn everything through our experiences of the world as we go through life. This makes sense when you think about children not knowing certain thing are wrong or dangerous because they have never experienced them before, so of course they would have no prior knowledge of the damage they could potentially inflict.

However, the Tabula Rasa theory being correct would mean that we are born with no innate knowledge and everything we know has been discovered through experience. Immanuel Kant meets the two in the middle, not saying that rationalism is something that we are born with and have a natural sense of, but also not claiming that we are a completely blank slate. Kant believed that in order or process all of our experiences we need some kind of innate knowledge. In my opinion, this theory makes the most sense and is most reasonable.

I don’t believe that rationalism is something we are just born with having, but being born with nothing would mean we have no sense of self, so ultimately it could be said that we aren’t born as being conscious beings. This conclusion contradicts so many more branches of this theory/argument that it only creates more questions instead of answering them.

This links in with Peeta’s struggles between distinguishing what he thinks is ‘real’ and what isn’t. He is battling between believing what he was conditioned and ‘taught’ to believe and the things that were familiar to the original version of him. The way Peeta’s mind has been changed to believe completely opposite things it originally did supports the idea of Empiricism.

However, instead of being born as a blank slate, his mind has essentially been wiped clean and ‘reprogrammed’. Although, Peeta showing the struggle between his innate knowledge and the knowledge he has been taught also has links to Plato’s idea, where our natural born instincts and sense of who we are are apparent in Peeta. As he doesn’t completely dismiss the things he once knew and trusted.

Though you could argue that if Peeta was kept under psychological torture to reprogram his mind for a longer period of time, he would completely lose the original version of the person he was once. This could be argued due to his difficulty of remembering basic things that were once natural to him and he wouldn’t even have to think about. So if this ‘therapy’ was carried on for longer, would he become an entirely different person in every aspect?

To conclude, i personally think the situation and condition of the character mostly supports the idea of Empiricism but not indefinitely; as there are still aspects of the person he was before showing through, it could mean that natural instincts and innate knowledge we have cannot just be erased. As for the overall ideas of Rationalism and Empiricism, i don’t think either one is a conclusion that doesn’t have contradictions and questions raised. Humans are already so biologically complex, with our mind, thoughts, and consciousness being even more complicated that it is difficult to come to a conclusion we can be certain is correct.