
Rationalism vs. Empiricism - lainon
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
======
Nomentatus
It's always astonishing to me how many well-educated people actually conflate
"Reason" (rationalism at its extreme) and empirical/experimental investigation
(empiricism at its extreme.) At humanist meetings I attended - and in their
writings - nothing was more common than to declare the importance of "reason"
when pointing instead to empirical methods (that contradict the elaborate
reasoned arguments of Medieval Monks or intelligent design proponents.) The
ancient Roman Church didn't shy away from reason, they adored it.

Reason and empiricism would best be described as ancient enemies, not as the
same thing.

~~~
coldtea
That's only part of the story -- the theoretically pure version, but not how
it plays in practice.

The real lowdown is that Empiricism itself is nothing at all without Reason.

There are no "pure observations". There are only observations as understood
and analyzed by reason.

Without a conceptual framework (which requires reason/logic etc) there are
just a bunch of things happening one after another or simultaneously in 4D
space.

Empiricism is not the "ancient enemy" of Reason, but it's complimentary.

That's why from Physics to anthropology, and all kind of hard sciences, use
both observations AND math, logic and conceptual frameworks to discover,
evaluate and express their findings.

~~~
Nomentatus
Yes, there's an extensive bibliography that follows - which only makes me more
confounded that most educated people haven't even begun the journey (or have
skipped the first distinction.)

While reason could be complementary, that's NOT what Rationalism is, and it's
not what the humanists I keep encountering say or write, either - it may be
the position they would retreat to if pressed, but it's absolutely not what
they say.

Reason has so often been the refuge of the enemies of empiricism. That it
shouldn't be this way is true, but careful you don't fall into a "No true
Scotsman argument," here; since the complementary view is not an accurate look
either at history or of much of academia now, in my experience.

Too-quickly assuming complentarity (as de facto true or worse logically true)
is precisely how many people fall into the trap of conflating the two very
distinct things.

~~~
coldtea
> _Reason has so often been the refuge of the enemies of empiricism. That it
> shouldn 't be this way is true, but careful you don't fall into a "No true
> Scotsman argument," here; since the complementary view is not an accurate
> look either at history or of much of academia now, in my experience. Too-
> quickly assuming complentarity (as de facto true or worse logically true) is
> precisely how many people fall into the trap of conflating the two very
> distinct things._

The thing is, what academia or those people you mention say about Reason
and/or Empiricism doesn't matter that much.

It's what people (e.g. actual scientists doing research) do that matters. And
what they do is clearly using them complementary.

Just because there are theories that posit that it's either all A or all B,
and people ascribe to them, it doesn't mean that it's indeed all A or all B.
Or that a pure A/pure B even exists.

~~~
Nomentatus
Please read up on the last century of history of science - in particular the
Copenhagen Interpretation and for more recent history, Lee Smolin's "The
Trouble with Physics." The history of science is replete with examples of
reason being mistaken for empirical fact, and this seems to be becoming more
common, not less.

------
blackstampede
Why would they be mutually exclusive?

~~~
orthoganol
I don't know why you're being downvoted, as your response is typically true of
any A v. B discussion in philosophy, there's always grey lines. Rationalists
can still claim categories of knowledge coming primarily, or even only, from
sense experience, while also claiming other categories of knowledge that come
from rationality alone.

Fwiw I subscribe to the anthropological view that human consciousness/ culture
as we know it "turned on" about 70,000 years ago (this was introduced in my
first anthropology textbook in college and is also the topic of the very
popular "Sapiens"), and we've had a unique, if not structuralist, system of
reflection and developing knowledge ever since; if I had to pick one, without
doubt on the rationalist side.

~~~
3pt14159
On what grounds do trust your reason, senses, or understanding?

Whether I axiomatically start with Rationalism, Empiricism, or some
combination of the two I always end with, at the very best, Solipsism (via the
Simulation argument), and more so these days just pure philosophical
Skepticism. "I think therefore I am" is only true if "I think" is true, and to
say that "I think" is to take as a given that I exist, which is begging the
question. We might be able to say that "thought exists" (and therefore a
thinker must exist, etc) but this is premised on "truth exists", since
"thought exists" is meaningless without veracity, and to say "truth exists" is
to continues to beg the question in two possible ways: First truth requires a
mind in order to be known which is what we're trying to get at in the first
place. Or, if that set of reasoning is too shaky for you then: "truth exists"
requires truth in order to be true.

I do not think it is useful to stay there, so when I approach the world I have
a sort of base understanding that I'm taking certain things which may not be
true (my own reason) as true for expediency because the alternative is to
cease thinking. But just as arithmetic (the basis of nearly all of
mathematics) isn't logically proved unless you assume the Zermelo-Frankel
continuum I do the same with my understanding of existence.

~~~
orthoganol
Well, I don't assume the Cartesian cogito or the rational, centered world of
Logos. I just assume that consciousness is this thing that flipped on about
70,000 years ago, which brings its own rules or structures that impinges on
any sense of reality, and we've basically been immersed in it since, with the
fortunate even accidental side effect of being able to understand things in a
way we might call 'rational.' I'm much more on the side of "It thinks, then I
register it" than "I think". So I guess, similarly, I too approach the world
with a sort of distance towards things, while taking certain things sincerely
for the sake of utility and happiness, but while also seeing that our "self"
(in the form it is) and consciousness are rooted in Real capital-R structures
produced by nature, so it's not a post-modernist, everything is endlessly
decentered/ no substantial basis, etc... there really is something there
governing in specific ways... enough to build a principled world with its own,
I guess, absurd form of 'centeredness'... it just requires a weird sort of
dynamic stance towards things, chalk it up to the fundamental condition of
being a homo sapiens in-consciousness.

------
ixxie
Both lose out to pragmatism in my opinion.

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism)

~~~
jadbox
Something of an Achilles heel to pragmatism is that it can lead those that
follow the principle concretely to never seek to take the long jumps in
innovation or product design... those pragmatists are doomed to
incrementalism. Now incrementalism is not bad in itself; on the contrary it is
more often useful than other approaches. However, sometimes you cannot
increment and climb your way to the next great invention, company, or just
reaching success. Sometimes it takes faith... and risk to reach those high
places. Pragmatism doesn't forbid risks or leaps, but it's doctrine is to look
at your feet, take small steps, and measure success of each incremental step.

I say the best executive combos are one person who is idealistic rationalist
(the Visionary), one experienced pragmatist (the Voice of reason), and a
grounded traditionalist empiricist (the Sergeant). The Visionary pulls the
Voice to take direction leaps as needed, and the Voice develops reasonable as-
incremental-as-possible steps to get there. The Sergeant is meticulous in the
day-to-day work, doesn't care much of the future, and deals with the active
problems that need to be addressed. The Voice relies on data from the Sergeant
to judge how well things are progressing.

The trick is embodying all three characters. There are times to be a dreamer
to know your future. There are times to just work and not think about
tomorrow, and times to reflect over the past and determine the next small
steps forward.

~~~
coldtea
> _Something of an Achilles heel to pragmatism is that it can lead those that
> follow the principle concretely to never seek to take the long jumps in
> innovation or product design... those pragmatists are doomed to
> incrementalism._

That's why I'm in favor of real-world-ism.

In the real world and actual practice we are Rational, Empiricist and
Pragmatist in various degrees, not one or the other. We can also be totally
irrational or visionary or whatever.

------
mannykannot
Empiricism is the rational choice!

~~~
virgulino
I'm skeptical.

~~~
rhizome
C'mon, be reasonable!

