Is it possible to reconcile rationalism and empiricism? If so, how? If not, why?
Thanks for your help a head of time
Your question is asking if a person or organization can embrace both rationalism and empiricism.
These sites will help you answer this question. Read carefully.
Sarah, your question reminds me of "discrepant events", a method of teaching science...the instructor "explains" an experiment, and what should happen, then the kids do it, and something else happens. Kids then usually see this as a discrepant event, and learn the real "why" when exploring why the experiment yielded something else.
The battle in our minds over Rational thought (what ought to happen), and empirical evidence (what did happen) is fundamental to the scientific method.
Oopw! I forgot to post the links.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=rationalism+and+empiricism&aq=0&aqi=g1g-m3g-o1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=7b989c6c17f79c85
thatnk you for your help
The reconciliation of rationalism and empiricism, two prominent philosophical approaches, has been a topic of debate for centuries. While some philosophers argue that these positions are fundamentally incompatible, others propose ways to reconcile and combine them into a comprehensive worldview.
Rationalism emphasizes the role of reason and logic in acquiring knowledge and believes that certain truths can be known independently of sensory experience. On the other hand, empiricism asserts that knowledge is primarily gained through sensory observation and experience.
To reconcile these two methods of acquiring knowledge, one approach is to adopt a position known as "moderate rationalism" or "empirically informed rationalism." This perspective recognizes the significance of both reason and experience in acquiring knowledge.
One possibility is to start with rationalism as a foundation and use reason to establish basic principles or concepts. Then, empirical evidence is employed to support or refine these principles. By integrating empirical observations while making rational inferences, it becomes possible to expand knowledge beyond what is merely a priori (known independently of experience).
Furthermore, some philosophers argue that reason and experience are not entirely separate, but rather interconnected. They suggest that reason operates on the raw data obtained through empirical methods, organizing it into meaningful patterns and concepts. In this view, reason acts as a bridge between sensory input and the formation of knowledge.
Another proposed method of reconciliation is the Pragmatist approach, developed by philosophers like William James and John Dewey. Pragmatism emphasizes the practical consequences and utility of beliefs. According to this perspective, rationality and empirical inquiry can be integrated by focusing on practical effectiveness and considering the real-world implications of our beliefs and actions.
However, it's important to note that not all philosophers agree on the possibility or desirability of reconciling rationalism and empiricism. Some argue that the differences between these approaches are too fundamental to be resolved easily or that attempting to harmonize them may water down their distinctive features.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not rationalism and empiricism can be fully reconciled remains a subject of ongoing philosophical discussion and ultimately depends on the perspective one adopts.