RELATED QUESTIONS
Ø What is empiricism?
Ø Argue the point whether empiricism holistically captures the problem of cognition in epistemology.
Ø Critically evaluate the nature, scope and fundamental principles of empiricism.
THE CONCEPT OF EMPIRICISM (the nature of empiricism)
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF EMPIRICISM
ii. True knowledge proceeds from sense perception
iii. The human mind being tabula rasa at birth
iv. There is nothing in the mind, which was not previously in the senses
As pioneered by Aristotle, it has become a common view, amongst empiricists that there is nothing in the mind, which was not previously in the senses. Thus, sense perception is the doorway via which knowledge in the form of concepts and ideas pass through before it is ever reflected on and cognised by the mind.
A HISTORICAL VIEW OF EMPIRICISM FROM INCEPTION UNTIL CONTEMPORARY TIMES
EPISTEMOLOGY AS A THEORY OF COGNITION (the scope of empiricism)
Ø What is empiricism?
Ø Argue the point whether empiricism holistically captures the problem of cognition in epistemology.
Ø Critically evaluate the nature, scope and fundamental principles of empiricism.
THE CONCEPT OF EMPIRICISM (the nature of empiricism)
Regarding
its etymology, it is said that the term “empiricism” has a dual etymology.
Firstly, it derives from a Latin word “experientia”
which translates as “experience”. Secondly, it derives from a Greek word “empeiria” which refers to “skill
derived from practical experience”. In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge,
which emphasizes the absolute role of experience (sensory perception or
physical experience) in the formation of concrete ideas, and knowledge. Even in
the philosophy of science, empiricism is perceived as those experiences derived
via conscious experimental procedures. Thus, empiricism is a basic requirement
of the scientific method, as all hypotheses and theories must be tested against
observations of our natural world. So, science is methodically empirical in
nature. This is the reason why it is almost not possible to talk of science
without empiricism and vice-versa, as most philosophers of science habitually
refer to empiricism and some epistemologists (like Descartes and Bacon)
introduce the scientific method into their empiricism.
So,
what is empiricism? Empiricism
is the theory that experience rather than reason is the source of knowledge,
and in this sense, it is opposed to rationalism. But, it should be noted that those
philosophers who have been labelled empiricists are united only in their
general tendency (of experience being the major source of knowledge) and may
differ in ideas in various ways. Experience
on the other hand has at least two meanings. First of all it can mean conscious
awareness i.e. to be in a certain mental state. Sense experience is an example
of this initial sort of experience. On the other hand, experience can also refer
to a series of events that you have gone through from which you have perhaps
learned something like a job experience.
To say that we have
learned something from experience is to say that we have come to know of that
thing by the use of our senses. Thus, we have experience when we are
sufficiently aware of what we have discovered via our senses. There is another,
perhaps connected, sense of the term "experience" in which
sensations, feelings, desires and the likes, are experiences in themselves of which,
to perceive them involves having sense experiences. Obviously, these are
experiences because awareness of them is something that happens to us. The
statement that experience is the source of knowledge simply means that knowledge
depends ultimately on the use of the senses and on what is discovered through
them.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF EMPIRICISM
Although
it is made clear that the roots of empiricism can be traced back to the
pre-socratic era of the Greek cosmologists whom were basically materialists and
nature philosophers, clear pointers to the emergence of the empiricist
tradition began with Aristotle. Aristotle, whom insisted that knowledge is based on sensory experience,
is often regarded as an empiricist on four grounds, which form the fundamental
principles of empiricism. These are evaluated below;
i.
The rejection of the theory of innate ideas
Rationalists (like Descartes) promote as
evidently true, the concept of clear and distinct ideas being referred to as
substances of the mind such as, God, being, soul, matter, cause, number, time,
space, motion and the likes. Nevertheless, empiricists outrightly and generally
reject this view, holding that ideas are not naturally inherent in the mind,
but are put there as mental concepts of our experience.
ii. True knowledge proceeds from sense perception
It
is a very basic principle of empiricism to regard the senses as superior to
reason. Thus, they present sensation as the door to the acquisition of
knowledge. Every serious empiricist would thus disagree with the rationalist
ideology of knowledge being acquired via reasoning.
iii. The human mind being tabula rasa at birth
Empiricists
hold that our mind at birth is like a clean slate which is ready to be written
upon. Thus, experience is like that ink used to inscribe ideas upon our mind as
well as give character to our mind. That is why empiricists hold the idea that
“there is nothing in the intellect which was not first in the senses”.
iv. There is nothing in the mind, which was not previously in the senses
As pioneered by Aristotle, it has become a common view, amongst empiricists that there is nothing in the mind, which was not previously in the senses. Thus, sense perception is the doorway via which knowledge in the form of concepts and ideas pass through before it is ever reflected on and cognised by the mind.
A HISTORICAL VIEW OF EMPIRICISM FROM INCEPTION UNTIL CONTEMPORARY TIMES
Empiricism is not a recent school of
thought. It has been practiced right from the very beginning of the
philosophical tradition as pioneered by the Greeks. In a very brief but
systematic manner, the development of empiricist thought is presented below;
Ø
The
early Greek cosmologists were
natural philosophers, some of whom were materialists whom postulated a concrete
element as the underlying unity of the universe. Examples of such are Thales
and Heraclitus whom respectively postulated water and fire as the underlying
unity of the universe.
Ø
The
Sophists, whom are usually
recognized as the first empiricists, were known to outrightly reject the
rationalistic speculations about the nature of the world which were promoted by
some philosophers before them. Instead, via their skeptical-rhetoric arguments,
they actually focused on concrete entities such as man and society.
Ø
Aristotle did not reject Plato's theory of intelligible forms outright, but he
insisted that they were not separately existing, timeless entities. Instead, he
argued, that these forms were an offshoot of material things, which can be
known through sensory experience. He said that we gain knowledge by being
affected by what he called the sensible form of things. Thus, he was deeply
critical of the highly rationalistic approach of Plato. In essence, Aristotle
held that true knowledge proceeds from experience.
Ø
The
stoics claimed that the human mind
is a clean slate which came to be occupied with ideas according to what the
senses perceive. This was a strong anticipation of the tabula rasa
theory of Locke. They further held the view that since knowledge is dependent
on experience and since the objects of experience are particular concrete
things, it is not possible to possess knowledge of general or universal ideas.
Ø
The
epicurean philosophers held that
mental concepts are ideas, which are as a result of our previous sense
experience. Also, sensations are clear evidence of their causes which are
obviously concrete. Epicurus himself maintained that the test of the truth or
otherwise of judgment is experience.
Ø
Saint Thomas Aquinas, a medieval scholastic and follower of Aristotle, is
popularly known for his empiricist theory that “there is nothing in the
intellect which was not first in the senses”. Thus, experience and sensation
precedes ideas and reason. He even argued that the existence of God could be
proved by reasoning from sense data.
Ø
In
the modern period, empiricism was
somewhat unique in that all empiricists had a common agenda of establishing a
strong epistemological foundation for science. For example, Francis Bacon developed
a system of empiricism that possesses the characteristics of induction,
explanation, experimentation, observation and explained that knowledge via
experience must be based on facts that could be observed and experimented. John Locke’s empiricism had as its
purpose "to inquire into the original, certainty, and extent of human
knowledge, together with the grounds and degrees of belief and opinion. His
main target for attack was the rationalist doctrine of innate ideas, the
doctrine that there may be ideas with which we are born or which we do not have
to derive from sense experience.
Ø Empiricists
in the twentieth century, like Bertrand
Russell have generally focussed on the radical distinction between
necessary truths, as found in logic and mathematics, and empirical truths, as
found elsewhere. They confine necessity of truth however, to logic and
mathematics, and all other truths are thus taken to be merely uncertain. Twentieth-century
empiricists have tended to call themselves "Logical Empiricists" (at
least those who have been connected in one way or another with logical
positivism).
EPISTEMOLOGY AS A THEORY OF COGNITION (the scope of empiricism)
As
the mother of empiricism, one basic task which epistemology sets out to
accomplish is to create and develop standards for making thinking to be
rigorous, critical and evidence based. In order for epistemology to validate
sure knowledge, it thoroughly analyzes and rigorously evaluates human judgement
of things. So, for it to systematically achieve this basic task,
epistemologists do ask some fundamental questions that center on knowledge;
questions on the object of knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, the
constituents of knowledge and the methodology of knowledge.
Accordingly,
as a theory of cognition, epistemology is a theory of thinking in that, one of
its essential tasks is to prove that human thought is a pure act of unity. What
this implies is that the human mind has capacity and ability to organise the
poly-dimensional experiences of life into a mono-dimensional concept. This
implies that the human mind can create order out of the chaos in our universe.
In doing this, the human mind establishes those rules by which we can minimize
error and overcome doubt, so that we can be confident to vouch for the
certainty of our knowledge.
Furthermore,
it is a fact that (western) epistemology began as a result of the sceptics
trying to deny the obvious claims of the pre-socratic philosophers whom
established that some material (like water
for Thales) or immaterial elements (like Nous
for Anaxagoras) are responsible for the existence of everything in the
universe. The process of the epistemologists attempting to respond to the
outrageous claims of these sceptics was what then gave way to the existence of
the epistemic schools of rationalism and empiricism. This clearly presents doubt (or the act of doubting) as the
major element or ingredient upon which any epistemological activity holds
ground. However, there remains the argument whether it is either rationalism or
empiricism (or maybe both) that can adequately fulfil the task of epistemology
as a theory of cognition.
