A CRITIQUE OF EMPIRICISM

RELATED QUESTIONS
Ø  Explain how the general pitfalls of empiricism constitute a fundamental problem to the empiricist theory of knowledge.
Ø  Evaluate a critique 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 CRITIQUE OF EMPIRICISM
          Although there are several ways in which the general pitfalls of empiricism constitute a fundamental problem to the empiricist theory of knowledge, some of them are stated below:
     i.        Some beliefs are connected to experience but are not clearly based on it

This problem arises with beliefs that do not seem to have any basis in experience at all. For example, is my belief that 2+2=4 not based on experience? But, if I see someone add two piles of sand or two drops of water together, and thereby experiencing them as one (and not four), does that mean that my initial belief is false? Obviously not, as two pencils added to another two would certainly give me four pencils. Thus, empiricism presents some puzzling scenarios like these where belief is connected to experience but is not clearly based on it. Similarly, it is a fact that the identity of people or things stays the same over time but their properties do change. For example, a piece of plastic melts and changes color, shape and texture; it is still the same piece of plastic, but it is not my experience that tells me so, but my reason. Thus, sense experience may be necessary for the attainment of knowledge, but not in all cases.

 
   ii.        The changeability of the empirical world

Plato, for example, held at one stage that because of the changeability of the world of sense, sense knowledge lacks the certainty and infallibility that true knowledge must possess. Hence, due to its transient nature, true knowledge cannot be derived from the senses, but only from some other kind of awareness of what he called Forms. This conception of knowledge demands an infallibility that sense perception cannot provide. Thus, it is more proper to hold that the senses do provide us only with knowledge of some sort; and most people, when philosophizing, should adopt this kind of empiricist view.

 
 iii.        The error of extreme empiricism

This form of empiricism can be generalized into the thesis that all knowledge comes from experience. The extreme form of this thesis would be the claim that no source other than experience provides knowledge at all. One reason for this idea might be that every proposition that we know is either a direct report on experience or a report whose truth is inferred from experience. But this formulation is inconsistent. A clear exception to such a thesis is provided by the propositions of mathematics, as they have usually been thought to be a priori, not a posteriori-that is, we can know their truth independently of experience. This view has however, not been widely accepted.

 
 iv.        The dogma nature of empiricism

In a way, empiricism (like rationalism) is a dogmatic and reductionist theory of knowledge. What this implies is that it seeks to reduce human knowledge to the senses alone. In other words, it indirectly strives to limit knowledge within certain boundaries.

 
   v.        The uniqueness of individuals

Basically, empiricism holds that knowledge is not possible without the five senses of sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and touch, all of which deal with feeling. However, the principle of empiricism erroneously assumes that all humans are the same at the level of feeling with the five senses. But, it is a fact that this is not true as we humans are different in the way we perceive things. Factors like personality, temperament, disability, genetics and the likes all contribute to the uniqueness of each individual. Thus, if we do not perceive (feel) things equally, then the senses can only produce subjective knowledge; it cannot be the surest way to genuine knowledge.

 
 vi.        The brain and the mind as one and the same thing

The empiricists have always expressed their philosophy in such a way that presents the mind and the brain as one and the same thing. But the empiricists are wrong when they equate the mind and the brain as one and the same thing. The brain is a material and physical thing that has weight, extension, shape, size and so on. The mind is immaterial, non-extended, has no weight, no shape and size. In fact, the mind is not an entity, but a power of thinking that controls other mental activities. The brain is actually the physical aspect of the mind via which we encounter the world outside and around us via the senses. Again, the mind cannot function without the brain but the brain can function without the mind. Proof of this is animals, which have brain but no mind. Therefore, both the mind and brain are closely connected but are not identical.

 

Back to "300 LEVEL- SECOND SEMESTER"

Back to "ARCHIVES AND RESOURCES"

Back to "PHILUZOPHY"