Rationalism versus empiricism in philosophical epistemology

Rationalism/empiricism; deduction/induction; intuition/scientific method; yin/yang. First of all, one should ask oneself if experience be complete without polar opposites. This writer would answer "probably not."

Rationalism purports the basic notion that at least some concepts or ideas are independent of our experience and that some truth is known by reason alone. In other words, truth can be a priori in that knowledge can be true by definition. This strength of this argument manifests itself when we explore issues about the relations between our own subjective concepts. I do not need to impose a research study to know who my parents are, what kind of food I like, what type of person I am attracted to, etc. If I have a concept of God, then by intuition I know that there is right and wrong, meaning to life, and an eternal existence etc. If I am an atheist then by intuition I know that these are subjective aspects of the word; that truth is subjective, etc. I do not need a study to tell me these things; I do not need to observe to make these conclusions. Likewise, I do not need empirical evidence to know that I exist. Even if this is all a dream, I must be dreaming it. Just by examining these concepts I can intellectually grasp that the one concept includes the other concept.

Empiricism tells me that there are some concepts that are dependent on experience; in these cases truth must be determined or established by reference to experience. In this case truth is a posteriori, knowledge comes after experience. Certainly we learn that sticking our hand in an electrical outlet is dangerous, no one knows this innately. However, empiricism's strength is in determining "truth" is in events that are probabilistic in nature. For example, I may inherently believe that ESP exists but after decades of research I learn that so-called instances of ESP occur within the realm of chance and that ESP does not exist. Inherently I would believe the earth to be flat, but inductive research proved this to be false. Thus, synthetic statements such as "all desks are brown" would need to be confirmed by experience, whereas analytic statements like "all black desks are black" need no confirmation. Thus, the scientific method is a way of controlling for personal subjective biases that can occur when applying rational thinking to probabilistic situations.

Nonetheless, some types of concepts are difficult to handle using empirical methods, such as notions of a deity, or spiritual matters. In one sense, one could objectively determine that there is no such thing as God because evolution and science disconfirms such a notion, whereas one could only determine that there is a God via rationalism. Because neither view can conclusively prove its side, it becomes a matter of preference. Likewise, in situations where one must react quickly and there is no experience or research to fall back on, empiricism is often a deterrent. Likewise when events are probabilistic and require scrutiny, rationalism can result in biases and mistakes in judgment.