If progress is to be achieved, we cannot insist on knowledge that is founded on bedrock of indubitable beliefs

Authors Avatar

If progress is to be achieved, we cannot insist on knowledge that is founded on bedrock of indubitable beliefs

The great debate between the rationalists and empiricists has raged for over a few centuries and it is hard to say which school of thought is more successful in their enterprise. While the great debate still continues, one must not forget that there are other responses to the skeptics’ argument, namely the coherentist and reliabilist. The question now is this: in this twenty first century, where efficiency and advancement is hailed as the top priority, which reply to the skeptics is most acceptable?

It is my contention that the foundationalists – rationalists and empiricists – cannot provide the current society with what it needs, namely a theory of knowledge which is workable and instrumental in the society’s progress. The rationalists and empiricists both face a seemingly insurmountable challenge of patching up the flaws in their respective theories. In this essay, I will outline the difficulties rationalists and empiricists face and how they impede the progress of society. I will then advance arguments for coherentism to be the working theory of knowledge with its application on the study of natural science.

Prominent rationalist Descartes argue that reason is the primary source of knowledge and should be made the bedrock of all knowledge. According to him, there exist clear and distinct ideas, ideas which are obviously true upon inspection of the mind and thus self-justifying and indubitable. These ideas, including the oft-quoted ‘Cogito ergo sum’ are the basic, indubitable beliefs from which all other knowledge can be built upon. Also, he argues that there exists a priori knowledge, such as mathematics and logic, which are eternal and unchanging, and thus can be known for certainty and used to build other knowledge.

Join now!

The greatest challenge of rationalists is that they seem incapable to allow us gain contingent truths, truths which pertain to the world. Critics of rationalists argue that while reason allows us to have knowledge which is indubitable, they are limiting in nature and do not tell us anything of interest about the world. For instance, it is inconceivable that rationalists can obtain knowledge that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth through pure reasoning. Some rationalists advance their argument through the use of an omnipotent God. They argue that since God is all powerful, the world He created ...

This is a preview of the whole essay