How do empiricists argue against innate knowledge?

Empiricists argue against innate knowledge by asserting that all knowledge comes from sensory experience and observation. They believe that the mind is a blank slate, or tabula rasa, at birth, and that all ideas and concepts are derived from our interactions with the external world.

One of the main arguments put forth by empiricists is the concept of "empirical evidence." They claim that knowledge can only be acquired through direct observation and experience, and that any notion of innate knowledge is unfounded. According to empiricists, if something is truly innate, it should be universally present in all individuals, regardless of their cultural or environmental background. However, since there are significant variations in knowledge and beliefs across different societies and cultures, empiricists argue that innate knowledge cannot exist.

Furthermore, empiricists often criticize the idea of innate knowledge as being circular reasoning. They argue that claiming certain knowledge is innate is essentially asserting that it is true because it is true, without providing any empirical evidence to support such a claim. Empiricists emphasize the importance of empirical verification and reject any form of knowledge that cannot be tested or observed.

Another argument against innate knowledge is the existence of conflicting beliefs and ideas. Empiricists argue that if knowledge were innate, there would be a consensus among individuals regarding fundamental truths. However, the existence of diverse and contradictory beliefs suggests that knowledge is acquired through experience and cultural conditioning rather than being innate.

Overall, empiricists argue against innate knowledge by emphasizing the primacy of sensory experience and observation in acquiring knowledge. They reject the notion of innate ideas or concepts, asserting that all knowledge is derived from our interactions with the external world.